Timelines, reality,star trek, canon, and the Truth!

[hal9500]

If you guys are all worked up about the movie violating canon or whatever, here's what you do:

Don't count the movie.

It's as easy as that. If you don't like the movie, don't count it.

Star Trek isn't the Catholic Church. You don't need an old man with a funny hat telling you what is canon and what isn't. Star Trek is ours to do with what we want. If you guys don't like the new movie then don't get all worked up about it - just ignore it.

Yes we do... His name is Gandalf! lol

Your right mate, i dont count it... It just winds me up that the future of the franchise is just a REBOOT of... The history of the franchise!

 

[hal9500]

It's been my experience in these few, short days since Star Trek came to general release, that the people who tend to insist that the movie represents not an alternate timeline but an altered timeline have been those who dislike the movie. I offer this admittedly anecdotal correlation without comment.

As it was, I was surprised in regards to the extent which Star Trek went to ensure that it was absolutely clear that the events of the rest of the canon remains, in its entirety, intact. It seems to me that there's very little room for actual debate on that point, given the film's exposition on the matter.

Nero in the true universe went back in time and changes things... In exactly the way that the borg went back and assimilated earth .. except no one stopped Nero from doing it - Therefore ALTERED!!!!!

 

[Foxy]

I can understand why some people are cross, but when you look at time travel in Star Trek it’s never been consistent and been used to explain what ever they needed it too. So this is the same sort of thing, although on much bigger scale with the big changes.

I don’t agree with the idea that the other time line is gone … it will continue as it always has done with new novels and Star Trek Online is due to be based in it as well. There could be another TV series/film for that time line again.. anything is possible … its sci-fi

 

[T'Paul]

It's been my experience in these few, short days since Star Trek came to general release, that the people who tend to insist that the movie represents not an alternate timeline but an altered timeline have been those who dislike the movie. I offer this admittedly anecdotal correlation without comment.

As it was, I was surprised in regards to the extent which Star Trek went to ensure that it was absolutely clear that the events of the rest of the canon remains, in its entirety, intact. It seems to me that there's very little room for actual debate on that point, given the film's exposition on the matter.

Nero in the true universe went back in time and changes things... In exactly the way that the borg went back and assimilated earth .. except no one stopped Nero from doing it - Therefore ALTERED!!!!!

Well how come Nero didn't disappear since he was never born?

 

[hal9500]

I can understand why some people are cross, but when you look at time travel in Star Trek it’s never been consistent and been used to explain what ever they needed it too. So this is the same sort of thing, although on much bigger scale with the big changes.

I don’t agree with the idea that the other time line is gone … it will continue as it always has done with new novels and Star Trek Online is due to be based in it as well. There could be another TV series/film for that time line again.. anything is possible … its sci-fi

I would love to think so.. But i cant see it... It would annoy/confuse all these poor new star trek fans... And we have to look after them. They are so important... Ah look at al the little newbie trekkies .. ah There so cute..

They couldn't be bothered watching it for the past 20 years(granted some weren't born at that stage) But when a guy whos writing skills allow for the creation of wait for it - People on an island, and crab monsters attacking Camcordor users - When he came on board! There all for it! Hurray! A wider audience!!!

 

[CinC_UFPForces]

It's been my experience in these few, short days since Star Trek came to general release, that the people who tend to insist that the movie represents not an alternate timeline but an altered timeline have been those who dislike the movie. I offer this admittedly anecdotal correlation without comment.

As it was, I was surprised in regards to the extent which Star Trek went to ensure that it was absolutely clear that the events of the rest of the canon remains, in its entirety, intact. It seems to me that there's very little room for actual debate on that point, given the film's exposition on the matter.

Nero in the true universe went back in time and changes things... In exactly the way that the borg went back and assimilated earth .. except no one stopped Nero from doing it - Therefore ALTERED!!!!!

I suppose if you really insist on taking that as being true, then that's your choice.

However, it seems like making that choice requires so many questionable definitional statements about space-time - there's only one timeline, really? Only one "universe", "dimension," or whatever else you wish to call it? We know this for an incontrovertible fact? - that it really is a choice to refuse the plainly-stated intent of the storywriters' about what their universe is. Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman clearly intend that this is an alternate universe.

I mean, if all of Trek has to go away because of this film, does that mean we have to erase Back to the Future II, with its talk of "alternative 1985," because Bob Zemeckis got the Laws of Space-Time Mechanics wrong? Trek's Mirror Universe is all a farce, too?

I think you're just looking for a reason to be pissed, buddy. That's fine, but it seems like there are better things to be pissed about in Star Trek than this...or the previous creative efforts of the producer/director.

 

[Zeppster]

This movie was almost too obsessed in saying that the original timelien still happened this is just a different one.

 

[hal9500]

This movie was almost too obsessed in saying that the original timelien still happened this is just a different one.

