When did ST move into an alternate universe to our own?

[junkdata]

So Star Trek in your opinion is not fantasy, but rather fictionalized history?

Star trek is sci fi. Its a projection of the future, circa 1965, and based on the actual history of our actual world before that. It obviously imports a fictionalised narrative in its story telling, but not in its earth history pre 1965. The only deviation, is when time travel is included, which isnt really the primary history of earth in star trek, as its a plot intervention, for sci fi purposes.

The only reason edith keeler even exists, is because they went back in time and this necessitated a fictionalisation of real events and people of the time. That episode is historical fiction. It doesnt mean that the entire history of civilisation, as known in star trek is different to our own. It is the same and is trading on the same text book, up until 1965 at least, and somewhere up until 1990s, when the series is inexorably damned by its own prophetic nature and success as a franchise.

Maybe the death of edith keeler in the street, instead of the stairs, caused the eugenics wars!

 

[AirCommodore]

Also it categorically make a difference if its fantasy based in another world, or a vision of the future based in our world. Or even a historical novel with character constructs. Its all different categories.

They are different literary categories. But none of them are OUR world. You can have fictional timelines and worlds that are nearly identical to our own. It's not a matter of whether they are in the same literary genre. The issue is whether they are OUR world or not. And ST is not ours.

You cannot write an academic paper about the nearly catastrophic nuclear missile launch in 1968 from McKinley and use the Star Trek episode "Assignment: Earth" as your source that this really happened. It never happened. There is no Gary Seven, and there never was a Roberta Lincoln who just so happens to look exactly like Teri Garr. It's FICTION.

Yes, what they show in the episode looks very much like late 1960's Earth. It's an alternate Earth that closely resembles our Earth. But it is NOT ours.

 

[junkdata]

Also it categorically make a difference if its fantasy based in another world, or a vision of the future based in our world. Or even a historical novel with character constructs. Its all different categories.

They are different literary categories. But none of them are OUR world. You can have fictional timelines and worlds that are nearly identical to our own. It's not a matter of whether they are in the same literary genre. The issue is whether they are OUR world or not. And ST is not ours.

You cannot write an academic paper about the nearly catastrophic nuclear missile launch in 1968 from McKinley and use the Star Trek episode "Assignment: Earth" as your source that this really happened. It never happened. There is no Gary Seven, and there never was a Roberta Lincoln who just so happens to look exactly like Teri Garr. It's FICTION.

Yes, what they show in the episode looks very much like late 1960's Earth. It's an alternate Earth that closely resembles our Earth. But it is NOT ours.

Just because something is primarily set in the future, doesnt make it not our world. The fictional backstory is verbatim our history, and that only changes with plot interventions.

They are word for word identical to our own, that's why its said to be set in our world.
Of course setting affects genre. ST is set in a projection of our world post 1965.

You cannot write an academic paper and use Wikipedia as your source something really happened. Under the right circumstances, you could write a paper and use wikipedia or star trek as a source. Both of these are secondary outlets trading on factual understandings of our history. Wikipedia is america centric, and uses sources that often lead to no where, are highly biased and often are simply baseless assertions. Trek uses established world history and nothing else pre 1965, as its primary historical basis. Outside of time travel interventions, thats pretty much all it uses. Because it is set in our world.

The story of the missile launch might be fictional, but the time it is set in is verbatim correct.

Saying "It's FICTION" just shows you are out of your depth in this argument. Shout more about the fact its partially constructed. Thats all "Its FICTION" means. "Its PARTIALLY CONSTRUCTED!"

Well done. Someone pick up his dummy.

"Yes, what they show in the episode looks very much like late 1960's Earth. It's an alternate Earth that closely resembles our Earth. But it is NOT ours."


Well it is actually our earth. It wasn't shot on the moon...

ITS SHOT ON EARTH!!!

If you continue to act like you dont know what fiction means, maybe I should remind you its actually shot on this planet and not in your imagination...

More to the point, the plot leads to a time travel, that leads to a specific fictionalisation of our world. The fact is the setting is down to the history on the show, and the history on the show, is verbatim our world, pre 1965. That doesnt preclude a time travel story, but the only time anything seems to change is a time travel story. Ie a plot intervention.

There is literally no difference between our world and star trek, pre 1965, unless theres a plot intervention that requires a fictionalisation. Then it goes from history into historical fiction/sci fi.

