Why doesn't Spock Prime go back in time to save Vulcan?

[Nerys Myk]

As I said else-thread, no matter what approach the writers took to this conundrum, people were going to complain.

If it's an alternate timeline, the writers didn't have the balls to mess with canon.

If it's not an alternate timeline, the writers were jerks for messing with the canon.

If they destroy Vulcan, they're jerks for destroying Vulcan.

If they don't destroy Vulcan, they created a movie with a big reset button and don't have the balls to actually change anything in their brave new Trek.

What they did was actually worse. They didn't do anything anyone would care about. In the grandest tradition laid down by Rick Berman, they nipped at the edges.

I swear that if Rick Berman's name had been attached to this film everyone here would've been screaming about plot holes and the overuse of time travel.

"Anyone" is a lot of people.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

I have read most of this thread and I see the debate over time lines is still going strong. I have watched the new movie too many times to mention and have played close attention to the scene on the bridge where they explain things.

My opinion is that there is one linear time line and that Nero's presence and actions have erased, written over, the previous Trek time line. Even Uhura's "alternate reality" phrase doesn't sound like it is synonymous with an "alternate universe."

Plus on an emotional level Spock Prime's presence in the new time line loses its emotional impact if he and Nero are just from a different parallel universe. Why should Spock Prime be upset over the destruction of Vulcan if he knows that his Vulcan still exists in another universe? So many things I have seen on screen tell me that the old history is being erased for the new reality. Personally, I am fine with it.

Up until Stardate 2233.04, it is actually the same universe.

But the movie itself doesn't ever state that after that stardate a new universe has been created. What we see and hear on screen, in my humble opinion, is that the old time line no longer exists. It's the same universe but now a different time line with the old time line now being recorded over.

I am willing to be converted, but the writer's explanation to it being a new universe is not what we see in the movie.

Not directly. But the conversation between Spock and Uhura leading up to the Alternate Reality refers to the fact that their destinies have changed, which tells me two things:

1) That they had a destiny to be changed.
2) That SOMETHING changed it.

If we take those two together, and add the fact that Nero could not have affected anything prior to 2233.04, it is safe to conclude that things changed starting Stardate 2233.04.

That indicates a timeline split between two paths, starting at that point.

We then take the line from Uhura: "An Alternate Reality."
To which Spock responds: "Precisely."

If a Universe is not the same as a Reality, then what else could Uhura actually be referring to?

Without breaking cause and effect, how would you resolve this in a linear model?

 

[Gojira]

Up until Stardate 2233.04, it is actually the same universe.

But the movie itself doesn't ever state that after that stardate a new universe has been created. What we see and hear on screen, in my humble opinion, is that the old time line no longer exists. It's the same universe but now a different time line with the old time line now being recorded over.

I am willing to be converted, but the writer's explanation to it being a new universe is not what we see in the movie.

Not directly. But the conversation between Spock and Uhura leading up to the Alternate Reality refers to the fact that their destinies have changed, which tells me two things:

1) That they had a destiny to be changed.
2) That SOMETHING changed it.

If we take those two together, and add the fact that Nero could not have affected anything prior to 2233.04, it is safe to conclude that things changed starting Stardate 2233.04.

That indicates a timeline split between two paths, starting at that point.

We then take the line from Uhura: "An Alternate Reality."
To which Spock responds: "Precisely."

If a Universe is not the same as a Reality, then what else could Uhura actually be referring to?

Without breaking cause and effect, how would you resolve this in a linear model?

I think the something that changed was their lives went on a path that was different than it originally had played out. In other words it changed the time line (just like in Back to the Future and all other Trek time line episodes and movies).

I can see that the timeline changed at the point you mentioned and on that I agree, but where is the evidence it split into two paths instead of just recording over the original?

I interpret an alternate reality to mean that the reality they are now living in is unfolding differently than it would have had Nero not intervened. I think that sums up the entierty of what every one says in that scene on the bridge.


The problem with the phrase "alternate reality" is that it is too vague and it can (and has been) interpreted differently. It can simply mean that their reality is different than it was going to be or it can mean a different universe or dimension all together. It was to ambiguous. If Uhura had said "alternate universe" instead, all of this would be settled.