DIfferent because its changed, but its still the same timeline... just altered!

One line from a cast member written by JJ "Trapped on an Island(such an original concept hes a genious) Abrams " doesnt change that?

 

[FlyingLemons]

I've seen lots of posts complaining about how the original universe was destroyed and that it's completely wiped out 40 years of canon etc., but Abrams, Orci's logic is correct: it is a new timeline, and the old one still stands.

The time travel science they used is somewhat similar to a real concept that's been kicked around. Quite simply, it's this: how does the universe avoid a paradox, if, for example, you travelled back in time and killed your own grandfather. If time is strictly linear and immutable, you've created a cause without effect, but yet it happened, and there's no way out.

However, the answer is resolved by the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics: the death of your grandfather merely creates a new, separate timeline. Your father never existed in this new timeline, and you are still in existence due to the fact that you hail from a different, seperate timeline that still exists. This theory hasn't been explicitly tested, but the many-worlds interpretation crops up an awful lot in quantum mechanics so generally we can rely upon it, especially for story purposes.

Either you buy the interpretation in the film, or you don't. It's actually set up that way in the first place, so that via the parallel timeline you can just regard it as "not real" and carry on believing there's only one, "unmodified" version of Trek. However, if you enjoyed the film and want to see more of this version then it's great as they can create new installments without being constrained by the 40+ years of what went before.

Overall I felt they approached the source material quite reverentially - the Enterprise is still very recognisably the Enterprise, Vulcans still have pointy ears and to me it was still Star Trek. I doubt whether they're going to give up on the Prime universe, though, and last time I checked there was a wealth of material coming out. Besides, there's room in Star Trek for multiple interpretations of the way things went. Take William Shatner's books - they're not recognised as part of the wider canon by the rest of the "book universe" that seems to have cropped up recently, but yet they've been quite successful and stand as one man's interpretation of Star Trek. This is just another one, and I read and enjoyed William Shatner's books, and thus as a Trek fan I can enjoy this as just another version of one of my favourite shows.

 

[Amaris]

This movie was almost too obsessed in saying that the original timelien still happened this is just a different one.

DIfferent because its changed, but its still the same timeline... just altered!

One line from a cast member written by JJ "Trapped on an Island(such an original concept hes a genious) Abrams " doesnt change that?

Cinci is right. Look at you. You're finding every way to dig at Abrams while talking about this movie. You are definitely looking to be upset. You insist that you wanted to like it, well if you want to, you can. You don't want to, you'd rather find the most microscopic reasons why you can't. That's on you, not J.J., to resolve.

J.

 

[c0rnedfr0g]

Actually, if you want to get technical about it, every time there was an instance of time travel in Trek, the "original timeline" wasn't restored, but it branched at that point where the audience actually followed the altered timeline.

For instance, in TVH, the "original" timeline branched when Kirk when back in time. The original timeline is one where Earth was devastated by the whale ship, but the altered timeline is the one which the series decided to follow after that. Both those timelines continue to exist and progress, neither is "better" than the other, but for story telling purposes, the audience follows the altered timeline as if it was the original.

 

[FlyingLemons]

Actually, if you want to get technical about it, every time there was an instance of time travel in Trek, the "original timeline" wasn't restored, but it branched at that point where the audience actually followed the altered timeline.

For instance, in TVH, the "original" timeline branched when Kirk when back in time. The original timeline is one where Earth was devastated by the whale ship, but the altered timeline is the one which the series decided to follow after that.

A prime example of this is the post-FC timeline. In Q Who?, the Enterprise has never seen the Borg before, but yet according to something that happened chronologically earlier, Regeneration, there should have at least been something within the ship's computer. Plus in numerous Voyager episodes it was established the Federation was vaguely familiar with the Borg before the events of Q Who?.

Either from a production point it's inconsistent, but this is resolved by the fact that as soon as the Borg sphere in FC shelled Cochrane's hometown, the universe was changed by the interaction and an alternate timeline which makes the above inconsistencies explainable within canon. The separate timeline allowed writers to do whatever the hell they wanted with the universe and get away with it once, and it can do it again now.

 

[Mr. Chubbykins]

It's been my experience in these few, short days since Star Trek came to general release, that the people who tend to insist that the movie represents not an alternate timeline but an altered timeline have been those who dislike the movie. I offer this admittedly anecdotal correlation without comment.

As it was, I was surprised in regards to the extent which Star Trek went to ensure that it was absolutely clear that the events of the rest of the canon remains, in its entirety, intact. It seems to me that there's very little room for actual debate on that point, given the film's exposition on the matter.

I'd agree with your correlation. It's certainly why I dislike the film.

As for the film's exposition... that sort of boils down to "JJ decided to change how timetravel has been portrayed in Trek for 40 years because it suited the moment". Considering that kind of attitude was exactly what drove me crazy about The Braga Years, its really not going to win me over.

