Same canon?

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Hard-core fans have a definition of "canon" which may suit them but which has nothing to do with any useful, mainstream definition of the word.

"Canon" is simply any part of the official continuity. This movie is part of Trek canon just as TOS was, just as Enterprise and TNG were. It's perfectly well within the definition of "canon" for two elements to contradict one another. To claim otherwise is talk through one's hat in the attempt to seize some imagined "high ground" in an argument.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I fail to see how STXI being tied to the previous shows is in any way a problem. Try hard enough and the butterfly effect can be used to explain away anything from an epic Klingon/Federation war or extragalactic invasion that didn't happen in TOS to the later non-appearance of the Doomsday Machine, V'ger and the whale probe.

As for inheriting the shared past of the Trek multiverse, I seriously doubt nuTrek is gonna spend it's time worrying about what Captain Archer was doing 100 years ago - TOS certainly didn't and they got on just fine

Well, you see the butterfly effect, Orci sees "a timeline healing itself".

That was just a bit of crazy illogic (how does a timeline heal itself? does The Force do it? ) that they tossed out there to acknowledge that the fans want a solid connection to all the Star Trek that has come before. This may be a new reality, but it has a strong affinity to the one we know & love, without being so strong that it's creatively stultifying. They're maintaining a delicate balancing act, and overall they succeeded.

 

[Devon]

Incorrect. Every story has a message and meaning.

That is also incorrect. Certainly proven in stories like "Tribbles," or "Where No Man Has Gone Before," "Best of Both Worlds" (unless someone wants to bend straws and claim that the conflict between Riker and Shelby meant anything, which it didn't) etc.

Wrong. Try again.

Jared, as a bit of friendly advice, when trying to steal mine or other people's lines and attempt the whole "reversal" thing, it's best to have a grasp of what it is you are reversing on them. You don't here. There were no messages or meanings in those stories, sorry.

It would have been easier for them to simply do a clean reboot if they wanted to move independently of what had come before. That would have also left the prime universe untouched. Easiest. Cleanest. They chose not to go in that direction so they are still tied to the previous shows.

Other than Enterprise, those shows haven't happened yet in this timeline, and may not happen (at least the same way.) They are not tied.

 

[kkozoriz1]

Those shows haven't happened yet in this timeline. They are not tied.

The past depicted in those shows is the same. The change didn't happen until 2233, therefor V'Ger is still out there. As is Nomad, Khan etc.

Wipe the slate clean. If they want to do a movie with Khan, go for it. But, they have tied themselves to a reality where certain things have happened. If they want to alter what happened before 2233 then it should have been a clean reboot.

btw Enterprise happened in the past of BOTH universes.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Saying that STXI didn't have any message is bullshit. It didn't do the "topical comment" thing, but Spock's troubled journey and eventual acceptance of himself as who he is instead of trying to conform entirely to the Vulcan way (something that took Spock Prime until the TOS movies to figure out) is an important message.

 

[FarStrider]

Those shows haven't happened yet in this timeline. They are not tied.

The past depicted in those shows is the same. The change didn't happen until 2233, therefor V'Ger is still out there. As is Nomad, Khan etc.

Wipe the slate clean. If they want to do a movie with Khan, go for it. But, they have tied themselves to a reality where certain things have happened. If they want to alter what happened before 2233 then it should have been a clean reboot.

btw Enterprise happened in the past of BOTH universes.

Yes, V'ger, Khan, Nomad, Whale probe, etc. are all out there, but that doesn't mean that the crew of the Enterprise will even encounter them or be the ones to do anything about them. . . or even if they do encounter these things, who says these event have to unfold in exactly the same way they did in TOS?. . . why is it so hard for you to understand that the new reality frees the writers from the obligation to tell the same stories in the same ways?

~FS

 

[Captrek]

Incorrect. Every story has a message and meaning.

That is also incorrect. Certainly proven in stories like "Tribbles," or "Where No Man Has Gone Before," "Best of Both Worlds" (unless someone wants to bend straws and claim that the conflict between Riker and Shelby meant anything, which it didn't) etc.

Wrong. Try again.

