I vote embrace.
Spoilers Should Star Trek be "our future" or an alternate timeline?
- Thread starter eschaton
- Start date
100% embrace.
To me its just easier and it doesn't affect the actual concept of Star Trek. People tie themselves in knots trying to figure out how dialogue which explicitly states the Eugenics Wars happened in the 1990s could somehow be taken to mean something different. I just say 'In Star Trek there was a war in the 1990s'.
I don't mean to offend anyone, but I find the whole question to be odd. Any show set in the future by necessity is a fiction. It may have started out as a direct extrapolation of our world, but the moment they started nailing fictional dates down then basically the Star Trek 'Universe' was born.
I don't just mean the Eugenics Wars, but things like Zephram Cochrane being born in 2030 or a fictional historical figure, Edith Keeler existing. Basically the ship of Star Trek being 'our world' sailed during Season 1 of TOS. The moment it started nailing down dates within it's own timeline and plotting out events within it's history from a 22nd Century perspective, it became it's own timeline.
Serious question, does anyone feel their enjoyment of Star Trek is lessened if it's necessary for it to exist in its' own universe?
Maybe I just devour a lot of shows/movies/comics/novels?
To me its just easier and it doesn't affect the actual concept of Star Trek. People tie themselves in knots trying to figure out how dialogue which explicitly states the Eugenics Wars happened in the 1990s could somehow be taken to mean something different. I just say 'In Star Trek there was a war in the 1990s'.
I don't mean to offend anyone, but I find the whole question to be odd. Any show set in the future by necessity is a fiction. It may have started out as a direct extrapolation of our world, but the moment they started nailing fictional dates down then basically the Star Trek 'Universe' was born.
I don't just mean the Eugenics Wars, but things like Zephram Cochrane being born in 2030 or a fictional historical figure, Edith Keeler existing. Basically the ship of Star Trek being 'our world' sailed during Season 1 of TOS. The moment it started nailing down dates within it's own timeline and plotting out events within it's history from a 22nd Century perspective, it became it's own timeline.
Serious question, does anyone feel their enjoyment of Star Trek is lessened if it's necessary for it to exist in its' own universe?
Maybe I just devour a lot of shows/movies/comics/novels?
Last edited:
Is Marvel ruined that in their past, for five whole years, half the human population vanished, yet their present is still pretty much the same as ours? They had Captain America, which is pretty much a goodie version of Khan further into the past too.
What do you mean? Trek history IS our real world history.
The Eugenic wars, the colonization mission to Saturn: they all happened. They're not shown in the media, because those are controlled by, erm, conspiracists with nefarious purposes.
But one day the truth will come out, and that day, we will reclaim our true history and future!
TLDR: Who cares, just enjoy this show set in a fictional universe.
The Eugenic wars, the colonization mission to Saturn: they all happened. They're not shown in the media, because those are controlled by, erm, conspiracists with nefarious purposes.
But one day the truth will come out, and that day, we will reclaim our true history and future!
TLDR: Who cares, just enjoy this show set in a fictional universe.
When Trek shows the past it explicitly shows our past, with little (if any) variation. The Voyager crew is in 1990s LA. Kirk and Company are in 1980s San Francisco. Star Trek has not made deliberate efforts to say "this is an alternate timeline" or "this is the point of divergence." I think of Fallout or even some comics that help with that point of reference.
Star Trek, as @Ryan Thomas Riddle points out, is going for both. They are trying to have their cake and eat it too. Which may frustrate some but for me it's how it is presented.
Now, would I welcome a "this is an alternate timeline" statement? Sure. And with the multiverse concept being all the rage these days (some people are quite mad with excitement over it) it could work just fine. But, Trek isn't there. Maybe someday.
Interestingly put. I think it's not a show you watch, but Doctor Who regularly navigates the same line with all the care of a steamroller.
To put it on either side of 1966, then:
1930) Edith Keeler was a big deal, so much so that she was instrumental in the Allied victory of World War II. Yet she didn't exist in 'our' world.
and)
1990s) Eugenics Wars. A big deal that lasted years with long reaching repercussions.
Given I'd consider both to be a significant divergence from the real world, what would be 'enough' for you to feel Star Trek had finally become its' own setting, removed from ours?
It is enough for me that it feels like it. But, it isn't presented as such by the storytellers. That's the difference for me. Regardless of what it feels like to me (feelings being highly subjective) what the intention of the production team is in keeping with our fture.
It was more that her absence meant there was no pacifist movement that prevented the Allied victory. If she had not died in that street accident, then she would have been a highly influential figure as founder of the peace movement, and Nazi Germany would have 'captured the world.' So her death was part of a timeline that was more in line with real life, where there was no hugely influential pacifist figure named Edith Keeler. That's why Kirk et al had to let her die.