Still, at least you're not calling us crazed losers. That seems to be most common reaction to people unhappy about the film

 

[hal9500]

It's been my experience in these few, short days since Star Trek came to general release, that the people who tend to insist that the movie represents not an alternate timeline but an altered timeline have been those who dislike the movie. I offer this admittedly anecdotal correlation without comment.

As it was, I was surprised in regards to the extent which Star Trek went to ensure that it was absolutely clear that the events of the rest of the canon remains, in its entirety, intact. It seems to me that there's very little room for actual debate on that point, given the film's exposition on the matter.

I'd agree with your correlation. It's certainly why I dislike the film.

As for the film's exposition... that sort of boils down to "JJ decided to change how timetravel has been portrayed in Trek for 40 years because it suited the moment". Considering that kind of attitude was exactly what drove me crazy about The Braga Years, its really not going to win me over.

Still, at least you're not calling us crazed losers. That seems to be most common reaction to people unhappy about the film

I am not alone...

There are still fans who believe as i do

 

[CinC_UFPForces]

It's been my experience in these few, short days since Star Trek came to general release, that the people who tend to insist that the movie represents not an alternate timeline but an altered timeline have been those who dislike the movie. I offer this admittedly anecdotal correlation without comment.

As it was, I was surprised in regards to the extent which Star Trek went to ensure that it was absolutely clear that the events of the rest of the canon remains, in its entirety, intact. It seems to me that there's very little room for actual debate on that point, given the film's exposition on the matter.

I'd agree with your correlation. It's certainly why I dislike the film.

As for the film's exposition... that sort of boils down to "JJ decided to change how timetravel has been portrayed in Trek for 40 years because it suited the moment". Considering that kind of attitude was exactly what drove me crazy about The Braga Years, its really not going to win me over.

Still, at least you're not calling us crazed losers. That seems to be most common reaction to people unhappy about the film

That wouldn't be right of me to do, even if I do think there's a degree of self-inflicted misery involved when the complaint is about the integrity of the timelines. There isn't a damned thing that Trek writers haven't altered to suit their momentary needs, especially during TOS.

To be sure, there are things that I disliked about the film. The bizarre tendency of Trek films to treat Enterprise as the only ship in Starfleet is not merely a story conceit in this film, but a central plot point. Kirk receiving immediate command of the Enterprise after leaving the Academy strains credulity. I thought much of the Delta Vega sequence was deeply strange, made worthwhile if not legitimate by the presence of both Leonard Nimoy and Simon Pegg.

Here's the chief reason why I like Abrams' Trek, in addition to many of the oft-repeated structural reasons. I'm 24 tomorrow; my exposure to TOS, which I always liked but appreciated in a historical sense, has been through the reruns. For the first time, ever, Star Trek brought to visceral life the true spirit of TOS, made those characters interesting, exciting, and full in the way that they must have been for those who watched TOS in the late 60s (I've always been partial to the TOS films). This movie made possible for me to experience what so many people felt 43 years ago, and made the Trek of yesteryear strong enough to carry the Trek of today.

Choosing to believe that Abrams' Trek sends the rest of the continuity off into the Sun missed the point of what they were trying to do, the obvious reverence with which they treated what came before (I was stunned by how well this fine balance was achieved), and appeals to bitterness rather than the wonderful feeling of seeing Trek returned to legitimacy.

That, and what a wonderful feeling to see the Enterprise returned to flight.

 

[CinC_UFPForces]

I am not alone...

There are still fans who believe as i do

No one's a "crazed loser," to quote Mr. Chubbykins. But this is simply sad.

 

[Aragorn]

People are allowed to dislike the film. But there's a big difference between "this character or this plot was underwritten and affected such-and-such," and "Enterprise being built on earth and Vulcans having pink skin totally ruined the movie for me." The latter are the "crazed losers," who spend more time and energy posting about the movie than the people who liked it.

 

[emacs]

But please dont delude yourself into thinking that all the other episodes still exist... they have been erased..

erased? that's a curious choice of word there.

 

[the Sisko]

Ah, the linear thinking. This movie cannot exist without the 5 series as a background for a 24th century spock. Now given the alternate reality, we'd have to see how the next 129 years play out... which would likely play out with the Hobus Star not destorying romulus because young spock shares old spock's story which the Federation is able to build into it's long term strategy...

 

[J Archer]

A prime example of this is the post-FC timeline. In Q Who?, the Enterprise has never seen the Borg before, but yet according to something that happened chronologically earlier, Regeneration, there should have at least been something within the ship's computer.

Ah. but watching Q Who? we see events prior to events being changed in the past.

And as for the one who started this topic, chill out. None of this is worth getting as worked up over as you appear to be.