Might as well give up NF as Janeway in corporeal form and B4 could end up with Calhoun.
Countdown/Novels
- Thread starter phrog
- Start date
He could always show up on New Frontier, though. You never know. I think there's a WAY better chance of that than of any TNG-era characters time traveling to Vanguard.
oh ye of little faith :P
i have faith in PAD not to use Janeway or B4Data.
(i was also being slightly tongue-in-cheek. obviously this was not apparent.)
(i was also being slightly tongue-in-cheek. obviously this was not apparent.)
Does this brain come in a cool jar?
"Chakotay! Where are you going to look in this whole galaxy? Where are you going to look for Janeway's brain? How are you gonna find it?"
"I'll find it."
Preserved in... coffee.
According to Star Trek XI's theory, the Borg travelling back in time from 2373 to 2063 wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference to the existing timeline, since it would only have created a divergent timeline, leaving the original intact....so then how come the Ent-E crew saw Earth get transformed into Borg Earth in the 24th century, because that shouldn't have been possible. Earth should have stayed as it was. Maybe the temporal corridor thingie they were caught in somehow enabled them to briefly glimpse another reality. Whatever, the events of First Contact create three divergent realities: The 'original' timeline of Picard & co.; the Borg-assimilated timeline briefly seen; and the timeline where the Borg nearly assimilate Earth but are stopped by Picard and co.
To be honest, it's a lot easier for me to say that the new timeline as presented in Star Trek XI is, for better or worse, THE new timeline of the Trek universe, and the old one no longer exists. Of course, this would mean that any adventures that are set after the movie's point of divergence now no longer happen at all. Alternatively, in my opinion, the only way you could have this new timeline and the old version coexisting in the same multiverse is if the universe that Nero and Spock find themselves in after they leave their 24th century is already a separate reality from theirs before Nero blows up the USS Kelvin; in other words, when their ships got sucked into the singularity, they not only went into the past, but into the past of another reality entirely, one which shares a great many similarities with their own.
To be honest, it's a lot easier for me to say that the new timeline as presented in Star Trek XI is, for better or worse, THE new timeline of the Trek universe, and the old one no longer exists. Of course, this would mean that any adventures that are set after the movie's point of divergence now no longer happen at all. Alternatively, in my opinion, the only way you could have this new timeline and the old version coexisting in the same multiverse is if the universe that Nero and Spock find themselves in after they leave their 24th century is already a separate reality from theirs before Nero blows up the USS Kelvin; in other words, when their ships got sucked into the singularity, they not only went into the past, but into the past of another reality entirely, one which shares a great many similarities with their own.
Last edited:
By quantum physics, the ST '09 version is the more realistic one. Just by common sense, there's no way one timeline can "overwrite" another anyway; if there are two different versions of a single moment in time, then by definition they exist simultaneously rather than one "replacing" (i.e. coming at a later time than) the other.
The only logical way to explain a timeline "changing" after a time-travel event is by applying the idea of multiple quantum states collapsing into one. Say you go back from 2400 to 2300 and change history. That means that from 2300 to 2400, your original history and the new one you create are running in parallel, both existing; but once the original time-travel point in 2400 is reached, the two timelines collapse into one, namely the "new" one. So it would appear to observers that the timeline has changed.
But it's possible that this doesn't always happen. Just because two parallel timelines can merge together, with one effectively ceasing to exist after a certain point, that doesn't mean it has to happen in every case. Maybe it depends on the circumstances or method of the time travel. Maybe it depends on some other complexities of quantum physics. (Well, actually it depends on the laws of drama -- much like effective warp velocity and the explosive yield of torpedoes.)
I just hope that the novels do not take the comic into account. I am not a fan at all of the creative decisions.
I'm sorry, but this statement is demonstrably false in two seperate directions:
Firstly, the statement that novels are allowed to contradict standing Trek continuity simple because they have good ideas in them is wrong. Andrew Robinson has spoken very specifically about his ideas to write a Garak novel being told they couldn't proceed because they would break with canon continuity.
Secondly, the idea that novels aren't written to tie in with events in the onscreen media is also false: I can point to dozens of novels that incorporate or spin-off from seeds sown in the onscreen continuity. Given that he comic was written to be a continuation of the TNG universe that connected it to the new, canon film it seems ridiculous to think the novels will not try and tie themselves to both universes.
While I don't think just ejecting all reasoning is great to do in sci-fi, indeed one of the 'fun things' is having conversations about what would really happen, but I just want to echo my support for this statement- basically, that just because 'Parallels' conjectured an infinity of multiverses, that doesn't mean that the time travel method in Endgame or CotEoF is contradicted- the 'type' of time travel that occurs may in fact be determined by the method in which you time travel. The Borg temporal wake witnessed in FC may be a side effect of that particular type of time travel. I guess I always think about Picards line from 'Yesterday's Enterprise': "Who is to say that this timeline is any more or less correct than any other?" No-one, really.
So Marty McFly went back in time and changed his reality. Does that mean there is another reality in which his parents were still poor and unhappy? Who is to say? We don't know. Theoretically, yes. In practice: Well, he changed history!
Sorry, but your rebuttal is wrong, and Christopher is right. Your examples miss the point, because Countdown is not something that folks are going to (necessarily) be beholden to. The only thing that the novels will absolutely have to consistent with is whatever shows up in theatres in two weeks.
As Keith says, you're missing the point. Of course all Trek novels and comics are obligated to conform to onscreen continuity. But that's not what we're talking about. The question is not whether the novels can contradict the movie, but whether they can contradict material unique to the Countdown comic book miniseries from IDW. Trek novels and comics are not obligated to conform to the continuity of other novels and comics. That's strictly optional.
Yes, it is false. And I never remotely claimed it was true. I was talking about consistency between novels and comics, not between novels and screen continuity.
I'm sure there will be novels that incorporate ideas from the motion picture Star Trek directed by J.J. Abrams. But they will not be obligated to incorporate ideas that exist only in the comic book Countdown. For instance, it is now evident that
the destruction of Romulus and Spock's journey into the past
Data being resurrected, Picard becoming an ambassador, or Worf becoming a Klingon general.
Are you referring to
the destruction of Romulus? Although it would be in the 25th century, it is something that troubles me. I'll just have to have faith that the authors will make something good out of it.
I think what Joe is talking about is the rumored
destruction of the planet Vulcan in the movie's "present,"
Actually, that would be in 2386. Countdown's initial reference to Spock having lived on Romulus for 40 years was corrected to 20 years in the trade paperback, and the stardate for Countdown corresponds to 2386.
Not really.
The movie is in a new, parallel timeline that does not replace the original. Any fiction set in the original timeline is unaffected by the events of the film, except for things that precede the split (for instance, George Kirk serving aboard the Kelvin under Captain Robau), or things that would apply in both timelines such as the existence of certain aliens or planets. The only Trek fiction that would be affected by events unique to the movie's altered timeline would be fiction set specifically in that distinct continuity.
Similar threads