 

[Set Harth]

where is the evidence it split into two paths instead of just recording over the original?

http://www.startrekonline.com/fiction?page=1
http://trekmovie.com/2009/05/18/orc...kmovie-transcript-of-last-weeks-impromptu-qa/

I'll wait for TPTB to make that explicitly clear.

Already done:

Our story is not based on the linear timeline of Einstein’s general theory of relativity upon which most movies about time travel are based (like, say, BACK TO THE FUTURE or TERMINATOR, both of which I LOVE). The idea of a fixable timeline has been a wonderful staple of sci-fi since the 50’s, but in reading about the most current thinking in theoretical physics regarding time travel (Quantum Mechanics), we learned about the speculative theories that suggest that if time travel is possible, then the act of time travel itself creates a new universe that exists in PARALLEL to the one left by the time traveler. This is the preferred theory these days because it resolves the GRANDFATHER PARADOX, which wonders how a time traveler who kills his own younger grandfather would logically then cease to exist, but then he’d never be around to time travel and kill his grandfather in the first place. Quantum Mechanically based theories resolve this paradox by arguing that the time traveler, in killing his grandfather, would merely split a previously identical universe into a new one in which a man who is his grandfather in another universe is killed in the new one. The time traveler does not cease to exist, although he is no longer in his own original universe (where he is now missing).

 

[DonIago]

Sorry, I meant explicitly clear on-screen, not behind-the-scenes.

I'm not denying they strongly supported it on-screen, but that's not the same thing.

 

[Gojira]

where is the evidence it split into two paths instead of just recording over the original?

http://www.startrekonline.com/fiction?page=1
http://trekmovie.com/2009/05/18/orc...kmovie-transcript-of-last-weeks-impromptu-qa/

I'll wait for TPTB to make that explicitly clear.

Already done:

Our story is not based on the linear timeline of Einstein’s general theory of relativity upon which most movies about time travel are based (like, say, BACK TO THE FUTURE or TERMINATOR, both of which I LOVE). The idea of a fixable timeline has been a wonderful staple of sci-fi since the 50’s, but in reading about the most current thinking in theoretical physics regarding time travel (Quantum Mechanics), we learned about the speculative theories that suggest that if time travel is possible, then the act of time travel itself creates a new universe that exists in PARALLEL to the one left by the time traveler. This is the preferred theory these days because it resolves the GRANDFATHER PARADOX, which wonders how a time traveler who kills his own younger grandfather would logically then cease to exist, but then he’d never be around to time travel and kill his grandfather in the first place. Quantum Mechanically based theories resolve this paradox by arguing that the time traveler, in killing his grandfather, would merely split a previously identical universe into a new one in which a man who is his grandfather in another universe is killed in the new one. The time traveler does not cease to exist, although he is no longer in his own original universe (where he is now missing).

I like the quantum mechanics theory of time travel and it has been used to explain the movie...however the quantum mechanics theory of time travel is never mentioned in the dialog of the movie itself nor is it ever mentioned in the movie that a parallel universe is created. The movie plays out like a typical altered prime time line story in Star Trek that is not reset at the end.

 

[Set Harth]

The movie plays out like a typical altered prime time line story in Star Trek that is not reset at the end.

Nero goes through the black hole first, before Spock Prime. At this point in “single timeline” theory the timeline is already altered, placing the very existence of Spock Prime and the Jellyfish in doubt.

 

[Gojira]

The movie plays out like a typical altered prime time line story in Star Trek that is not reset at the end.

Nero goes through the black hole first, before Spock Prime. At this point in “single timeline” theory the timeline is already altered, placing the very existence of Spock Prime and the Jellyfish in doubt.

That is a very good point. I do want to believe this movie is a quantum example of time travel and not linear. But like a few people mentioned in that Q&A link you posted (thanks by the way) that a quantum example of time travel may have been their intent, but they were certainly vague and ambiguous about it given what we actually saw in the movie. That is why it is hard for me to reconcile, and I want to!

The fact that there are many people that share my point of view is proof that the writers failed to make the nature of the time travel clear within the story itself.

