The idea that Star Trek has any relation to reality is the idea, and Star Trek is conceived wholly in the imagination. The imaginary ideas of Star Trek have been transmitted to us through the medium of television, film, print, etc.
When did ST move into an alternate universe to our own?
- Thread starter junkdata
- Start date
- Status
The idea that Star Trek has any relation to reality is the idea, and Star Trek is conceived wholly in the imagination. The imaginary ideas of Star Trek have been transmitted to us through the medium of television, film, print, etc.
Well its a good idea, because it is historically accurate pre 1960.
Well its not conceived wholly in the imagination, because it specifically and exhaustively reflects our history pre 1960.
Compare and contrast to game of thrones, which obviously is neither historically accurate, nor specific to our world.
So what if Star Trek has been broadcast. So is the news.
Fox news is the imaginary ideas of the right wing, transmitted to us through the medium of television, film, print, etc.
Star trek actually trades on real world history, pre 1960.
Except it was accurate to our history, until the show changed its own history, and thus conflicted with our history. Or until its own prophetic history, conflicted with real world events.
Saying it was a fictionalised projection post 1960, doesn't mean in 1961 star trek was writing an alternate universe to our own. It just means it was writing a futuristic projection of our own universe.
Theres nothing in episode 1, 2 or 3 that suddenly makes it set in a "different universe". And specific and random time travel episodes hardly rewrite history or fundamentally alter the real world premise.
Just because something is fictionalised, doesn't mean its not set in the real world.
OJ simpsons version of events is fictionalised. Its still set in the real world.
If it traded on a eugenics war that didnt happen, then we would say fox news is set in a parallel universe. As it is, fox news is really just a story for story, fictionalised version of our own universe.
The catch is that it reflects history only to the degree that authors understood history. Body counts, and IIRC historical dates, have been gotten wrong. That's probably because they just didn't do their research thoroughly enough.
I think Nerys Myk is right. If a historical figure is wrong, it's because the writers didn't do their homework. They intended it to be referring to the real world figure. We are supposed to assume that's what they meant. The premise (conceit) is that Star Trek is set in our future, or our future as it was Once Upon A Time.
Agreed. but that's fair enough. That's the nature of history, more or less.
The show is explicitly set in our future, right up until the point is inexorably detaches from our history.
and that is the point of the thread.
At what point did this happen?
Saying, "well its fiction" isn't really an answer.
Saying, Q went back with Picard to the beginning of life on earth isn't really an answer.
Saying random time travel episodes happened, isnt really an answer. Its also after the fact, of the creation of the series.
For me, something like the eugenics war is a golden example of an irreconcilable split from our own history, into a parallel universe, over a prophetic one.
ST set itself up for this of course, by underestimating its own legacy and longevity, and prioritising its immediate message and purpose. ST wasnt written with the idea in mind - well we might actually still be making money in 30 years from a current franchise. It had an anti war message, and it painted a picture of the horrors of war. Of course this was also a prophetic version of the future at the time.
I guess the question is, for how long does star fleet academy history, mirror our own?
and
At what point in the series did the departure happen?
As for ST being hostage to a 60s version of the future, I agree to an extent.
It has done its best to evolve with time, but is somewhat shackled to an image of the future c 1965.
Its not something that is completely fundamental, because there is so much scope in sci fi. But if the original series was written today, in a world where it had never existed, of course it would be different in some ways. And so would the spin offs.
This is something that hasnt been able to happen, because of the constraints of ST history, and the success of the show acting as a blocker for a recreation of the initial idea. ST spin offs have of course tried to remodel, and other shows have occasionally tried to copy, but not much thats good.
The thought of how ST would look, if it was created today from scratch, is very interesting.
When you think about other space shows, ST is the one that really stands out for being based in a real world history, compared to pretty much everything else.
If you're asking, at what point does the fictional narrative of history in Star Trek differ from real history, that's been answered already upthread:
The name of the episode is "Death Wish".
Just before the big bang. I don't think our universe had Voyager and Quinn observing its creation.
If you're asking, at what point does the fictional narrative of history in Star Trek differ from real history, that's been answered already upthread:
The name of the episode is "Death Wish".
Just before the big bang. I don't think our universe had Voyager and Quinn observing its creation.
Its not a real answer. Its a tree falling in the woods. For all we know, that actually happened in our history too.
