Which future is it?

[Tribble27]

Unlike a lot of Trekkers, I really enjoy the JJ Trek, but I do have one problem that I've never seen anyone else mention. That doesn't mean no one else hasn't mentioned it, I just haven't seen it anywhere...

One thing I like about Star Trek as opposed to Star Wars is that Trek portrays our future, not only that, but it is a future we would love to see, a better future than other sci-fi envisions. When Orci and company wrote the new Trek, they created an alternate reality so they could have the freedom to write without contradicting canon. I compleetly understand that choice, it makes sence from a writers point of view. It is true that Star Trek has never been shy of parallel realities, but the main timeline was always supposed to be our direct future. This Abramsverse kills that.

We live in a liner timeline. There will be a real 23rd century. The splitting of the timeline makes it unclear whether JJ trek is our future or the original is. The fantasy that this will be our future isn't there anymore, and I miss it.

 

[Relayer1]

Wasn't it already established (probably more than once) that there were lots of timelines anyway ?

 

[F. King Daniel]

The idea is that the timeline splits in 2233 - in one version of history, Nero appears, attacks the USS Kelvin and eventually destroys Vulcan. In the other, he doesn't appear and history unfolds as seen in TOS/TNG/DS9 and VOY.

So really they're both possible futures. That being said, Trek's world may be similar to ours, but like the Earth in the Marvel movies, it isn't quite. We never had the kind of technology that created Khan in the 70's, a war between Augment supermen in the 90's, cryopods and ships with artificial gravity in 1996, a computer tycoon named Henry Starling who made a fortune from a crashed 29th century Starfleet ship etc.

It doesn't mean we can't make our world a better place, where there's no hunger and everyone knows how to read.

 

[Tribble27]

I get the split in two timelines. And as for Khan never having really existed, or there never having been a Voyager 6 launch, and other things that have come and gone, that is just a testament to the fact that Star Trek keeps outliving expectations. The 1990s seemed like a million years in the future in the 1960s. But when real history unfolded different, we can sort of set that aside and move on and still keep the fantasy of this being "The" future. It's harder to do that with active main timelines. Just a minor nitpick, but we fans love our nitpicks.

Maybe we all live in the evil mirror universe? I should grow a goatee...

 

[C.E. Evans]

Our future will not be anything like that represented in Trek, because Trek is fiction and reality tends not to follow the same script. That being said, Trek shows us an idealized, fantasized, and romanticized version of the future that we should try to work towards, but that's really the extent of it no matter how many times it's rewritten, reimagined, or rebooted.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

They're both our future.

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big... area rug.

 

[urbandefault]

"The future hasn't been written yet." - Emmett L. Brown, Ph.D.

 

[The Doctor]

Unlike a lot of Trekkers, I really enjoy the JJ Trek

What constitutes 'a lot?'

 

[M'Sharak]

One million seven hundred seventy one thousand five hundred sixty one.

 

[P0sitr0nic]

Our future will not be anything like that represented in Trek, because Trek is fiction and reality tends not to follow the same script. That being said, Trek shows us an idealized, fantasized, and romanticized version of the future that we should try to work towards, but that's really the extent of it no matter how many times it's rewritten, reimagined, or rebooted.

I disagree. Our own future has been shaped by the Trek TV shows already. Cell phones, medical scanners. We seem to love to make that future a reality.

 

[BillJ]

I disagree. Our own future has been shaped by the Trek TV shows already. Cell phones, medical scanners. We seem to love to make that future a reality.

Seems odd to give Star Trek credit for technology that would've been invented any way.

 

[AgentCoop]

This "issue" has been with us since TOS, hasn't it? Mirror Universe?

 

[Hythlodeus]

They're both our future.

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big... area rug.

in other words...wibbly wobbly timey wimey stuff?

 

[FormerLurker]

I disagree. Our own future has been shaped by the Trek TV shows already. Cell phones, medical scanners. We seem to love to make that future a reality.

Seems odd to give Star Trek credit for technology that would've been invented any way.

Would it have been, though? The developers of today's medical scanners and bedside monitors in hospitals have repeatedly stated that they were inspired by the bio-beds in Star Trek, and wanted to develop that technology.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Our future will not be anything like that represented in Trek, because Trek is fiction and reality tends not to follow the same script. That being said, Trek shows us an idealized, fantasized, and romanticized version of the future that we should try to work towards, but that's really the extent of it no matter how many times it's rewritten, reimagined, or rebooted.

I disagree. Our own future has been shaped by the Trek TV shows already. Cell phones, medical scanners. We seem to love to make that future a reality.

"That future" is a fantasy, created by studio execs first and foremost for entertainment and money-making purposes (and not necessarily in that order). Trek's inspired some things like you mentioned in our world, but it isn't going to be an accurate depiction of how things will truly be. "The real" future will be different--more advanced than Trek in some areas, but substantially far behind in others.

 

[Set Harth]

In other words, don't expect warp drive anytime soon.

 

[beneldon]

There have been a lot of things that have mucked up the strict progression of cause to effect, but from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint of the timeline the wibble has been wobbled and the wobbled has been wibblied.

It would be interesting if Trek went in a direction that altered the timeline resulting in a world where the events of our time are the result of such wibbling and wobbling to explain King Daniel Into Darkness's "We never had the kind of technology that created Khan in the 70's, a war between Augment supermen in the 90's, cryopods and ships with artificial gravity in 1996, a computer tycoon named Henry Starling who made a fortune from a crashed 29th century Starfleet ship etc."

 

[CommanderRaytas]

Our future will not be anything like that represented in Trek, because Trek is fiction and reality tends not to follow the same script. That being said, Trek shows us an idealized, fantasized, and romanticized version of the future that we should try to work towards, but that's really the extent of it no matter how many times it's rewritten, reimagined, or rebooted.

I disagree. Our own future has been shaped by the Trek TV shows already. Cell phones, medical scanners. We seem to love to make that future a reality.

"That future" is a fantasy, created by studio execs first and foremost for entertainment and money-making purposes (and not necessarily in that order). Trek's inspired some things like you mentioned in our world, but it isn't going to be an accurate depiction of how things will truly be. "The real" future will be different--more advanced than Trek in some areas, but substantially far behind in others.

As long as society evolves the way it has on ST-Earth, I'm cool with it.

 

[Gojira]

I view Star Trek as being from a fictional Earth very similar to ours. On that Earth was the rise of Khan and the Eugenics War in the 80s/90s. In 2233 of that Earth's History Nero came back in time and created another timeline that did not erase the events of TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY.

 

[RandyS]

"The future hasn't been written yet." - Emmett L. Brown, Ph.D.

Sure it has.

I just wrote it last week.