Spoilers Should Star Trek be "our future" or an alternate timeline?

[eschaton]

Hey everybody,

On another forum (not TrekBBS) a few people are complaining quite loudly about the show Picard making the choice to travel back in 2024 and directly reference things which either didn't happen (because TOS predicted them and reality later lapped it) or it's incredibly unlikely will happen (because the show depicts a much more advanced space program than our own, keeping with established TOS timelines).

Their argument is that "Gene's vision" was that Trek was an optimistic vision of our own future. Even though reality eventually lapped past events TOS established, that the proper thing to do to keep to that vision is Trek should just ignore everything which was supposed to have happened prior to the present (most notably, but not limited to, the Eugenics Wars) and just retcon everything/declare those elements of TOS non-canon.

I have...not run into this argument before, TBH. More often I see Trek fans acting as canon purists, and that if things are shown onscreen, then that means they are reality. Hence even if it wasn't the original intent of Gene, in practice the Trekverse has become an alternate timeline from our own, and we just need to deal with it.

Personally, I am not a super-hard canon purist, and I'd be totally fine with more full-on reboots of Trek not within the Prime continuity. But if we're going to honor continuity, I think we need to go the whole nine yards.

Curious what other people think here.

 

[FederationHistorian]

Star Trek is already an alternate universe on the basis of the Eugenics Wars. Its still going to be loosely based on our world though, and canon will overlap at times.

I don’t see how PIC referring to people and events from TOS or other Trek series is a bad thing. Doesn’t it follow the Trek continuity than ENT and DIS got maligned for not following at times? What’s the issue?

If Trek is still going by the mid-21st century, and first contact hasn’t happened, I’m sure there will be some TCW shenanigans to rewrite the lore and in essence reboot the franchise. That’s probably the only rewrite that will ever have to be done. Until then they should just enjoy the ride and see how Trek canon fits into our world.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I hate the idea of constantly pushing major Trek historical events forward just because they haven't happened to US. That makes absolutely no sense. The Trek timeline is separate from our own, and everyone knows it. Just cut it out with the fucking revisionism. LET.IT.GO.

I mean, they can't keep doing this and still insist that we're talking about the prime timeline here. Either respect existing Trek canon or obliterate it. It's one or the other. Can't have both.

Take the Eugenics Wars, for example. I see absolutely no evidence they've been ignored or even moved. By 2024, they're 30 years in the past. Ancient history. Adam Soong's research had to have been banned for a reason...

 

[plynch]

It was kind of cool in 1967 that this could be OUR future. Now with the whole multiple timelines concept Trek loves, and with all the events that haven’t happened irl (thank God), it’s not exactly our future, is it?

 

[The Wormhole]

I mean, no TV show really exist in "our world" not even the ones that are set in modern times, so why should Star Trek be any different?

Aside from the fact that Trek Fans think the show is Something Special, of course.

 

[Turtletrekker]

It already is in an alternative timeline.

 

[Kor]

I haven't seen the new season of Picard yet. But I will be deeply appalled if the depiction of the 2020s doesn't look like some weird dystopian version of the 1990s with Sanctuary Districts, godawful boxy clothes, and the clunky computer terminals with low-res CRT monitors connected to this primitive network called the "Interface," and no smart devices, and people have "credit chips," whatever those are.



Kor

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

It already is in an alternative timeline.

Exactly! It's fucking BEEN an alternate timeline for a long while now! So why all of a sudden start trying to make it fit? It not only can't, it shouldn't.

I mean, it's one thing to futz around with relative dates, like "200 years ago" and "a century ago" and all that. This leaves some wiggle room. But if they mention a specific calendar year, that's definitive and should not be tampered with. If existing canon says the Eugenics Wars happened from 1992 to 1996, then they DID. If canon says World War III happened in 2053, then it fucking DID. Getting the picture now?

 

[BillJ]

Their argument is that "Gene's vision"...

They lost the argument right here, for me. I don't see why we just can't all be flexible and respect each other's views. If someone wants to see it as our future, no problem. If they was to see it as something that generally approximates our past and future, more power to them.

I'm just at a point in life where I'm looking for engaging stories and characters.

 

[shapeshifter]

^I know! Not Canon! Boycotting! Signing a petition! Suing!

ETA my vote: Trek should embrace being an alternative timeline/universe.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I don't see why we just can't all be flexible and respect each other's views.

