Spoilers STAR TREK BEYOND

[fireproof78]

Speaking of merchandising, has there been any news regarding who has the Star Trek Beyond master toy license? Or is it still too early to tell? I don't think Hasbro would be interested in keeping it (which is a bit too sad, because they could have done a better job with STiD).

Licensing has to be in question, as Mega blocks picked up Star Trek licensing earlier this year.

Hasbro did terrible, in my opinion, and I wish someone would try to merchandise Star Trek like Hasbro does Star Wars. Seriously, are action figures that hard to produce now?

Yes, yes, I know that licensing is a major factor, but there is currently no line of Prime Trek action figures outside of the occasional Diamond Select pieces.

 

[CorporalClegg]

If you can't understand the difference between restoring a broken timeline and breaking one in the first place, you need to spend more time studying the concepts.

That's like arguing shooting and killing a person is someone different because he's holding a gun. If you live by a strict rule--whether legal or personal philosophy--of "Thou shall not kill," then you've still managed to break it. Because, at the end of the day, you still fucking shot and killed someone, armed or otherwise.

If the object of the game is to not change history, then it's an impossible rule to live up to. A person cannot time travel without changing events or affecting history in some manner. So insinuating that "restoring the timeline" is ultimately some kind a zero sum is either short sighted or disingenuous.

So even if all that happens is Kirk, Picard, etc. did was bumped into someone causing her to drop her briefcase and spill her coffee, which caused her to be late for a meeting, they've still changed the past. And it's impossible to calculate the domino effect her being late to that meeting has.

A person can argue that it was all in for the greater good, but that doesn't change the fact the rule was broken and the future they return to is not the same one they were trying to get back to in the first place.

So having a rule that's impossible to adhere to just for the sake of having it is silly.

But let's take it a step further:

From MemAlph:

All Starfleet personnel are strictly forbidden from directly interfering with historical events and are required to maintain the timeline and prevent history from being altered. It also restricts people from telling too much about the future, so as not to cause paradoxes or alter the timeline

The first part is redundant as it's essentially covered in the PD itself (Which is also a mess of a rule, but I digress...)

The second part is contradictory.

"Maintain the timeline" is, in the grand cosmic scheme, ambiguous at best. Whose timeline is the right timeline and from what perspective? Changing things to suit your own needs not only breaks the first part of the rule, but creates a paradox in and of itself. And trying to figure out which "path" is the right one and how to best go about righting it only creates paradoxes on top of paradoxes.

If person A goes back and changes history, it affects person B, and person C is created as a result of the change. Person B doesn't like the change so he goes back to maintain the "original" timeline. But this will erase person C from existence, so he goes back to stop person B.

This could theoretically go forever, each time creating a paradox. And no one is 'right" to say his is the best option. A person can use the greater good excuse, but even that is tenuous at best. What if, but allowing the Borg to go back and assimilate humanity, this completely alters their course of evolution? A bazillion things could happen, that changes galactic events that actually prevent them from assimilating (and annihilating) many species throughout the galaxy. So from a galactic great good stand point, it's actually better that they went back and assimilated humanity.

So Picard is "maintaining the timeline" from his perspective to better suit his needs. That's totally contradictory to the spirit of the directive.

It's like Marty in BF2. Yeah he changed things back for "the better" form his perspective, and he was probably right in doing so, but there's still an element of playing God there, and the question of whether or not he had the right to do so.

But all this is mental masturbation. And has no business in standard pulp fiction. Which is why Abrams didn't even bother with it. And why, most of the time, other Trek didn't bother with it either. Because, in the end of the day, time travel is just a plot device and should just be used to tell the story the writer wants to tell.

But, like most of Berman-era parlance, this bullshit "idea" was thrown in the mix to, apparently, add validity and weight to a concept, when all it really did was obfuscate.

 

[BillJ]

If you can't understand the difference between restoring a broken timeline and breaking one in the first place, you need to spend more time studying the concepts.

That's like arguing shooting and killing a person is someone different because he's holding a gun. If you live by a strict rule--whether legal or personal philosophy--of "Thou shall not kill," then you've still managed to break it. Because, at the end of the day, you still fucking shot and killed someone, armed or otherwise.

If the object of the game is to not change history, then it's an impossible rule to live up to. A person cannot time travel without changing events or affecting history in some manner. So insinuating that "restoring the timeline" is ultimately some kind a zero sum is either short sighted or disingenuous.

So even if all that happens is Kirk, Picard, etc. did was bumped into someone causing her to drop her briefcase and spill her coffee, which caused her to be late for a meeting, they've still changed the past. And it's impossible to calculate the domino effect her being late to that meeting has.