 

[Devon]

The language doesn't sound like it would have precluded a straight re-boot of the franchise.

It may very well had, but obviously the choice they went with worked just fine.

Seeing Avatar last night really changed my feelings on the new Star Trek and definitely reinforces the fact that they went for the most general audience possible.

Right, when you have $200 Million or more on the line, it's best not to go for the smallest audience possible.

 

[Nerys Myk]

The movie plays out like a typical altered prime time line story in Star Trek that is not reset at the end.

Nero goes through the black hole first, before Spock Prime. At this point in “single timeline” theory the timeline is already altered, placing the very existence of Spock Prime and the Jellyfish in doubt.

That is a very good point. I do want to believe this movie is a quantum example of time travel and not linear. But like a few people mentioned in that Q&A link you posted (thanks by the way) that a quantum example of time travel may have been their intent, but they were certainly vague and ambiguous about it given what we actually saw in the movie. That is why it is hard for me to reconcile, and I want to!

The fact that there are many people that share my point of view is proof that the writers failed to make the nature of the time travel clear within the story itself.

Not sure they could have. A character would have to be pounding on the fourth wall.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

On the plus side, one movie is hardly a pattern.

If the next movie retains the flaws of the first, I'll freely concede that a lot of the current criticism was warranted. Until that time, I think people are really jumping the gun in the judgmental department.

I mean really, has any new Trek ever done things entirely correctly the first time? Cut TPTB a little slack for trying something new.

I can agree with this. Though my hopes aren't high based on the script of Transformers 2.

Aw. I liked Transformers 2.

 

[I-Am-Zim]

The language doesn't sound like it would have precluded a straight re-boot of the franchise.

It may very well had, but obviously the choice they went with worked just fine.

Seeing Avatar last night really changed my feelings on the new Star Trek and definitely reinforces the fact that they went for the most general audience possible.

Right, when you have $200 Million or more on the line, it's best not to go for the smallest audience possible.

Actually, aiming for the most general audience cross section actually covers a lot more ground than simply aiming at a certain group, such as only sci-fi fans or comedy fans. If you aim low, you pretty much hit everyone. And that's exactly what they did.

 

[Pauln6]

If you aim low, you pretty much hit everyone. And that's exactly what they did.

Precisely! Although it is more accurate to say that if you aim to produce a movie that has multiple levels you hit everyone. If the simple plot makes enough sense to the dummies and the women (no offence ladies but a large, less enlightened section of your sex is turned off by complex sci fi) then you hit that target. Throwing in a chick-flick romance for the women enlarges that potential audience further. You have your comedy and your action/explosions to aim for those demographics.

The problem comes with the science and the Trek history. They had to keep enough of it to retain a link to the franchise but water it down enough so that non-fans were not bewildered. I think they went a bit too far in this respect but when you consider how pleased the other demographics were and how pleased a significant, less picky part of the fan demographic was, they did a pretty good job of achieving their goal!

Edit: I forgot nudity. A bit of nudity or partial nudity rarely hurts.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

But the movie itself doesn't ever state that after that stardate a new universe has been created. What we see and hear on screen, in my humble opinion, is that the old time line no longer exists. It's the same universe but now a different time line with the old time line now being recorded over.

I am willing to be converted, but the writer's explanation to it being a new universe is not what we see in the movie.

Not directly. But the conversation between Spock and Uhura leading up to the Alternate Reality refers to the fact that their destinies have changed, which tells me two things:

1) That they had a destiny to be changed.
2) That SOMETHING changed it.

If we take those two together, and add the fact that Nero could not have affected anything prior to 2233.04, it is safe to conclude that things changed starting Stardate 2233.04.

That indicates a timeline split between two paths, starting at that point.

We then take the line from Uhura: "An Alternate Reality."
To which Spock responds: "Precisely."

If a Universe is not the same as a Reality, then what else could Uhura actually be referring to?

Without breaking cause and effect, how would you resolve this in a linear model?

I think the something that changed was their lives went on a path that was different than it originally had played out. In other words it changed the time line (just like in Back to the Future and all other Trek time line episodes and movies).

I can see that the timeline changed at the point you mentioned and on that I agree, but where is the evidence it split into two paths instead of just recording over the original?

