Depressed about Vulcan

[UFO]

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?
...

You mean:"An alternate reality"? Not conclusive IMO, especially when the rest of the movie is either compatible with a single timeline or seems to imply it. I have answered your question of how they could have better indicated what was going on here. Basically you show a shotgun* hanging on the wall then later you have someone take it down and use it. Simple.

* In this case (perhaps an academy discussion etc of ) multiverse theory.

PS. I guess technically it isn't the time travel that inherently creates the alternative universe but the arrival of Nero in the past. On the other hand, while it may or may not have been possible for him to fall into a black hole (depending on how bad the plot is! ), once he does, there isn't much chance he wouldn't arrive somewhere in the past so doing so shouldn't cause a branching event. Thus my argument is that the alternative universe was created in the 24th century and that his arrival in the 23rd just overwrote history as you would normally expect!

 

[Merky]

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.

Ouch. I'll be sure to stay off of your lawn.

 

[UFO]

... 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. ...

I hear you, but graffiti is never the answer!

However as others have said, you do get the feeling that in this case more is less. Especially when the destruction of Vulcan is so clearly just a step on the road to getting Kirk into the Captain's chair. Its a good thing NuSpock can't see that or he would be a lot less forgiving!

 

[Gojira]

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.

As others have said the movie really plays out more like a linear time travel story.

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.

Picking it apart is fun for some fans. Even though I am debating this stuff here it is all in good fun and I am not taking any of it too seriously.

 

[Merky]

Facts in the movie are this: Spock gets sent back in time through a black hole induced time portal. Both Spock and Nero ended arriving in the same "universe" 25 years apart from each other despite being sucked in at seconds apart. If this is an alternate universe, how does thathappen with Nero already changing the course of events? It doesn't, the movie was always meant to be " crazy asshole travels back in time, fucks up our heroes lives and changes their destiny "

The past has changed and Spock recognizes this, he speaks to his younger counter part with this mindset at hand - " Do what feels right ". Nero acknowledges this when he tries to kill Kirk, " ... but that was another life. A life I will deprive you of [..] "

The entire story points to a lineal timeline being disrupted and producing an "alternate reality". Not an alternate universe, not a parallel universe, but an alternate form of their reality. A different reality. A different future.

Whatever bullshit mumbo jumbo the writers and producers spewed out after the movie released is about as good as Roddenberry trying to claim STV as non-canon material -- as much as some of us would like it (god knows I act like V doesn't exist) it holds no weight or value to what is represented on screen. Only being damage control for the thousands of fans that are butthurt over the destruction of Vulcan, Spock boning Uhura, Kirk being a jackass, and Romulus being asploded.

Trying to pick and over analyze what was said is just useless and only will continue going around in circles - especially since the movie series will never ever touch upon the subject again. These characters are going to go on with their lives with the idea of their futures being changed, not " hollllyyy shit we're just an alternate universe out of thousanddds ".

 

[Set Harth]

It doesn't, the movie was always meant to be " crazy asshole travels back in time, fucks up our heroes lives and changes their destiny "

We know what the movie was always meant to be. What you're talking about is what you want it to be, which is not the same thing as what was meant.

The past has changed and Spock recognizes this, he speaks to his younger counter part with this mindset at hand - " Do what feels right ". Nero acknowledges this when he tries to kill Kirk, " ... but that was another life. A life I will deprive you of [..] "

None of this points to "single timeline". It just refers to the fact that some kind of time travel ( and thus change ) has occurred. These things happen regardless of what theory is assumed to be in effect. The film was conceived under multiverse theory, and the dialogue works with that assumption.

Not an alternate universe, not a parallel universe, but an alternate form of their reality. A different reality.

"Universe" and "reality" mean the same thing in this context. An alternate reality is the same as an alternate universe. Playing games over the nomenclature ultimately accomplishes nothing.

Trying to pick and over analyze what was said is just useless

That's true, because single-timeline enthusiasts will just ignore whatever was said.

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

What if the "details" - aka the facts of the film - contradict your theory?

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.

It shouldn't make any difference if it was indeed only "mere seconds", but I don't think the film actually says that it was. Under single timeline theory the time interval should be irrelevant. Spock's reality should change to reflect Nero's changes to the timeline. The whole idea of Spock not "noticing" the changes is ridiculous and seems to miss the whole point of single timeline. It's not dependent upon his noticing anything. The changes in the timeline would likely mean that he wouldn't even be there at that point to follow Nero in. To some extent this serves to illustrate the problem with single timeline theory. As soon as any time travel occurs, a hypothetical non-time-traveling observer such as Picard ( or in Nero's case, Spock ) immediately becomes Schrodinger's Cat, along with pretty much everyone else in the universe. It's a model which does not work, and STXI wisely jettisoned it.