Everything in star trek before 1965, is our real world history.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Do you believe that Star Trek is a fictional history, in other words a history created to service a work of fiction?

IIRC their history is exactly the same as our history, pre 1960. ie no demonstrable conflicts.

1930. No 21st Street Mission. No Edith Keeler. No vaporized street bum.

And no movies at all with Clark Gable billed in them, much less any movie that could be characterized as "a Clark Gable movie."

Certainly no later than circa 1930. This is yet another perfectly reasonable suggestion. If only the goalposts would stand still....

 

[BK613]

IIRC their history is exactly the same as our history, pre 1960. ie no demonstrable conflicts.

1930. No 21st Street Mission. No Edith Keeler. No vaporized street bum.

And no movies at all with Clark Gable billed in them, much less any movie that could be characterized as "a Clark Gable movie."

Well the 21st street mission et al is just part of a fictional narrative, onto a world that is supposedly realistically depicted.

The lack of a Clark Gable movie is far more damning, as its a primary assertion about this timeline.

In 1930, after his impressive appearance as the seething and desperate character Killer Mears in the Los Angeles stage production of The Last Mile, Gable was offered a contract with MGM. His first role in a sound picture was as the unshaven villain in a low-budget William Boyd western called The Painted Desert (1931). He received a lot of fan mail as a result of his powerful voice and appearance; the studio took notice.

So Clark Gable blew up in the early 30s.

They arrive in New York City, circa 1930.

Circa means around 1930.

Street missions existed in the 1930s too.

Edith Keeler has chimes with Dorothy Day too, although the latter didn't die in a crash or change the outcome of WW2.

Now, IIRC without their intervention, Edith Keeler still dies.

So once again, we are watching a depiction of 30s history, through the lens of star trek. Obviously this is a fictionalised account, just like any other period drama, but its still evidence of sorts of the time period, because its based on a factual established foundation, and not a fabricated, fantasy one.

Edith pinpoints the year as 1930:

MCCOY: The only possible answer would conclusively prove that I'm either unconscious or demented. This looks like old Earth around 1920 or 25.
EDITH: Would you care to try for 30?

Not 31 or 32 or 33, etc. but 30.
And before someone handwaves that, try this:
This looks like old Earth around 2000 or 2005.
Would you, in 2014, say "Care to try for 2010?"

 

[AirCommodore]

Also it categorically make a difference if its fantasy based in another world, or a vision of the future based in our world. Or even a historical novel with character constructs. Its all different categories.

They are different literary categories. But none of them are OUR world. You can have fictional timelines and worlds that are nearly identical to our own. It's not a matter of whether they are in the same literary genre. The issue is whether they are OUR world or not. And ST is not ours.

You cannot write an academic paper about the nearly catastrophic nuclear missile launch in 1968 from McKinley and use the Star Trek episode "Assignment: Earth" as your source that this really happened. It never happened. There is no Gary Seven, and there never was a Roberta Lincoln who just so happens to look exactly like Teri Garr. It's FICTION.

Yes, what they show in the episode looks very much like late 1960's Earth. It's an alternate Earth that closely resembles our Earth. But it is NOT ours.

Just because something is primarily set in the future, doesnt make it not our world. The fictional backstory is verbatim our history, and that only changes with plot interventions.

They are word for word identical to our own, that's why its said to be set in our world.
Of course setting affects genre. ST is set in a projection of our world post 1965.

You cannot write an academic paper and use Wikipedia as your source something really happened.

The story of the missile launch might be fictional, but the time it is set in is verbatim correct.

Saying "It's FICTION" just shows you are out of your depth in this argument. Shout more about the fact its partially constructed. Thats all "Its FICTION" means. "Its PARTIALLY CONSTRUCTED!"

Well done. Someone pick up his dummy.

Well it is actually our earth. It wasnt shot on the moon...

ITS SHOT ON EARTH!!!

Now now, Junkdata, no need for flaming! Saying it is fiction, is what is telling you that it is NOT our world. The reason you cannot use ST as a source for an academic paper, or for a journalistic piece, is that it is fictional. It is NOT our world, and never was. It treats the missile launch as an actual, real historical event. It's pointless to say "Well, it's just like 1960s Earth except for all the things that are different from 1960s Earth".

That makes it not our timeline or our world.

 

[junkdata]

IIRC their history is exactly the same as our history, pre 1960. ie no demonstrable conflicts.

