Alternate Timeline! (a.k.a. Everyone can chill out now!)

[Lyon_Wonder]

Well, there's gotta some constants in this Nero-altered timeline.

Khan's still in the Botany Bay

The Doomsday Machine, V'ger, whale probe and giant space amebba are still out there.

Thinking longer term, the Borg and Dominion are still in the Delta and Gamma Quadrants.

The changes from First Contact are still valid and the Borg will still show up sometime in the 24th century.

 

[Ensign_Redshirt]

Sounds to me like the alternative timeline is meant to become the main timeline for Star Trek. So "our" timeline won't be the primary one anymore.

You know, there were groups of fans (see "The Best of Trek" books) who've been claiming ever since ST:TMP that the movies were in a parallel universe, 'cos "our Spock" would never try to purge his human half, "our Kirk" would never take a promotion to admiral and leave his lady (the Enterprise), and Klingons' spinal cords shouldn't ever touch their noses!

Star Trek fans complaining about the "Canon-violating" ridgehead Klingons of TMP maked absolutely sense back then, I guess.

I mean, until 1978 everybody was convinced that Klingons were supposed to look like this. Period.

Just imagine the OUTRAGE if J.J. Abrams had decided to change the shape of the Vulcan ears for some reason!!!

 

[TrekGuide.com]

I agree 100% TrekGuide.com and thank you for carrying your post over from the other forum.

But, for the sake of closing a sticking point which some people are [gleefully] using as the latest flogging stick, can a logical, in theory explanation be put forth for why Spock would even care since Nero has removed himself to an alternate time line?

As I pointed out in my earlier post, every instance of time travel in Star Trek has different causes and different effects.

Some time travel events merely create a causality loop (i.e., events cause themselves, and nothing changes; e.g., Voyager's "Parallax" and "Time and Again"), while others create a whole new timeline (TNG's "Yesterday's Enterprise," Voyager's "Timeless" and "Endgame"), while still other time travel events create a "fixable" alternate timeline, where the past is changed, but then it can be changed again so that the final result is "close enough" to the original that nobody really cares ("Star Trek: First Contact," "City on the Edge of Forever," every "Enterprise" episode concerning the Temporal Cold War).

So, given that there is no way of knowing how travel to the past will affect the current or alternate timelines (which are all linked, as seen in TNG's "Parallels"), I think Spock would want to stop Nero from changing the past, for the same reason that Picard went back to stop the Borg in "First Contact" -- perhaps the method of time travel allowed Spock to see the changes caused by Nero's time travel, just as Picard saw the Borg's assimilated Earth before going back, and Kirk saw the timeline where the Enterprise did not exist before going through the Guardian of Forever to find McCoy.

If that is the case, then the act of Nero creating (or "entering," if you want to leave "creation" to a higher power) a new timeline may have also pulled Spock into that alternate future as well, so he would have a very personal interest in "undoing" that timeline, or at least making further changes to that timeline so that everything turns out "almost" like it did in the original timeline.

Of course, I have not seen the movie, and have no idea what it is about, so I am just speculating that the mechanics and Spock's motivations are the same as Picard's in "Star Trek: First Contact" -- to alter an already-altered timeline in order to make it resemble his original timeline, to which he is unable to return.

(I am reminded of the "Stargate: SG-1" two-part episode where the team went to the past, screwed up history, and another SG-1 team from the new timeline had to go back and un-screw up history, creating a third timeline where everything was identical to the original timeline, except there were now fish in O'Neill's pond, while there never were any before. That's one of those "close enough" resolution to alternate timelines that "Star Trek" is fond of.)

I also have another Web site -- http://Chronos.WS -- which has nothing to do with "Star Trek," but it discusses parallel timelines, causality, and paradoxes, in an internally consistent manner.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Well, personally, I am disappointed that they decided to abandon what Star Trek has been for over 40 years...

You know what happens when you cling too hard to what Star Trek has been for over 40 years?

Rehash.

I mean, yeah, towards the end it had its problems, but surely with creativity and a good story they should have been able to restore it to grace.

