Alternate reality vs. altered timeline

[Shazam!]

The only argument against my interpretation presented here has been "The screen writers said it is TOS Spock so it is."

And yours is "because something happened once that was a bit different".

If you can refute my argument using actual evidence from the movies or episodes I welcome it.

Not accepting what the WRITERS/MAKERS/CAST/PRODUCERS OF THE MOVIE ITSELF tell you, there's literally no chance of you accepting anything we say.

 

[Shazam!]

Exactly. You understand as I understand that conclusions should be based on what occurs within the episodes and movies themselves and not what writers say in interviews about the episodes and movies.

Star Trek isn't real. It's the creation of countless actors, writers, producers, directors etc. Every so often they contradict each other and as Trek fans, we find ourselves constructing elaborate in-universe explanations for things such as the transporter messing up which meant that Scotty (Relics) had 'forgotten' that Kirk 'died' (Generations).

We don't just say that Generations happens in a different universe : /

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

[If you can refute my argument using actual evidence from the movies or episodes I welcome it.

Logic proceeds from premises.

Your major premise - that the events of "City On The Edge Of Forever" are relevant to and trump any and all other instances of time travel in Trek history - is arrant nonsense.

Since your entire argument is badly premised there's nothing in it worth refuting.

You're welcome.

 

[lorrak7]

The only argument against my interpretation presented here has been "The screen writers said it is TOS Spock so it is."

And yours is "because something happened once that was a bit different".

If you can refute my argument using actual evidence from the movies or episodes I welcome it.

Not accepting what the WRITERS/MAKERS/CAST/PRODUCERS OF THE MOVIE ITSELF tell you, there's literally no chance of you accepting anything we say.

I would easily accept what the makers of the movie tell me if they explained what they are asserting in a way that makes sense. The only assertion the writers have made is that Spock Prime is TOS Spock. They have not explained in anyway why in Trek 2009 why time travel does not function is the same way as in every other incarnation of Star Trek. Nor have they explained how this can be the TOS Spock given that he is functioning under a totally different set of time travel rules from those that existed for TOS Spock. Furthermore just saying that there is no chance of my accepting anything you say is meaningless when you haven't even tried to to explain using evidence from the episodes and or movies to defend your assertion that Spock Prime is TOS Spock. Give me a solid argument for your assertion. Not the writers said so.

 

[lorrak7]

[If you can refute my argument using actual evidence from the movies or episodes I welcome it.

Logic proceeds from premises.

Your major premise - that the events of "City On The Edge Of Forever" are relevant to and trump any and all other instances of time travel in Trek history - is arrant nonsense.

Since your entire argument is badly premised there's nothing in it worth refuting.

You're welcome.

Perhaps you should review Jarrod Russel's summation of how every other incarnation of Trek has adhered to the principles of time travel exhibited In City of the Edge of Forever except for Trek 2009. If this the same universe how can this be so?. Explain it.

 

[lorrak7]

Exactly. You understand as I understand that conclusions should be based on what occurs within the episodes and movies themselves and not what writers say in interviews about the episodes and movies.

Star Trek isn't real. It's the creation of countless actors, writers, producers, directors etc. Every so often they contradict each other and as Trek fans, we find ourselves constructing elaborate in-universe explanations for things such as the transporter messing up which meant that Scotty (Relics) had 'forgotten' that Kirk 'died' (Generations).

We don't just say that Generations happens in a different universe : /

Okay. So construct an in-universe explanation that makes sense for how and why the rules of time travel function totally differently in Trek 2009 than they do in every other incarnation of Trek.

 

[Shazam!]

I would easily accept what the makers of the movie tell me if they explained what they are asserting in a way that makes sense. The only assertion the writers have made is that Spock Prime is TOS Spock. They have not explained in anyway why in Trek 2009 why time travel does not function is the same way as in every other incarnation of Star Trek. Nor have they explained how this can be the TOS Spock given that he is functioning under a totally different set of time travel rules from those that existed for TOS Spock.

Yes they have:

Anthony: Star Trek has not always been consistent in this regard. For example both "Yesterday’s Enterprise" and "City on the Edge of Forever" seem to follow the Back to the Future rules of time travel, where new timelines overwrite previous timelines.
Bob: We have to deal with it, with the fact that Star Trek episodes that don’t conform to our theory of it, also do not conform to the latest greatest, most highly tested scientific theory in human history. So I would default that it is the science that counts.

But no doubt you'll find someway to disregard that as well.

 

[Shazam!]

Perhaps you should review Jarrod Russel's summation of how every other incarnation of Trek has adhered to the principles of time travel exhibited In City of the Edge of Forever except for Trek 2009. If this the same universe how can this be so?. Explain it.

