Right, which is why the most logical explanation is that the Kelvin is a pre-existing alternate universe that Prime characters invaded and corrupted.
The Picard Paradox
- Thread starter Ayko
- Start date
Right, which is why the most logical explanation is that the Kelvin is a pre-existing alternate universe that Prime characters invaded and corrupted.
Logical? Perhaps. To me it is highly unnecessary, and just a way of jiggling about to satisfy technical details that are not pertinent nor relevant to the story.
To me, since Prime Spock did not attempt to rectify the damage that means the Prime Timeline still exists.
YMMV.
Sorry, not seeing that as the most logical explanation. The most logical explanation is that there was a divergence point in 2233 from the Prime universe, branching off into an alternate timeline from that but leaving the original timeline intact, with both universes having a shared past up until 2233. There's no need to have a "pre-existing alternate universe that Prime characters invaded and corrupted," because the movie wasn't about some other pre-existing universe that nobody cares about. It was about the prime universe where Spock Prime originally came from.
And that works if we're looking that film in isolation, but it doesn't work if we're looking the Star Trek as a whole. Time travel has never ever worked like that in Star Trek, it not working like that has been a central plot point in many previous stories.
I'm aware of that.
No.
You accused me of something (missing your point) and I responded. You don't get to tell me how I respond to an accusation.
One, I wasn't ignoring you, just that point. If I were ignoring you I wouldn't be wasting valuable time typing all this now. Second, I didn't "just" say I was ignoring anything. I was ignoring a specific point, and then I explained why.
No, it's called consumer choice. It's a basic principle of market economics.
I'm not the one using the word "entitled." I'm not demanding a gift. I'm offering my patronage in the form of viewership and merchandise dollars in exchange for their producing a show I might like to watch. It's an exchange. Again, basic market economics.
I do not need an engraved invitation from CBS to offer my opinion of what they produce. That would be The First Amendment.
And all of those factors are affected by the numbers of guys on and off the internet who think their show is shit, which is why you try to get as many people as possible who share that opinion to express it openly. You can't do that if you keep your mouth shut and just take everything CBS dishes out.
Many people agree with you. I disagree with all of you.
I'm not looking for perfect. I'm looking for "Doesn't make me want to throw heavy things at my widescreen." Can I have that at least, or does that make me entitled?
Again, your premise is faulty. It assumes I expect the opinions of two people to send CBS into an apoplexy of indecision. I expect nothing. What I want is to make my opinion known, with the hope of getting other people who feel the same to follow suit, and explain why, and to bring enough detractors into the fold so that we can take actions that will cost CBS money. It's a steep uphill battle, sure, but I'm not going to stop just because one guy on the internet tells me I'm wasting my time.
But as I've mentioned before, I don't care about Star Trek as a whole, because it's all make-believe and whoever is in charge of it can make changes to it on a whim.
And you're entitled to your opinion. And you are free to express it. That still doesn't make it correct. Your original statement of which we have been discussing is that you want CBS to make a Trek show that isn't 'shit,' and I countered that that's impossible because 'shit' is entirely subjective.
But some of us do care about it. So let us.
Sorry, was I stopping you? Sometimes I forget the awesome power over people’s free will I seem to have here.
Well, you're basically interrupting people speculating about how the fictional universe fits together with 'LOL, it is all made up so it doesn't matter.' Yes we know, but this forum exists for talking about such things. So your point is completely pointless and a tad rude.
I see your point and I apologize if I sounded rude.
An excellent point!
To me, that is actually more proof towards my hypothesis that it is a completely separate universe - Prime Spock knows that his world and everything he did still exists; everyone he loved still had life. This other Universe, so recklessly damaged because of his actions, is now his responsibility, and he dedicates the remainder of his life to it.
I don't find it unnecessary to find a logical way to rectify things with both the previous Trektime travel / alternate universe stories / theories and the current existance of both movie series and the Discovery / Picard universe. (Which, on a tangent theory, I am convinced the retooled aesthetics is a result of FC/ENT further rewriting that universe's timeline slightly. )
Last edited:
This hypothesis is just as valid if the timeline was created by the incursion.
I know its a circular argument, but to me, its a definitive answer, based on past time travel stories. If Spock is truly that unconcerned with his home universe, after massive changes to the past, and the destruction of his own planet, then it obviously can not be his own past
Ultimately, like most time travel stories, it is a plot device. Whether the Kelvin timeline was preexisting or a product of temporal branching is less concerning to me. I'm more interested
interested in the characters and their
stories.
If it makes you happy, you can just believe that the Kelvinverse crew had some off-camera adventure post-Beyond which reset the timeline to what it was supposed to be.
As I've said in the past though, I'm a Dolyist, not a Watsonian. I find authorial intent infinitely more interesting than headcanon, and I just fundamentally don't understand people who feel the need to square away things caused by inconsistent writing.
As I've said in the past though, I'm a Dolyist, not a Watsonian. I find authorial intent infinitely more interesting than headcanon, and I just fundamentally don't understand people who feel the need to square away things caused by inconsistent writing.
Speaking of authorial intent-an interview with Bob Orci:
Now, I'm sure that "word of God" will carry little weight in this discussion, but with this and "Parallels" it's good enough for me.
Not how the First Amendment works at all. It only protects your freedom of speech against the government. Private companies can tell you to sit down and shut up any time they want.
Similar threads
