Do you want ongoing novels on the Kelvin Universe

[Idran]

On top of that, Star Trek Beyond falls apart, since the backstory depends on us recalling specific events from the ENT TV show, meaning that stuff has to be the same before.

It only really means that some stuff has to be the same as before, though. And Pegg's theory was never that literally everything was different across the entire history of the Trek universe.

I dunno, it still makes sense to me that "City of", "Past Tense", Voyage Home, etc. - any time travel that departed after the divergence point and arrived before it, even ones we might never have seen (since it's pretty unlikely that we saw every instance of time travel to have ever happened in the Trek universe) - never happened in the Kelvinverse timeline, and so changes could've rippled outwards from there.

 

[Christopher]

The one consistent rule of fictional time travel, in Trek or elsewhere, is that it follows whatever rules serve the story.

 

[WebLurker]

As I've pointed out before, the explanation apparently originated with the Okudas in their new Encyclopedia. We've seen an image of text from the book that conveys that theory, and given the lead time for publishing books, that text must've been written last year sometime. It must've been Mike & Denise Okuda who came up with the explanation to explain the discrepancies in the first two movies, and Pegg must have seen an advance copy of the Encyclopedia, or talked about it with the Okudas at some point, and passed the idea along when it came up in an interview.

Okay, I thought Pegg invented it and the Okudas were the ones who borrowed it. Even so, it's still not canon, though.

Bull. Take it from the guy who literally wrote the book on Trek time travel -- there have never, ever, ever been any remotely consistent "rules of time travel" in Trek canon. There's just a bunch of arbitrary handwaves that writers have made up to serve whatever story they wanted to tell at the moment. That's why I wrote the first DTI book to begin with -- in hopes of somehow taking all that disparate nonsense and creating the illusion that it could fit together in some coherent way. There's nothing about the Okudas' theory here that's any more absurd than the time loops in "We'll Always Have Paris" or the incoherent nonsense of "anti-time" in "All Good Things..." or the total mess of the Temporal Cold War.

From the episodes and movies, I think we can extrapolate some general rules of thumb, allowing for a few variations within the specifics. The idea that time travel doesn't change stuff from before the incursion (unless you've got the Krenim weapon ship) is pretty consistently. (Also, I don't anything in the new movies really justifies the model. All the mistakes are either in the storytelling or stuff that that can be explained away through other means. [see below]) (I haven't done the level of research you have, obviously, but I have read some things, and to be honest, the time travel stories never seemed quite as inconsistent as you've stated.)

First off, it doesn't depend on us recalling anything, since it explains everything that's relevant to the film, and aside from the general historical background, it's all completely original to the movie anyway. All we need to know is that there used to be a military organization called MACOs that was folded into Starfleet when the Federation was founded, and that's clearly stated in dialogue. You could follow the story perfectly well even if you'd never seen Enterprise.

Fair enough, but then the connections would loose a lot of meaning, IMHO. (Wait, did they say that the MACO's were merged into Starfleet? I thought Scotty said that they were just disbanded.)

Second, the Okudas' model doesn't require that everything be different; it just allows for the possibility that certain things can be. I mean, obviously if two different timelines have Kirk and Spock and the Federation in them at all, then a lot of things must have gone the same way even if other things were changed.

Then what's the point of making changes in the first place?

Again, not Pegg's model. The Okudas came up with it first. And their model actually makes more sense of '09 and STID, because it explains the discrepancies that didn't fit the original model, like the Kelvin's unusual size,...

It was too large?

...Pike being a decade too old...

Wasn't he always a good bit older than Kirk?

..., and Earth's cities being far more built up.

I think that's nitpicking to the extreme, personally.

I suspect that's why the Okudas came up with the model in the first place -- because they didn't find the existing explanation adequate to reconcile the differences.

Fair enough, but I still don't like it.

The irony is that Beyond is the one Bad Robot movie that doesn't need the new theory, because it's much easier to reconcile with pre-2233 canon.

Agreed. In fact, I don't think there are any discrepancies, save for the TOS arrowhead on the Franklin (although, as you've pointed out, there are other possibilities for this).

 

[Christopher]

From the episodes and movies, I think we can extrapolate some general rules of thumb, allowing for a few variations within the specifics.

