That is the logic of it, isn't it? Not too many people seem to notice this.
Good analysis generally.
True. So this movie is just about "Star Trek" itself.
Orci on Start Trek, timelines, canon and everything (SPOILERS)
- Thread starter SalvorHardin
- Start date
- Status
That is the logic of it, isn't it? Not too many people seem to notice this.
Good analysis generally.
True. So this movie is just about "Star Trek" itself.
As long as the movie is good I don't care if it's a reboot or an alternate time line. But I like the alternate time line explanation, it creates some connection to the previous movies/series which is cool.
Some Trek fans on this bbs already consider non-TOS series (especially Enterprise) alternate time lines anyway, so this is not new, except this time officially acknowledged by the producers.
Some Trek fans on this bbs already consider non-TOS series (especially Enterprise) alternate time lines anyway, so this is not new, except this time officially acknowledged by the producers.
Ok so... we have a lot of talk about Orci, his alternate timelines and canon.
But canon is what we see on the screen.
Not what writers say in interviews, not what the directors think but what takes place on screen.
Now, if none of this alternate timeline/universe talk makes it on screen, then Orci's explanations and rationalizations are irrelevant.
Trek XI will have happened in the all too familiar and known Trek universe.
So aren't we rushing a bit here, once again ?
But canon is what we see on the screen.
Not what writers say in interviews, not what the directors think but what takes place on screen.
Now, if none of this alternate timeline/universe talk makes it on screen, then Orci's explanations and rationalizations are irrelevant.
Trek XI will have happened in the all too familiar and known Trek universe.
So aren't we rushing a bit here, once again ?
And if they do make it on screen, they still don't really affect anything much.
I agree, I'm definitely not one to obsess over canon and stuff like that, but since I got time to kill...what the hell
It's Crisis On Infinite Treks!
Yes, I think the classic Quantum Mechanics theory of "many universes," where alternate timelines pop up spontaneously every second, is what "Parallels" was depicting. That's a whole different issue from using time travel to intentionally create an alternate timeline.
I don't know if that's an example of a divergent universe -- I think maybe the Mirror Universe has always existed alongside the "real" one. (Did the backwards universe you see reflected in a mirror exist before the mirror was made?)
Cochrane shot the Vulcan because he was already Mirror-Cochrane, and Terrans have always been hostile in the Mirror Universe. (See the alternate opening title sequence of "In a Mirror, Darkly," which starts out with old pirate ships in centuries past, and continues with fighter jets and submarines, to Neil Armstrong planting the Terran Empire flag on the Moon, up to the I.S.S. Enterprise NX-01, implying that the Mirror Universe has existed for centuries, if not forever, long before Mirror-Cochrane shot the Vulcan.)
Since we haven't seen the movie, and all we know is that there's an Old Spock, we have no way of knowing whether Old Spock and Nero even came from the same timeline.
Maybe Nero came from the "Star Trek: Nemesis" timeline, but Old Spock came from the alternate future that Nero created, to come back and undo the changes Nero made (like old Jake Sisko in DS9's "The Visitor," or Tasha Yar in TNG's "Yesterday's Enterprise"); or, like Picard in "First Contact," Old Spock was following Nero into the past, and thus was able to see the changes Nero would make but was somehow immune to them. You are right: Unless Spock and Nero went back to the past timeline together through the same time-warp phenomenon, then Spock would simply cease to exist in Nero's alternate timeline and would have no way of stopping him.
I think that falls under the filmmakers' "artistic license," just as the Enterprise in the previous 10 films was "spruced up" for each film, both inside and out, depending on the whims of the art director for each film. I don't think starship models, costumes, makeup, and even other actors in the roles can be used as evidence in continuity debates (or else Saavik from STII having blue eyes would be from an alternate reality from the brown-eyed Saavik of STIII.)
Some of the most interesting speculation I've seen is a poster over at Trekmovie who suggested that the reason Spock goes back in time after Nero - despite the fact that it won't affect his own universe - is that he's somehow responsible for Nero making the trip and he feels a duty to straighten things out.
Which would be a bit like "Time After Time" in reverse.
Which would be a bit like "Time After Time" in reverse.
You haven't been listening.
It's Orci himself who says that the timeline changes won't affect the original timeline, and will only create an alternate universe.
It's ORCI who's saying "events in the alternate timeline" won't affect the world/continuity Spock has lived in all this time. Get it? Nero will NOT affect the mainstream Trek timeline. THIS is what Orci said and THIS is what's being discussed.
As for "a bit early", Orci has ADMITTED the timeline's being changed and thus contradicts things we've known. Again, haven't you been keeping up with what this discussion is all about?
Me:
"I have cancer."
You:
"Maybe you don't."
Me:
"They've already done a bunch of tests. Every one confirms it."
You:
"We'll have to wait and see. Nothing's known at this point."
Me:
begins hitting you with sofa cushions "If you're not going to listen, don't reply!!!!"
---------------------------------------
I just hope Superboy Prime doesn't survive this time.
He's made so much trouble since the original Crisis!
Last edited:
Re: Bob Orci on Start Trek, timelines, canon and everything (SPOILERS)
THANK GOD!! I would rather watch those than some crapfest that J.J. Abrams and "friends" choose to think which would be the "better" imagining.Just read this over at TrekMovie report. Good stuff and i'm satisfied that we do have an answer that I suspected might be the truth.
However. If a new alternate timeline is created when someone changes the past then what is the point of time travel to fix it? because whatever was done in the past wouldn't effect the current timeline, just create a new one. So why bother trying to stop it at all?
In the most recent time travel movie First Contact it was clearly shown that time travel does effect the current "prime" timeline. So before I start confusing the fu*k out of myself, let me ask how does this hold relevance to other Star Trek episodes and movies where the characters had to go back to "correct" their timeline which had been effected by someone else? Wasn't the timeline always "restored" to how it was before the villian changed it and not actually creating a new one.
