Why would the 'old Kim' timeline be erased in 'Timeless'

[You_Will_Fail]

"Parallels" simply introduced us to the idea that there are other worlds/universes out extremely similar to ours but where things have turned out slightly differently.

Yep, Each one perhaps created by someone's time traveling "sliding door" moment. Such as Nero destroying the Kelvin.

"Parallels" never suggests that and the multiverse theory at its most basic revolves around the postulation that because the universe is infinite then there must be other versions of our universe which are similar but things have turned out differently in them.

Are you seeing the difference yet? Or are you going to stubbornly stick to the idea that Trek '09 was using the exact same concept of Trek '09 just so you can enjoy the movie better? When it comes down to it, Uhura's throwaway line about "parallel universes" was just a convenience so as to not annoy fans, but it really doesn't relate to how the situation was handled before in Trek.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Or are you going to stubbornly stick to the idea that Trek '09 was using the exact same concept of Trek '09 just so you can enjoy the movie better? When it comes down to it, Uhura's throwaway line about "parallel universes" was just a convenience so as to not annoy fans, but it really doesn't relate to how the situation was handled before in Trek.

I enjoyed the movie just fine, thank you, and I enjoy it even more knowing that the writers of the movie say the old timeline is still there. It's a work of fiction and I'm happy to take the explanation offered by the writers of the movie, and don't have a problem that other time travel methods may not apply due to this new knowledge.

Call that stubborn, but to do it your way, the old timeline is gone forever - and I'm continuing to read and enjoy the Pocket novels and IDW comics.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Meh, personally I don't care one way or the other if the timeline is erased I mean it's not like all the Primeverse trek will burst into flames just on the say so of a few Trekkies.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Meh, personally I don't care one way or the other if the timeline is erased I mean it's not like all the Primeverse trek will burst into flames just on the say so of a few Trekkies.

Sounds like a few want it to, so they can be angry at JJ even more.

 

[Guy Gardener]

This is how branch theory works for a traveller.

You go back in time to before a specific branching like what Nero did, and it's fine, but when you try to return to the future when you hit the Branch, you'll split and head up both timelines arriving in both the Abrams and TOS Universes.

Just because one version of "you" the time traveller arrives back in the present where s/he is supposed to be, that still doesn't relegate that infinity minus one versions of you arrived in an infinite number of other timelines splintered infinitely from an infinite number of branches, including an infinite number of universes where the universe just up and died.

 

[Killandra]

Meh, personally I don't care one way or the other if the timeline is erased I mean it's not like all the Primeverse trek will burst into flames just on the say so of a few Trekkies.

Sounds like a few want it to, so they can be angry at JJ even more.

Lol! It was an enjoyable movie and I'm not too mad about it because it's AU, it doesn't affect Prime Trek, just like the novels and comics technically don't affect Prime Trek either. Essentially, I see them basically as licensed fan fiction.

I agree back at the issue at hand that at the time, the over all view of Trek was there was a single time line, no branches, etc.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Because it's gold?

What an unusual thing to say.

The movie is the same canon as the TV show and the other movies.

It just is.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Star Trek '09 told us that changing history *creates* new universes.

In that situation, yes. There's no indication that the 'erasing' theory could not also work. Indeed, we know it DOES work - we've seen it close-up in several eps, such as "Yesterday's Enterprise". Whatever happens as a result of timetravel just depends on how the travelling was done.

In short: Time travel works however the writers want it to. Pure and simple.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Star Trek '09 told us that changing history *creates* new universes.
"Parallels" simply introduced us to the idea that there are other worlds/universes out extremely similar to ours but where things have turned out slightly differently.

There's a huge difference and Orci and Kurtzman trying to link Star Trek '09 with "Parallels" simply because they used the same phrase is kind of desperate.

In "Parallels", Data says that "For any event, there are an infinite number of possible outcomes" and "Anything that can happen, does happen, in alternate quantum realities" - then we see a diagram of timelines branching into infinity.

Nero and Spock go back from timeline A, and the changes they make result in timeline B. Seen from another perspective in time, in timeline B, Nero appears in 2233 (and Spock in 2258) wheras in timeline A (which begat them), they didn't, and the USS Kelvin got back to Earth without incident.

From the second perspective, it's a simple "does Nero appear?" YES/NO branch point in history - no different from the "Do the Enterprise-D crew get Picard back from the Borg" and "Do the Borg win?" branches seen in "Parallels"

 

[You_Will_Fail]

I just realized I couldn't care less about Trek '09 anyway. It was a nice diversion for those 2 hours in the theater but it means little to me.
But the fact remains that in TV trek, time travel normally just works on one linear timeline and not in the way we saw in the movie, and that's the way I prefer it and the way that makes for better stories.

