Hated it
- Thread starter KSoldier
- Start date
I am aware of such paradoxes, but was unaware that they were hard and fast rules, or the "traditional" understanding of time travel. For me, and this is just my opinion, I take time travel as however it is presented in the particular story. For me, Trek 09 presents as an alternate reality, a timeline created by the red matter incursion. That was how I read it on the face of it when I watched the movie the first time.
I guess "alternate reality" means something different to me
Beyond that I do not have a better explanation without doing some serious Trek reading.
I am aware of such paradoxes, but was unaware that they were hard and fast rules, or the "traditional" understanding of time travel. For me, and this is just my opinion, I take time travel as however it is presented in the particular story. For me, Trek 09 presents as an alternate reality, a timeline created by the red matter incursion. That was how I read it on the face of it when I watched the movie the first time.
I guess "alternate reality" means something different to me
Well actually, I think its more that "alternate reality" means something different, and apparently wrong, to me.
Nor am I suggesting there are "rules" as such. Just a classical (single universe) way of of viewing how time travel works and somewhat more "modern", and overall generally less common, alternatives (branching universe etc). I guess they chose to use the "alternate reality" phrase because it is technically more correct than "parallel universe". Or so I understand. But I still say the latter would be more "universally" understood. Well that's my opinion anyway.
I am aware of such paradoxes, but was unaware that they were hard and fast rules, or the "traditional" understanding of time travel. For me, and this is just my opinion, I take time travel as however it is presented in the particular story. For me, Trek 09 presents as an alternate reality, a timeline created by the red matter incursion. That was how I read it on the face of it when I watched the movie the first time.
I guess "alternate reality" means something different to me
Well actually, I think its more that "alternate reality" means something different, and apparently wrong, to me.
I guess they chose to use the "alternate reality" phrase because it is technically more correct than "parallel universe". Or so I understand. But I still say the latter would be more "universally" understood. Well that's my opinion anyway.
I blame Back to the Future
In its own franchise, maybe. It should not be viewed as an authority on how time travel must work in Star Trek.
I agree, to certain level. Star Trek did such a variety with time travel and parallel universes, with chronitons, ion storms, gateways, and other devices that red matter strikes me as no more unusual.
As I have said before, the intention of the writers seems to be an parallel universe, with one of the writers referencing the episode "Parallels" as the same concept being explored in Trek. But, I also treat it similarly to Ryan8bit stated, Abramsverse is not about time travel but a plot device to get the story going.
Beyond that, I find Abrams Trek to be a fun adventure, with a healthy dose of social commentary and fits in line with Roddenberry's original pitch and run in TOS.
Also, the Prime Universe still exists
I'll see you and I'll raise you this one: Blaspheming against the 'book' of a drug-and-drink addled misogynistic, philandering, conniving, scheming dude who then believed his own press as said by fans and believed it so much that he wrote a new show with characters that weren't really relate-able, were so goody-two-shoes, and with a world set-up that almost destroyed his franchise, thus creating the need for an ultimate reboot isn't the worst thing in the world.
I don't think a TV franchise that is in production for 18 straight years counts as a commercial disaster.
We can always rely on you to bring sanity and restraint back to discussions like this.
I am aware of such paradoxes, but was unaware that they were hard and fast rules, or the "traditional" understanding of time travel. For me, and this is just my opinion, I take time travel as however it is presented in the particular story. For me, Trek 09 presents as an alternate reality, a timeline created by the red matter incursion. That was how I read it on the face of it when I watched the movie the first time.
I guess "alternate reality" means something different to me
The only way to do it and remain sane, really.
The key word is "almost." I truly believe that if TNG was on a network instead of being syndicated, it would have been cancelled after the first or second seasons. And that's not even accounting for the season 1 & 2 writers that Roddenberry managed to piss off. And then we would have had nothing.
Syndication was the only reason why TNG survived and was able to prosper and create those 18 straight years. Roddenberry had nothing to do with that.
Well, the OP seemed to think that Roddenberry was some sort of genius whose vision Must Not Be Tampered With, so it still is sorta on topic.
Except that the show wouldn't have existed without him (TNG having basically begun as repurposed Phase II) and did in fact go on to become the single most successful televised incarnation of Trek, and the fundamental reason why Trek is still a thing today. Little deets like that.
Other people of course can claim credit too. But these spittle-frothing frenzies we sometimes see -- complete with verbose, vitriolic posthumous character-assassinations -- when someone suggests that Roddenberry had some good ideas that maybe should be paid attention to while making Trek seem totally uncalled-for and bizarre to me. It's like people making AbramsTrek into a holy text and denouncing heretics against it... while also pretending to denounce the concept of holy texts. Makes very little sense at any level.
If you mean that the show wouldn't have existed if Roddenberry hadn't created the original show it was based on, then yes. But would TNG still have existed and succeeded without Roddenberry's influence on it at all? Absolutely. Gene had no influence whatsoever on the films from TWOK on, and yet they were all successful. TNG would have been no different. Actually, it probably would have been better.
No, it wouldn't. TNG was repurposed Star Trek: Phase II, which was a Roddenberry creation. Ergo it would not have existed without Roddenberry.
(Likewise it would not have become as prominent as it did without the efforts of others, but that's not the point. The point is that this mania to deny any credit to Roddenberry at all is completely fragging weird and makes zero sense except as a wild overreaction to people not liking a thing you like. [EDIT: Further comments redacted as redundant.])
Well yeah, its rules don't extend elsewhere, but it is one of the best dramatic ways of telling stories about time travel. The other is the Novikov self-consistency principle.
Making movies as if the time travel is supposed to be "realistic", as if the writers even really gave a crap about portraying accurate science, is meaningless if it doesn't lend toward good stories. Branching universes where others still exist are dramatically boring. There are so many fundamental problems with it. If that's what they really intended for these movies, then it's a good thing they didn't focus on it.
No more or less than it was "repurposed TOS;" that GR invented a couple of supporting characters that seem to some folks analogous to Decker and Ilia is not important. TNG took the premise and an awful lot of the detail from TOS, made some tweaks and introduced a new cast of characters.
If someone else had developed the series for Paramount, they'd have done something similar. Different characters, no doubt. But the main point here is that Paramount was pretty determined in 1986 to do a new TV version of Star Trek for business reasons of their own with or without Gene Roddenberry. He was not the first producer they approached to develop it, and if he'd been unavailable or unwilling they'd have moved on to someone else rather than abandon the project.
That the TNG crew exactly reflects the way he restructured the Phase II crew seems pretty important, actually, since it was a core part of the show's ensemble feel which went on to become a core part of its appeal. And trying to put it down to possible coincidence that Picard, Riker, Troi and Data fit pretty exactly into Phase II roles seems like pure avoidance to me.
Sure the network could and would have hired someone else absent Roddenberry. Would the results have been comparable? Who knows? It's clearly a lot easier to make bad, forgettable Trek than it is to make good Trek, it could have quite easily gone the other way. What we do know is that Roddenberry's concept, given a bit of help, did ultimately work and did produce the results we're all familiar with. Again, I just don't see the reason for determinedly denying him any credit for that.
Similar threads
