DS9 Millennium

[Christopher]

Millenium made it clear that it was using ST'09-style multiverse theory for it's time travel, and not the single-stream universe model.

Rather, Millennium and ST'09 were both based on plausible science and quantum theory. The Reeves-Stevenses have always been among the most hard-science-oriented Trek novelists, and Kurtzman & Orci are pretty sciene-literate themselves. The multiple-timelines model is the one that actually makes scientific sense.

And I explained in Watching the Clock how there's really no contradiction between the two models -- changing the past does create a separate timeline, and has to, because by definition two versions of the same moment in time coexist simultaneously. It's nonsense to say one version of today comes before another version of today, because they're both at the same time. The "change" comes at the moment of the original time travel, when the two timelines that coexisted from the moment of the branching reconverge back into one, with only the events of the altered timeline being remembered. So "altering the original timeline" is really just a special case of "creating branching timelines," one where the branches eventually reconverge.

So does your model assume that the Abrams timeline will overwrite the prime timeline (i.e. reconverge with it) at the moment Nero and Spock Prime travel back? If not, how is that different, in your view?

IIRC, according to "Watching the Clock", the timelines reconverge once all the changes made, and their effects, stop mattering - in this case it'd be the distant future.

Not in that case. What I asserted was that the reconvergence only happened if there was a two-way interaction between the timelines, if matter, energy, or information was exchanged in both directions. In that case they were mutually "drawn" into alignment. But if the exchange was only one-way -- if, say, someone fell through a black hole into another timeline and nothing came back in the other direction (because nothing can come out of a black hole) -- then both timelines could survive, although the altered timeline could be influenced to evolve in a similar direction to the original (say, by having the same bunch of people coincidentally end up meeting each other and serving on the same starship).

 

[Therin of Andor]

although the altered timeline could be influenced to evolve in a similar direction to the original (say, by having the same bunch of people coincidentally end up meeting each other and serving on the same starship).

Ah, that's what I thought Spock Prime was doing in the movie. Influencing the new timeline as best he could, by pushing for Kirk to get the captain's chair of the Enterprise, especially when he realised that wasn't yet the case. But it probably wasn't made clear enough.

 

[Christopher]

^Not the kind of influence I was talking about. I meant that the quantum-probabilistic link to another timeline would create a certain "pressure" on events to unfold in a similar direction to those in the other timeline.

 

[Newspaper Taxi]

One of my favorite Trek works of all time. It had some wonderful character touches. My favorites were:

Spoiler: Picard

Picard says that sometimes Q will come to visit with him but it's implied that it's probably just dementia. Sad, but funny...And hard to dis-prove.

Spoiler: Garek

Past Garek:"Tell me just one thing: In the future, are we happy?
Garek:" Were we ever?"

That line with the two Gareks was the most emotionally affecting passage I ever read in Trek Lit. It both reveals that a small part of Garek isn't bitter and cynical and still kind of wishes for a brighter future and the overall sadness/pain he's gone through over his life. The scene also is done in Garek's 'voice' perfectly; they really nailed his performance. I suppose it doesn't hurt that I'm a big Garek fan. : )

I can see how it could be percieved as crazy, though. It certainly doesn't hold anything back in terms of limits or boundaries. The last book is pretty far out there with it's technical explanations as well.

 

[Thrawn]

I didn't like books 2 or 3 very much, for a variety of reasons, but I will say that I agree that they NAILED their characterization of Garak. Just about all of my favorite moments in the trilogy were Garak's.

 

[Smellincoffee]

I didn't like books 2 or 3 very much, for a variety of reasons, but I will say that I agree that they NAILED their characterization of Garak. Just about all of my favorite moments in the trilogy were Garak's.

As when they were imprisoned by Kai Weyoun and watching Thomas Riker's actions in the endgame...

 

[CaptJimboJones]

I quite enjoyed this one, and remember playing the "DS9: The Fallen" PC game a few years later without realizing that it was a direct tie-in with the book. I kept thinking, "This seems soooo familiar ... "

It's the only example I'm aware of where an official Trek game was derived from TrekLit.

 

[Christopher]

^Well, it's not so much that The Fallen was derived from Millennium as that they were both derived in parallel from a common premise, each taking it in a distinct direction.

 

[Therin of Andor]

It's the only example I'm aware of where an official Trek game was derived from TrekLit.

More that they were conceived to be complementary tie-ins.

There have been ST novels that have borrowed from official games, of course. Diane Duane reused her alien races created for "The Kobayashi Alternative" in "Doctor's Orders".

"Star Trek: Klingon" is quite different, too, in that it spun off a novel that is quite self-contained from the parent game, and it spun off an audio production of its own, read by Michael Dorn (Worf) & Robert O'Reilly (Gowron), and a full cast (I assume using many actors' recorded lines from the actual computer game).