Again: I didn't just "think" about this, I actually did it, in great detail, as research for Watching the Clock. And there are a lot more "variations within the specifics" than you assume, and a lot of contradictions and completely nonsensical premises that I had to bend over backward to concoct a remotely credible-sounding scientific explanation for. This model of retroactive alteration is elementary compared to some of the convolutions I had to come up with. And Idran's point about how the absence of known time travels affecting the past should result in the past happening differently is very logical, and canonically supported by "Yesteryear," where Spock's failure to time-travel in the present has a retroactive effect on his past.

(I haven't done the level of research you have, obviously, but I have read some things, and to be honest, the time travel stories never seemed quite as inconsistent as you've stated.)

I will never understand people who think their lack of knowledge of a subject makes them more qualified to judge it than people who have far more knowledge of the subject. Ignorance is not an advantage.

Then what's the point of making changes in the first place?

What a bizarre question. What's the point of the Mirror Universe, or "Yesterday's Enterprise," or reboots of James Bond or Batman or Godzilla? The point is to explore new variations on an idea. That's how art frequently works -- you take something familiar and change some things about it while keeping the core of it recognizable. Like a composer writing a symphony based on a well-known folk melody, or a rock band doing a cover of an old song in a modern style. It's the contrast of familiar elements with a new context that makes it interesting.

In this case, the retroactive-change model serves two very clear and logical creative purposes. One is to provide an explanation for discrepancies in the past movies -- which, yes, I'm sure I've already acknowledged multiple times in your hearing as things that can be interpreted as artistic license, but it's nice to have an alternative interpretation for those who find that interpretation unsatisfying. The other reason is to open the door for future filmmakers to introduce greater divergences if it's creatively useful to do so -- the benefits for which should be obvious.

Wasn't he always a good bit older than Kirk?

Jeffrey Hunter was about 38 when he did "The Cage," set in 2254. Bruce Greenwood was maybe 52 when he made ST'09, the bulk of which was set in 2258. Do the math.

I think that's nitpicking to the extreme, personally.

Says the guy who refuses to accept a timeline model outside his rigid assumptions.

 

[WebLurker]

Again: I didn't just "think" about this, I actually did it, in great detail, as research for Watching the Clock. And there are a lot more "variations within the specifics" than you assume, and a lot of contradictions and completely nonsensical premises that I had to bend over backward to concoct a remotely credible-sounding scientific explanation for. This model of retroactive alteration is elementary compared to some of the convolutions I had to come up with. And Idran's point about how the absence of known time travels affecting the past should result in the past happening differently is very logical, and canonically supported by "Yesteryear," where Spock's failure to time-travel in the present has a retroactive effect on his past.

I will never understand people who think their lack of knowledge of a subject makes them more qualified to judge it than people who have far more knowledge of the subject. Ignorance is not an advantage.

Look, we should probably just table this part. We've gone on about it before and I don't think any good is going to come of this direction.

What a bizarre question. What's the point of the Mirror Universe, or "Yesterday's Enterprise," or reboots of James Bond or Batman or Godzilla? The point is to explore new variations on an idea. That's how art frequently works -- you take something familiar and change some things about it while keeping the core of it recognizable. Like a composer writing a symphony based on a well-known folk melody, or a rock band doing a cover of an old song in a modern style. It's the contrast of familiar elements with a new context that makes it interesting.

If they want something new, then don't try to force it into a setting where it it doesn't fit.

In this case, the retroactive-change model serves two very clear and logical creative purposes. One is to provide an explanation for discrepancies in the past movies -- which, yes, I'm sure I've already acknowledged multiple times in your hearing as things that can be interpreted as artistic license, but it's nice to have an alternative interpretation for those who find that interpretation unsatisfying. The other reason is to open the door for future filmmakers to introduce greater divergences if it's creatively useful to do so -- the benefits for which should be obvious.

Okay, fair enough, I guess.

Jeffrey Hunter was about 38 when he did "The Cage," set in 2254. Bruce Greenwood was maybe 52 when he made ST'09, the bulk of which was set in 2258. Do the math.

Okay.

Says the guy who refuses to accept a timeline model outside his rigid assumptions.

Look, you like, I'd be willing to reexamine the issue and see if it's as messy as you say. However, even going from a cursory look and going off my memory, the new explanation still seems like an ill-fit for the franchise. (I'm also not fond of stuff that explains everything, since it explains nothing.)

