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

[PR.]

I was sad enough - for another forum to draw up how the writers intend for it to work:

There are at least two ways of interpreting time travel:

1) There is only one timeline, when you go back in time and change things everything from that point forward is changed. e.g. Go back and kill Hitler to stop WW2
2) For every single possibility an alternate universe branches off. e.g. One day Hitler is eating his toast, he chokes and dies, WW2 never occurs. In another he finishes eating his toast walks outside and is run over and killed, WW2 never occurs.

The main issue is always going to be that Trek has played time travel in both ways. The mirror (alternate) universe that was triggered by Cochran storming the Vulcan ship in First Contact and enslaving the Vulcan race. But also altering a single timeline - as pointed out - in First Contact the film where Picard goes back to stop the Borg.

 

[c0rnedfr0g]

SO if what your saying is true, how come in first contact the enterprise, which was protected by the temporal wake... actually saw an altered earth, sure when the borg went back that just created an alternate universe....

RIGHT?

Can someone explain that for me im confused?

id really love this clarified for me

Still waiting for this one by the way?

Ok, I'll take a stab at it. When the Borg first went back in time and assimilated Earth, that timeline branched off from the original one. So there were two timelines, one where the Borg assimilated Earth and one where they didn't. The E-E, which was in the original timeline, was not "protected by the bubble" so much as the bubble was actually a rift (or gateway) into the alternate timeline. The E-E crew did not want to remain trapped in this alternate timeline, so they traveled back in time to stop the Borg, thus creating a third timeline branch that was close enough to their original timeline.

 

[emacs]

They should have let it die then ...

if you are referring to the Star Trek franchise i'm surprised you hold such a sentiment in which case you neither cared for nor was even interested in Star Trek in the first place.

 

[Grup]

If a movie is made about the Civil War, and in it they portray President Lincoln as a transvestite Asian, that would be wrong, and would be changing history for no reason other than to do it. If you change a fictional story, it doesn't matter. There is no truth or history that has been altered. It...isn't....real. I love Trek. I miss Shat and crew. But they're dead and or dying and so is/was Trek. It's science fiction. It's make believe. I can make up any reason why they never meet Gary 7 or get inundated by Tribbles. Because on my dvd shelf there are a bunch of episodes that I still love and will continue to watch.

 

[The_Beef]

This is like first contact without the enterprise going back and fixing it,

This is like Year of hell where the weapons ship wins and Voyager is erased.

This is like City on the edge of forever, where the good guys dont go back and fix things.

This time line is the same one as always but because of nero its been altered so NONE OF THE OTHER SERIES EXIST! There time line is redundant, IE GONE!

Here's how I see it:

Look at City on the Edge of Forever. After McCoy goes through the Guardian, the timeline instantly changes. Only Kirk, etc. are saved from its effects thanks to the Guardian. Kirk and Spock go back in time to find out what happened, they save the day, timeline is restored. Not much at question there.

However, though the viewer may have only seen it for an instance, there does in fact exist an alternate timeline that diverged when McCoy went back in time. There was a timeline in which McCoy went back to the 1930s, saved Edith Keeler, and he lived and died in that time. We know this because we saw that timeline in the 23rd century, long after that McCoy's death. The rescue of McCoy and restoration of the timeline does not change the fact that there was a state in which Edith Keeler lived and McCoy was stuck in the 20th century for the rest of his life.

The way I see it, we're seeing the timeline that occurs from the divergence, but without anybody yet coming to fix it. That does not mean that the other timeline is not restored. It just means that we dove into the new timeline and are in it for the ride. There's a timeline where none of this ever happened (the classic Trek timeline), there's a timeline where this stuff did happen (Nu-Trek), and there's a timeline where these events occured but, just like in most other time travel instances, the original timeline has been restored as closely as possible.

This is where the alternate reality idea comes in. The new film just exists firmly in the new timeline, but that does not mean the old one could not or was not restored. We're just seeing it from the perspective of the new timeline.

 

[Tentacle]

you people keep arguing about the time line this time line that, and coming up with theories to explain this movie into the timeline.

But the simple fact is Abrams slap all the old trek fans in the face with this movie.
he didnt have to do it. he could of respected the all the star trek tv series and movies that came before him and not blow up vulcan. Its not diffcult to rewrite the movie so that its consistent with the trek universe and still kept all that action all that SFX and draw in the new audience. But he wanted to destroy the old "lore" as it would cause he is addmitly not a trek fan. And he just didnt care for all the trek that came before him. Or possibly he didnt know how important vulcan is to the star trek universe from a lack of research into star trek "lore".

Now I'm all for the special effects the CGI and all that action. It draws in new fans, but dont forget about the old ones. But with this movie it just seems that Abrams had no regards for the old. He just wanted an action movie with explosions and cool space battles.

This film lacks story line that trek fans expect of a star trek movie. It just didnt feel like star trek, more like star wars.