 

[MattWallace]

The only time the movie talks about the change goes as follows:

"The contrary, Nero's very presence has altered the flow of history, beginning with the attack on the USS Kelvin, culminating in the events of today, thereby creating an entire new chain of incidents, that cannot be anticipated by either party.

An alternate reality.

Precisely."

An alternate reality can mean either a new reality, existing along side the other or a version that has overwritten the previous one. Since time travel to the future as well as the past exists then it's possible that the prime universe has been overwritten. We'll see in future <hah!> movies, if they choose to go in that direction.

 

[Christopher]

An alternate reality can mean either a new reality, existing along side the other or a version that has overwritten the previous one. Since time travel to the future as well as the past exists then it's possible that the prime universe has been overwritten. We'll see in future <hah!> movies, if they choose to go in that direction.

We won't see in any future movies, since their intention now is to develop the new film continuity as its own entity, rather than continuously referring back to the old one. They did an initial alternate-timelines story to allow passing the torch, but now they're going to move on and be their own entity. So it's a safe bet that the issue will not come up again onscreen.

But it was never their intention to "erase" the original continuity. That's the whole reason they did it as an alternate timeline in the first place: to allow fans to believe that the original history still existed, that the new continuity is parallel and complementary to it rather than a replacement for it. Screenwriter Roberto Orci confirmed in many interviews that he was going by the quantum-physics model of alternate timelines coexisting in parallel and considers the "overwriting" model to be scientifically obsolete. And the tie-in comic Countdown, which was approved and overseen by Bad Robot (though not technically canonical), did show the Prime timeline continuing to exist after Spock and Nero disappeared into the past.

 

[MattWallace]

I know the writers intent Christopher but unless it's on the screen it doesn't count.

Ellison's intent was to have a bunch of huge statues be the Guardians of Forever. Does that mean that the glowy doughnut isn't correct?

The comic also had Nero using V'Ger as a giant calculator to figure out when Spock would arrive, although why a miner would have the knowledge to figure that out I'm not sure.

As time travel remains totally within the realm of hypothetical you can go either way. Until Einstein came up with General Relativity nobody had any reason to believe that we couldn't travel faster than light. What was so special about light anyway? Same with time. Until we actually manage to send something, anything into the past we don't know what is or isn't possible or plausable.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Ellison's intent was to have a bunch of huge statues be the Guardians of Forever. Does that mean that the glowy doughnut isn't correct?

Onscreen canonical information always overrules conflicts caused by scripted information.

I know the writers intent Christopher but unless it's on the screen it doesn't count.

But authors' intent is generally accepted until it is overwritten by onscreen, canonical evidence. The writers have told us to "think 'Parallels'", the TNG episode.

The comic also had Nero using V'Ger as a giant calculator to figure out when Spock would arrive, although why a miner would have the knowledge to figure that out I'm not sure.

And the bonus features had footage suggesting that Nero exploited other prisoners' talents to create his maps and timings, IIRC. That two-faced alien was also in the "Nero" comic.

By the way, I noticed the "Nero" trade collection on a shelf recently. The font on the spine made it look like the mini-series was called "NERD".

 

[Christopher]

I know the writers intent Christopher but unless it's on the screen it doesn't count.

But their intent means that, as long as they're making the movies, we can be certain that they're not going to "erase" the original timeline. Not that it's ever going to come up one way or the other anyway. And it's a cinch that nobody who follows them in producing new ST is going to want to bring down the wrath of the fanbase by "erasing" the original timeline. And of course the stories set in the original timeline are always going to exist for people to watch as videos or read as books, no matter what happens in future productions; they're certainly not going to be erased in real life. So why even worry about it as a possibility?

As time travel remains totally within the realm of hypothetical you can go either way. Until Einstein came up with General Relativity nobody had any reason to believe that we couldn't travel faster than light. What was so special about light anyway? Same with time. Until we actually manage to send something, anything into the past we don't know what is or isn't possible or plausable.

Ohh, I wish more people understood how science worked so they wouldn't spout nonsense like that. It is a complete myth that we can't know anything without direct experience. The whole point of scientific theory is to let us extrapolate beyond direct experience and make predictions about what would happen. That's its power and its value. General Relativity and quantum physics, two of the most solidly verified theories in all of science, allow us to predict a great deal about time travel and parallel histories. We can assess the probabilities with a considerable degree of confidence. Every testable prediction that General Relativity makes about space and time has been proven correct so far, and its predictions about time travel derive from exactly the same equations, simply applied under different conditions. No, we don't have absolute certainty, but we can say what the most probable outcome would be under current understanding. It's more than just guesswork.

