Fair enough. But, by doing so, you accept an absurd premise simply because it was written that way. At which point the argument that we can't correct the time line because it wouldn't be realistic goes right out the window.
I don't see how a suped up late 24th century mining vessel being far more powerful than early-to-mid 23th century starships is so much of a stretch, but whatever. Agree to disagree.
Ridiculous (IYHO) or not is not relevant. Their take on it is what it is and it's an element of Trek like anything else.
So, Star Trek should stick to quick fixes and no consequences because that's what its always done?
You can decide that you don't like it. But, the moment you decide to change it you have changed an element of the story that has been rather consistent (in one aspect or another) for the entire run of the franchise.
Just because something has always been one way doesn't make it better.
I never once suggested that the original time line could be restored. That notion has never been suggested in Trek. I'm not suggesting it now.
Fair enough.
What I suggested is that Trek has always operated under the notion that the time line could be restored to a state where whatever changes occur are minimal.
This is true, but you have to remember that the situation in XI is different than most time travel endeavors. In FC, the consequences were clear and there was a definitive way to stop the Borg and save the timeline (of course, many argue that history was changed slightly anyway, but we can debate that another time). In TVH, well, they didn't go back to preserve the timeline, just to retrieve whales to bring back to the 23rd century. In Tomorrow is Yesterday, they simply erase everyone's memory so the few people who knew they were there would forget. There are others that I may address later, but I think you get my point.
I suppose Year of Hell questions that to some extent, but it gets around that by actually reversing time.
Indeed, thank god the new movie actually had balls and didn't use the fucktarded reset button.
Does that change the time line? Yes. But to no where near the extent of killing 6 billion people and destroying an entire planet that plays a role in the story of Trek over it's entire run.
How do you know everything will be A-OK? For all you know, the butterfly effect could lead to something worse occuring.
Even if the Kelvin is present and gets destroyed, Vulcan is saved and it becomes the lesser of evils.
Like I said, there is no guarantee that the Federation would be A-OK after this. For instance, lets say Starfleet sends an armada back in time to bitchslap Nero and co. and they gloriously succeed, even saving the Kelvin. However, remember where they were? In or around Klingon space with them coming to that area (as seen in the deleted scene). Now, instead of a damaged Romulan ship, they're going to see a shit load of Starfleet ships all outside their borders. How do you think they're going to explain themselves? The Klingons take this as an act of agression since they won't believe some bullshit about time traveling Romulans and red matter, so it may very well lead to a full scale war. Possibly more people may die than at Vulcan, even the Federation itself may crumble.
Or not, everything may turn out fine as you say. Still, would it really be worth the risk when you factor in something with infinite variables as time travel? Frankly, I'd count my blessings, especially when you consider the heart of the Vulcan people is still alive and settlement project is already underway for the 10,000 survivors.
The irony of this discussion is that, if you listen to Abrams, he essentially suggests that there is no reason to correct the time line as time will unfold in more or less the same way no matter what you do. That time is, essentially, self-correcting.
Wasn't in the movie, though so it doesn't really matter.