During Insurrection Troi claimed that she'd never kissed Riker with a beard yet in the series she had done just that on many an occassion. HOW CAN THIS BE THE SAME UNIVERSE?!

 

[lorrak7]

I would easily accept what the makers of the movie tell me if they explained what they are asserting in a way that makes sense. The only assertion the writers have made is that Spock Prime is TOS Spock. They have not explained in anyway why in Trek 2009 why time travel does not function is the same way as in every other incarnation of Star Trek. Nor have they explained how this can be the TOS Spock given that he is functioning under a totally different set of time travel rules from those that existed for TOS Spock.

Yes they have:

Anthony: Star Trek has not always been consistent in this regard. For example both "Yesterday’s Enterprise" and "City on the Edge of Forever" seem to follow the Back to the Future rules of time travel, where new timelines overwrite previous timelines.
Bob: We have to deal with it, with the fact that Star Trek episodes that don’t conform to our theory of it, also do not conform to the latest greatest, most highly tested scientific theory in human history. So I would default that it is the science that counts.

But no doubt you'll find someway to disregard that as well.

The rules of time travel where new timelines overwrite and replace previous timelines is how time travel functions in all previous incarnations of Trek except Trek 2009. Your quote from the writers does not in anyway explain why within the fictional universe of Star Trek this would suddenly change to adhere to their theory of it. Within this context my assertion stands that this is another universe where time travel functions differently than in TOS Trek.

 

[Shazam!]

But no doubt you'll find someway to disregard that as well.

He shoots...

The rules of time travel where new timelines overwrite and replace previous timelines is how time travel functions in all previous incarnations of Trek except Trek 2009. Your quote from the writers does not in anyway explain why within the fictional universe of Star Trek this would suddenly change to adhere to their theory of it. Within this context my assertion stands that this is another universe where time travel functions differently than in TOS Trek.

He scores!

Dennis gave up with you a little early I thought, but I can see that he was wise to do so. With all the continuity errors in Star Trek I'm surprised you get any sleep at night.

 

[number6]

The writers clearly decided to stray into the realm of time travel/quantum reality territory. They have said so in many interviews. Spock Prime is TOS Spock as established in the story by the writers. End of story. He is our link to the original show and the original universe. As far as going back and fixing the timeline.. People assume he had all this time.. Well, let's see, He goes through the black hole and immediately gets caputed by Nero, who then strands him on a planet so he can sit helpless and marooned while his home planet is destroyed.

Nero's first appearance at the beginning of the film sets up a new timeline/alternate reality the moment the lightning storm appears in space, and everything changes from there. How is Spock going to go into this new future and prevent Nero from going through the black hole in the first place?? This reality set up an entirely different chain of events that are no longer predictable, much as Spock explains on the bridge. All Spock Prime can really do is try to get Kirk and Spock together to fight Nero and help rebuild the Vulcan race until he can figure out some other way to put things right. This isn't rocket science, people.. It's quantum mechanics.

Kirk and Spock destroy the Narada to prevent that ship from going through another black hole and wreaking havok in another timeline, assuming Nero might survive it in the first place. Now would they take a chance and let him live to do that?? Of course not. It's not complicated to understand the story of Star Trek '09. Either you get it, or don't or refuse to play because this team had the nerve to make a new Trek film without your permission and decide unilaterally that everything is wrong. Apparently most of the people arguing the loudest and the most obstinately fall into the latter category. Stop hyperventilating, wipe the froth from your mouth and go have a nice lie down. We get it. There's no need to beat everyone over the head with it. You're entitled to your opinion, and the rest of us are entitlted to ours. OK?? Good.

Have a nice day.

Eat SnackySmores™

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The only argument against my interpretation presented here has been "The screen writers said it is TOS Spock so it is."

You can pretend that, even though it isn't so - but it makes discussion with you a waste of effort.

All that you got right there was the phrase "my interpretation" - and that's what your claim is, and all that it is: one interpretation of what's been presented in Star Trek, and one arrived at by discarding anything inconvenient. That is not a process of reasoning that's worthy of respect.

Dennis gave up with you a little early I thought, but I can see that he was wise to do so.

I have a tree stump in my back yard that I can argue with, any time I want to.

 

[number6]

Dennis gave up with you a little early I thought, but I can see that he was wise to do so.

I have a tree stump in my back yard that I can argue with, any time I want to.

You could argue with your dining room table.

 

[lorrak7]

The only argument against my interpretation presented here has been "The screen writers said it is TOS Spock so it is."

You can pretend that, even though it isn't so - but it makes discussion with you a waste of effort.

All that you got right there was the phrase "my interpretation" - and that's what your claim is, and all that it is: one interpretation of what's been presented in Star Trek, and one arrived at by discarding anything inconvenient. That is not a process of reasoning that's worthy of respect.

