Depressed about Vulcan

[Merky]

Is this is still being debated? Its a Reboot attached to the original continuity via a time travel plot device.

Whether its an alternate universe or whatever really doesn't matter, its just words to describe a narrative framework, it will never make sense because it can't, its not real. Theres the original series, and the reboot. The reboot is current, and where the new adventures are. The original is of the eighties, the nineties and the sixties. Modern Trek is made for a modern audience and this way is so much better than knowing that Kirk will die on that bridge helping picard, or that Scotty will crash into a dyson sphere.

Agreed. No matter how much they work it, write it, add to it outside of the movie it won't make a bit of difference. I doubt they're even going to bother with trying to include the established canon into these new movies. It really doesn't make a difference now. Head!Canon <3 I'll always interpret the events in the movie as Spock going back in time and erasing his own future and these new adventures are the result of his changed future. Parallel universes and all that other crap over complicate a pretty clear cut and simple story.

 

[Butters]

Is this is still being debated? Its a Reboot attached to the original continuity via a time travel plot device.

Whether its an alternate universe or whatever really doesn't matter, its just words to describe a narrative framework, it will never make sense because it can't, its not real. Theres the original series, and the reboot. The reboot is current, and where the new adventures are. The original is of the eighties, the nineties and the sixties. Modern Trek is made for a modern audience and this way is so much better than knowing that Kirk will die on that bridge helping picard, or that Scotty will crash into a dyson sphere.

Agreed. No matter how much they work it, write it, add to it outside of the movie it won't make a bit of difference. I doubt they're even going to bother with trying to include the established canon into these new movies. It really doesn't make a difference now. Head!Canon <3 I'll always interpret the events in the movie as Spock going back in time and erasing his own future and these new adventures are the result of his changed future. Parallel universes and all that other crap over complicate a pretty clear cut and simple story.

Thank you. I never had a standing ovation before, though I once did a PowerPoint slideshow that was received quite well.

 

[Merky]

Is this is still being debated? Its a Reboot attached to the original continuity via a time travel plot device.

Whether its an alternate universe or whatever really doesn't matter, its just words to describe a narrative framework, it will never make sense because it can't, its not real. Theres the original series, and the reboot. The reboot is current, and where the new adventures are. The original is of the eighties, the nineties and the sixties. Modern Trek is made for a modern audience and this way is so much better than knowing that Kirk will die on that bridge helping picard, or that Scotty will crash into a dyson sphere.

Agreed. No matter how much they work it, write it, add to it outside of the movie it won't make a bit of difference. I doubt they're even going to bother with trying to include the established canon into these new movies. It really doesn't make a difference now. Head!Canon <3 I'll always interpret the events in the movie as Spock going back in time and erasing his own future and these new adventures are the result of his changed future. Parallel universes and all that other crap over complicate a pretty clear cut and simple story.

Thank you. I never had a standing ovation before, though I once did a PowerPoint slideshow that was received quite well.

no problem XP

 

[Therin of Andor]

OK, then they changed the Trek rules for this movie to have their cake and eat it too.

No, they used the same device presented in TNG's "Parallels".

 

[Gojira]

OK, then they changed the Trek rules for this movie to have their cake and eat it too.

No, they used the same device presented in TNG's "Parallels".

But how many other time travel episodes in the Trek franchise do not use this multi-universe device?

Answer: all the rest.

 

[Set Harth]

How many of them used red matter black holes?

 

[Gojira]

How many of them used red matter black holes?

Only this movie.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

What is all this bickering and 'splaining about time lines? Don't you people realize it doesn't matter HOW it happened, it doesn't matter WHEN it happened all that matters is that VULCAN IS GONE. Kind of like Olson.

 

[F. King Daniel]

OK, then they changed the Trek rules for this movie to have their cake and eat it too.

No, they used the same device presented in TNG's "Parallels".

But how many other time travel episodes in the Trek franchise do not use this multi-universe device?

Answer: all the rest.

Again - there is a universe for EVERY POSSIBLE OUTCOME TO EVERY EVENT. It's entirely down to the viewers' (and our heroes') point-of-view. In "Parallels" we saw the reality where the Borg won "Best of Both Worlds". We also saw realities where the Federation prevailed but Picard was lost. In The Original Series we're seeing the universe where Nero didn't appear in 2233 and George Kirk didn't kamikaze into his ship.

Time travel "created anther reality" in the same way the events of "Best of Both Worlds" created several. We just saw exactly how the STXI one started and "hopped tracks" to follow it.

 

[Set Harth]

There's a problem with single timeline theory when applied to this film. Nero goes into the black hole before Spock. Thus, under single timeline theory, Spock's reality should have changed to reflect Nero's alteration to the timeline before he had the chance to enter the black hole himself.

 

[Merky]

They were both sucked in, just mere seconds apart -- if there was a change to happen to the current timeline, Spock would not have been able to notice the changes.

A lot of you are looking far into what little details the movie had presented with the whole time travel shit.

 

[Gojira]

A lot of you are looking far into what little details the movie had presented with the whole time travel shit.

That is why I state the movie is really ambiguous about the nature of the time travel in this movie.

 

[BillJ]

There's a problem with single timeline theory when applied to this film. Nero goes into the black hole before Spock. Thus, under single timeline theory, Spock's reality should have changed to reflect Nero's alteration to the timeline before he had the chance to enter the black hole himself.

Like the Enterprise in First Contact, the Jellyfish may have been protected from the change by the black hole.

 

[Cyke101]

OK, then they changed the Trek rules for this movie to have their cake and eat it too.