I know what you mean... OTOH, I've never been totally sold on the idea that the Trekiverse should have some kind of totally consistent "future history" timeline that has to be followed. Believe it or not, for the majority of my life I just assumed the TMP Enterprise was the same as the TOS Enterprise; just use your imagination, they're the same ship. It wasn't until I started visiting places like... well, here that I ever thought any different. Of course, since neither of my parents, my sister in law, my brother, my wife or my grandparents have ever been the type to visit message boards, none of them really know or care one way or the other, just vaguely understand that "the ship looks different in the movies than it does in the show."

In the end, it'll work the same way in ST-XI. It'll be familiar, but it'll be new. Hell, even TMP wasn't "the Star Trek we were familiar with" if you hear it from the Old Timers.

 

[steveman]

The interesting thing to discuss here is why "our" Spock feels the need to go back in time and stop Nero. After all, if it's an alternate timeline that Nero is mucking up, then Spock has nothing to worry about, for his timeline will remain perserved.

The answers I've come to on this issue are 1) Spock isn't privy to the fact that, in destroying the Kelvin, Nero creates an alternate timeline, so there's no need to worry about his own timeline becoming corrupted.

And 2) Spock knows that Nero's actions have, indeed, created an alternate timeline... but still feels the need to go back and stop him because the fact that an "element" from his universe is screwing up another just doesn't sit well with him. In other words, he feels that stopping Nero is his responsibility.

I'm leaning toward explanation 2.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

So basically it's a contrived way of saying: "It's a reboot but you guys who don't like it still have your DVD's to enjoy.". It just makes it more explicit for the people who need to believe both exist in the "canon" to feel secure at night. Probably not a bad idea though, they could label the original timeline "Star Trek Prime" or some bullshit and then you have "Star Trek Figures" and "A Star Trek Prime Novel" or whatever to keep everyone happy.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Works for me. Just as long as they keep making more movies

 

[ClayHefner]

The interesting thing to discuss here is why "our" Spock feels the need to go back in time and stop Nero. After all, if it's an alternate timeline that Nero is mucking up, then Spock has nothing to worry about, for his timeline will remain perserved.

The answers I've come to on this issue are 1) Spock isn't privy to the fact that, in destroying the Kelvin, Nero creates an alternate timeline, so there's no need to worry about his own timeline becoming corrupted.

And 2) Spock knows that Nero's actions have, indeed, created an alternate timeline... but still feels the need to go back and stop him because the fact that an "element" from his universe is screwing up another just doesn't sit well with him. In other words, he feels that stopping Nero is his responsibility.

I'm leaning toward explanation 2.

Or maybe Spock is stranded in the new timeline and knows he won't be able to go back. So he saves his friends/himself/Vulcan/whatever in his new home universe.

 

[T'Bonz]

My point is that each of the last five "Star Trek" movies has taken place in a different timeline from the one before it. It makes no sense to criticize the "Star Trek XI" writers for this, when it has already been going on in the four previous films (whether the writers were aware of it or not).

True. But....each of these went forward into an unknown future. This film leads to the known future. Having a different timeline will mean that the Kirk, Spock et al. and the adventures they had in three years of TOS and then the movie years (not to mention TNG, DS9, VOY) will all be negated in favor of a different timeline.

As someone who has invested almost 40 years in the franchise, I hate to see that happen for the convenience of writing stories unfettered by that history in hopes of attracting new fans that (odds are) will not appear.

I love Star Trek. But - Star Trek is not, and has never been mainstream and in this day and age, it's NOT what the crowd will go after when it comes to a movie. Reboot the franchise all one wants, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck, not an eagle. Even non-fans have heard of Star Trek and their impressions aren't going to be changed by hot new actors/actresses and kewl stories.

I guess that makes me a pessimist. I could be wrong and perhaps the future history will not be changed. But I suspect that this is in the direction the franchise will be taken. Long term fans are not as important as the potential n00bs, in spite of the fact that the franchise has made $$$ off of us for years.

