Why doesn't Spock Prime go back in time to save Vulcan?

[Temis the Vorta]

You've still failed to suggest a viable way in which Spock could "repair" the timeline without risking severe disruption of it in other ways.

It really shouldn't be possible to repair a timeline in a way that totally restores the original timeline. That's like trying to unscramble an egg. Yet Star Trek characters have done that countless times. We just have to accept the illogic of it, due to longstanding tradition.

I've never argued that the MWI approach to this story is impossible. I've just argued that it's unnecessary and undesirable, and moreover that even if we accept it for the sake of argument, it doesn't actually explain Spock's motivations as questioned in this thread.

It absolutely does. If Spock discovered that the many worlds interpretation was fact, there would be absolutely no reason to time travel, as you split the universe anyway.

And did Spock make that "discovery" somewhere in this movie? Did he have a single line of dialogue to that effect? Perhaps when I was out getting popcorn? No? No. Then how exactly do you see anything being "explained"? All you have is sheer speculation, just like everyone else in this thread.

What happened when you were getting popcorn: the screenwriters interjected a rather glaring and awkward (but necessarily so, since there's no other way to do it) scene where the characters stand around on the bridge and in essence tell the audience that "hey, this isn't the normal time travel thing. This is a new universe, not time travel per se."

How did they know that? Well, they shouldn't. There's no way for them to know something like that. An altered timeline should be indistinguishable from a different universe, for the people inside the timeline and/or universe.* The screenwriters downloaded that info into their brains, because that's the only way to get that information across to the audience within the context of the movie. It was so clumsy that I almost started giggling in the movie theater when it happened, but I immediately understood the intent behind it. To make it any more obvious, Orci and Kurtzman would have had to wander into the scene and directly tell us their intention.

Once again, we have to accept the illogic of it, because the screenwriters want us to accept it. And we've accepted nonsense in Star Trek before, so why balk at this incident? At least it's a type of illogic that I haven't seen before. Originality should count for something.

*Which raises an interesting point: is the Mirror Universe actually a different timeline within the same Star Trek universe, or an actual different universe, as it is usually considered? The only reason it seems like a different universe is because of the massive difference compared with the usual timeline thing, where the difference is localized and not so total. But a timeline could be so disrupted that you get huge variations like that.

Maybe the reason the MU is considered a different universe is because a transporter - which generally is used to move in space rather than time - was used to get there. But why shouldn't a transporter malfunction move you in time rather than space?

 

[Arpy]

Even if traveling back in time means the Prime universe you're leaving won't change, isn't it worth doing so given you're creating another in which the horrible thing that happened in yours doesn't happen? Our O'Brien died in an early DS9 episode and we got his future self for the remainder of the series, but we don't care because he's still the same man even if his "quarks don't resonate in the same frequency as our own" or whatever that was.

 

[stonester1]

You've still failed to suggest a viable way in which Spock could "repair" the timeline without risking severe disruption of it in other ways.

It really shouldn't be possible to repair a timeline in a way that totally restores the original timeline. That's like trying to unscramble an egg. Yet Star Trek characters have done that countless times. We just have to accept the illogic of it, due to longstanding tradition.

It absolutely does. If Spock discovered that the many worlds interpretation was fact, there would be absolutely no reason to time travel, as you split the universe anyway.

And did Spock make that "discovery" somewhere in this movie? Did he have a single line of dialogue to that effect? Perhaps when I was out getting popcorn? No? No. Then how exactly do you see anything being "explained"? All you have is sheer speculation, just like everyone else in this thread.

What happened when you were getting popcorn: the screenwriters interjected a rather glaring and awkward (but necessarily so, since there's no other way to do it) scene where the characters stand around on the bridge and in essence tell the audience that "hey, this isn't the normal time travel thing. This is a new universe, not time travel per se."

How did they know that? Well, they shouldn't. There's no way for them to know something like that. An altered timeline should be indistinguishable from a different universe, for the people inside the timeline and/or universe.* The screenwriters downloaded that info into their brains, because that's the only way to get that information across to the audience within the context of the movie. It was so clumsy that I almost started giggling in the movie theater when it happened, but I immediately understood the intent behind it. To make it any more obvious, Orci and Kurtzman would have had to wander into the scene and directly tell us their intention.

Once again, we have to accept the illogic of it, because the screenwriters want us to accept it. And we've accepted nonsense in Star Trek before, so why balk at this incident? At least it's a type of illogic that I haven't seen before. Originality should count for something.

*Which raises an interesting point: is the Mirror Universe actually a different timeline within the same Star Trek universe, or an actual different universe, as it is usually considered? The only reason it seems like a different universe is because of the massive difference compared with the usual timeline thing, where the difference is localized and not so total. But a timeline could be so disrupted that you get huge variations like that.