 

[MattWallace]

It's extrapolation followed formation of a theory followed by experimentation.

See how your results compare to your theory, change your theory so it's supported by evidence and repeat.

How many experiments have we completed into time travel? How many have been successful? It doesn't matter what the theories say, if you can't test and verify your theory it's meaningless.

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#cite_note-16 -Albert Einstein

We have nothing that can establish the existence of paralell universes, alternate timelines, other dimentions. We can think about these all we like but to say that they MUST exist and exist in such and such a form is meaningless. Is your theory testable? If not, then it's just conjecture.

 

[MattWallace]

Ellison's intent was to have a bunch of huge statues be the Guardians of Forever. Does that mean that the glowy doughnut isn't correct?

Onscreen canonical information always overrules conflicts caused by scripted information.

I know the writers intent Christopher but unless it's on the screen it doesn't count.

But authors' intent is generally accepted until it is overwritten by onscreen, canonical evidence. The writers have told us to "think 'Parallels'", the TNG episode.

The comic also had Nero using V'Ger as a giant calculator to figure out when Spock would arrive, although why a miner would have the knowledge to figure that out I'm not sure.

And the bonus features had footage suggesting that Nero exploited other prisoners' talents to create his maps and timings, IIRC. That two-faced alien was also in the "Nero" comic.

By the way, I noticed the "Nero" trade collection on a shelf recently. The font on the spine made it look like the mini-series was called "NERD".

There was an interview with one or the other (or both) writers on trekmovie.com where they said that Delta Vega was the same planet as in WNMHGB. That's just silly unless the TOS crew was too stupid to notice that they were in the Vulcan system. Do you accept their intent that it's the same planet? Or does it make sense that there's more than one Delta Vega? Maybe they're owned by the same mining comany that owned the lithium cracking factory in WNMHGB although that doesn't explain why there was a little Starfleet base with a grand total of two people stationed to it.

Writer's intent and an empty sack is worth the sack. - Paraphrasing Rule of Acquisition #109

 

[F. King Daniel]

Dude, if you really want to think that, fine. I'll just enjoy my copy of "The Needs of the Many", set 25 years after the supernova in the prime universe...

 

[MattWallace]

We're discussing canon so when a book is set has no bearing on it. There's no mention in the movie of a timeline splitting or of Spock & Nero hopping dimentions or of the prime universe being overwritten. Uhura calls it al "alternate reality". If I take my pants to the tailor to have them altered, I don't get two pais back, the original and one that's was altered to what I wanted, I get one pair that has changed to something it wasn't previously. Hence altered.

 

[Therin of Andor]

There was an interview with one or the other (or both) writers on trekmovie.com where they said that Delta Vega was the same planet as in WNMHGB.

The interview I read said that they name dropped Delta Vega simply to give TOS fans a buzz. If they once also said it was the exact same planet, then that author intent doesn't hold up to the canon of "Where No Man...", where the planet is too far away from Vulcan. Or, perhaps Nero's destruction of the USS Kelvin caused a different planetoid to be selected as the dilithium cracking station.

Christopher's idea, which would have appeared in his movie tie-in novel, suggests that there are several Delta Vega planetoids, each one hosting mining facilities. IIRC.

Do you accept their intent that it's the same planet?

I don't care either way, so long as the stories are fun while I'm in the cinema.

Writer's intent and an empty sack is worth the sack.

Sure, but in the absence of definitive onscreen canonical evidence it's useful to look to the creators' notes and intent. Such as giving us names for many alien species in TMP, planet Neural in TOS, and even Shran's name in "The Andorian Incident" (Shran was only named in the ENT script's character list and stage directions; until "Shadows of P'Jem", Shran had no canonical name, but Keval and Tholos did.)

I don't get two pais back, the original and one that's was altered to what I wanted, I get one pair that has changed to something it wasn't previously.

Then you should have taken the detour through the black hole.

 

[F. King Daniel]

We're discussing canon so when a book is set has no bearing on it. There's no mention in the movie of a timeline splitting or of Spock & Nero hopping dimentions or of the prime universe being overwritten. Uhura calls it al "alternate reality". If I take my pants to the tailor to have them altered, I don't get two pais back, the original and one that's was altered to what I wanted, I get one pair that has changed to something it wasn't previously. Hence altered.

But according to the TNG episode "Parallels", "anything that can happen, does happen, in alternate quantum realities". Therefore, in timeline A, a black hole spits out Nero in 2233 and Spock in 2258. In timeline B, the timeline Nero and Spock came from, that doesn't happen. Hence, concurrent realities.

By that definition, every other alternate history seen in Trek continues also, and Picard and Admiral Janeway were simply wrong in "Yesterday's Enterprise" and "Endgame" when they thought they were altering a single history.