Dennis gave up with you a little early I thought, but I can see that he was wise to do so.

I have a tree stump in my back yard that I can argue with, any time I want to.

You discarded the method of time travel and how it functions that runs through all previous episodes Of Trek as well as the movies because it was inconvenient to your premise. I haven't discarded anything.
I merely refuted what the writers have said in interviews because it is not supported by the evidence.

 

[lorrak7]

The writers clearly decided to stray into the realm of time travel/quantum reality territory. They have said so in many interviews. Spock Prime is TOS Spock as established in the story by the writers. End of story. He is our link to the original show and the original universe. As far as going back and fixing the timeline.. People assume he had all this time.. Well, let's see, He goes through the black hole and immediately gets caputed by Nero, who then strands him on a planet so he can sit helpless and marooned while his home planet is destroyed.

Nero's first appearance at the beginning of the film sets up a new timeline/alternate reality the moment the lightning storm appears in space, and everything changes from there. How is Spock going to go into this new future and prevent Nero from going through the black hole in the first place?? This reality set up an entirely different chain of events that are no longer predictable, much as Spock explains on the bridge. All Spock Prime can really do is try to get Kirk and Spock together to fight Nero and help rebuild the Vulcan race until he can figure out some other way to put things right. This isn't rocket science, people.. It's quantum mechanics.

Kirk and Spock destroy the Narada to prevent that ship from going through another black hole and wreaking havok in another timeline, assuming Nero might survive it in the first place. Now would they take a chance and let him live to do that?? Of course not. It's not complicated to understand the story of Star Trek '09. Either you get it, or don't or refuse to play because this team had the nerve to make a new Trek film without your permission and decide unilaterally that everything is wrong. Apparently most of the people arguing the loudest and the most obstinately fall into the latter category. Stop hyperventilating, wipe the froth from your mouth and go have a nice lie down. We get it. There's no need to beat everyone over the head with it. You're entitled to your opinion, and the rest of us are entitlted to ours. OK?? Good.

Have a nice day.

Eat SnackySmores™

First of all thats the problem. Its not established in the story that Spock Prime is TOS Spock. Thats something that the writers state later in interviews and they don't support this assertion at all. And actually once this Spock has access to a starship he shows absolutely no signs of having any intention of using any of the methods TOS Spock has available to him to attempt to restore the timeline to its previous form. If he were TOS Spock he wouldn't need to figure out how to put things right.
He would already know. TOS Spock has been through things like this before. He would either utilize the slingshot effect or head to the Guardian planet to utilize the guardian of forever.He doen't do any of these things because he is from a reality where if you change the past you create an alternate timeline and do not affect your own timeline in any way. This is not TOS Spock. Furthermore your assertion and inference that I am somehow angry about the way in which Trek 2009 was made is erroneous. I started this thread as an evaluation of what occurred in Trek 2009 and how it relates to previous Trek. I enjoyed the movie. I merely believe based on the evidence presented that the original TOS universe is never depicted in Trek 2009. Finally your right in that everyone is entitled to their opinion. What I have been doing here from the beginning is submitting mine and then defending my position. Which is what is everyone should do in any good debate.

 

[M'Sharak]

I would easily accept what the makers of the movie tell me if they explained what they are asserting in a way that makes sense. The only assertion the writers have made is that Spock Prime is TOS Spock. They have not explained in anyway why in Trek 2009 why time travel does not function is the same way as in every other incarnation of Star Trek.

Is it really necessary to have an in-movie explanation for the fact that the real-world scientific model which was current at the time the TV series time-travel episodes were written is not the same as the real-world scientific model current at the time this movie was being written? Is such an explanation desirable? Should a model 40 years out of date be slavishly adhered to because "that's the way it always worked in the Original Series", even though time-travel was never so consistently-depicted as that? If so, why?

Nor have they explained how this can be the TOS Spock given that he is functioning under a totally different set of time travel rules from those that existed for TOS Spock.

Again, is such an explanation really essential to the story? If so, why?

Rather than simply put your interpretation out there and challenge others in somewhat pugnacious fashion to refute it within very narrow parameters, why not explain why you feel that there's any call whatsoever from a storytelling standpoint for the explanations you seem to be demanding? For the sake of adherence to hidebound tradition (whether real or imagined)? Most of the audience pursued for this film didn't know the chapter and verse to begin with and probably wouldn't have appreciated being force-fed a convoluted explanation which did nothing to advance the story. Heck, I've been watching since the Original Series was on the air every week and I wouldn't have wanted to sit through anything like that.

First of all thats the problem. Its not established in the story that Spock Prime is TOS Spock.