Maybe the reason the MU is considered a different universe is because a transporter - which generally is used to move in space rather than time - was used to get there. But why shouldn't a transporter malfunction move you in time rather than space?

I think the MU is different in nature, it works subtley differently than the PrimeU. It seems to me to be something like the universe the Crime Syndicate of America comes from (evil Justice League from another universe).

 

[OneBuckFilms]

You've still failed to suggest a viable way in which Spock could "repair" the timeline without risking severe disruption of it in other ways.

It really shouldn't be possible to repair a timeline in a way that totally restores the original timeline. That's like trying to unscramble an egg. Yet Star Trek characters have done that countless times. We just have to accept the illogic of it, due to longstanding tradition.

It absolutely does. If Spock discovered that the many worlds interpretation was fact, there would be absolutely no reason to time travel, as you split the universe anyway.

And did Spock make that "discovery" somewhere in this movie? Did he have a single line of dialogue to that effect? Perhaps when I was out getting popcorn? No? No. Then how exactly do you see anything being "explained"? All you have is sheer speculation, just like everyone else in this thread.

What happened when you were getting popcorn: the screenwriters interjected a rather glaring and awkward (but necessarily so, since there's no other way to do it) scene where the characters stand around on the bridge and in essence tell the audience that "hey, this isn't the normal time travel thing. This is a new universe, not time travel per se."

How did they know that? Well, they shouldn't. There's no way for them to know something like that. An altered timeline should be indistinguishable from a different universe, for the people inside the timeline and/or universe.* The screenwriters downloaded that info into their brains, because that's the only way to get that information across to the audience within the context of the movie. It was so clumsy that I almost started giggling in the movie theater when it happened, but I immediately understood the intent behind it. To make it any more obvious, Orci and Kurtzman would have had to wander into the scene and directly tell us their intention.

Once again, we have to accept the illogic of it, because the screenwriters want us to accept it. And we've accepted nonsense in Star Trek before, so why balk at this incident? At least it's a type of illogic that I haven't seen before. Originality should count for something.

*Which raises an interesting point: is the Mirror Universe actually a different timeline within the same Star Trek universe, or an actual different universe, as it is usually considered? The only reason it seems like a different universe is because of the massive difference compared with the usual timeline thing, where the difference is localized and not so total. But a timeline could be so disrupted that you get huge variations like that.

Maybe the reason the MU is considered a different universe is because a transporter - which generally is used to move in space rather than time - was used to get there. But why shouldn't a transporter malfunction move you in time rather than space?

If Enterprise is taken into consideration, the Mirror Universe started (implicitly) at First Contact. Well, it's one idea.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

You've still failed to suggest a viable way in which Spock could "repair" the timeline without risking severe disruption of it in other ways.

It really shouldn't be possible to repair a timeline in a way that totally restores the original timeline. That's like trying to unscramble an egg. Yet Star Trek characters have done that countless times. We just have to accept the illogic of it, due to longstanding tradition.

And did Spock make that "discovery" somewhere in this movie? Did he have a single line of dialogue to that effect? Perhaps when I was out getting popcorn? No? No. Then how exactly do you see anything being "explained"? All you have is sheer speculation, just like everyone else in this thread.

What happened when you were getting popcorn: the screenwriters interjected a rather glaring and awkward (but necessarily so, since there's no other way to do it) scene where the characters stand around on the bridge and in essence tell the audience that "hey, this isn't the normal time travel thing. This is a new universe, not time travel per se."

How did they know that? Well, they shouldn't. There's no way for them to know something like that. An altered timeline should be indistinguishable from a different universe, for the people inside the timeline and/or universe.* The screenwriters downloaded that info into their brains, because that's the only way to get that information across to the audience within the context of the movie. It was so clumsy that I almost started giggling in the movie theater when it happened, but I immediately understood the intent behind it. To make it any more obvious, Orci and Kurtzman would have had to wander into the scene and directly tell us their intention.

Once again, we have to accept the illogic of it, because the screenwriters want us to accept it. And we've accepted nonsense in Star Trek before, so why balk at this incident? At least it's a type of illogic that I haven't seen before. Originality should count for something.

*Which raises an interesting point: is the Mirror Universe actually a different timeline within the same Star Trek universe, or an actual different universe, as it is usually considered? The only reason it seems like a different universe is because of the massive difference compared with the usual timeline thing, where the difference is localized and not so total. But a timeline could be so disrupted that you get huge variations like that.