As a fan, I don't want to see my emotional investment wiped out in the interests of supposed "fresh" storytelling. If new stories cannot be written for Star Trek without a wipe of its future history as told in TOS-VOY, then I guess it is time to retire it.

You know, there were groups of fans (see "The Best of Trek" books) who've been claiming ever since ST:TMP that the movies were in a parallel universe, 'cos "our Spock" would never try to purge his human half, "our Kirk" would never take a promotion to admiral and leave his lady (the Enterprise), and Klingons' spinal cords shouldn't ever touch their noses!

Other than the Klingon cosmetic changes, one couldn't really claim that. Even that was something that while jarring at first, wasn't something that ruined the story.

What is being proposed here (so it seems, again, I could be wrong,) is an alternate timeline that would totally wipe everything we've seen for forty years. Some things may be the same, it is claimed, by saying that the universe tends to want to go in the same direction, but that's a bunch of rubbish conjured up to try to make it more palatable.

 

[Sharr Khan]

True. But....each of these went forward into an unknown future. This film leads to the known future.

I wouldn't rest any bets on that - with the acceptation that all the main crew end up in the right place by films end I think everything after is fair game.

That seems to me the point of setting up an alternate universe so that things aren't headed to a 'known future'.

Sharr

 

[The]

Let's assume this movie will be a huge success and there will be many sequels and perhaps even spin-offs... then we'll have an "all Trek" fan community, an "only old Trek" fan community and an "only new Trek" fan community. The latter of these two will probably feuding each other until the end of all eternity. The horror, the horror!!!

You should visit DoctorWho.com sometime, if you want to get an idea as to how that's basically going to go down. Ever since the reboot/continuation in 2005, it's been "Classic Who" and "NuWho".

In one of their very first interviews - a year ago? - the writers told us: 'think "Parallels", the episode of TNG.'

So why is everyone suddenly so surprised?

Really? Whoa, missed that interview. Had no idea until now, really.

Nah. I don't care that much for Shatner and co. Actually I just take offense to one eating a Snickers bar with their hands.
It's a thin line between pessimism and mock pessimism. Dammit.

D'oh!! My bad. I never learned to speak mock pessimism...

 

[TrekGuide.com]

My point is that each of the last five "Star Trek" movies has taken place in a different timeline from the one before it. It makes no sense to criticize the "Star Trek XI" writers for this, when it has already been going on in the four previous films (whether the writers were aware of it or not).

True. But....each of these went forward into an unknown future. This film leads to the known future. Having a different timeline will mean that the Kirk, Spock et al. and the adventures they had in three years of TOS and then the movie years (not to mention TNG, DS9, VOY) will all be negated in favor of a different timeline.

I think you're making assumptions about the plot of this film, and how it will end.

As I understand it, the Spock in this film is the same Spock that you've known for 40 years. All the episodes you've seen are the experiences and memories of the Spock in "Star Trek XI."

And just because the future is unknown at the end of a movie does not mean that it isn't an alternate timeline. At the end of "Star Trek: First Contact" they returned to an "unknown" future after changing the past twice, but we later saw that future in "Star Trek: Enterprise" and "Star Trek: Insurrection."

The future is only "unknown" until the next episode. Then any alternate timeline created in the previous episode continues in the next episode. (e.g., Admiral Janeway altered the past of the "known" future in Voyager's "Endgame," and then the Admiral Janeway of that altered timeline appeared in "Star Trek: Nemesis," which was clearly set in that same alternate timeline.)

So, assuming "Star Trek XI" concludes with a stable alternate timeline, the crew will once again be going into an "unknown" future until the next movie, at which time the future will be known, just like "Star Trek: First Contact" concluded with the Enterprise-E going into an unknown future after changing the past timeline.

Unless you think that during a commercial break in the episode "Metamorphosis" Zefram Cochrane was telling Captain Kirk about the time the Borg attacked him, everything after "Star Trek: First Contact," including "ST: Insurrection," all of "Enterprise" and the last few years of "Voyager," took place in a different timeline than the original series. However, by the end of "Star Trek: First Contact," they had cleaned up the timeline enough so that the future they returned to was almost the same as the one they remembered, except in that future, Cochrane had survived the Borg attack, flew his first warp flight with Riker and LaForge, and knew the name of the starship Enterprise, and Borg wreckage would be found on Earth a century later.