 

[Merky]

None of this points to "single timeline". It just refers to the fact that some kind of time travel ( and thus change ) has occurred. These things happen regardless of what theory is assumed to be in effect. The film was conceived under multiverse theory, and the dialogue works with that assumption.

How... exactly?

I know your face from Earth's history. James T. Kirk was considered to be a great man. He went on to Captain the USS Enterprise. But that was another life. A life I will deprive you of just like I did your father.

Going back in time you changed all our lives.

I don't see it acknowledging alternate universe or parallel universe or any of that crap in the way the dialogue is presented. No offense.

I'm not going to wrack my brain to piece apart every line said, every pixel flown across my screen, and every bit of ancillary information to try and stamp a seal of approval on whether this movie was indeed a parallel universe or an alternate universe. At first glance, face value, everything points to -> lineal timeline. If you have to start watching it over and over and ripping the movie apart to figure out if it took place in an alternate universe, then you're simply over-analyzing the film.

For every single "theory" or "minor detail" someone will bring up to prove their "alternate reality/universe" defense, there will be one "theory" and "minor detail" that will trump whatever the other person said. This can go on for days and days and days (or years it seems), but there is no 100% defined explanation as to whether Spock and Nero created a new alternate universe.

It's moot.

 

[Set Harth]

there is no 100% defined explanation as to whether Spock and Nero created a new alternate universe.

Yes, there is. The official one.

How... exactly?

By being consistent with it. Once again, any kind of time travel means change. Dialogue that talks about change is not proof of single timeline, because change happens no matter what theory is assumed to be in effect.

 

[Merky]

Official as in "interview not-so-official-cause-it-ain't-in-the-movie-after-the-fact-explanation-official" or official as in " CBS/Paramount put their stamp on it " official?

You can't be consistent with it if there's nothing on screen that's consistent. You can't use dialogue and to then write it off saying, " well, you can't use that because it infers change ". Nothing in the movie directly answers the timeline situation, speculations and people inferring to a singular timeline change. Time travel isn't real, it's all theory, so one can't simply stamp on their theory and then declare it law. Every change of action creates a new universe is just a theory, a broad theory that can easily be trumped by another theory and another theory and another theory... etc

But, whatever it is, I'll stick with my own comfort zone.

 

[Set Harth]

Official as in "interview not-so-official-cause-it-ain't-in-the-movie-after-the-fact-explanation-official" or official as in " CBS/Paramount put their stamp on it " official?

That's strange. First you were saying there was no explanation, now it exists but is unofficial. ^Those are the same thing anyway, since the branching timeline got the official stamp by way of STO. Furthermore, an interview with the writers not being in the film can't seriously be taken as some kind of evidence that the position is not "official". By this logic, creators must personally appear in films and directly address the audience in order for there to be an official stance. That is nonsense.

You can't be consistent with it if there's nothing on screen that's consistent.

I don't think you're getting the meaning of consistent. To not be consistent, there must be proof of inconsistency. The film is consistent with multiverse theory, which is not a surprising outcome given the fact that multiverse theory was the stated intent of the writers. In a view which automatically projects single timeline theory onto any time travel, any citation of the changes associated with time travel is fallaciously taken as evidence of single timeline. But it's only evidence of time travel itself. The changes are still experienced by the characters regardless of what theory is supposedly in operation. Thus, nothing in this film actually supports a single timeline more than the alternative, it is just that much of this film does not contradict single timeline ( the theory's inherent issues aside ). Those are two different things.

 

[6079SmithW]

This is how it works, guys:

(Old Trek)--------------2233--------------->
\
(NuTrek)----------->

It's an alternate universe/reality, which is stated onscreen by Spock, making it canon, in addition to it being the writers' intent.

ETA: Well, my graph kinda failed. Middle should be

2233(Old Trek)---->
\
(NuTrek)----------->

 

[Greg Cox]

But this fan found the route they took dramatically unsatisfying. Why do I care if they killed Amanda and blew up Vulcan? They're still there in the main timeline.

.

But the old timeline doesn't matter anymore. Chances are, we're never going to see it onscreen again.

For all intents and purposes, the post-Vulcan universe is the "main timeline" now.