I interpret an alternate reality to mean that the reality they are now living in is unfolding differently than it would have had Nero not intervened. I think that sums up the entierty of what every one says in that scene on the bridge.


The problem with the phrase "alternate reality" is that it is too vague and it can (and has been) interpreted differently. It can simply mean that their reality is different than it was going to be or it can mean a different universe or dimension all together. It was to ambiguous. If Uhura had said "alternate universe" instead, all of this would be settled.

In past Trek stories, this was mitigated by the Big Red Reset Button. There simply was none here, so Cause and Effect remains. Therefore, a linear model is still invalid.

 

[lawman]

...
My opinion is that there is one linear time line and that Nero's presence and actions have erased, written over, the previous Trek time line. Even Uhura's "alternate reality" phrase doesn't sound like it is synonymous with an "alternate universe."

I'm inclined to read it the same way... with the caveat that the reality from which Nero and SpockPrime originate isn't necessarily the "original" Trek universe with which we're familiar.

If Alternate Reality does not mean Ulternate Universe (as in Multiverse), then what does she actually mean?

Obviously, that's an open question. IMHO the line is just one more example of the movie's clunky dialogue, since from Uhura's POV the reality isn't "alternate" to anything at all. It's the history she's always lived in, regardless of the underlying physics, and of whether the next word she utters is "reality" or "timeline" or "universe."

Seriously: if we suddenly discovered that a time-traveler had been responsible for (say) the bombing of the Marines in Beirut in 1982, would your immediate reaction be "OMG, we're living in an alternate reality"? That whole sequence of dialogue has no psychological credibility. It's just an expository infodump to fill in the slow-on-the-uptake members of the audience. (And at that, it still leaves some less-than-self-evident details regrettably ambiguous.)

The "overwritten" reality scenario violates cause and effect, and for that reason alone, should be rejected.

You keep repeating this, but that doesn't make it any more accurate. The entire history of time travel in Trek, as well as in most other science fiction, quite simply does not need to be "rejected" for violating causation. I've pointed out before that there are theoretical justifications for such an approach, and explained how the key to reconciling the paradoxes you see as insurmountable lies in recognizing the differences between the worldlines of the time-traveler(s) and of the universe as a whole.

I've cheerfully agreed that the MWI is one legitimate approach that can make for good stories... just not necessarily the one that fits this fictional setting. Why are you so reluctant to reciprocate?

(And even if the MWI were the only legitimate scientific approach, just for the sake of argument... given all the other scientific whoppers in this film, why be stubborn about authenticity over this point?)

I swear that if Rick Berman's name had been attached to this film everyone here would've been screaming about plot holes and the overuse of time travel.

Hear, hear!

I agree with your attitude and hope that the next film can settle the dispute.

Don't hold your breath. If any hint of a previous Trek timeline is even mentioned in any sequels, I'll be astonished.

There are those (like me) who subscribe to the theory that the whole Abramsverse is an alternate universe in and of itself. When Spock and Nero went through the black hole/wormhole/temporal whatever, they actually emerged into an alternate universe and changed the events of that timeline, not the original (problem is, OldSpock and Nero treat the Abramsverse as if it is their universe with altered events). There are even those who think that "Spock Prime" may not even be the Spock from the original universe. There is evidence to support both theories. Personally, that's what I go with. It helps to reconcile some of the differences between the Abramsverse and the original that can't be resolved any other way.

Quite so. I'm partial to the second possibility you mention, in particular ("prime" does not equal "original"), since it reconciles more of the film's inconsistencies.

Either way, no matter what you think or believe, these are not the same people we have come to know over the last 40-odd years of Star Trek history. They are alternate universe/reality/timeline versions of those characters. The Kirk, Spock, etc. that we know are still trotting merrily along in the good ol' TOS universe that we loved. Unfortunately, we will never see them again. And that's too bad. Because I would really like to see how they all met and came to be aboard the Enterprise together. That would be a story worth seeing. I could care about that. I have no reason to care about NuTrek because, like the Mirror Universe, they are not the ones I know.

Indeed. A genuine, canonical "Trek origin" story would have been fascinating to me, if told well.