Absent any clear indication to the contrary, what reason could there possibly be for assuming that he's anyone but the Spock from TOS?

****
Off-topic for a moment: please try to avoid posting three times in a row in any given thread. (See FAQ) Use instead the 'Edit' button to amend the first post, or use the 'Multi-Quote' button to respond to several posts at once.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I'm curious, how exactly can Spock-Prime establish himself as "TOS Spock" within the context of the movie? Drop in some continuityporn dialog?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Is it really necessary to have an in-movie explanation for the fact that the real-world scientific model which was current at the time the TV series time-travel episodes were written is not the same as the real-world scientific model current at the time this movie was being written?

Actually, it's not as if "City" was based on or referenced any scientific model of time travel or cosmology at all. The whole notion of "time travel" was considered pretty much fantasy in those days; it's only some pretty exotic theories now that lend the idea any credence at all and then mainly as a hypothetical.

At least these guys have "quantum theory" as a fig leaf.

 

[M'Sharak]

Is it really necessary to have an in-movie explanation for the fact that the real-world scientific model which was current at the time the TV series time-travel episodes were written is not the same as the real-world scientific model current at the time this movie was being written?

Actually, it's not as if "City" was based on or referenced any scientific model of time travel or cosmology at all.

Not time-travel, no, but the notion of time being exclusively linear.

The whole notion of "time travel" was considered pretty much fantasy in those days; it's only some pretty exotic theories now that lend the idea any credence at all and then mainly as a hypothetical.

At least these guys have "quantum theory" as a fig leaf.

True about time-travel then and it might as well be now -- it's primarily a storytelling premise and I'm happy to let it be just that. The many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is what's gained a fair bit of ground since the time TOS first went on the air, but I don't believe that an in-story explanation of that is either a particularly desirable or a particularly necessary thing to the story being told.

 

[number6]

The writers clearly decided to stray into the realm of time travel/quantum reality territory. They have said so in many interviews. Spock Prime is TOS Spock as established in the story by the writers. End of story. He is our link to the original show and the original universe. As far as going back and fixing the timeline.. People assume he had all this time.. Well, let's see, He goes through the black hole and immediately gets caputed by Nero, who then strands him on a planet so he can sit helpless and marooned while his home planet is destroyed.

How is Spock going to go into this new future and prevent Nero from going through the black hole in the first place?? This reality set up an entirely different chain of events that are no longer predictable, much as Spock explains on the bridge. All Spock Prime can really do is try to get Kirk and Spock together to fight Nero and help rebuild the Vulcan race until he can figure out some other way to put things right. This isn't rocket science, people.. It's quantum mechanics.

First of all thats the problem. Its not established in the story that Spock Prime is TOS Spock. Thats something that the writers state later in interviews and they don't support this assertion at all. And actually once this Spock has access to a starship he shows absolutely no signs of having any intention of using any of the methods TOS Spock has available to him to attempt to restore the timeline to its previous form. If he were TOS Spock he wouldn't need to figure out how to put things right.
He would already know. TOS Spock has been through things like this before. He would either utilize the slingshot effect or head to the Guardian planet to utilize the guardian of forever.He doen't do any of these things because he is from a reality where if you change the past you create an alternate timeline and do not affect your own timeline in any way. This is not TOS Spock. Furthermore your assertion and inference that I am somehow angry about the way in which Trek 2009 was made is erroneous. I started this thread as an evaluation of what occurred in Trek 2009 and how it relates to previous Trek. I enjoyed the movie. I merely believe based on the evidence presented that the original TOS universe is never depicted in Trek 2009. Finally your right in that everyone is entitled to their opinion. What I have been doing here from the beginning is submitting mine and then defending my position. Which is what is everyone should do in any good debate.

TOS Spock's presence simply doesn't need to be established. It is obvious that this is TOS Spock. Plainly obvious.
The writers weren't about to explain everything until after the film came out, also for fairly obvious reasons.


While I agree that Star Trek has a "standard" way of going into the past and fixing something to protect the future, no one has figured a way to go into the future to protect the past. It's never been done in Star Trek. Ever.

It was never established in COTEOF that the Guardian could do anything about the future that I can recall, and the aspects of temporal mechanics and quantum physics were never really explored until the later series, so your very vocal argument that TOS somehow "knows" how this is supposed to be done holds no water. You can't prove your argument at all no matter how many times or how emphatically your chose to repeat yourself.

For all the whining about time travel and reset buttons I have heard on this BBS over the years, I find the fact that this didn't all get "fixed" in the end to be a bold move for this film. The consequences of the actions in this movie will hopefully continue into other films from here.. Who knows? Stephen Hawking will write some kind of thesis on how to fix the future and Trek will take that cue and run with it, much like TNG did with quantum theory.