 

[AFEK ESLCAFE W]

How do you compare this to let's say the alternate-1985 created in Back to the Future, Part II?

Did that timeline exist in a parallel universe, or did it replace the existing one?

 

[Destructor]

How do you compare this to let's say the alternate-1985 created in Back to the Future, Part II?

Did that timeline exist in a parallel universe, or did it replace the existing one?

Well, the time travel mechanics in BttF were kind of hinky anyway. In that interpretation, Marty saw himself being erased from the timeline as the probability of his parents getting together decreased. But what that erasure actually meant for the people around him is unclear. Would he just 'disappear', or would his actions in the 1950s be erased also. How 'long' (a meaningless word in this context) it takes changes in the timeline to implement themselves was not made specific, but it was clear that in BttF there was only a single timeline that was affected, but BttF shouldn't really be used as a model above quantum physics, which can use the multiple-universe theory to explain non-deterministic events, so it has at least *some* grounding in science (where BttF has none).

Most Star Trek stories can be told using the multiple-universe theory, but as was pointed out above, this takes the urgency out of stories like 'Timeless', since if the original timeline is preserved, the inhabitants of that timeline shouldn't be bothered by people trying to change it.

Once thing physics doesn't explain is where does the energy come from to create this entire new universe each time there is a quantum split, and even more damning- where does all that energy go when a timeline is 'shut down' as Kim supposedly does to the alternate timeline in 'Timeless'?

 

[F. King Daniel]

I don't think the multiverse takes the urgency out of time travel stories at all. It's so infinitely big as to be utterly meaningless.

"Why bother fixing things here when everything's fine in universe #42836?" is cold hearted nonsense.

 

[You_Will_Fail]

I don't think the multiverse takes the urgency out of time travel stories at all. It's so infinitely big as to be utterly meaningless.

"Why bother fixing things here when everything's fine in universe #42836?" is cold hearted nonsense.

I really don't agree.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I don't think the multiverse takes the urgency out of time travel stories at all. It's so infinitely big as to be utterly meaningless.

"Why bother fixing things here when everything's fine in universe #42836?" is cold hearted nonsense.

I really don't agree.

According to "Parallels", there's a reality for every possible outcome of every event. If you see an old lady who's fallen in the street, and broken her leg, do you call an ambulence? Or leave her because she never fell in timeline A and you called an ambulence for her in timeline B? She's still hurt and suffering right in front of you. Same principle applies to Trek time travel.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I really don't agree.

Of course there's urgency. Spock Prime doesn't worry about returning because his job is done in the Prime Universe, but for any other time traveler, there is still the urgency and doubt that all is not right, and they have to set about trying to get home, even if they don't make an effort to change things.

 

[Destructor]

Wel, this is sort of to the point. When Kirk and Spock and jumped over to an alternate timeline in TCotEoF, they go to great lengths to return to their original timeline. When Spock Prime crosses over to the alternate timeline in the last Star Trek film, he just doesn't really worry about it- normally he'd be like: "I have to fix the timeline, not just hang out in this one!"

 

[Guy Gardener]

It's Tuvix.

Everyone Spock has met since arriving "Please don't kill me. Please."

Although.

His Mummy got done killed.

 

[You_Will_Fail]

I really don't agree.

Of course there's urgency. Spock Prime doesn't worry about returning because his job is done in the Prime Universe, but for any other time traveler, there is still the urgency and doubt that all is not right, and they have to set about trying to get home, even if they don't make an effort to change things.

Well I have two different reactions to the two different approaches

1st approach: The more classic approach that there is simply infinite parallel universes out there due to the infinite nature of the universe. Characters in trek time travel stories stay in their own universe simply traveling back and forth. Any changes they make in the past in this universe changes the universe completely in the future. I prefer this linear approach to time travel.

2nd approach: The somewhat BS Trek '09 approach that a new universe is created whenever someone goes in the past and changes events...this holds less interest and urgency for me here because new universes are being created willy nilly all over the place. Kinda lame.

 

[Therin of Andor]

2nd approach: The somewhat BS Trek '09 approach that a new universe is created whenever someone goes in the past and changes events...this holds less interest and urgency for me here because new universes are being created willy nilly all over the place. Kinda lame.

Call it "lame" and "somewhat BS" if you must, but scientists tell us that, according to current theories, if time travel is ever possible, it'll more likely be akin to the 2nd approach over the 1st approach.