Re: Bob Orci on Start Trek, timelines, canon and everything (SPOILERS)
I don't have time to read through this whole thread, but I'll re-post what I wrote in the one in response to the articles:
Maybe I'm reading Orci's words wrong or differently, but my understanding of it was that some things might change in the "past", by Nero and OldSpock's doings, but that, in the end, the universe will still end up to be the exact same universe we've all come to know, just with a few details changed, such as 1701 being built in Iowa, Kirk's backstory, etc. It resets a few things from the past, but the further and further you get in time, up until the late 24th Century, everything else is as is.
It's like the episode where Ben Sisko went back in time and BECAME Gabriel Bell, as evidenced by the picture of him in the computer that wasn't there before. (Technically everything after that point was alternate timeline too).
The point is, you can go back and CORRECT the timeline, so that it is as you know it should be (that's why we have OldSpock go back in time to do so), but there will be details changed, but you still end up where you should be.
That's my take on it, although from a quantum point of view, it's just another universe in which all that you see take place took place (in the 23rd century) but in that particular alternate universe, all that lead to what we know as the present in the 24 century (not sure if this paragraph made what I'm saying more or less clear lol). Point is, this line of thinking works 100% fine for me.
I don't have time to read through this whole thread, but I'll re-post what I wrote in the one in response to the articles:
Maybe I'm reading Orci's words wrong or differently, but my understanding of it was that some things might change in the "past", by Nero and OldSpock's doings, but that, in the end, the universe will still end up to be the exact same universe we've all come to know, just with a few details changed, such as 1701 being built in Iowa, Kirk's backstory, etc. It resets a few things from the past, but the further and further you get in time, up until the late 24th Century, everything else is as is.
It's like the episode where Ben Sisko went back in time and BECAME Gabriel Bell, as evidenced by the picture of him in the computer that wasn't there before. (Technically everything after that point was alternate timeline too).
The point is, you can go back and CORRECT the timeline, so that it is as you know it should be (that's why we have OldSpock go back in time to do so), but there will be details changed, but you still end up where you should be.
That's my take on it, although from a quantum point of view, it's just another universe in which all that you see take place took place (in the 23rd century) but in that particular alternate universe, all that lead to what we know as the present in the 24 century (not sure if this paragraph made what I'm saying more or less clear lol). Point is, this line of thinking works 100% fine for me.
Captain X
Rear Admiral
Re: Bob Orci on Start Trek, timelines, canon and everything (SPOILERS)
Of course Sisko being Bell didn't change how the Defiant or the station looked, where they were built, or the background or ages of any of the characters, but other than that, yeah, perfect comparison.
Of course Sisko being Bell didn't change how the Defiant or the station looked, where they were built, or the background or ages of any of the characters, but other than that, yeah, perfect comparison.
Re: Bob Orci on Start Trek, timelines, canon and everything (SPOILERS)
Oh brother.
THANK GOD!! I would rather watch those than some crapfest that J.J. Abrams and "friends" choose to think which would be the "better" imagining.
Oh brother.
Re: Bob Orci on Start Trek, timelines, canon and everything (SPOILERS)
True. New artistic, production and directing teams will do that to bring a franchise into our century.
+1
Of course Sisko being Bell didn't change how the Defiant or the station looked, where they were built, or the background or ages of any of the characters, but other than that, yeah, perfect comparison.
True. New artistic, production and directing teams will do that to bring a franchise into our century.
THANK GOD!! I would rather watch those than some crapfest that J.J. Abrams and "friends" choose to think which would be the "better" imagining.
+1
Captain X
Rear Admiral
Re: Bob Orci on Start Trek, timelines, canon and everything (SPOILERS)
No, they do it because they think the Apple store looks cool.New artistic, production and directing teams will do that to bring a franchise into our century.
Re: Bob Orci on Start Trek, timelines, canon and everything (SPOILERS)
It looks nothing like an Apple store to me. Just a more realistic and up to date design aesthetic.
I have no respect for Apple or their products, if this looked like anything Apple to me I would hate it.
Even if that were true. It's their production. If something looked cool to me I would surely take some
of my design cues from it.
No, they do it because they think the Apple store looks cool.New artistic, production and directing teams will do that to bring a franchise into our century.
It looks nothing like an Apple store to me. Just a more realistic and up to date design aesthetic.
I have no respect for Apple or their products, if this looked like anything Apple to me I would hate it.
Even if that were true. It's their production. If something looked cool to me I would surely take some
of my design cues from it.
Re: Bob Orci on Start Trek, timelines, canon and everything (SPOILERS)
Really, what's anymore unrealistic about them than previous Trek?
The adding of the glass dividers looks and feels more like a real life military vessel or station, the computers look more functional and it being well lit instead of needing a frikkin flashlight on the bridge is more appropriate too.
And yes it happens to be entertainment and scifi at that, I think I what things to look cool...
Really, what's anymore unrealistic about them than previous Trek?
The adding of the glass dividers looks and feels more like a real life military vessel or station, the computers look more functional and it being well lit instead of needing a frikkin flashlight on the bridge is more appropriate too.
And yes it happens to be entertainment and scifi at that, I think I what things to look cool...
Re: Bob Orci on Start Trek, timelines, canon and everything (SPOILERS)
I don't think they'll need to worry about the U.S. Navy wanting to take a look at these sets. The bridge set seems cluttered for no other reason than to fill space. Do you really need all those stations on the bridge?
I don't think they'll need to worry about the U.S. Navy wanting to take a look at these sets. The bridge set seems cluttered for no other reason than to fill space. Do you really need all those stations on the bridge?
- Status
Similar threads
