Timelines, reality,star trek, canon, and the Truth!
- Thread starter hal9500
- Start date
- Status
Still waiting for this one by the way?
Because they hadn't travelled back in time yet and were unaffected by the changes in time/branching of the timeline because of that bubble thingy they were in.
Wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey. That's the scientific explanation btw.
Easy. Next question?
Wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey. That's the scientific explanation btw.
Easy. Next question?
I know its not real obviously... But as a universe star trek had canon and continuity, and thats obviously to great a restraint on JJ.
Because they hadn't travelled back in time yet and were unaffected by the changes in time/branching of the timeline because of that bubble thingy they were in.
Wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey. That's the scientific explanation btw.
Easy. Next question?
That makes no sense what so ever.... Ive decided to take my Tardis back in time and fix things!!! Im a Time Lord, I have that right
My point is you can find an explanation if you want to...and it's not nearly as contrived as in Doctor Who (and don't get me wrong I like Who).
REDUNDANT TIMELINE>>>>> REDUNDANT TIMELINE
At least the new Doctor who isnt ignoring the continuety of the Original Series.... Much i sometimes hate RTDs writing, at least hes not taking the mick...
One of RTD's notorious resets, would have suited me at the end of this flick
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Really? explain
Yeah, this guy's a one-note troll. This timeline can't exist without the TNG timeline having existed before it (it all rests on time relative to the observer- in this case Spock). He's doing the equivalent of saying 1843 never happened because he wasn't born yet. Might as well leave the thread to him.
I'm just quoting from the Princess Bride. However, you seem to be using redundant to mean nonexistent. Redundant means superfluous, no longer needed, able to be omitted without loss of meaning. It still exists, it's just no longer useful.
If that's what you mean. You're right. You don't need to know the original timeline to understand the meaning of the new one. I think that was the point of this direction in the film. Although I think the new direction will still find plenty of uses for the original timeline as it looks for inspiration, so I don't know if it has truly fallen into redundancy.
Whether a timeline is "altered" is utterly relatitive. It just depends on the actor's/viewer's point of view. For Old Spock in the present, the timeline was altered. For the Younger Spock of TOS, it isn't altered. There's no such thing as "the" timeline, only branching alternatives.
S
Stone_Cold_Sisko
Guest
my eyes glazed over about a 3rd of the way through the post.
Can someone tell me if the OP is in support of the new movie or opposed to it?
Can someone tell me if the OP is in support of the new movie or opposed to it?
The Mirror universe existed before, during and after the Mirror, Mirror episode of TOS. So I'm telling myself all the previous movies etc still exist in a locked-off alternate timeline.
And they can always send Chekov back in time to 1984 to try and change things back again...
Jack
And they can always send Chekov back in time to 1984 to try and change things back again...
Jack
This is a real misunderstanding. Time isn't some thing with an objective existence, it's relative to a point of view. All of these alternatives exist from the point of view of the omniscient viewer/reader (or author), who by definition knows more and sees more comprehensively than any particular character. Any one character sees the world from his or her point of view, and those worlds "exist" relative to those characters. From the point of view of Old Spock in Star Trek, there are two timelines, one of which no longer leads to the present. From his pov in TOS, there's one, just as from the pov of Young Spock in Star Trek there's one, but not the same one as TOS. You can argue till you're blue in the face as to which of these "really" exists, but will never resolve the issue because whether they do or don't is relative to where you are and what you see. To put it differently, the question of what does or doesn't "really" exists is a pseudo-problem for the so-called "omniscient" viewer -- which is what REALLY doesn't exist. The universe is NOT consistent!!
Apparently this movie made his Star Trek DVD collection disappear and now his memories of that experience are fading too.
He's also demanding technical accuracies when it comes to time travel.
- Status
Similar threads