Good one.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Doesn't the Marvel universe have big stuff happening in the past that should have a huge impact on the present but doesn't? How is the Eugenics Wars any different?

It's still as much "our world" as any other tv/film universe.

 

[Qonundrum]

Star Trek is in its own universe with its own timeline, one that doesn't fully match up to ours. It doesn't need to mix with ours to sell allegory and allusion that ours can relate to.

 

[Dukhat]

If they had just made DSC, SNW, and all the other 3rd generation Trek shows reboots, then they wouldn't have had to worry about things like the Eugenics Wars, WWIII, Sanctuary Districts, or any other continuity thing that clearly isn't going to be consistent with real life or what past Trek shows did. But instead they chose to shoehorn it all together without any real regard to consistency.

Of course, I know it's all a reboot, despite what CBS advertises.

 

[Summer Solstice]

Hey everybody,

On another forum (not TrekBBS) a few people are complaining quite loudly about the show Picard making the choice to travel back in 2024 and directly reference things which either didn't happen (because TOS predicted them and reality later lapped it) or it's incredibly unlikely will happen (because the show depicts a much more advanced space program than our own, keeping with established TOS timelines).

Their argument is that "Gene's vision" was that Trek was an optimistic vision of our own future. Even though reality eventually lapped past events TOS established, that the proper thing to do to keep to that vision is Trek should just ignore everything which was supposed to have happened prior to the present (most notably, but not limited to, the Eugenics Wars) and just retcon everything/declare those elements of TOS non-canon.

I have...not run into this argument before, TBH. More often I see Trek fans acting as canon purists, and that if things are shown onscreen, then that means they are reality. Hence even if it wasn't the original intent of Gene, in practice the Trekverse has become an alternate timeline from our own, and we just need to deal with it.

Personally, I am not a super-hard canon purist, and I'd be totally fine with more full-on reboots of Trek not within the Prime continuity. But if we're going to honor continuity, I think we need to go the whole nine yards.

Curious what other people think here.

I don't feel strongly one way or the other as long as it's reasonably consistent within one show. So if "Picard" wants to say the Eugenics Wars happened and Disco wants to say they didn't for example, I'm totally fine with that. I really enjoyed reading Greg Cox's The Eugenics Wars books.

 

[1001001]

Exactly! It's fucking BEEN an alternate timeline for a long while now! So why all of a sudden start trying to make it fit? It not only can't, it shouldn't.

I mean, it's one thing to futz around with relative dates, like "200 years ago" and "a century ago" and all that. This leaves some wiggle room. But if they mention a specific calendar year, that's definitive and shoult not be tampered with. If existing canon says the Eugenics Wars happened from 1992 to 1996, then they DID. If canon says World War III happened in 2053, then it fucking DID. Getting the picture now?

You might want to switch to decaf…

 

[JoseNoodles]

For me, Star Trek became an alternate timeline the moment the space shuttle Enterprise was named after the TOS Enterprise. Since I wouldn't expect Star Trek the TV show to exist in the Star Trek universe, there has to be a different reason for why the shuttle was named Enterprise, and in Star Trek the starships are named (in-part) after the shuttle and not the other way around. Also things like the Eugenics Wars and sleeper ships seemed way too advanced for the 1990s, even for someone trying to predict the future from the 1960s.

 

[fireproof78]

Getting the picture now?

Not really, no. Trek has always tried to have it's cake and eat it too so I don't see the need to be so black and white.

 

[FredH]

I’ve changed my views on this over time. Sure, it’s nice seeing all the dates dovetail in with each other into a nice, solid timeline.

But.

Star Trek was always supposed to be a basically-hopeful vision of the future. Not “Gene’s Vision” or anything pure and impossible like that, but basically the whole point of Trek has almost always been to say, hey, the future doesn’t have to suck.

Making it all an alternate universe completely negates that. If some other history has a better future, nice, but so what?

Star Trek’s meaning comes from being a dream of our future. So if things have to be retconned—which the existence of the Temporal Wars makes easy—then they should be.

 

[Tosk]

Star Trek has never been set in the real world, not really. It's silly to try and pretend otherwise. The more you try to make it be, the more you break the Trek timeline.

It reminds of of when Terminator Salvation director McG (ugh) insisted on not specifying when Judgment Day happened because you can't expect an audience in 2009 to watch a movie where the world ended in (eg) 2004.