Meh - just have the Millenium Falcon fall out of a black hole into "another universe" and have them fly back in at the end, after Spock's technobabbled a little.
Another Lit Wish List Thread
- Thread starter ryan123450
- Start date
Except Warehouse 13/Eureka isn't really "within universe." W13 went to great lengths in its second season to establish that altering the past was impossible in its universe, whereas Eureka's entire contemporaneous season was driven by the fact that history had been changed. So they don't really work as a single universe, even though certain episodes have tried to pretend they are.
I don't see DW and HHG fitting together at all well. Would the Vogons have been able to get away with blowing up the Earth in a universe where the Doctor existed? Plus there's the whole "Earth having been blown up" issue.
You could fit Blake's 7 into the Doctor Who universe fairly easily. There is a stage of DW future history where a human Federation rules much of the galaxy, and I think it goes through an oppressive phase for a while.
But stories like this aren't meant to be "actual" parts of either universe. They're out-of-continuity tales that are just playing with possibilities.
I mean, really, how is it any different from a fictional universe crossing over with real life? We know that the real Adolf Hitler was never punched out by Captain America or Rory Williams, and that the real Samuel Langhorne Clemens never travelled into the future and spent time aboard the Enterprise (in fact, he was actually travelling in Europe on the date when "Time's Arrow" placed him in San Francisco). We know that the universes of Star Trek and Doctor Who and so forth have different physics and histories than our own real universe, that they can't have actually happened in the same reality. But we're able to enjoy stories that pretend they're the same reality. So by the same token, shouldn't we be able to enjoy stories that pretend, merely for the duration of the story, that two separate fictional universes are compatible? We don't have to believe they "really" happened, so long as we find them entertaining.
I have just realised that I own Alan Moore's League of Extraordinary Gentlemen graphic novels which take your point to the extreme.
As I really enjoyed them and my own personal likes and dislikes are obviously far from consistent I am shutting up...
Having the Armada line added by Abrahms in post, to me, makes it more likely that it should be taken at face value. If it was added for clarification then it's obviously something that he deemed important. And "the Federation" instead of "Starfleet" is hardly shorthand. The question is, what exactly does it mean? Simply dismissing it doesn't seem right. It's part of the "new universe canon" that doesn't have to match up with the prime universe as it's spoken after the split. Just because the federation is one thing in the prime universe doesn't mean it has to be identical or even similar in the new. Just look at the difference between the Prime Federation and the Mirror Empire.
Except the split was long after the formation of the Federation, so unless it changed drastically in the 25 (?) years following Nero's appearance, which seems pretty unlikely, then there shouldn't be that many differences between the Federation in the two realities. I think it's perfectly acceptable to just write it off as a mistake, and move on. Not every single thing said or seen on screen has to be taken as concrete fact 100% of the time. Mistakes happen, and people don't always catch them in time to change them.
Pike could have meant to say the Federation Starfleet, or maybe in the time since Nero appeared, the Federation has become more militaristic and is in fact ruled by the military. We know nothing about the politics of the Federation the nuTrekverse.
How much did the government of the United States change, let's say, between 1775 & 1800? 25 years is more than enough time for a government to undergo a fundamental change.
It's the fact that it was added after the fact in order to clarify a point that lends it extra weight to me.
Not every point that we disagree with or can't explain at the moment need to be dismissed with a wave of a hand and labelled an error.
Yes, but I don't know about "accidentally." Movie editing is a strange discipline sometimes. Editors and directors are pressured to cut everything down as tightly as possible for fear of losing "pace," so in the final cut of a film, sentences can be chopped down or combined, and sometimes even single words or syllables can be trimmed. (Like that bizarre bit in Generations where Lursa and B'etor come on the Enterprise viewscreen and Picard greets them as "Lurs-or." The editor actually chopped out the end of one name and the start of the next and tried to pass them off as a single word.) So like I said before, maybe the line we hear is one that got cut down or combined from lines that were originally about both the Federation and Starfleet, and the relentless drive for pacing that Hollywood editors today are guided by outweighed the clarity or accuracy of the line.
(And seriously, I'll never understand that obsession with relentless pacing. Why are they so terrified of slowing down for even a few moments? It's not like the audience will change the channel if they get briefly bored. They've made a commitment to come to the theater and spend money to sit in it. That's as close to a captive audience as you can get in today's media environment. So why do filmmakers and editors feel so afraid to let up on the pacing from time to time?)
Well, they're not just editing for theatrical release anymore; theatrical release is only the first part of a modern life's life-cycle, and not where most of the money is made anymore, IIRC. They're editing like the audience might change the channel because, well, the audience might change the channel (or put in another DVD, or switch to another streaming movie, or whatever).
^Maybe, but I think the obsession with pacing has been part of the mindset of Hollywood feature film editors since long before that was the case.
Well, it's an alternate realty that split of from the Prime Universe 25 year prior to the main body of the movie. So it's not a completely new universe, it's only as different as 25 years worth of history can make it.
Just out of curiosity, do you accept Threshold, and The Alternative Factor as 100% canon?
^
Except that there are contradictions within canon itself (such as the Warp 10 threshold). To avoid the contradictions some episodes or events may have to be ignored or reinterpreted, thereby resulting in the creation of what might be termed "personal canon" based on which events/episodes are ignored/reinterpreted and which are considered canon.
Except that there are contradictions within canon itself (such as the Warp 10 threshold). To avoid the contradictions some episodes or events may have to be ignored or reinterpreted, thereby resulting in the creation of what might be termed "personal canon" based on which events/episodes are ignored/reinterpreted and which are considered canon.
I can accept Voyager taking 70 years to cross the galaxy as well as the Enterprise going to the center of the galaxy in just a few days.
Besides, the NuUniverse has been on a different timeline for 25 years now. What happened in the Prime universe is irrelevent. It's had lots of time to diverge.
Besides, the NuUniverse has been on a different timeline for 25 years now. What happened in the Prime universe is irrelevent. It's had lots of time to diverge.
Yeah, but I don't see the The Federation and Starfleet changing places. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't make sense, and it won't ever make sense to me now matter how much you try. I'm just really baffled by people who insist that everything must be taken at 100% literal face value when it comes to Trek. Sometimes mistakes sneak through, and sometimes things just don't line up no matter how hard you try. You just learn to ignore the stuff that doesn't work, like the Federation line, and then move on.
Yes. "Canon" does not mean "real" or "consistent." It means the core body of a work of fiction -- something that projects the illusion of consistency but obviously doesn't have perfect consistency because it's something a lot of different people are making up as they go, and things get forgotten or rethought along the way. The consistency is merely a pretense, a part of the fiction that any of this made-up stuff is "really" happening. Any long-running canon will eventually ignore or retcon parts of itself. So it makes no sense for the viewers to believe they have to take every single line or image as absolute, immutable truth when even the canon itself does not do so.