A person can argue that it was all in for the greater good, but that doesn't change the fact the rule was broken and the future they return to is not the same one they were trying to get back to in the first place.

So having a rule that's impossible to adhere to just for the sake of having it is silly.

But let's take it a step further:

From MemAlph:

All Starfleet personnel are strictly forbidden from directly interfering with historical events and are required to maintain the timeline and prevent history from being altered. It also restricts people from telling too much about the future, so as not to cause paradoxes or alter the timeline

The first part is redundant as it's essentially covered in the PD itself (Which is also a mess of a rule, but I digress...)

The second part is contradictory.

"Maintain the timeline" is, in the grand cosmic scheme, ambiguous at best. Whose timeline is the right timeline and from what perspective? Changing things to suit your own needs not only breaks the first part of the rule, but creates a paradox in and of itself. And trying to figure out which "path" is the right one and how to best go about righting it only creates paradoxes on top of paradoxes.

If person A goes back and changes history, it affects person B, and person C is created as a result of the change. Person B doesn't like the change so he goes back to maintain the "original" timeline. But this will erase person C from existence, so he goes back to stop person B.

This could theoretically go forever, each time creating a paradox. And no one is 'right" to say his is the best option. A person can use the greater good excuse, but even that is tenuous at best. What if, but allowing the Borg to go back and assimilate humanity, this completely alters their course of evolution? A bazillion things could happen, that changes galactic events that actually prevent them from assimilating (and annihilating) many species throughout the galaxy. So from a galactic great good stand point, it's actually better that they went back and assimilated humanity.

So Picard is "maintaining the timeline" from his perspective to better suit his needs. That's totally contradictory to the spirit of the directive.

It's like Marty in BF2. Yeah he changed things back for "the better" form his perspective, and he was probably right in doing so, but there's still an element of playing God there, and the question of whether or not he had the right to do so.

But all this is mental masturbation. And has no business in standard pulp fiction. Which is why Abrams didn't even bother with it. And why, most of the time, other Trek didn't bother with it either. Because, in the end of the day, time travel is just a plot device and should just be used to tell the story the writer wants to tell.

But, like most of Berman-era parlance, this bullshit "idea" was thrown in the mix to, apparently, add validity and weight to a concept, when all it really did was obfuscate.

Someone buy this man a drink!

 

[Trekkin]

Back to the Future accidentally displayed why 'repairing' an unwanted timeline from existence is an extraordinarily arrogant action from the perspective of the time traveller - they erase people from existence. Marty's family are not the same ones he left behind. Like the NuTrek characters, they're physically identical, but their personalities and impact they might have had on the world are gone. In Martys case, the changes were an accident. In Treks case, it's usually not.

For eg.
Whilst Picard going back to stop the Borg Queen from assimilating Earth was definately a good thing for humanity, we don't know how it affected the rest of the universe. People who were born in that new timeline might now never be. Maybe the Vulcans etc were doing better battling the Borg in this timeline, since the Borg apparently just parked out on earth for a couple of hundred years instead of getting into cubes and conquering.

Tapestry (assuming you accept its time travel and not just in Picards head) is another example. Can you really say that we see any benefits to the wider world, just because Picard got himself back in the same position he was before? For all we know, humanity never even met the Borg in the 'no heart stabbing' timeline, because there was no Captain Picard to annoy Q. All those potentially saved lives, just at the cost of Picard being mediocre.

(Of course, VOY eventually retconned the Borg as inevitable. But the TNG writers didn't know that.)

That's why 'fixing' timelines has an assload of unfortunate implications that simple 'branching' timelines don't. Our main characters are not the Q, and don't know the full effect of their decisions. Sure, all those changes and erasures of events might actually have been for the best...but it still involves your main characters purposefully playing God to other people's fates, purely for their own benefit.

But that doesn't matter, unless the audience and the writers insist treating plot devices as Serious Business(TM). It's not going to affect my enjoyment of First Contact or TVH any.

 

[Phantom]

Which is part of the paradox. You have to think relatively when you think about time travel since it's non-linear in terms of the absolute timeline. A time loop or paradox that appears one way to those caught in it when viewed from the larger perspective afterwards can look very different.

The point being, they didn't have any issues with mucking around in the past.

No, the point being that they were forbidden to "muck around" with the past unless they were acting to correct either an accidental or deliberate historical alteration.

Barring either of those, the rule was (to borrow the Hiker's Creed): Take only pictures, leave only footprints (and in this case leave not even those if possible).