If Spock cleans up the timeline altered by Nero in "Star Trek XI," so that Kirk becomes the captain of the Enterprise, and has the same crew and the same five-year mission, then it will be exactly the same as what Picard did in "First Contact" -- he can pat himself on the back for saving the universe, then go home to a future timeline that is almost the same as the one he left.

Creating new timelines does not "erase" other timelines -- it just introduces new historical facts into the alternate timeline that contradict facts from the other timeline. (In "Yesterday's Enterprise," Yar was alive, and the Federation was at war with the Klingons, but in the alternate timeline created at the end of that episode, Yar was dead, and the Klingons were allies. Both timelines are real; the Enterprise-D crew in the alternate timeline later met the half-Romulan daughter of the Yar from the original timeline.)

As someone who has invested almost 40 years in the franchise, I hate to see that happen for the convenience of writing stories unfettered by that history in hopes of attracting new fans that (odds are) will not appear.

Time travel stories have always been unfettered by history. That's the whole point of time travel. If Spock had gone back in time just to stand around and watch everything work out just the way he remembered it, what would be the point of that?

Time travel in "Star Trek" has always resulted in alternate timelines that are different from what characters remember, from "The City on the Edge of Forever" to TNG's "Yesterday's Enterprise" to DS9's "The Visitor" to "Voyager's" "Timeless" and "Endgame," and a dozen other episodes and movies.

When you saw the sun explode in "Star Trek Generations" and the whole Enterprise-D crew died, were you outraged that Picard and Kirk created an alternate timeline where that didn't happen? After you invested more than 10 minutes in watching the history of that timeline, and they just went and created a whole new timeline? The only difference between "Generations" and "Star Trek XI" is that Picard went back in time 10 minutes to create a new timeline, and Spock is going back 130 years to create a new timeline. Other than the amount of time traveled, the effect is the same.

 

[BillJ]

My point is that each of the last five "Star Trek" movies has taken place in a different timeline from the one before it. It makes no sense to criticize the "Star Trek XI" writers for this, when it has already been going on in the four previous films (whether the writers were aware of it or not).

True. But....each of these went forward into an unknown future. This film leads to the known future. Having a different timeline will mean that the Kirk, Spock et al. and the adventures they had in three years of TOS and then the movie years (not to mention TNG, DS9, VOY) will all be negated in favor of a different timeline.

I think you're making assumptions about the plot of this film, and how it will end.

As I understand it, the Spock in this film is the same Spock that you've known for 40 years. All the episodes you've seen are the experiences and memories of the Spock in "Star Trek XI."

And just because the future is unknown at the end of a movie does not mean that it isn't an alternate timeline. At the end of "Star Trek: First Contact" they returned to an "unknown" future after changing the past twice, but we later saw that future in "Star Trek: Enterprise" and "Star Trek: Insurrection."

The future is only "unknown" until the next episode. Then any alternate timeline created in the previous episode continues in the next episode. (e.g., Admiral Janeway altered the past of the "known" future in Voyager's "Endgame," and then the Admiral Janeway of that altered timeline appeared in "Star Trek: Nemesis," which was clearly set in that same alternate timeline.)

So, assuming "Star Trek XI" concludes with a stable alternate timeline, the crew will once again be going into an "unknown" future until the next movie, at which time the future will be known, just like "Star Trek: First Contact" concluded with the Enterprise-E going into an unknown future after changing the past timeline.

Unless you think that during a commercial break in the episode "Metamorphosis" Zefram Cochrane was telling Captain Kirk about the time the Borg attacked him, everything after "Star Trek: First Contact," including "ST: Insurrection," all of "Enterprise" and the last few years of "Voyager," took place in a different timeline than the original series. However, by the end of "Star Trek: First Contact," they had cleaned up the timeline enough so that the future they returned to was almost the same as the one they remembered, except in that future, Cochrane had survived the Borg attack, flew his first warp flight with Riker and LaForge, and knew the name of the starship Enterprise, and Borg wreckage would be found on Earth a century later.