No, they used the same device presented in TNG's "Parallels".

But how many other time travel episodes in the Trek franchise do not use this multi-universe device?

Answer: all the rest.

Err, the Mirror Universe episodes, too -- most especially the TOS Defiant in In a Mirror, Darkly. Note that just like in Parallels and XI, none of the Mirror Universe plots required our heroes to fix the timeline. The main point of divergence resulted in further separation from "our" timeline.

 

[Gojira]

No, they used the same device presented in TNG's "Parallels".

But how many other time travel episodes in the Trek franchise do not use this multi-universe device?

Answer: all the rest.

Err, the Mirror Universe episodes, too -- most especially the TOS Defiant in In a Mirror, Darkly. Note that just like in Parallels and XI, none of the Mirror Universe plots required our heroes to fix the timeline. The main point of divergence resulted in further separation from "our" timeline.

But in the mirror episodes they just went to parallel universes they didn't also travel through time.

I don't argue multiverse theory. I just don't think the movie is successful in communicating that the time travel in this instance created a parallel universe.

 

[sonak]

OK, then they changed the Trek rules for this movie to have their cake and eat it too.

No, they used the same device presented in TNG's "Parallels".

negative. Worf wasn't traveling back in time in that episode, he was just shifting between timelines. I already stated that Star Trek had shown alternate timelines before.


However, in this film, they deviated from showing time travel to the past only affecting the same timeline, not creating new ones.


Which may be more logical or not, I was just pointing out that wasn't the way it'd worked before.

 

[DeafPoet]

Guys; everything in the entirety of Star Trek only makes as much sense as it has to for the writers to tell the story. You could pick at Trek XI all day to try and justify why it's A, B or C but the fact is it's a parallel universe because of course it is. That's obviously what the movie's generally driving at and the writers have fucking said so. Case closed.

I'll never understand the desire to pick apart Trek science. Star Trek is a vehicle for people to tell stories about people and occasionally blow some shit up along the way.

 

[FarStrider]

negative. Worf wasn't traveling back in time in that episode, he was just shifting between timelines. I already stated that Star Trek had shown alternate timelines before.


However, in this film, they deviated from showing time travel to the past only affecting the same timeline, not creating new ones.


Which may be more logical or not, I was just pointing out that wasn't the way it'd worked before.

Of course that's not the way it worked before. . .the theory didn't really exist for most of Star Trek's original run, and when it did exist, the show had too much invested in keeping the timeline the same, that of course they weren't going to show an alternative timeline (or alternate reality) without going back to the original. . .a problem that this movie didn't have, considering that they were trying to decouple their story from canon. . . it's really a non-issue. . . and I'm not quite sure why people are still talking about it. . .

~FS

 

[Cyke101]

But how many other time travel episodes in the Trek franchise do not use this multi-universe device?

Answer: all the rest.

Err, the Mirror Universe episodes, too -- most especially the TOS Defiant in In a Mirror, Darkly. Note that just like in Parallels and XI, none of the Mirror Universe plots required our heroes to fix the timeline. The main point of divergence resulted in further separation from "our" timeline.

But in the mirror episodes they just went to parallel universes they didn't also travel through time.

I mentioned the TOS Defiant specifically for that reason. Not only did it travel back in time, but it greatly affected how a timeline had diverged thanks to foreign, future technology, the way Nero and the Narada influenced Starfleet after the Kelvin incident. An entire episode was devoted to the changes such an advanced ship can bring.

As well, the intro to "In A Mirror, Darkly" outright spelled where the Mirror and Prime universes diverged, when Cochrane took over the Vulcan lander, just as how the point of divergence came when Nero attacked the Kelvin.

I don't argue multiverse theory. I just don't think the movie is successful in communicating that the time travel in this instance created a parallel universe.

I honestly don't mean to be frank, but how else could they communicate it any more successfully than the characters blatantly (and rather clumsily) stating it in the middle of the movie?

To wit, the idea of alternate universes as depicted in Parallels and the movie is fairly new, hence why it's rarely been tackled in Trek compared to other sci-fi ideas. But Trek's also had a fairly good track record of adopting new ideas into its stories, and that doesn't mean Trek's science is overridden. For example, Voyager tended to deal more with dark matter and dark energy than other shows, but that doesn't override or retcon similar anomalies that previous shows faced that had different names in TOS, TNG, DS9, etc. TOS's insane warp speeds were tempered down when the nature of light speed was better understood by the writers and the public at large, and it made for better drama. TNG's stretchy-warp effect is perhaps more realistic than the TOS' movies light-streak warp as a consequence (objects look elongated but then appear smaller and smaller the faster they go), even though the light-streak warp came first. Our understanding of science changes on a remarkable basis, and we can't really fault fiction for trying to adapt to new facts and theories.

 

[SheliakBob]

Well.
The death of Vulcan teared me up. I felt like I'd just had a hole torn through my "some nameless fan-thing that really shouldn't have holes in it".
I half-heartedly admire the Bastards for doing it--as a way to blast away from traditional Trek and stake a claim to something different, yadda yadda.
I hate them for doing it.

I miss Vulcan.
I miss Ye Goode Ole Days when Trek Fandom felt like a big, warm happy-family type place. (yah. It was rather a long time ago.)
I've really not been having much fun with this new Piranha-tank-full-of-mean fandom.

If I had more energy or still cared more, I'd probably be running around with a stencil and spray painting "vulcan Lives!" on immobile targets. Or at least tacking up flyers at conventions or something.
eh.