Apparently series sell better when they come out sequentially, so splitting up The Typhon Pact wouldn't have happened. A similar logic presumably applies to the Abramsverse releases.
Summer 2010 catalogue details
- Thread starter DarkHorizon
- Start date
ALL older people have a special excuse we are permitted to use when we don't like something.
In practical terms - for TV and movies - the new timeline exists from here on out; the original timeline exists from 1964 to 2005.
You can't know that, not unless you are J.J.Abrams. LOL! The "new timeline", which is technically an alternate timeline, can be destroyed as easily as it was created.
The only people who require excuses are those with frail constitutions regardless of age. And I'm 51, for what it's worth.
Last edited:
I suppose, I'm sure they have a business reason that they feel justifies this type of release pattern. Though I would be quite interested to see if a series of four Star Trek books really makes any noticable difference in profit if it is released every three months over the course of a year as opposed to a straight four month period at the end of it.
In practical terms - for TV and movies - the new timeline exists from here on out; the original timeline exists from 1964 to 2005.
You can't know that, not unless you are J.J.Abrams. LOL! The "new timeline", which is technically an alternate timeline, can be destroyed as easily as it was created.
But won't, as it allows all involved to create new stories with new suspense, as we don't know how it will end.
Except, if I understand the science accurately, you can't destroy a timeline. It can split it off again into another alternate timeline, but whether we see it or not this one will continue to chug along in it's own little corner of the multiverse, just like the Prime Universe has been since the Kelvin attack
In practical terms - for TV and movies - the new timeline exists from here on out; the original timeline exists from 1964 to 2005.
You can't know that, not unless you are J.J.Abrams. LOL! The "new timeline", which is technically an alternate timeline, can be destroyed as easily as it was created.
The description of Seek a Newer World is confusing and unfocused. Someone needs to do a rewrite on that.
I mean, as far as I can tell, Starfleet Command has assigned Kirk to keep an eye on himself, and the Klingons' stated motivation doesn't make any sense.
I mean, as far as I can tell, Starfleet Command has assigned Kirk to keep an eye on himself, and the Klingons' stated motivation doesn't make any sense.
But what would be the point? It's not like you can go back to the old TOS cast. And let's face it, it'd be pretty silly to make new stories with 1960s sensibilities and technical limitations in the 2010s. (Sure, there are fan films that authentically recreate TOS's style, but they're not for profit and appeal to a niche audience. A tentpole motion picture franchise needs a broader appeal.) The new timeline is a license to modernize ST in its technology and storytelling while still acknowledging the continued existence of the Trek that came before.
Not to mention that the new movie was hugely successful and created a whole new audience for Star Trek. What possible reason would any sane filmmaker have for "destroying" something that's proven so successful?
Quite right. The filmmakers are using a model based in quantum physics, in which all alterations of history actually create parallel timelines rather than "destroying" or "overwriting" anything.
Someone already has.
The version in the catalog is actually cut down from the draft cover blurb I saw, and apparently that sentence (the one about Kirk) was cut a bit too drastically.
What!? Wait! Now, I'm totally cool with the something-for-everybody approach to life. So, whether or not I like it has nothing to do with whether it's true or false, good or bad, or anything like that. I really hope you guys sell a lot of books.
But TIME is not real. It is something we create in the macroscopic universe of daily experience to make it easy to guess at how things change. In reality, there is only the present.
Time travel is a science fiction writer's conceit. It exists for one purpose, to create a problem, and the problem, in fiction, is the impetus of the work. In time travel fiction, the goal is almost always to correct things that went wrong. One wrong-headed person, for good or ill, uses time travel to change the past or learn the future, and things go wrong. Then the hero(es) have a long or short adventure that eventually results in some sort of acceptable outcome.
But this is all, as Christopher was so quick to tell me, fake. There really aren't time machines. And you know what, there can never be time machines. Because there is no such thing as time.