As always, your mileage may vary.

 

[Idran]

If they want something new, then don't try to force it into a setting where it it doesn't fit.

Why not? Interesting stuff can come out if you do that. It's not guaranteed to come out, but nothing in art is guaranteed.

 

[Christopher]

If they want something new, then don't try to force it into a setting where it it doesn't fit.

Different people are bound to disagree about what works and what doesn't. Only the creators get to decide whether they think it fits -- or, as Idran said, whether the contrast itself is worth exploring. If you don't like it, then that just means you don't like it. It absolutely does not mean they were wrong to make it.

 

[Idran]

If we're talking "forcing something new into a setting where it doesn't fit", one of my favorite entrants in the category of "this really shouldn't work, but it does" is Breakfast of the Gods. And that never would've been made if people always followed that rule.

 

[Avro Arrow]

We've seen an image of text from the book that conveys that theory, and given the lead time for publishing books, that text must've been written last year sometime.

Have we? Was that in a thread here? I don't recall seeing it.

The one consistent rule of fictional time travel, in Trek or elsewhere, is that it follows whatever rules serve the story.

It is consistent in its inconsistency!

 

[Christopher]

Have we? Was that in a thread here? I don't recall seeing it.

It was posted a month ago yesterday:

http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/star-trek-beyond-treklit.282367/page-5#post-11694984

 

[Avro Arrow]

It was posted a month ago yesterday:

http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/star-trek-beyond-treklit.282367/page-5#post-11694984

Ah, OK, that makes sense. I had avoided that thread because I hadn't yet seen Beyond at the time it was active, and then when I finally saw the movie on August 23, I guess I never went back to read that thread.

Thanks for the link!

 

[WebLurker]

Different people are bound to disagree about what works and what doesn't. Only the creators get to decide whether they think it fits -- or, as Idran said, whether the contrast itself is worth exploring. If you don't like it, then that just means you don't like it. It absolutely does not mean they were wrong to make it.

Okay.

In retrospect, I think that that last post I put up wasn't very polite. Sorry for being snappy.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Jeffrey Hunter was about 38 when he did "The Cage," set in 2254. Bruce Greenwood was maybe 52 when he made ST'09, the bulk of which was set in 2258. Do the math.

Who the hell cares how old the actors are? That doesn't mean jack shit as to how old the characters are. There can be wildly divergent ages in characters, portrayed by people who are close in age. Doesn't mean a damn thing.

Earth's cities being more built up? Let's see, how many Earth cities did we ever see in the prime timeline...yeah, I'll call it NONE...there, that was easy.

As for who exactly invented the "everything is different in this timeline" thing: I couldn't give two shits if it was Pegg or Okuda or Boonga the Demon Creature. It's still not canon until it makes it into a film. And that's not gonna happen, is it? ST4 will probably be the last Kelvinverse film, and Pegg's not writing it. Now YOU do the math.

 

[Avro Arrow]

Who the hell cares how old the actors are? That doesn't mean jack shit as to how old the characters are. There can be wildly divergent ages in characters, portrayed by people who are close in age. Doesn't mean a damn thing.

To be fair, according to Mendez, Pike is "about" the same age as Kirk. Which means Pike should be "about" 21 at the time of "The Cage"!

Earth's cities being more built up? Let's see, how many Earth cities did we ever see in the prime timeline...yeah, I'll call it NONE...there, that was easy.

Um, I can think of two right off the top of my head...

San Fransisco
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pid=63294&fullsize=1
http://voy.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/2x05/nonsequitur006.jpg

Paris
http://tng.trekcore.com/hd/albums/1x24/wellalwayshaveparis_hd_091.jpg
http://ds9.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/4x12/paradiselost_372.jpg

(I also thought of New Orleans in "Homefront"/"Paradise Lost", but all the establishing shots seem to be close-ups on a particular set of buildings, rather than an overall view of the city.)

As for who exactly invented the "everything is different in this timeline" thing: I couldn't give two shits if it was Pegg or Okuda or Boonga the Demon Creature. It's still not canon until it makes it into a film. And that's not gonna happen, is it? ST4 will probably be the last Kelvinverse film, and Pegg's not writing it. Now YOU do the math.