1930. No 21st Street Mission. No Edith Keeler. No vaporized street bum.

And no movies at all with Clark Gable billed in them, much less any movie that could be characterized as "a Clark Gable movie."

Certainly no later than circa 1930. This is yet another perfectly reasonable suggestion. If only the goalposts would stand still....

No earlier than 1931 was Clark Gable famous, maybe.

As for that episode, its setting has been standing at circa 1930 for sometime, and Clark Gable had movies and popularity circa 1930.

If you understand what c.1930 means, then you will concur.

If you disagree with words you dont understand, I cant help you. I actually studied history, and I do know what the word circa means.

I dont think a fictional character in 1930 makes it "not our world", its a fictional story set in our world and reflecting our world of that time. The story is fictional, but the history and setting are historically correct.

 

[junkdata]

They are different literary categories. But none of them are OUR world. You can have fictional timelines and worlds that are nearly identical to our own. It's not a matter of whether they are in the same literary genre. The issue is whether they are OUR world or not. And ST is not ours.

You cannot write an academic paper about the nearly catastrophic nuclear missile launch in 1968 from McKinley and use the Star Trek episode "Assignment: Earth" as your source that this really happened. It never happened. There is no Gary Seven, and there never was a Roberta Lincoln who just so happens to look exactly like Teri Garr. It's FICTION.

Yes, what they show in the episode looks very much like late 1960's Earth. It's an alternate Earth that closely resembles our Earth. But it is NOT ours.

Just because something is primarily set in the future, doesnt make it not our world. The fictional backstory is verbatim our history, and that only changes with plot interventions.

They are word for word identical to our own, that's why its said to be set in our world.
Of course setting affects genre. ST is set in a projection of our world post 1965.

You cannot write an academic paper and use Wikipedia as your source something really happened.

The story of the missile launch might be fictional, but the time it is set in is verbatim correct.

Saying "It's FICTION" just shows you are out of your depth in this argument. Shout more about the fact its partially constructed. Thats all "Its FICTION" means. "Its PARTIALLY CONSTRUCTED!"

Well done. Someone pick up his dummy.

Well it is actually our earth. It wasnt shot on the moon...

ITS SHOT ON EARTH!!!

Now now, Junkdata, no need for flaming! Saying it is fiction, is what is telling you that it is NOT our world. The reason you cannot use ST as a source for an academic paper, or for a journalistic piece, is that it is fictional. It is NOT our world, and never was. It treats the missile launch as an actual, real historical event. It's pointless to say "Well, it's just like 1960s Earth except for all the things that are different from 1960s Earth".

That makes it not our timeline or our world.

Its not flaming. The guy is using caps and I object to this use.

He is literally shouting to get his nonsensical point across.

At no point did I direct attacks on him, just his rhetoric.



The story is fictional, but its set in our world.

I dont know what part of that you dont understand. You assert that its pointless to notice that its set in our world, but thats your baseless assertion.

Also you can use Star Trek as evidence in an academic report. Its narrative is a fictional source, and the historical back story of earth as carried by star trek also happens to be a historically correct secondary account of our world.

Star trek is a primary fictional source of the 60's.

The fact you don't realise that fictional evidence is still evidence, is hilarious.

 

[Jedi_Master]

So Star Trek in your opinion is not fantasy, but rather fictionalized history?

Star trek is sci fi. Its a projection of the future, circa 1965, and based on the actual history of our actual world before that. It obviously imports a fictionalised narrative in its story telling, but not in its earth history pre 1965. The only deviation, is when time travel is included, which isnt really the primary history of earth in star trek, as its a plot intervention, for sci fi purposes.

The only reason edith keeler even exists, is because they went back in time and this necessitated a fictionalisation of real events and people of the time. That episode is historical fiction. It doesnt mean that the entire history of civilisation, as known in star trek is different to our own. It is the same and is trading on the same text book, up until 1965 at least, and somewhere up until 1990s, when the series is inexorably damned by its own prophetic nature and success as a franchise.

Maybe the death of edith keeler in the street, instead of the stairs, caused the eugenics wars!

You are welcome to your own opinion, but Star Trek is not history. It is a story, created for our entertainment, and included references to real life historical events do not somehow give Star Trek the right to be called "history".

This disclaimer is present at the end of all the ST films

The events, characters and firms depicted in the film are fictitious. Any similarity to actual persons, living or dead, or to actual events is purely coincidental.

No amount of gobbledygook or mangled phrasing changes that reality.