If Spock cleans up the timeline altered by Nero in "Star Trek XI," so that Kirk becomes the captain of the Enterprise, and has the same crew and the same five-year mission, then it will be exactly the same as what Picard did in "First Contact" -- he can pat himself on the back for saving the universe, then go home to a future timeline that is almost the same as the one he left.

Creating new timelines does not "erase" other timelines -- it just introduces new historical facts into the alternate timeline that contradict facts from the other timeline. (In "Yesterday's Enterprise," Yar was alive, and the Federation was at war with the Klingons, but in the alternate timeline created at the end of that episode, Yar was dead, and the Klingons were allies. Both timelines are real; the Enterprise-D crew in the alternate timeline later met the half-Romulan daughter of the Yar from the original timeline.)

As someone who has invested almost 40 years in the franchise, I hate to see that happen for the convenience of writing stories unfettered by that history in hopes of attracting new fans that (odds are) will not appear.

Time travel stories have always been unfettered by history. That's the whole point of time travel. If Spock had gone back in time just to stand around and watch everything work out just the way he remembered it, what would be the point of that?

Time travel in "Star Trek" has always resulted in alternate timelines that are different from what characters remember, from "The City on the Edge of Forever" to TNG's "Yesterday's Enterprise" to DS9's "The Visitor" to "Voyager's" "Timeless" and "Endgame," and a dozen other episodes and movies.

When you saw the sun explode in "Star Trek Generations" and the whole Enterprise-D crew died, were you outraged that Picard and Kirk created an alternate timeline where that didn't happen? After you invested more than 10 minutes in watching the history of that timeline, and they just went and created a whole new timeline? The only difference between "Generations" and "Star Trek XI" is that Picard went back in time 10 minutes to create a new timeline, and Spock is going back 130 years to create a new timeline. Other than the amount of time traveled, the effect is the same.

I don't know what Star Trek everyone else watches but it always seemed the goal in time travel stories was to restore the timeline, not create a new one that was almost identical. To me that is.

If you go back to the past and create a new universe, where are you returning to? The events in the new universe are yet to be written, correct? It seems in that scenario that going forward in time would be impossible.

What the hell? Who cares if someone goes back in time if it doesn't effect your quantum reality? Everyone who is dissatisfied with their station in life can go back and re-create the universe to their liking.

Not really feeling this plot point at all. Seems to lower the stakes a whole lot.

 

[tauntme]

OK, if that's your rationale, then ST after Generations is a fraud because TNG crew died. Picard went back to create an ALTERNATE timeline, a timeline where he saved them just in time. FC, INS, NEM are all in a different timeline from TNG timeline.

Really, some of you guys reach too far to criticise this movie.

 

[BillJ]

OK, if that's your rationale, then ST after Generations is a fraud because TNG crew died. Picard went back to create an ALTERNATE timeline, a timeline where he saved them just in time. FC, INS, NEM are all in a different timeline from TNG timeline.

Really, some of you guys reach too far to criticise this movie.

It's not really criticism to debate a plot point leaked by the writer of the movie. Unless your entire self-worth is tied into this movie being a masterpiece.

Think about it this way. If Picard and company go back to stop the Borg in the 21st century, create a new timeline in the process that almost mimics the one they left... what happens if that timeline has no issues with the Borg? Causing Picard and company to stay put in the new timeline. What happens when Picard and Co. from timeline A pop into the 24th century in timeline B?

Of course if it is exactly the same as the original timeline and everything plays out the same... you just creating uncountable duplicate universes.

 

[DaveyNY]

(snip)

TrekGuide.com.
....Creating new timelines does not "erase" other timelines -- it just introduces new historical facts into the alternate timeline that contradict facts from the other timeline. (In "Yesterday's Enterprise," Yar was alive, and the Federation was at war with the Klingons, but in the alternate timeline created at the end of that episode, Yar was dead, and the Klingons were allies. Both timelines are real; the Enterprise-D crew in the alternate timeline later met the half-Romulan daughter of the Yar from the original timeline.)