OTOH, in all fairness, if it were told as badly as this film, I'd still have been disappointed with it. And conversely, had we been treated to a brilliantly inventive and thoughtful film about a completely fresh "alternate reality," I could have enjoyed that as well. This picture just offered the worst of both worlds: neither the actual characters and concepts for which I have affection, nor the quality of storytelling that could make me overlook that.

Not directly. But the conversation between Spock and Uhura leading up to the Alternate Reality refers to the fact that their destinies have changed, which tells me two things:

1) That they had a destiny to be changed.
2) That SOMETHING changed it.

That's actually another thing that bugs me about the film... all of its insinuations about "destiny." It undermines the notion that the character's paths are the result of their own free-will decision-making. The conversations between OldSpock and Kirk have the same problem.

(And the film's conclusion just underscores it: Kirk will inevitably wind up as Captain, no matter what, no matter how implausible, because that's how it Has To Be. Call it "destiny" or call it writers' fiat; either way, it's not dramatically satisfying.)

I'll wait for TPTB to make that explicitly clear.

Already done:

Our story is not based on the linear timeline of Einstein’s general theory of relativity upon which most movies about time travel are based (like, say, BACK TO THE FUTURE or TERMINATOR, both of which I LOVE). The idea of a fixable timeline has been a wonderful staple of sci-fi since the 50’s, but in reading about the most current thinking in theoretical physics regarding time travel (Quantum Mechanics), we learned about the speculative theories that suggest that if time travel is possible, then the act of time travel itself creates a new universe that exists in PARALLEL to the one left by the time traveler. This is the preferred theory these days because it resolves the GRANDFATHER PARADOX, which wonders how a time traveler who kills his own younger grandfather would logically then cease to exist, but then he’d never be around to time travel and kill his grandfather in the first place. Quantum Mechanically based theories resolve this paradox by arguing that the time traveler, in killing his grandfather, would merely split a previously identical universe into a new one in which a man who is his grandfather in another universe is killed in the new one. The time traveler does not cease to exist, although he is no longer in his own original universe (where he is now missing).

First of all, Orci is simply wrong here, in several ways: the MWI is not the "most current thinking" (it dates to 1957, and quite a bit of other theoretical work on time travel has occurred in the intervening decades), nor is it really even related to time travel (it has more to do with resolving quantum uncertainties), much less the "preferred theory." All he really demonstrates in this quote is a fairly simplistic understanding of the grandfather paradox.

Second, as Space Therapist noted, all of this is behind-the-scenes dicta, and thus in no way decisive. No matter how strongly Orci (and Kurtzman) may have felt about the value of this theoretical approach, they didn't actually put a single word about it in the story. They (or other writers) could choose to clarify our debate here in a completely different way in a future story without contradicting a single thing about this film. (Not that I think anyone ever will... but it's certainly possible.)

Nero goes through the black hole first, before Spock Prime. At this point in “single timeline” theory the timeline is already altered, placing the very existence of Spock Prime and the Jellyfish in doubt.

Actually, that's a plot problem regardless of which theoretical model one prefers. If we assume Nero arrived in the past of his own reality and created a completely distinct universe starting from 2233, then the question becomes: how did OldSpock cross over to that one, rather than arriving in the past of the same reality he left from?

If you aim low, you pretty much hit everyone. And that's exactly what they did.

Precisely! Although it is more accurate to say that if you aim to produce a movie that has multiple levels you hit everyone.

Thanks for the qualification. I'd like to insist that, contrary to the assumptions of Hollywood execs, "low" is not where we all reside.

Edit: I forgot nudity. A bit of nudity or partial nudity rarely hurts.

The old formula for successful lowest-common-denominator filmmaking: defy authority, destroy property, and take people's clothes off. This film dutifully obeyed all three.

 

[Gojira]

Not directly. But the conversation between Spock and Uhura leading up to the Alternate Reality refers to the fact that their destinies have changed, which tells me two things:

1) That they had a destiny to be changed.
2) That SOMETHING changed it.

If we take those two together, and add the fact that Nero could not have affected anything prior to 2233.04, it is safe to conclude that things changed starting Stardate 2233.04.