 

[T'Girl]

The story of the missile launch might be fictional, but the time it is set in is verbatim correct.

And when in our universe was a McKinley rocket base established? Capable of launching a rocket the equivalent in a size to a Saturn Five.

Someone pick up his dummy.

Resorting to insults is usually a sign that you're losing faith in your own position.

There is literally no difference between our world and star trek, pre 1965.

Velcro was invented in 1948 in Switzerland by a electrical engineer. The episode Carbon Creek was set in the year 1957.

In out timeline/universe Nazi Germany wasn't "the most efficient nation ever to exist" (really it was quite badly run)." Apparently it was efficient in the Star Trek universe, according to a respected historical expert and Mister Spock.

That takes us back in time to the 1930's

 

[junkdata]

So Star Trek in your opinion is not fantasy, but rather fictionalized history?

Star trek is sci fi. Its a projection of the future, circa 1965, and based on the actual history of our actual world before that. It obviously imports a fictionalised narrative in its story telling, but not in its earth history pre 1965. The only deviation, is when time travel is included, which isnt really the primary history of earth in star trek, as its a plot intervention, for sci fi purposes.

The only reason edith keeler even exists, is because they went back in time and this necessitated a fictionalisation of real events and people of the time. That episode is historical fiction. It doesnt mean that the entire history of civilisation, as known in star trek is different to our own. It is the same and is trading on the same text book, up until 1965 at least, and somewhere up until 1990s, when the series is inexorably damned by its own prophetic nature and success as a franchise.

Maybe the death of edith keeler in the street, instead of the stairs, caused the eugenics wars!

You are welcome to your own opinion, but Star Trek is not history. It is a story, created for our entertainment, and included references to real life historical events do not somehow give Star Trek the right to be called "history".

This disclaimer is present at the end of all the ST films

The events, characters and firms depicted in the film are fictitious. Any similarity to actual persons, living or dead, or to actual events is purely coincidental.

No amount of gobbledygook or mangled phrasing changes that reality.

Everything is history.

If youd actually studied history, you would realise fictional stories are still evidence in history.

The fact you used the made up word gobbledygook, really just invalidates everything else you said.

After all - thats your core argument. Trek made up a narrative of post 1960s, so its account of the world previous to that is fictional.

You made up a word, so your whole post is fictional.




Also - Lol at appeals to legal disclaimers. That's a new one.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Everything is history.

The fact you used the made up word gobbledygook, really just invalidates everything else you said.

After all thats your core argument. You made up a word, so your whole account is fictional.

Appeals to legal disclaimers. That's a new one.

A new factoid for you today

 

[junkdata]

Everything is history.

The fact you used the made up word gobbledygook, really just invalidates everything else you said.

After all thats your core argument. You made up a word, so your whole account is fictional.

Appeals to legal disclaimers. That's a new one.

A new factoid for you today

SMFH.

Americans ...

 

[AirCommodore]

The story is fictional, but its set in our world.

It's a timeline and world very much like our own but not ours. The idea that this alternate Earth is closer to our Earth than Game of Thrones does not make it our Earth. It's just a timeline that resembles ours more closely. That's it.

Also you can use Star Trek as evidence in an academic report.

You cannot use it as evidence of the existence of McKinley Rocket Base or of the launch of a nuclear rocket from there in 1968. Star Trek, the TV show, is a product of the culture of the real 1960's. That part is true.

 

[Misfit Toy]

Saying "It's FICTION" just shows you are out of your depth in this argument. Shout more about the fact its partially constructed. Thats all "Its FICTION" means. "Its PARTIALLY CONSTRUCTED!"

Well done. Someone pick up his dummy.

Infraction for Flaming. Relevant comments regarding this infraction may be made via Private Message, not in this thread.

 

[Jedi_Master]

The story is fictional, but its set in our world.

It's a timeline and world very much like our own but not ours. The idea that this alternate Earth is closer to our Earth than Game of Thrones does not make it our Earth. It's just a timeline that resembles ours more closely. That's it.

Correct.
A fictional timeline that serves the purposes of the story's creators.
Inserting one or more factual events into a fictional timeline does not in any way make that timeline more "authentic" or historical.

 

[junkdata]

It's FICTION.

Its SHOUTING! But lets ignore that, and pretend im the bad guy for pointing it out.

One rule for me and one rule for you.

The story of the missile launch might be fictional, but the time it is set in is verbatim correct.