There's something a bit wrong with the way you're describing this particular example, I think...??

Didn't this episode actually start out in the Original Time line (up to that point) in which Tasha was already dead and the Klingon's are already our allies?

Wasn't it the fact that the Enterprise-C coming through the Rift was the actual altering event in what We knew as the Original timeline?

And at the end of the episode the only alteration that We are aware of in the Original Time line, is the fact that Tasha didn't die by the hand of the tar-monster and she spawned a half-Romulan daughter?

As for the Klingon's, the E-C surviving by coming through the Rift, created that short-lived alternate timeline (a few decades) in which the All-Out, Fed.-Kling. War took place.
That reverted back to the Original timeline in which the Klingon's were once again allies of the Federation.

So that particular example shows that the writers were paying attention to what had come before and cared enough about the already established Trek LORE, to bring US back full circle and in the process even managed to bring back a somewhat loved main character from a pointless death.

...dammit, I hate sounding like a canon-ist, I'm not THAT into the minutae...

BUT...

I see both sides of this discussion (to be fair, neither side has been as completely cordial to the other as they should) and I'm trying to remain as neutral as possible toward Trek XI till I see it in its' entirety, but the more info WE get from TPTB the more uneasy I feel about it.

I'm sure that it's gonna look outstanding, I just hope that They haven't created something so far out in left-field that I'm going to need one-on-one therapy with Captain April AND TGT for several months, just to make it fit with what I've considered Star Trek to be for four decades of my life.

BTW: My insurance only covers actual physical in-office treatments.

 

[c0rnedfr0g]

maybe JJ's timeline is the timeline that we're in. In that case, it would be more relevant to audiences.

I mean, in our timeline, the Eugenics Wars never happened. Maybe they didn't in JJ's either.

 

[DaveyNY]

maybe JJ's timeline is the timeline that we're in. In that case, it would be more relevant to audiences.

I mean, in our timeline, the Eugenics Wars never happened. Maybe they didn't in JJ's either.

I'm not sure that Nero comes THAT far back in time....

Seems that from what WE know so far, He first starts to interfere with time between ENTERPRISE and Pre-TOS.

 

[Kaziarl]

It could be argued that the Ent-C disappearing through the rift was the original timeline. That by getting sent back and surviving long enough for the Klingons to notice altered the normal flow of things. I think the problem most of you are having is the fact that you are trying to think from a linear point of view. Which gives you a major headache.

For example, in STIV, the NORMAL timeline is that there are no whales on earth, and the probe is going to destroy our beloved planet. The ALTERED timeline is kirk going back in time, picking up a couple of whales, and bringing them back. Thus changing the course of events in the future.

When you talk about time travel, you have to take into account past, present, and future. ANYTHING that happens after a temporal event is, in fact, and alternate timeline.

 

[DaveyNY]

It could be argued that the Ent-C disappearing through the rift was the original timeline. That by getting sent back and surviving long enough for the Klingons to notice altered the normal flow of things. I think the problem most of you are having is the fact that you are trying to think from a linear point of view. Which gives you a major headache.

For example, in STIV, the NORMAL timeline is that there are no whales on earth, and the probe is going to destroy our beloved planet. The ALTERED timeline is kirk going back in time, picking up a couple of whales, and bringing them back. Thus changing the course of events in the future.

When you talk about time travel, you have to take into account past, present, and future. ANYTHING that happens after a temporal event is, in fact, and alternate timeline.

The E-C going through the Rift IS the Original Timeline...

The change comes about when it doesn't go back right away to be destroyed and thus, impress the Klingon's.

But the delay it seems, is also a part of the original time line and the decades of war are just a blip in the grand shceme of things.

The real alteration is the change in Tasha's time line, which then begins to alter the original time line.

Ain't this fun...

Also, the Probe wasn't going to destroy the planet...,
..just the Carbon-based, Two-Legged Infestation.
It was creating massive climate changes to revert the planet back to a whale sustaining enviroment.