 

[BillJ]

No, the point being that they were forbidden to "muck around" with the past unless they were acting to correct either an accidental or deliberate historical alteration.

Barring either of those, the rule was (to borrow the Hiker's Creed): Take only pictures, leave only footprints (and in this case leave not even those if possible).

I don't know whether to or ?

As was made clear up thread, any time you go into the past, your very presence would change the flow of time in unpredictable ways. Yet the Federation had no issues sending people into the past to explore.

The same thing with the Prime Directive. You can't explore without the chance of contamination always being present. You can't account for every variable, every possible scenario.

 

[Trekkin]

But they weren't correcting anything. Their timeline was gone. At best, they erased another one and hit CTRL-V ->Clipboard -> Select 'Home'.

They overrode another one that was identical to the one they came from originally. Coz it suited them better that way.

Edith Keller showed that. She dies the first time = First TOS timeline where she dies. McCoy saves her = Everything except the Guardian is gone. Kirk prevents McCoy saving her = a new timeline where history has Kirk, Spock and McCoy there to watch her die.

Maybe it's a paradox loop, but the episode itself doesn't seem to suggest that.

I always thought the captains treatment of the Prime Directive once broken was 'Well that's too bad...Here you go, take a starship view of your planet!" Maybe the temporal directive is the same way. Nero changed things, what happens next isn't the temporal polices problem. Which makes more sense when you think about it. Spock Prime doesn't know the Nucharacters futures, because they're lives are now too different. The best he can do is maybe list off some off some stuff that might bother them. His ability to 'interfere' is pretty limited.

At worst, he gave them some tech from a more advanced race. If that was forbidden, then the TOS characters really shouldn't have been nicking that cloaking device unless they could develop it themselves.

 

[ralph]

'Fast & Furious 6' Martial Arts Actor Joins 'Star Trek 3'

Source: THR

 

[Mudd]

But they weren't correcting anything. Their timeline was gone. At best, they erased another one and hit CTRL-V ->Clipboard -> Select 'Home'.

They overrode another one that was identical to the one they came from originally. Coz it suited them better that way.

Edith Keller showed that. She dies the first time = First TOS timeline where she dies. McCoy saves her = Everything except the Guardian is gone. Kirk prevents McCoy saving her = a new timeline where history has Kirk, Spock and McCoy there to watch her die.

Maybe it's a paradox loop, but the episode itself doesn't seem to suggest that.

Well, you know - Fuck The Timeline. No one cares. Well, no one but Lucsly and Dulmur.

 

[BillJ]

Well, you know - Fuck The Timeline. No one cares. Well, no one but Lucsly and Dulmur.

Starting to think they were just escaped mental patients.

 

[Trekkin]

They cared so much that they wrote some reports about it! Very, very serious reports!

If Taslim doesn't get to beat the crap out of somone in this next movie, I am going to be so dissapointed. The guy's great.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Someone buy this man a drink!

 

[Phantom]

It's science fiction, dude. The "concept" is purely embodied in science fiction that deals with it. I can't help that Star Trek uses this concept exactly the same as any other science fiction production and the use is this: the purpose of time travel is to change the past.

No, it is not. It is a potential peril of time travel, not the purpose of time travel.

Not as a matter of in-universe logic. Not as a matter of "our mission today is..." Time travel as a concept in fiction serves that purpose as a plot device. Thus, there has never -- repeat, NEVER -- been an instance of time travel that did not change or SEEK to change the present by affecting the past.

Again, not the case in Trek. In A:E, the Enterprise's mission was purely observatory.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Kirk: Using the lightspeed breakaway factor, the Enterprise has moved back through time to the twentieth century. We are now in extended orbit around Earth, using our ship's deflector shields to remain unobserved. Our mission, historical research. We are monitoring Earth communications to find out how our planet survived desperate problems in the year 1968. [/FONT]

Again: repairing is not the same as breaking.

But it is the same thing as "interfering," which Starfleet officers are happy to do if it serves their purposes.

Only to repair an already fractured timeline per their mandate via the TPD.

Only because they had to to satisfy the predestination paradox to restore Spock to the timeline.

They didn't actually HAVE to, though. They CHOSE to, mainly as a favor to Spock. The Temporal Prime directive (LOL) wouldn't have even allowed for THAT much.

No, the TPD would mandate that the timeline be restored.

 

[Franklin]

But they weren't correcting anything. Their timeline was gone. At best, they erased another one and hit CTRL-V ->Clipboard -> Select 'Home'.

They overrode another one that was identical to the one they came from originally. Coz it suited them better that way.