There are also alot of little things that bugs more about the film. I thought the actors did their best to portray their characters given they had very little to work with. But the things that bugs me the most is they feel like they need to add some kissing into the film because sex sells so they had Uhura kissing spock. Now now where is that even hinted in the originals. And that part about spock sending kirk into an icey planet in an escape pod where he could get eaten by a spider like creature. How believeable is that? Now anyone knowing anything about spock would not believe even at the worst conditions he would ever do that to anyone. Put kirk in the brig is the worst spock would do.

Now if you throw the old trek out the window, you'll proably like this movie. But if you are an old fan, you would feel like you have just been slapped in the face.

 

[Thrawn]

I am an old fan, and I don't feel that way.

Oops, I just destroyed your entire worldview!

And anyone that thinks this script could've arisen from a "lack of research into star trek lore" is, at best, remarkably misinformed. This movie contained names of characters never established onscreen, culled from the novels. That's research. (Not to mention several notable lines from previous films, Sulu swordfighting, and so many other tiny little callbacks it's difficult to even list them all.)

You clearly didn't like it, but don't think yourself so important that that fact indicates dick-all about anyone else.

 

[RoJoHen]

Can I just ask a simple question to the OP...

If the original timeline no longer exists, how does Old Spock exist, let alone remember his life from the original timeline?

 

[RoJoHen]

I am an old fan, and I don't feel that way.

Oops, I just destroyed your entire worldview!

Anyone that thinks this script could've arisen from a "lack of research into star trek lore" is, at best, remarkably misinformed. This movie contained names of characters never established onscreen, culled from the novels. That's research. (Not to mention several notable lines from previous films, Sulu swordfighting, and so many other tiny little callbacks it's difficult to even list them all.)

You clearly didn't like it, but this is nothing more than that.

Yeah, this movie was packed full of references and throwaway lines and little treats for the fans! You'd have to have never seen any Trek before to not get them.

I honestly think the people who have a hard time liking this "new reality" simply lack imagination...or they were just never going to be satisfied with this movie no matter what.

 

[Thrawn]

SO if what your saying is true, how come in first contact the enterprise, which was protected by the temporal wake... actually saw an altered earth, sure when the borg went back that just created an alternate universe....

RIGHT?

Can someone explain that for me im confused?

id really love this clarified for me

Still waiting for this one by the way?

You are really cracking me up in this thread.

It's trivially easy to explain any of these plot holes away, if you have the imagination or desire to do so. Trek is so full of contradictory explanations of absolutely everything that you can easily find something that fits.

Let's say "caught in the sphere's temporal wake" means "ending up in the alternate timeline they create". Or, alternately, let's say time travel with chroniton particles rewrites the current dimension, but travel using red matter creates alternate timelines. Or, alternately, let's say (like another poster did) that the timeline we see in Abrams's movie will ultimately cease to exist much like the FC alternate timeline did, and be restored by other means, but in the mean time we're watching that timeline unfold.

Bottom line: this is no obstacle to accepting the new movie.

Instead, you're taking your personal interpretation of the old canon and using it to explain why the new canon destroys the old one; telling us the Abrams reboot did something Abrams is telling us it didn't because of your personal interpretation of what came before. It's a bit like saying McCain actually won the election if you tabulate it by 1850s voting methods, and that we're all sheep for believing Obama when he tells us that he's actually president.

Not to mention that Abrams didn't write the script in the first place, so laying plot developments at his feet is hilarious, and if you really think Lost is just about some people stranded on an island I don't know what to tell you.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

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).

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

Okay, then your opinion differs from mine a hundred percent, because I think that nuWho started out okay, but ended completely lost in plot turns way too contrived, and got buried under an ocean of fanwank.

Just imagine the disaster it would be bringing the Shatnerverse novels to the screen and you'll get what I'm talking about....or you won't. I have a hunch you're not going to agree anyway, but that's your prerrogative.

 

[Tentacle]

I am an old fan, and I don't feel that way.

Oops, I just destroyed your entire worldview!

And anyone that thinks this script could've arisen from a "lack of research into star trek lore" is, at best, remarkably misinformed. This movie contained names of characters never established onscreen, culled from the novels. That's research. (Not to mention several notable lines from previous films, Sulu swordfighting, and so many other tiny little callbacks it's difficult to even list them all.)

You clearly didn't like it, but don't think yourself so important that that fact indicates dick-all about anyone else.

I never said i couldnt learn to appreciate the movie. there are alot of little gems that gave me a chuckle. Like Sulu's sword fighting, that was in TOS where sulu ran around the enterprise half naked weilding a fenceing sword. And the guy wearing the red space suit dies when jumping onto that drill. But those little nods to TOS just isnt enough to over look the fact that they totally alter the whole trek universe. I am open minded enought to see how they are going to take this new alternate timeline and come up with new storys for it. I just wish that abram didnt have to throw the old book out the window. That to me is a bigger offence than anything else.

The whole point is he didnt have to do it, it leaves the future of trek in doubt, are they going to continue with this new timeline? or are they gonna go back to the old timeline where we all grew up with. If they are going with the former then it is an insult to all old fans everywhere to say that we are not going to continue with the trek universe as you know it.

And for your information i actually like the first 2 seasons of lost. And i'm still following lost right now, but it just seems that abrams are really scrapping the bottle of the barrell trying to explain everything.