That indicates a timeline split between two paths, starting at that point.

We then take the line from Uhura: "An Alternate Reality."
To which Spock responds: "Precisely."

If a Universe is not the same as a Reality, then what else could Uhura actually be referring to?

Without breaking cause and effect, how would you resolve this in a linear model?

I think the something that changed was their lives went on a path that was different than it originally had played out. In other words it changed the time line (just like in Back to the Future and all other Trek time line episodes and movies).

I can see that the timeline changed at the point you mentioned and on that I agree, but where is the evidence it split into two paths instead of just recording over the original?

I interpret an alternate reality to mean that the reality they are now living in is unfolding differently than it would have had Nero not intervened. I think that sums up the entirety of what every one says in that scene on the bridge.


The problem with the phrase "alternate reality" is that it is too vague and it can (and has been) interpreted differently. It can simply mean that their reality is different than it was going to be or it can mean a different universe or dimension all together. It was to ambiguous. If Uhura had said "alternate universe" instead, all of this would be settled.

In past Trek stories, this was mitigated by the Big Red Reset Button. There simply was none here, so Cause and Effect remains. Therefore, a linear model is still invalid.

All of the time travel stories in Trek (City on the edge of forever, Yesterday's Enterprise, Trial and Tribulations, End Game) all follow a linear time theory.

This movie plays like a linear time story. Spock Prime and Nero are constantly being referred to as being "from the future" either by themselves or by other characters within the movie. But according to the parallel universe theory Spock Prime and Nero are not from their future, they're from the future of another universe! The fact that Quinto Spock and Nimoy Spock are not the same person really lessens the emotional impact of the story for me.

My point is that Orci says it is a quantum mechanics parallel multiverse theory of time travel and I will accept that if I am to enjoy the sequels. (by the way, I actually do love this movie!) However, in my opinion, given what I see on screen it plays out more like a typical linear time travel story. But seeing that Orci wants to appease long time fans (like myself) by saying their original Trek still exists, he has written a movie where he tries to have it both ways.

I would have been alright with either decision. If he wanted to do a clean reboot that erases old Trek I would have been fine with that because it wouldn't stop me from enjoying all my old Trek DVDs. But if he wanted to do paralell universe story he could have stated within the movie itself more clearly that this was a parallel universe (which he even admits the word parallel is nowhere in the script) but he knew that would upset core fans or confuse the general audience.

So instead he walked the middle path and gave us a time travel story that was ambiguous enough so it would not upset core fans nor drive away the general audience. So I am left trying to justify a paralell universe story when to my eyes and ears that is not what I see on screen.

 

[lawman]

This movie plays like a linear time story. Spock Prime and Nero are constantly being referred to as being "from the future" either by themselves or by other characters within the movie. But according to the parallel universe theory Spock Prime and Nero are not from their future, they're from the future of another universe!...

My point is that Orci says it is a quantum mechanics parallel multiverse theory of time travel and I will accept that if I am to enjoy the sequels. (by the way, I actually do love this movie!) However, in my opinion, given what I see on screen it plays out more like a typical linear time travel story. But seeing that Orci wants to appease long time fans (like myself) by saying their original Trek still exists, he has written a movie where he tries to have it both ways.

I would have been alright with either decision. If he wanted to do a clean reboot that erases old Trek I would have been fine with that because it wouldn't stop me from enjoying all my old Trek DVDs. But if he wanted to do paralell universe story he could have stated within the movie itself more clearly that this was a parallel universe (which he even admits the word parallel is nowhere in the script) but he knew that would upset core fans or confuse the general audience.

...So I am left trying to justify a paralell universe story when to my eyes and ears that is not what I see on screen.

What do you think of the analysis I laid out here? IMHO it's an interpretation that makes sense of the film's temporal logic, and leaves both sides with intact, distinct versions of Trek that can be enjoyed on their own terms.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

This movie plays like a linear time story. Spock Prime and Nero are constantly being referred to as being "from the future" either by themselves or by other characters within the movie. But according to the parallel universe theory Spock Prime and Nero are not from their future, they're from the future of another universe!...