A real answer, for me anyway, is a major historical event (not something prehistory) that occurs differently in ST history. Ie it is specifically different in the history of ST.
History is not a science. It is a collection of narratives and accompanying evidence.
The one I noticed was the eugenics wars (if that was in the original series).
The guy starting the computer revolution, from future tech, is something that wasn't established, until voyager. Great episode, but again, it made itself look silly in the long run, because the importance of the computer revolution, meant increasing interest in its point of origin, in the real world, post 1990s.
It's not a tree falling in the forest, it's a stark choice.
To believe that the USS Voyager at the Big Bang as shown in "Death Wish" might have been a real thing, then you have to believe that there is no way to tell whether our universe is one and the same with Star Trek's.
Either the answer to when real and fictional history diverged is before the Big Bang, as bbjeg said in post #29, or Deckerd is right that your question is unanswerable.
That's the thread, man.
To believe that the USS Voyager at the Big Bang as shown in "Death Wish" might have been a real thing, then you have to believe that there is no way to tell whether our universe is one and the same with Star Trek's.
Either the answer to when real and fictional history diverged is before the Big Bang, as bbjeg said in post #29, or Deckerd is right that your question is unanswerable.
That's the thread, man.
Well, the big bang isn't part of history. So boom. End of.
The idea of voyager being there, is as historically documented as the event itself.
Its not about what I believe. I believe my history book and at no point is the big bang mentioned.
Anyway, nothing that happened in the show really changed human history. The fact it predates human history, doesnt change the fact that 1 this happened late in the series, so wasnt the first time ST history was demonstrably different to our own and 2 it doesnt really change the world we are in, it just provides a different explanation for it. Saying - you cant tell the difference between fact and fiction, ignores the fact that the big bang is not fact, and there is literally no knock on effect to our time from this episodes plot intervention. If this episode created a world where all humans were 9 ft tall, then that would be a different history. As it was, history was just the same as wed left it, because all this is, is a plot intervention, with no knock on.
Its literally a tree falling in the woods.
But even that wasn't a "hard split," because the eugenics war didn't prevent the September 11, 2001 attack on the world trade center. So in the Trek-verse, our timeline continued with the addition of the eugenics war, our world of 2014 didn't disappear.
It wasn't replaced. Carpenters Street looked pretty normal.
But even that wasn't a "hard split," because the eugenics war didn't prevent the September 11, 2001 attack on the world trade center. So in the Trek-verse, our timeline continued with the addition of the eugenics war, our world of 2014 didn't disappear.
It wasn't replaced. Carpenters Street looked pretty normal.
Did 9/11 happen in ST?
I genuinely missed that episode. My bad.
This is what is called "a distinction without a difference". At least for our discussion. The observation that there are different literary forms has nothing to do without how "real" they are. SciFi is just as fictional as Fantasy. Neither is "our" world or timeline.
Well no. They are called two different things, because they are two different things. Sci fi is not "just as fictional" as fantasy. They are both fiction, but one trades on reality and the other doesnt. Fantasy might have realistic themes, again see Game of Thrones, but its not simply the same as Sci fi.
They are different things, and have different names.
And star trek is made by humans off screen, so it is a product of our world.
And it is based on real events on screen, so it is based on our world.
So basically, I categorically disagree with your assertions, with detailed and obvious reasons. By all means, continue to reiterate there are no literary differences and the whole of literature classification should somehow be discarded on your assertion.
Absolutely right.
I'll bet your history book doesn't discuss the origin of life on Earth either.
Except its categorically wrong, because star trek demonstrably includes our entire world history, and timeline up until 1960, and game of thrones does not.
(facepalm)
Also science fiction is defined by its differences to fantasy, and is largely characterised by its potential and plausibility. Again you ignore this or simply dont understand it.
And yet, neither Star Trek TrekLit nor The Name of the Rose is shelved in the nonfiction area of the library, which is the point. There are no degrees of whether a work is fiction or not. It either is or it isn't, despite the fact that a work of fiction may contain one, more, or many elements that aren't fictitious.
Are you trying to say that if a piece of fiction makes references to real world events, it is therefore actually a historical document?
That is, again, a distinction without a difference in this context. It is just as fictional either way, and that is what puts them in the same category. The category of "fiction".
Science Fiction is Fiction. Fantasy is Fiction. They are fictions. Neither is OUR world or timeline.
- Status