I just love these “Nuh-uh!”/“Uh-huh!”/“Nuh-uh!”/“Uh-huh!”/“Nuh-uh!”/“Uh-huh!”/“Nuh-uh!”/“Uh-huh!”/“Nuh-uh!”/“Uh-huh!” debates.

 

[Nerys Myk]

That is also incorrect. Certainly proven in stories like "Tribbles," or "Where No Man Has Gone Before," "Best of Both Worlds" (unless someone wants to bend straws and claim that the conflict between Riker and Shelby meant anything, which it didn't) etc.

Wrong. Try again.

I just love these “Nuh-uh!”/“Uh-huh!”/“Nuh-uh!”/“Uh-huh!”/“Nuh-uh!”/“Uh-huh!”/“Nuh-uh!”/“Uh-huh!”/“Nuh-uh!”/“Uh-huh!” debates.

No you don't!

 

[Captrek]

Wrong. Try again.

I just love these “Nuh-uh!”/“Uh-huh!”/“Nuh-uh!”/“Uh-huh!”/“Nuh-uh!”/“Uh-huh!”/“Nuh-uh!”/“Uh-huh!”/“Nuh-uh!”/“Uh-huh!” debates.

No you don't!

Yes I do!

 

[kkozoriz1]

Those shows haven't happened yet in this timeline. They are not tied.

The past depicted in those shows is the same. The change didn't happen until 2233, therefor V'Ger is still out there. As is Nomad, Khan etc.

Wipe the slate clean. If they want to do a movie with Khan, go for it. But, they have tied themselves to a reality where certain things have happened. If they want to alter what happened before 2233 then it should have been a clean reboot.

btw Enterprise happened in the past of BOTH universes.

Yes, V'ger, Khan, Nomad, Whale probe, etc. are all out there, but that doesn't mean that the crew of the Enterprise will even encounter them or be the ones to do anything about them. . . or even if they do encounter these things, who says these event have to unfold in exactly the same way they did in TOS?. . . why is it so hard for you to understand that the new reality frees the writers from the obligation to tell the same stories in the same ways?

~FS

I would MUCH prefer that they do new shows. However, if they do decide to use parts of the shared past they SHOULD try to make it match up. Nothing is ever perfect.

And my response was to the comment "Those shows haven't happened yet in this timeline." Some parts of the prime univers are still shared with the new one. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

 

[Captain_Rogers]

Even those things that are "still out there" don't even necessarily HAVE to be.

For example, maybe the Narada came across a tiny ship called Botany Bay and used it for target practice without ever even looking inside....

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Those shows haven't happened yet in this timeline. They are not tied.

The past depicted in those shows is the same. The change didn't happen until 2233, therefor V'Ger is still out there. As is Nomad, Khan etc.

I don't know that any of this is necessarily true - as someone pointed out early in the topic, the Old Timeline incorporated events dating back at least as far as the 1930s (Edith Keeler) that happened in the precise way they did because of events which haven't yet occurred in the new timeline and may not.

Note, for example, that in our timeline there was never a Voyager Six probe launched - there were only two - nor a Eugenics War in the 20th century. Maybe a collateral effect of the changes to the lives of Kirk, Spock and the others in the new timeline is that alterations in the future time-travel activities of the Trek folks result in the new timeline corresponding more closely to our world than to the OldTrek history.

 

[Gepard]

I don't know that any of this is necessarily true - as someone pointed out early in the topic, the Old Timeline incorporated events dating back at least as far as the 1930s (Edith Keeler) that happened in the precise way they did because of events which haven't yet occurred in the new timeline and may not.

Note, for example, that in our timeline there was never a Voyager Six probe launched - there were only two - nor a Eugenics War in the 20th century. Maybe a collateral effect of the changes to the lives of Kirk, Spock and the others in the new timeline is that alterations in the future time-travel activities of the Trek folks result in the new timeline corresponding more closely to our world than to the OldTrek history.

...Did you hit your head? C'mon, where's the Dennis who poooh-poohs these kind of straight-faced rationalizations? You sound like Timo or Christopher, or something. Give us a hearty "V'Ger won't show up the writers don't want it" and restore my faith in the universe.

