Klingon change for season 2?
- Thread starter Roald
- Start date
It was a possible future, which isn’t possible anymore since we passed those dates.
Nope
Not according to shows made after 1996
I don't get how one tries to claim Trek is Our Future, when its clear events out our world do not line up.
The core pretense demands that it ISN'T specifically 'our' future - it's the future that can and might be.
Also, there's that whole definition of fiction thing.
Also, there's that whole definition of fiction thing.
I remember the launch of the DY-100 back in 1999. I was 8. It was amazing! I bet that's what a child watching the moon landing felt like. 
You’d think if it was ‘our future,’ the writers wouldn’t have had Khan and co. born in the 1960’s.
Hell. If Khan was meant to be the same age as Montalban, he’d have been on the rise already by the 1960’s.
Maybe the writers knew something we don’t.
That's it. It's our "possible" future. But within the fiction of Trek, it's "our" future. Period.
This is really getting out of hand, with people like @WebLurker applying standards to Trek that NO possible fiction can ever satisfy: There has never been an "X-File" devision. Hawaii doesn't have a state police task force like Hawaii Five-O. None of the characters in Magnum or M.A.S.H. were ever born or served at the specified times, and the apartment from "friends" doesn't exist in New York.
Yet all of these fictional tales are supposed to take place in "our" universe. To the exact same level as Star Trek does. It's not a documentary. It has to have fictional elements. It's a fictional story.
It's still absolutely, 100% not an "elseworld-tale", or "alternate history" like, say, "Man in the High Castle", or "Star Wars". It's "our" world with a lot of canon-inconsistencies (although it already has worse canon issues internally, without connecting it to present day). Much like "Mockingbird" or "Terminator" represent "our" future, even though we don't have a Cyberdine Systems Corp. currently researching artificial intelligence, and "Stranger Things" is set in "our" 1983, even though they show us Star Wars merchandise from 1985 (that's an inconsistency - NOT an elseworld tale!)
An interesting conceit is the MARVEL cinematic universe: Because that one clearly started out as "our" world in Iron Man, but slowly has crawled to the point where it clearly is an alternate history, with Superheroes and aliens running around and shaping the world in major ways in the last ten years.
'Star Trek' hasn't crossed that line (yet). Though I understand why some may feel like it. Trek currently operates under a "having the cake and eat it too"-mentality: Whenever they have to represent "present day" (TVH, VOY, ENT, JJTrek) it is clearly "our" reality, and Star Trek "our" possible future. Whenever it comes to it's internal history (Augments, WWIII), they also aknowledge the canonical timestamps. But they clearly avoid having both at the same time. Like X-files dealt either with aliens or magic, but never both at the same time. And most viewers don't even know the exact dates Trek takes place in the first place, so "200 years prior" can mean really anything (that's the whole reason why they invented "Stardates" in the first place!).
But this is assumption is true for ALL fictional storytellings, from modern Urban myths to campfire stories to every movie ever told - Titanic never had Jack & Rose on board, nor did that historical blue neclace ever existed. And yet it's clearly a story set in our world. Despite all the discrepancies. Because it always toes the line that it might have happened or will happen in our world. Exactly like Star Trek.
/rant
I feel like Star Trek has crossed this line, though I understand the desire to have it still fit in "our world." But, I don't think it lines up any more than the Marvel films do now.
Also, I feel like it is a distinction that is rather unnecessary in the enjoyment of fiction. Part of fiction is that it is a fictional world, to one degree or another, and trying to line it up perfectly is a way leading to a lot of gymnastics and frustration.
At least, to my view.
That is simply untrue.
The status as "our" (fictional) future hasn't changed from the 60s to the 90s to present day. It has the exact same amount of both contradictions (which are inevitable in any fictional story) and re-affirmations: Every new iteration is more focused on being a continuation of "our" present, than of the Star Trek history past - just look at DIS: It's obviously more "our" future than "prequel to TOS technology".
"Our (possible) future" is as big part of the Trek equation as "post-scarcity" and "human progress". It's as essential as "beaming" and "peaceful Federation". I know a lot of guys around here would gladly through either of these elements out of the window if they get the chance - but these are some of the central defining characteristics of Star Trek. Aliens and time travel can appear in any other story. These are what define Star Trek among the SF genre.
What evidence? Two lines about the augment war happening "200 years ago", and Khan (who could have lied) giving a date that didn't fit? Yeah, good thing every line in Trek has always been the absolute truth, and no contradictions/retcons - especially when it came to numbers and distances - have ever happened.
It's simply these two lines against the entire basic premise of what Trek is built upon. And yeah, what of these two has more weight is pretty much obvious.
That's the best argument presented thus far. I don't entirely agree but this at least makes more sense of "Of Course its our future-just look at the show!" When, as noted, there are several events, including the Augments, Chronowerx, orbital nuclear platforms, the tumultuous 90s as reported by Spock, Nomad being launched, sleeper ships being rendered "obsolete" and the lack of a Colonel Green in our history.
ETA: This isn't to be argumentative. More of a curiosity of what is considered needed by people to enjoy Star Trek. I personally don't see the central conceit of "our future" being needed to enjoy it, but that's me.
Why can't you accept that Star Trek is in a different timeline from reality?What evidence? Two lines about the augment war happening "200 years ago", and Khan (who could have lied) giving a date that didn't fit? Yeah, good thing every line in Trek has always been the absolute truth, and no contradictions/retcons - especially when it came to numbers and distances - have ever happened.
It's simply these two lines against the entire basic premise of what Trek is built upon. And yeah, what of these two has more weight is pretty much obvious.
It doesn't subtract from the show in any way.
Why does anybody have to "accept" either premise?
This is exactly like arguing about whose "Head-Canon" is more valid.
It's an interesting hypothetical conversation, till it starts to escalate toward 'I'm Right & You're Wrong".
... then it's all down the crapper from there.
Because it simply isn't.
You seem to mix up our fictional reality with actual reality.
Honest question:
Do you believe that "First Man" is a story about our world, even though Neil Armstrong never looked like Ryan Gosling? And some of the events in the movie are depicted way differently than what actually happened?
Or do need everybody to accept that this movie takes place in a different timeline as well?
Star Trek simply is not an "elseworld tale". Period. It's a fictionalized version of "our" future. Like literally every other fictional story set in "our" world ever told. Like 'First Man' is "our" fictionalized past
What you are searching for is "documentary". And even they don't perfectly line up with reality most of the time. This has really nothing to do with "Star Trek" anymore. This is about the basic acceptance of where "fiction" takes place. And you have some really weird opinions on that.
Last edited:
No fictional reality has ever conformed to what has happened IRL. That's what makes it fiction in the first place.
That's why I was asking you about "First Man" specifically, because I'm still genuinely interested in what type of "reality" you would set that in?
Similar threads