And when in our universe was a McKinley rocket base established? Capable of launching a rocket the equivalent in a size to a Saturn Five.

Someone pick up his dummy.

Resorting to insults is usually a sign that you're losing faith in your own position.

There is literally no difference between our world and star trek, pre 1965.

Velcro was invented in 1948 in Switzerland by a electrical engineer. The episode Carbon Creek was set in the year 1957.

In out timeline/universe Nazi Germany wasn't "the most efficient nation ever to exist" (really it was quite badly run)." Apparently it was efficient in the Star Trek universe, according to a respected historical expert and Mister Spock.

That takes us back in time to the 1930's

The McKinley rocket base is fictionalised, so therefore the whole planet is fictionalised?

I wasn't insulting him. He literally spat out his dummy by shouting at me. Ignoring the instigator is usually a sign of bias.

Velcro is not really a game changer.

Naziism was though efficient in 1965...

They still set it in our world. Just because a principle character (or more accurately the writer) got his facts wrong, doesn't really change that.

The story is fictional, but its set in our world.

It's a timeline and world very much like our own but not ours. The idea that this alternate Earth is closer to our Earth than Game of Thrones does not make it our Earth. It's just a timeline that resembles ours more closely. That's it.

Correct.
A fictional timeline that serves the purposes of the story's creators.
Inserting one or more factual events into a fictional timeline does not in any way make that timeline more "authentic" or historical.

Except its verbatim historically accurate as a backstory, outside of time travel episodes, and is set in our earth.

Game of thrones has no relation to our history, outside of inspiration.

Its a timeline that is ours, up until sometime between 1960 and 1990.

 

[junkdata]

Saying "It's FICTION" just shows you are out of your depth in this argument. Shout more about the fact its partially constructed. Thats all "Its FICTION" means. "Its PARTIALLY CONSTRUCTED!"

Well done. Someone pick up his dummy.

Infraction for Flaming. Relevant comments regarding this infraction may be made via Private Message, not in this thread.

There is no private messaging facility for me, so you have left no other recourse than this thread, and you have also refused friend requests to disallow any response.

You have made it impossible to address the fact you have attacked me for rebuking someone who was attacking me. It is not flaming. If you were doing your job, then the poster would have been rebuked for using capitals.

By all means continue to ignore your friends sins and blame me for not using a PM i dont have to address a moderator who refused friends requests, so that I couldnt address the issue privately.

By all means ignore the instigator and blame me for objecting to him shouting at me.

 

[AirCommodore]

It's FICTION.

Its FLAMING!

That is not flaming. I will happily use bold, italics, and underlining to emphasize words, rather than CAPS. But if you felt you were being "shouted" at, you can just point that out, instead of flaming them.

The McKinley rocket base is fictionalised, so therefore the whole planet is fictionalised?

The whole thing is fiction. The Rocket Base, the Missile Launch, Gary Seven, Roberta Lincoln, etc. Just as Edith Keeler and her Mission are. It's not like suddenly, there is this Eugenics War in the 1990's and now it's a different timeline. It always was a different timeline. Not just suddenly in the 1990's. There was never a Khan Singh or Joachim or a Eugenics Project either. There was never a time when this was in our world, let alone "verbatim" or "literally" the same.

 

[junkdata]

It's FICTION.

Its FLAMING!

That is not flaming. I will happily use bold, italics, and underlining to emphasize words, rather than CAPS. But if you felt you were being "shouted" at, you can just point that out, instead of flaming them.

The McKinley rocket base is fictionalised, so therefore the whole planet is fictionalised?

The whole thing is fiction. The Rocket Base, the Missile Launch, Gary Seven, Roberta Lincoln, etc. Just as Edith Keeler and her Mission are. It's not like suddenly, there is this Eugenics War in the 1990's and now it's a different timeline. It always was a different timeline. Not just suddenly in the 1990's. There was never a Khan Singh or Joachim or a Eugenics Project either. There was never a time when this was in our world, let alone "verbatim" or "literally" the same.

Its pretty much accepted everywhere on earth that you are shouting when you are using caps.

In the majority of office based official online communications, you arent allowed to use capitals like that.

On youtube and in chat rooms, you are often banned from using capitals like that.

I made light of you shouting at me.

Please tell me what other absolute institutions of online communication are somehow different here.

Capitals arent considered shouting, and impolite.

Okey dokey.