 

[Thrawn]

I am an old fan, and I don't feel that way.

Oops, I just destroyed your entire worldview!

And anyone that thinks this script could've arisen from a "lack of research into star trek lore" is, at best, remarkably misinformed. This movie contained names of characters never established onscreen, culled from the novels. That's research. (Not to mention several notable lines from previous films, Sulu swordfighting, and so many other tiny little callbacks it's difficult to even list them all.)

You clearly didn't like it, but don't think yourself so important that that fact indicates dick-all about anyone else.

I never said i couldnt learn to appreciate the movie. there are alot of little gems that gave me a chuckle. Like Sulu's sword fighting, that was in TOS where sulu ran around the enterprise half naked weilding a fenceing sword. And the guy wearing the red space suit dies when jumping onto that drill. But those little nods to TOS just isnt enough to over look the fact that they totally alter the whole trek universe. I am open minded enought to see how they are going to take this new alternate timeline and come up with new storys for it. I just wish that abram didnt have to throw the old book out the window. That to me is a bigger offence than anything else.

The whole point is he didnt have to do it, it leaves the future of trek in doubt, are they going to continue with this new timeline? or are they gonna go back to the old timeline where we all grew up with. If they are going with the former then it is an insult to all old fans everywhere to say that we are not going to continue with the trek universe as you know it.

And for your information i actually like the first 2 seasons of lost. And i'm still following lost right now, but it just seems that abrams are really scrapping the bottle of the barrell trying to explain everything.

Well, for the record, Abrams has essentially nothing to do with Lost these days, he just started it. But that's neither here nor there.

There are pluses and minuses to any story; he didn't have to make a reboot, it's true. But you're kidding yourself if you don't acknowledge the huge upside of being able to take the familiar elements and tell new stories with them that don't have foregone conclusions.

And I think it's pretty clear we're not going back to the old timeline, and no it isn't an "insult". It's just new. The old stuff still exists and is in no way rendered invalid; this is just a different story, with the same people. How is that insulting?

 

[Overgeeked]

I'm a hard-core Trek fan from way, way back. I like this new movie as an action-adventure flick. Not as Star Trek. I could give a crap about continuity, alternate timelines, red matter, or whatever. I just want a good story that's well told. This movie is. But it's still not Trek. The heart and soul of Trek, to me, is the brains over brawn story with a moral. This film had neither.

It's easy to understand why so many fans are raging. All the data they're memorized over the years is now useless. There's no new info to add to the collection, no more dates to fit in, no new races to ponder about, or series to quibble over, etc. It's all wiped away in a flash. Not the actual films or episodes, obviously, but the community of fans that sprang up around the original have to start over. Memorizing all this new timeline data, or simply crystalize their original timeline data and let is sit, withering.

I personally could give a crap about continuity. Ron Moore even said Trek was strangling on 30+ years of continuity. The comics reboot all the time. It doesn't take the joy away from the original reading of those, or the joy of re-reading those old ones, what it does is make the wanton memorization of all that minutia pointless. That's what's pissed off the fans.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

To me, the story had a moral. I guess that just depends on how you look at it.

 

[Thomas Riker]

OK!
TOS
City on the edge of forever
ST:IV Voyage Home


TNG
Yesterdays Enterprise
Cause and effect
Times Arrow
Tapestry
ST:VII Generations
ST:VIII First Contact (Thats a big one isnt it!)

DS9
Past tense
Visionary
The visitor
Little Green Men

VOY
Relativity
Timeless
Futures End
Endgame
Year of hell

Only the ones where they go back to before the Nero/Kelvin incident matter to the new timeline.

However, if at any point anyone in the original timeline travels back in time to before Romulus is destroyed they can warn them. They could use the portal from "City on the Edge of Forever" for that.

Fair point mate, i agree but there not gonna do that, there will be no Vger, City on the edge, its rebooted. Why bother... Besides if they did that they might loose there amazingly brilliant new fan base of Non Star Trek, Fans!

Eh? How do you know there will be no VGer? I very much doubt that Nero's influence on past events, even the destruction of Vulcan will have any effect on VGers journey to Earth.

In fact I think the changes will be fairly localised to the Alpha and Beta Quadrants and even then I still think all the same events could happen, maybe just subtly different. For example I bet the enterprise still travels to Gothos or Organia etc and still has the same adventure as before, the only difference will be when they do it.

 

[Overgeeked]

To me, the story had a moral. I guess that just depends on how you look at it.

Which was?

 

[CommanderRaytas]

That anyone can overcome their biggest limitations, get over themselves and achieve their true potential. That trust and friendship are more important than petty bickering. That you can rise above differences and be better than anyone expects you to.

For example.

 

[Thrawn]

To me, the story had a moral. I guess that just depends on how you look at it.

Which was?

The power of simple friendship.

Which, really, is pretty much the only moral of all of the Trek movies that aren't 1 or 6, unless you're considering Shatner's rants against televangelism or "power corrupts" from Insurrection something powerful or deep.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

The so-called "moral" is overrated imo. If you get something out of the film that you find touches your soul, then that's all moral you need.