Kor
For me, I would say that as of 2022, whatever hasn't happened (Eugenics War, etc) should be retconned into our future, maybe merged into what will be WW3 to keep Trek as a possible hopeful future for us.
It’s still a hopeful future, regardless of whether it’s set in ‘our’ world.
If they keep going back to Present Day every so often, and they show Present Day as it is in Real Life, then it should be "Our Future". So, like it or not, that involves retcons.
BUT
When we get to April 5th 2063, the gig is up. They'll either have to reboot or acknowledge it's an "Alternate Timeline". If I'm arguing about this on here when I'm 83, then please do me a huge favor and shoot me in the head. Thanks.
BUT
When we get to April 5th 2063, the gig is up. They'll either have to reboot or acknowledge it's an "Alternate Timeline". If I'm arguing about this on here when I'm 83, then please do me a huge favor and shoot me in the head. Thanks.
It's going to be one hell of a First Contact party going on! If the Vulcans show up, great! If they don't, well, the news from Europa will keep our minds blown for decades yet...
I'm grateful for Trek's influence on our world. It is correct in predicting that things have to get much, much worse before they can get better for us all. Frankly, I can't see the progression and tracks we need to follow to get to that better place, that utopia, from our current present. Collectively, we need to be Borg for a while so we're all on the same page to save our world and our species. It's a tall order, and Trek hasn't really explored the how in any great detail I'm aware of.
Trek exists in sub-space. A dimension of our subconscious where we can reach worlds at superluminal speeds and live long and prosper. A realm of infinite possibilities where the erasure of the barriers to communicating guarantee we are all heard and valued. The spatial grid where we are all aligned toward something truly majestic, wondrous, and larger than ourselves that grounds us with infinite presence.
It is, and it inspire regardless. The point is in the presentation. If the producers same "alternate reality and this is the point of divergence" then I'm all in. Until then, I will treat it as such being part of our world.
Does a divergence have to be spoken when it's obvious?
I'm thinking Doctor Who, Marvel or Harry Potter. All have more than half a foot inside 'our' world but are clearly divergent due to differing events and places. We accept them implicitly as 'Doctor Who' world or 'Marvel' world without thinking.
For me, with Star Trek, we have huge areas of divergence already. It's just 'Star Trek 'world' to me. It doesn't have to say so, because it is the narrative world that it is. Things have already been said to have taken place in the Star Trek Universe that have obviously not taken place in ours.
I guess we have to agree to differ on this? I just can't see the value in the counter-argument that it is our world in Star trek at all.
Beautiful!
For Star Trek, for me, yes. Mileage will obviously vary as to how a person interacts with it.
But, Trek doesn't treat it like that. They still connect it to our world. It's part of the general conceit of the world building to me, and just flat ignoring is insufficient on my end, when the idea is this is our future. That's the base premise of Star Trek-humanity gets better and improves despite difficult and sometimes horrendous obstacles.
Then it has no value to you. To me, it's what make Trek unique.
Totally fair.
From my perspective it takes more mental work to make it so, but we all love Star Trek in our own way.
Star Trek suddenly being an alternate universe really throws off my suspension of disbelief.
It should be "our" universe the same way any show (crime show, drama, romance, war movie) is set in "our" universe, despite the movie clearly dancing around certain real-world products, people and events.
Go too far off - I'm out (like Julia Roberts playing a Julia Roberts look-alike in "Ocean's Eleven" - even though there's clearly not a George Clooney in-universe running around).
Star Trek being "our" (possible) future is more important than any canon details/timelines. It's the central conceit of the original show itself.
It should be "our" universe the same way any show (crime show, drama, romance, war movie) is set in "our" universe, despite the movie clearly dancing around certain real-world products, people and events.
Go too far off - I'm out (like Julia Roberts playing a Julia Roberts look-alike in "Ocean's Eleven" - even though there's clearly not a George Clooney in-universe running around).
Star Trek being "our" (possible) future is more important than any canon details/timelines. It's the central conceit of the original show itself.
I keep reading this and I just can't agree. It's no more central to the conceit than it is central to any similar science fiction work.
The central conceit of the original show was to tell stories about things that were happening in the 1960s through the analogical lens of a science fiction setting.
It seems odd to me that (taking just TOS for an example) giant green space-hands, Lincoln in space and magic red crystals powering FTL drives don't throw suspension of disbelief, but the idea that Trek doesn't take place in our world does.
Last edited:
It's as if someone came around suddenly and said "Sherlock Holmes of course never took place in our universe! It's ridiculous to think someone in our universe could be that smart and capable! The only logical conclusion is Sherlock takes place in an alternate universe with a different history and human-like aliens. That's just logic!"
It's stupid.
It's stupid.
Similar threads