 

[F. King Daniel]

If Dennis's "stuff in the past didn't happen because it was caused by a future that isn't there anymore" theory was accurate, Spock Prime and Nero would have disappeared the minute they started fucking with history.

Since they didn't we have to assume that stuff in the past, whether it's meant to be there or not, stays in the past.

Then again, Star Trek Enterprise's time travel was utterly and totally meaningless in every way imaginable (try to logic out the events of the Nazi episodes - the guy about to start the time war somehow is doing it from the fucked-up-Nazi-filled-past that results from the war that hasn't begun yet. Without the circumstances of this borked timeline he wouldn't have begun the war in the first place ) so I guess anything can happen.

 

[kkozoriz1]

I'm perfectly willing to ignore certain aspects of Trek history like Enterprises' alien Nazis or Spock's Brain. They probably happened but not quite the way they were portrayed. There's willing suspension of disbelief and then there's banging your head on the table to shake the memories loose before they take root.

The strange thing about the way the movie branched off is NuKirk can travel back to 1969 New York and pass himself walking down the street. But it's not himself, it's himself who's father lived to see him take command at an older age. I think I'm going to go lie down. I feel a Crisis on Infinite Treks brewing. Why are the skies turning red?

 

[Captrek]

Then again, Star Trek Enterprise's time travel was utterly and totally meaningless in every way imaginable (try to logic out the events of the Nazi episodes - the guy about to start the time war somehow is doing it from the fucked-up-Nazi-filled-past that results from the war that hasn't begun yet. Without the circumstances of this borked timeline he wouldn't have begun the war in the first place ) so I guess anything can happen.

If you manage to figure that one out, try going to work on Yesteryear. I don’t know if it’s possible to explain it with a coherent time-travel process, but it’s a good story.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I'm perfectly willing to ignore certain aspects of Trek history like Enterprises' alien Nazis or Spock's Brain. They probably happened but not quite the way they were portrayed. There's willing suspension of disbelief and then there's banging your head on the table to shake the memories loose before they take root.

The strange thing about the way the movie branched off is NuKirk can travel back to 1969 New York and pass himself walking down the street. But it's not himself, it's himself who's father lived to see him take command at an older age. I think I'm going to go lie down. I feel a Crisis on Infinite Treks brewing. Why are the skies turning red?

This has happened before: In Voyager "Future's End" we met two versions of Braxton going back from alternate futures. When questioned, the second one says "I never experienced that timeline", while the first is presumably still a crazy hobo on the surface. Enterprise did similar with Daniels dying and returning twice.

 

[JarodRussell]

That is also incorrect. Certainly proven in stories like "Tribbles," or "Where No Man Has Gone Before," "Best of Both Worlds" (unless someone wants to bend straws and claim that the conflict between Riker and Shelby meant anything, which it didn't) etc.

Wrong. Try again.

Jared, as a bit of friendly advice, when trying to steal mine or other people's lines and attempt the whole "reversal" thing, it's best to have a grasp of what it is you are reversing on them. You don't here. There were no messages or meanings in those stories, sorry.

No need to feel sorry, just prove it to me.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

If Dennis's "stuff in the past didn't happen because it was caused by a future that isn't there anymore" theory was accurate, Spock Prime and Nero would have disappeared the minute they started fucking with history.

They wouldn't vanish because it wasn't their history they were fucking with.

And also because Star Trek has never been consistent with its rules of time travel.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

If Dennis's "stuff in the past didn't happen because it was caused by a future that isn't there anymore" theory was accurate, Spock Prime and Nero would have disappeared the minute they started fucking with history.

Nope. Two things:

1) They're now in an alternate timeline. If what has happened/is happening to them affected the TOS timeline in the way you're suggesting, then Spock Prime's memories would already have been altered.

2) Just because some things are different don't mean that all things are different or will be different. The writers now have license to alter anything they like - pre-Nero or post-Nero - in this alternate timeline and aren't required to offer a detailed explanation of it.

The simple fact that "our" past as well as the TOS future depended to some degree on the TOS characters mucking about with time travel during the TOS and post-TOS future really means that all bets are off.