By the way, Christopher, nice straw man there. Nobody here advocated going back to the old cast, or any such thing. Straw man, all the way. What would be the point? Why, to tell a story, of course.
But TIME is not real. It is something we create in the macroscopic universe of daily experience to make it easy to guess at how things change. In reality, there is only the present.
Time travel is a science fiction writer's conceit. It exists for one purpose, to create a problem, and the problem, in fiction, is the impetus of the work. In time travel fiction, the goal is almost always to correct things that went wrong. One wrong-headed person, for good or ill, uses time travel to change the past or learn the future, and things go wrong. Then the hero(es) have a long or short adventure that eventually results in some sort of acceptable outcome.
But this is all, as Christopher was so quick to tell me, fake. There really aren't time machines. And you know what, there can never be time machines. Because there is no such thing as time.
By the way, Christopher, nice straw man there. Nobody here advocated going back to the old cast, or any such thing. Straw man, all the way. What would be the point? Why, to tell a story, of course.
?!?!?! Words escape me.
I think that we can all learn how to best approach this topic from the Doctor:
"People think that time is a strict progression from cause to effect, but in reality, from a non-subjective, non-linear standpoint, it's more like a big ball of... wibbly-wobbley, timey-wimey... stuff. That sentence got away from me."
Works for me!
Yes. And there's no such thing as gravity either. Someone just made it up to explain why things fall down.
But parallel timelines are a real prediction of the Everett-Wheeler interpretation of quantum physics, whereas both classical and quantum theoretical approaches to the physics of time travel conclusively rule out the possibility of any event being "erased" by time travel. And the producers of the new film series have chosen to take a more scientifically accurate approach to the subject than they have in the past, which is in keeping with the spirit of Gene Roddenberry, who always strove to ground ST in credible science (though admittedly with mixed results). As long as they're in charge, it's their prerogative to do so. Particularly since it serves their creative interests to do so, allowing them to make a fresh start while still preserving what came before, as well as providing a story reason why Spock Prime did not and could not attempt to undo the existence of this new timeline.
Maybe not, but that doesn't preclude us from being able to use our knowledge of physics to calculate what would happen if there were time machines. The universe follows consistent laws, and understanding those laws allows us to make predictions about what would happen in any situation. And SF storytellers can base their fiction on real physical theory just as much as the author of a detective story set in Chicago can base it on the real geography, culture, and history of Chicago. Just because something's fake doesn't mean it can't be convincing.
But what does that mean in practical terms? When you talk about going back to the original timeline, what are you proposing? That they tell original-timeline stories with Pine, Quinto, Urban, and the movie cast in faithful recreations of the original sets and costumes? Why would they do that? Why would the general public want to see it? I'm not using straw men, I'm asking you what it is you actually mean when you make these vague statements about what you want to see. When you say you want to go back, the question is, how do you propose that could be done?
If all you want is to tell stories set in the original history, well, we have the books for that. There's no limit to the stories we can tell, and Pocket will continue to publish Primeverse stories alongside Abramsverse stories for as long as there's a market for both. But you seem to be talking about what you want to see onscreen, and when it comes to making movies or television shows, there are a lot of practical factors you have to consider beyond pure storytelling. So what is it, specifically, that you're proposing? How would you make your suggestion work in a way that's practical, feasible, and marketable?
It is easier to believe in your senses. I understand. But in fact, to interrogate the universe, sometimes you have to get beyond them. Perhaps if you question the ideas of Sir Isaac Newton, you'll discover quantum physics.
But if you don't want to, it's OK.
Christopher, your explanation is great. I always enjoy reading your posts, and your books. Lots to think about. I won't undervalue those ideas by a quick reply, except to say, good stuff, there. I'll think about it.
Our senses perceive only a fraction of reality's sum. I honestly can't tell if you're trying to be sarcastic or helpful. The former I can understand. The latter escapes me, since it comes from a man who doesn't believe in time.
Time is an illusion. Teatime doubly so.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Similar threads
- Poll