Edith Keller showed that. She dies the first time = First TOS timeline where she dies. McCoy saves her = Everything except the Guardian is gone. Kirk prevents McCoy saving her = a new timeline where history has Kirk, Spock and McCoy there to watch her die.

Maybe it's a paradox loop, but the episode itself doesn't seem to suggest that.

Well, you know - Fuck The Timeline. No one cares. Well, no one but Lucsly and Dulmur.

How to win the thread in the fewest possible words.

 

[Mudd]

 

[Phantom]

But they weren't correcting anything. Their timeline was gone. At best, they erased another one and hit CTRL-V ->Clipboard -> Select 'Home'.

They overrode another one that was identical to the one they came from originally. Coz it suited them better that way.

Edith Keller showed that. She dies the first time = First TOS timeline where she dies. McCoy saves her = Everything except the Guardian is gone. Kirk prevents McCoy saving her = a new timeline where history has Kirk, Spock and McCoy there to watch her die.

Maybe it's a paradox loop, but the episode itself doesn't seem to suggest that.

Well, you know - Fuck The Timeline. No one cares. Well, no one but Lucsly and Dulmur.

How to win the thread in the fewest possible words.

Which is why even if time travel turns out to be possible, it's a BAD IDEA except under the most extreme conditions.

People who think the way Dennis described would be romping all over time re-writing history at a whim with no one to stop them or fix their temporal vandalism.

That's why the TPD is so important. A Starfleet officer's duty is to PROTECT history as he/she knows it to be. If event X happened in 2066 (or 2266, or 1966 or whatever), then it's a Starfleet officer's duty to make sure no one changes event X or prevents event X from occurring. If somehow someone DOES, their duty is to act to fix the timeline damage to the best of their ability so that event X is restored.

The same duty applies forwards as well. If a character in 2364 gained certain knowledge from the future that would prevent the Battle of Wolf 359 from happening, it would be his duty not to act on or spread that knowledge, because that battle is what is supposed to happen.

That is the core philosophy behind both PDs: You are not God or any other omniscient being. You must not act as if you are.

 

[BillJ]

That is the core philosophy behind both PDs: You are not God or any other omniscient being. You must not act as if you are.

But by correcting changes, you are very much playing God.

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

Courtesy of TrekCore:

http://trekcore.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/quinto-wigs.jpg

http://trekcore.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/wigs-numbered.jpg

[Converted to links. Pics posted as embedded images should be hosed on a website or image-hosting account registered to you. - M']

Let's take a closer look at what we may have here.

1. Obviously human, perhaps a hairpiece for Simon Pegg?
2. Dark hair, and a wide and high forehead. Maybe a Klingon?
3. Zachary Quinto's Vulcan helmet hair.
4. Our white ponytail, expected to be for Sofia Boutella.
5. A mysterious long-haired piece, possibly for Zoe Saldana.
6. Long and wispy hair, reminiscent of Leonard Nimoy's Kolinahr look.
7. Another human wig, vaguely Chris Pine-y.

 

[Phantom]

That is the core philosophy behind both PDs: You are not God or any other omniscient being. You must not act as if you are.

But by correcting changes, you are very much playing God.

Again, no you are not. You are restoring things to what they are supposed to be.

 

[fireproof78]

That is the core philosophy behind both PDs: You are not God or any other omniscient being. You must not act as if you are.

But by correcting changes, you are very much playing God.

Again, no you are not. You are restoring things to what they are supposed to be.

But, there are two different aspects happening here. One is time travel within your own time stream, which is very much TVH and FC. Things changed and required some sort of intervention through time travel to remedy them. Of course, the TNG crew had no problem polluting the time line with their discourses with Cochrane.

The other type is an alternate timeline, or parallel dimension-for discussion purposes I'm using the alternate timeline term. No doubt that will be a source of contention.

The Trek universe is filled with alternate timelines, with the most famous one being the Mirror Universe, which has its own divergence point (postulated in comics, books and "In the Mirror, Darkly). People that we know still exist but are different due to personal history, social influences, etc. TOS had at least two in "Mirror, Mirror" and "The Alternative Factor" that I can recall. TNG made it more popular through "Parallels".

While I understand the aspects of Temporal Prime Directive, it became clear to Prime Spock that Nero's incursion happened in an alternate dimension where things existed in similar tandem to the Prime continuity, but are now dramatically altered by Nero's attack on the Kelvin.

The different arguments can be made regarding the mechanics of time travel, but the idea of an alternate timeline is a part of authorial intent, and is part of the reason I don't worry about the Prime continuity. It continues on, regardless of Nero's actions.