 

[BillJ]

But this fan found the route they took dramatically unsatisfying. Why do I care if they killed Amanda and blew up Vulcan? They're still there in the main timeline.

.

But the old timeline doesn't matter anymore. Chances are, we're never going to see it onscreen again.

For all intents and purposes, the post-Vulcan universe is the "main timeline" now.

I see your point Greg.

But I think it would have been more emotionally satisfying though for Spock Prime to admit everything that he knew was gone. Instead the writers tried to have it both ways.

Then the timeline attempting to right itself would've made some sense.

 

[Gojira]

I am sure the writers are well aware of this debate. Does anyone think or hope or want them to address this issue in the next movie even if it is only with a couple of lines of dialog?

 

[Greg Cox]

A little help here, please. Can someone quote the part from the movie where it's explained that it's an alternate universe BEFORE Spock Prime and Nero go back in time?


.

You didn't miss anything. There's no such part in the movie.

Some fans have put forth that theory here and there, but it really has nothing to do with the actual movie.

 

[UFO]

But this fan found the route they took dramatically unsatisfying. Why do I care if they killed Amanda and blew up Vulcan? They're still there in the main timeline.

But the old timeline doesn't matter anymore. Chances are, we're never going to see it onscreen again.

For all intents and purposes, the post-Vulcan universe is the "main timeline" now.

So if I've got this right:

A) At the time Vulcan and Amanda die we have no reason to think this isn't the past of main timeline so we're all: "Holy crap! Look what those bastards did!"

B) However a few minutes later, if we pick up on the "right" meaning of "alternate reality" its: "Phew, the real Vuclan and Amanda are fine after all!". Why didn't those bastards tell us that earlier?

C) Then, possibly years later (having come to terms with the likelihood we are never going to see the old timeline again and now have to view nuVulcan and nuAmanda as the only place left we can invest our emotional commitments) we're back to: "Holy crap! Look what those bastards did!"

()

 

[DeafPoet]

I am sure the writers are well aware of this debate. Does anyone think or hope or want them to address this issue in the next movie even if it is only with a couple of lines of dialog?

God no. It's done, it's over with. I just want them to start telling cool stories. I can see why all the time-travel mumbo jumbo was necessary for the last movie but there's really no reason to address it again. I'm just imagining how any such scene would play and I'm cringing my ass off.

 

[Merky]

That's strange. First you were saying there was no explanation, now it exists but is unofficial. ^Those are the same thing anyway, since the branching timeline got the official stamp by way of STO. Furthermore, an interview with the writers not being in the film can't seriously be taken as some kind of evidence that the position is not "official". By this logic, creators must personally appear in films and directly address the audience in order for there to be an official stance. That is nonsense.

I never said there was no explanation. I said it was never explained directly in film. Just a bunch of speculations and different interpretations. I already said my peace on the whole creators/writers addressing crap post-film in another tl;dr rant in this thread.

I don't think you're getting the meaning of consistent. To not be consistent, there must be proof of inconsistency. The film is consistent with multiverse theory, which is not a surprising outcome given the fact that multiverse theory was the stated intent of the writers. In a view which automatically projects single timeline theory onto any time travel, any citation of the changes associated with time travel is fallaciously taken as evidence of single timeline. But it's only evidence of time travel itself. The changes are still experienced by the characters regardless of what theory is supposedly in operation. Thus, nothing in this film actually supports a single timeline more than the alternative, it is just that much of this film does not contradict single timeline ( the theory's inherent issues aside ). Those are two different things.

... and the spoon's not real, amirite?

I don't really careeeeeeeeee if this thing takes place in timbuktuuuu... i don't want to waste my time figuring it ouuuut... this is the new timeline, main timeline whatever the hell it is and im contennt with that. i just don't agree with people saying a "theory" is canon when its brought up in "speculation" in the film and said postmortem in some interview. no one is "wrong" in an interpretation.

 

[Set Harth]

... and the spoon's not real, amirite?

It depends. Are you talking about a spoon in the Matrix or a spoon in the real world?

Spoons in the Matrix are not real.

Spoons in the real world are real.

i just don't agree with people saying a "theory" is canon when its brought up in "speculation" in the film and said postmortem in some interview.

You're forgetting the fact that it was backed up by STO. Furthermore, by this logic nothing is ever canon, since film dialogue and creator intent are thrown out.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

No, you miss a necessary distinction.

What's canonical in this instance is that the characters engage in theorizing. Unless we're shown explicitly that their conclusions are correct, the conclusions are not canonical.

STO is not canonical, so it's irrelevant.