• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Could Star Trek be Re-rebooted?

It strikes me as extremely odd that this fissure occurs as a fixed point yet the realities wouldn't exist without the choice.
And I've always thought it odd that people think a new version of the Universe, with trillions of galaxies estimated in the observable part alone, could pop into existence simple because I choose a blue tie over red this morning.

edit: ninja'd by others
 
And I've always thought it odd that people think a new version of the Universe, with trillions of galaxies estimated in the observable part alone, could pop into existence simple because I choose a blue tie over red this morning.
It happened before. Energy comes and goes.
 
Spock clearly tunneled into an alternate universe, and did not rewrite his own timeline.
I'm gonna say the guy who lived through the temporal wars, despite dying at least twice on screen, knows more about alternate timelines than the viewers. Ditto Spock.

You may prefer to think of it a certain noncanon way, but that clearly isn't the intent of the people in charge and what they're conveying.
 
I'm gonna say the guy who lived through the temporal wars, despite dying at least twice on screen, knows more about alternate timelines than the viewers. Ditto Spock.

You may prefer to think of it a certain noncanon way, but that clearly isn't the intent of the people in charge and what they're conveying.

Just saying, its pretty obvious with how the mechanics of time travel timelines vs alternate universe mechanics work - just because they didn't NOTICE it until after the incursion of the Romulan Mining Vessel, doesn't mean thats when it was CREATED - assumptions are easy to make, ESPECIALLY when you think you have the experience and knowledge. Spock, while yes, he died and came back, only really has knowledge about timeline rewrites / time traveling within ones own universe, as it was in every instance that Spock time traveled or came up with time travel dynamics - it was clearly all in the same universe - they didn't leave a 'verse behind to die by the whale probe and pop up in a different one, rick and morty style - and i'm quite willing to just say Daniels is going by assumption at this point as well, but there has never been another documented instance in Trek of a timeline incursion creating a physically separate 'verse. Unreliable narrator, via inexperienced Disco writing team.

When the Kelvin movies came out, there was no intent to ever use the Prime Universe again - so those writers did a standard permanent timeline reset. When they went back to the traditional well on TV, the intent changed, and the current writing team started working on assumption, not paying attention to the consistent way it has always worked in Trek.

Shows like Fringe and The Flash, that deal with both universes and time travel, did much better jobs at keeping the two separate, much like Trek had done up until now.

YMMV. Shrug.
 
and i'm quite willing to just say Daniels is going by assumption at this point as wel
They literally have technology that allows them to see the timelines as they form and repair themselves. If Daniel's says something, I'm willing to take his word for it.
but there has never been another documented instance in Trek of a timeline incursion creating a physically separate 'verse
Has there ever been another example of a Blackhole, created by Red Matter, interacting with a Super Nova that was large enough to threaten the galaxy?

It seems to me that there were some extenuating circumstances.
 
It basically boils down to not wanting to believe what the writers and producers clearly told us. And you absolutely have that right, because this is all fiction. But trying to justify your belief by saying that the ‘rules of Star Trek time travel’ weren’t followed is futile, because that’s a straw man argument. There are no rules of Star Trek time travel. Just say that you don’t consider the KT a branch-off of the prime timeline, despite your personal narrative not lining up with what was shown to us, and leave it at that.
 
There are no rules of Star Trek time travel. Just say that you don’t consider the KT a branch-off of the prime timeline, despite your personal narrative not lining up with what was shown to us, and leave it at that.
This.

The rules are pure bullshit. It wasn't even really known about in TOS until they discovered the breakaway warp maneuver. You have the Guardian of Forever working in different ways, multiple iterations of people needing to be integrated and on and on.

Time travel is a Pandora's box. It's best left to be used like fats in the foods pyramid: sparingly.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: kkt
When the Kelvin movies came out, there was no intent to ever use the Prime Universe again - so those writers did a standard permanent timeline reset.
Not quite. It's true Abrams wanted to completely abandon the Prime Universe, as indicated by the fact early drafts of Trek XI's script actually had the supernova completely destroying the Prime Universe in the 24th century. But Paramount overruled that saying there's no way in hell they'd be willing to cut of the Prime Universe from ever being revisited again, so the supernova was scaled back to only destroying Romulus.
 
With all the remakes and reboots and adaptations going on at the moment, screenwriters, directors and producers should get training in how to handle them without pissing off the fanbase.

Rule 1: Don't destroy the entire universe.
 
I mean, I'm only working with what I've been told.
Here's my view, stupid as it is: If I can still watch it, read it, enjoy it it's not destroyed. There are civilizations in history I still study that could be called "destroyed."

With art, though, less there is book burning going on, it's not destroyed.
 
With all the remakes and reboots and adaptations going on at the moment, screenwriters, directors and producers should get training in how to handle them without pissing off the fanbase.

Rule 1: Don't destroy the entire universe.
I would go further and say, don’t threaten the entire universe. Because then you end up having to save it, and then (to go bigger and better in subsequent productions) to save it again, and again, and again…

And not to avoid pissing off fans, because (some/many) fans will always be pissed off no matter what you do. But rather, to avoid pumping things up to the point that you have to keep Saving The Universe instead of doing interesting stories of other types.

EDIT: This is not unique to Star Trek. This is how you go from a protagonist being, say, a guy with a bow who fights crime and corruption in a nominally “grounded” urban setting, to that same protagonist saving literally everyone in the entire multiverse…
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top