Moral Obligations to Alternate Realities

[Ovation]

Please see my post above. Yes, there are other realities in the Trek story, but they co-exist. New ones don't pop up alongside the original when a timeline gets changed. This means the movie is either an alternate reality and was from the start, or the original timeline is now being overwritten.

It's not an either or proposition. Trek has ALWAYS been inconsistent in its application of time travel--the needs of the story outweigh the needs of consistency (to coin a phrase ). There was a poster who worked it out a few months back in great detail (trekmovieguide or trekguidemovie or something like that)--do a search as I don't plan to reconstruct all his reasoning. The very short version, though it isn't one that is palatable to most people, I suspect, is that just about every instance of time travel in Trek has created new timelines. While his conclusions may be unsettling, his reasoning was sound.

Even if we do not adopt that extreme position, the fact remains that time travel has been treated inconsistently throughout Trek.

The fact that Spock Prime (weird to write that, but that's his character's name in the credits) affirms it's an alternate timeline is sufficient for the purposes of the film (and the franchise).

I'll go even further than that. IF it is, indeed, "overwriting the original"--it still doesn't matter. The original had to have played out as it did in order for Nero and Spock to have been thrown back and it therefore loses none of its "meaningfulness" in the process.

In the end, time travel should just be enjoyed as it is happening in the story. No matter what form or set of consequences one tries to place upon it, it will ALWAYS fall apart under scrutiny. Best not to over-think it and certainly not worth crying or mourning over "the lost original". It's all fiction and it's all available at your local or internet media store.

 

[firehawk12]

I mean, I guess there was enough time for them to repair that damage between Enterprise and the TOS era, but unless someone actually says something, it's not clear whether or not the voyages of Captain Archer took place in this new reality.

The movie makes pretty clear that yes, Archer's voyages took place.

So here's what I don't understand. TNG still exists even after the events of the TCW, as we saw with the finale of ENT... but somehow we're now in a forked universe?

God, time travel should be banned as a plot device especially if it ends up carrying so much baggage.

 

[Kaziarl]

A new timeline does not overwrite the existing one, as we HAVE seen in star trek.

As I have said, Yesterdays Enterprise is a perfect example.

The Enterprise C is sent forward in time, changing history to where the Federation is at war with the Klingons. Also in this new history, Tasha Yar is still alive.

The Ent-C goes back, with Tasha Yar, and fixes history. Now if your argument that fixing history would erase the altered timeline, then Tasha Yar would not have been able to go back, and Seela would not exist. However, she does. Logically speaking, the altered timeline must still exist because the results of that timeline, Tasha Yar and Seela, still exist.

 

[dougkeenan]

"When it is morally praiseworthy but not morally obligatory" - young Spock

Thread title kicked that loose in my head.

 

[Messianni]

Ok, to answer the original question and get back to the original subject, rather than get off on yet another "OMG it's not an alternate reality" rant...

I think what older Spock is doing is self-less on his part. Already he has seen what his unintentional traveling back in time has done once (causing the destruction of Vulcan), so to further stir things up in this alternate universe that he has no knowledge of would be, to coin a phrase, illogical. Rather, he is going to use his wisdom and knowledge of Vulcan-that-was to help preserve their culture and, overall, make the best of what they have left.