My point is that Orci says it is a quantum mechanics parallel multiverse theory of time travel and I will accept that if I am to enjoy the sequels. (by the way, I actually do love this movie!) However, in my opinion, given what I see on screen it plays out more like a typical linear time travel story. But seeing that Orci wants to appease long time fans (like myself) by saying their original Trek still exists, he has written a movie where he tries to have it both ways.

I would have been alright with either decision. If he wanted to do a clean reboot that erases old Trek I would have been fine with that because it wouldn't stop me from enjoying all my old Trek DVDs. But if he wanted to do paralell universe story he could have stated within the movie itself more clearly that this was a parallel universe (which he even admits the word parallel is nowhere in the script) but he knew that would upset core fans or confuse the general audience.

...So I am left trying to justify a paralell universe story when to my eyes and ears that is not what I see on screen.

What do you think of the analysis I laid out here? IMHO it's an interpretation that makes sense of the film's temporal logic, and leaves both sides with intact, distinct versions of Trek that can be enjoyed on their own terms.

I haven't read it for a while, but if I'm reading this right, Star Trek (2009) would be, in your eyes, not that different in concept to the Mirror Universe.

Dramatically, it's kind of a moot point from now onwards, but your idea flies in the face of the basic reason the time travel/alternate reality situation was done in the first place.

 

[lawman]

I haven't read it for a while, but if I'm reading this right, Star Trek (2009) would be, in your eyes, not that different in concept to the Mirror Universe.

Or any of the realities seen in "Parallels." Bingo. It was a parallel reality all along, even before it got its past changed.

(I figure this is pretty much exactly what everyone who cares would have assumed anyway had the PTB just done a clean reboot.)

Dramatically, it's kind of a moot point from now onwards, but your idea flies in the face of the basic reason the time travel/alternate reality situation was done in the first place.

You're right; this whole discussion is moot in terms of what gets seen on screen. It only matters in terms of how we perceive those stories, as Space Therapist was discussing. In that sense, though, given the whole nature of fandom and its inclination to fill in the lacunae of the objects of its passion, it's very relevant indeed.

As for the reason the time-travel story was done, the underlying intent seems to have been to satisfy fans of both the old reality and the new one. I think my approach preserves the capacity to do that, and arguably even enhances it, since both Trek "universes" can be understood to continue on their own with no interference from the other.

(It doesn't literally connect those realities as O&K say they intended, true... but if they were really serious about that goal, then IMHO they could and should have (A) been more careful with the continuity references within the "prime" timeline, and (B) not used time travel in a way that implicitly asks fans (as you've so often underscored) to retcon their understanding of how that timeline worked.)

 

[Gojira]

I haven't read it for a while, but if I'm reading this right, Star Trek (2009) would be, in your eyes, not that different in concept to the Mirror Universe.

Or any of the realities seen in "Parallels." Bingo. It was a parallel reality all along, even before it got its past changed.

(I figure this is pretty much exactly what everyone who cares would have assumed anyway had the PTB just done a clean reboot.)

Dramatically, it's kind of a moot point from now onwards, but your idea flies in the face of the basic reason the time travel/alternate reality situation was done in the first place.

You're right; this whole discussion is moot in terms of what gets seen on screen. It only matters in terms of how we perceive those stories, as Space Therapist was discussing. In that sense, though, given the whole nature of fandom and its inclination to fill in the lacunae of the objects of its passion, it's very relevant indeed.

As for the reason the time-travel story was done, the underlying intent seems to have been to satisfy fans of both the old reality and the new one. I think my approach preserves the capacity to do that, and arguably even enhances it, since both Trek "universes" can be understood to continue on their own with no interference from the other.

(It doesn't literally connect those realities as O&K say they intended, true... but if they were really serious about that goal, then IMHO they could and should have (A) been more careful with the continuity references within the "prime" timeline, and (B) not used time travel in a way that implicitly asks fans (as you've so often underscored) to retcon their understanding of how that timeline worked.)

I like this idea!!!! It allows me to know that original Trek continues on and that this movie doesn't branch off from the original Trek universe and it always was a parallel universe to begin with!! Freaking brilliant! This way the story makes sense as a linear time travel story and it's not that original Trek is being erased over it is that this paralell universes history that is being written over.