But by that logic, the original behind-the-scenes explanation is not canon either, so why put more stock in it?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ Occam's Razor.

 

[Idran]

Who the hell cares how old the actors are? That doesn't mean jack shit as to how old the characters are. There can be wildly divergent ages in characters, portrayed by people who are close in age. Doesn't mean a damn thing.

Earth's cities being more built up? Let's see, how many Earth cities did we ever see in the prime timeline...yeah, I'll call it NONE...there, that was easy.

As for who exactly invented the "everything is different in this timeline" thing: I couldn't give two shits if it was Pegg or Okuda or Boonga the Demon Creature. It's still not canon until it makes it into a film. And that's not gonna happen, is it? ST4 will probably be the last Kelvinverse film, and Pegg's not writing it. Now YOU do the math.

So I guess all that stuff about being okay with accepting it as an alternate fan theory that you just didn't accept yourself last time this came up was just bunk, huh?

Who cares about what's canon? Christopher and I go by that fan theory. You go by your fan theory.

And for that "Occam's Razor" thing, how is it more complex to say "well we just wiped out a ton of time travel"? Are you saying that if Chris Pine Kirk looked into historical records, he'd see Sisko's face as Gabriel Bell? And it's somehow simpler that there are ghost remnants of an alternate future timeline hanging around in the past than that it was a big wiping of the slate?

 

[David cgc]

And for that "Occam's Razor" thing, how is it more complex to say "well we just wiped out a ton of time travel"? Are you saying that if Chris Pine Kirk looked into historical records, he'd see Sisko's face as Gabriel Bell? And it's somehow simpler that there are ghost remnants of an alternate future timeline hanging around in the past than that it was a big wiping of the slate?

Are you saying that if Nan Bacco read the report on how Voyager got home, she wouldn't see a picture of bitter old Admiral Janeway from the timeline where Seven died in the Delta Quadrant?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Occam's Razor applies because that's exactly how we see it play out: The timeline proceeds until Nero's arrival, then it splits. That's the simplest explanation. Characters in the film even point it out. So I see no reason to assume anything other than this - the events that the film shows us.

Trying to dismiss the Kelvin timeline as something that was different all along, or something that Nero's arrival somehow affected past AND present (still trying to work that one out, BTW ) is, IMHO, quibbling over minor things, such as the size of the Kelvin (there's nothing that precludes ships that size from appearing in TOS' era), the cities on Earth being built up (we almost never see life on Earth at all during any form of Trek, and even then, it's quite localized), Pike's age, that type of thing.

Reminds me of those old "Best of Trek" articles that claimed that any time any discontinuity appeared in TOS, that automatically meant it was a parallel universe.

 

[Christopher]

And for that "Occam's Razor" thing, how is it more complex to say "well we just wiped out a ton of time travel"? Are you saying that if Chris Pine Kirk looked into historical records, he'd see Sisko's face as Gabriel Bell? And it's somehow simpler that there are ghost remnants of an alternate future timeline hanging around in the past than that it was a big wiping of the slate?

Are you saying that if Nan Bacco read the report on how Voyager got home, she wouldn't see a picture of bitter old Admiral Janeway from the timeline where Seven died in the Delta Quadrant?

The problem with arguing over two different ways for time travel to happen is that it can happen both ways. Physics doesn't work by requiring everything to happen in only one way. The outcome of a physical interaction depends on its specific conditions. The same gravitational and kinetic forces that make apples fall from trees also keep planets from falling into the Sun. The same geological forces that make mountains also make valleys. The same evolutionary and genetic mechanisms that create predators also create prey. Time travel is no different. It doesn't all have to happen the same way. One time travel may create its own history while another erases its own history. One can have effects that amplify exponentially while another has only local effects that are damped out on the large scale. It depends on the specific way it happens and the specific circumstances in which it happens.

So whatever kind of time-travel results your story calls for, you can justify them by assuming the particular conditions of that time travel interaction came together in such a way that it produced the desired result. It's different from other results because the conditions are different, just as Earth is a different kind of planet from Neptune because they formed in different conditions.

 

[Stevil2001]

@Christopher , didn't you used to vociferously argue that the pre-2333 past of the Kelvin timeline was the same as the past of the Prime timeline?