Maybe the reason the MU is considered a different universe is because a transporter - which generally is used to move in space rather than time - was used to get there. But why shouldn't a transporter malfunction move you in time rather than space?

If Enterprise is taken into consideration, the Mirror Universe started (implicitly) at First Contact. Well, it's one idea.

In the title sequence wasn't the Terran Empire flag on the Moon instead of the US flag, that would imply the Mirror Universe diverged way before First Contact.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

It really shouldn't be possible to repair a timeline in a way that totally restores the original timeline. That's like trying to unscramble an egg. Yet Star Trek characters have done that countless times. We just have to accept the illogic of it, due to longstanding tradition.
What happened when you were getting popcorn: the screenwriters interjected a rather glaring and awkward (but necessarily so, since there's no other way to do it) scene where the characters stand around on the bridge and in essence tell the audience that "hey, this isn't the normal time travel thing. This is a new universe, not time travel per se."

How did they know that? Well, they shouldn't. There's no way for them to know something like that. An altered timeline should be indistinguishable from a different universe, for the people inside the timeline and/or universe.* The screenwriters downloaded that info into their brains, because that's the only way to get that information across to the audience within the context of the movie. It was so clumsy that I almost started giggling in the movie theater when it happened, but I immediately understood the intent behind it. To make it any more obvious, Orci and Kurtzman would have had to wander into the scene and directly tell us their intention.

Once again, we have to accept the illogic of it, because the screenwriters want us to accept it. And we've accepted nonsense in Star Trek before, so why balk at this incident? At least it's a type of illogic that I haven't seen before. Originality should count for something.

*Which raises an interesting point: is the Mirror Universe actually a different timeline within the same Star Trek universe, or an actual different universe, as it is usually considered? The only reason it seems like a different universe is because of the massive difference compared with the usual timeline thing, where the difference is localized and not so total. But a timeline could be so disrupted that you get huge variations like that.

Maybe the reason the MU is considered a different universe is because a transporter - which generally is used to move in space rather than time - was used to get there. But why shouldn't a transporter malfunction move you in time rather than space?

If Enterprise is taken into consideration, the Mirror Universe started (implicitly) at First Contact. Well, it's one idea.

In the title sequence wasn't the Terran Empire flag on the Moon instead of the US flag, that would imply the Mirror Universe diverged way before First Contact.

Good Point. Earth's Evil Twin.

 

[DonIago]

Even if traveling back in time means the Prime universe you're leaving won't change, isn't it worth doing so given you're creating another in which the horrible thing that happened in yours doesn't happen? Our O'Brien died in an early DS9 episode and we got his future self for the remainder of the series, but we don't care because he's still the same man even if his "quarks don't resonate in the same frequency as our own" or whatever that was.

Sounds like an infinite loop to me...every time you created a timeline where you succeeded, you'd be creating another where you failed.

 

[Set Harth]

Even if traveling back in time means the Prime universe you're leaving won't change, isn't it worth doing so given you're creating another in which the horrible thing that happened in yours doesn't happen?

It's explicit in the film that Spock Prime wants to hang around and help the Vulcan survivors ( and probably also help the nu-verse get "back on track" in other ways ).
If more time travel is important to him it can wait.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

Even if traveling back in time means the Prime universe you're leaving won't change, isn't it worth doing so given you're creating another in which the horrible thing that happened in yours doesn't happen?

It's explicit in the film that Spock Prime wants to hang around and help the Vulcan survivors ( and probably also help the nu-verse get "back on track" in other ways ).
If more time travel is important to him it can wait.

If we assume that Spock has reasoned that MWI has occurred, then going back in time would be effectively abandoning his own people in the reality he would be leaving.

 

[Set Harth]

If we assume that Spock has reasoned that MWI has occurred, then going back in time would be effectively abandoning his own people in the reality he would be leaving.

That's what I'm saying. But he could always do it when approaching the end of his lifespan, after helping the Abramsverse Vulcans and others as much as he could for however many years. By that point Spock Prime will presumably have faded out of the story, unless Abrams has a spectacular death scene planned for him in STXII or STXIII, so the whole question will be moot since we won't really know if he did or didn't. In any event it's not a problem for STXI.

 

[DonIago]

Of course, if it's a linear timeline then Spock basically wasted a good chunk of years helping versions of people who won't actually exist.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

If we assume that Spock has reasoned that MWI has occurred, then going back in time would be effectively abandoning his own people in the reality he would be leaving.

That's what I'm saying. But he could always do it when approaching the end of his lifespan, after helping the Abramsverse Vulcans and others as much as he could for however many years. By that point Spock Prime will presumably have faded out of the story, unless Abrams has a spectacular death scene planned for him in STXII or STXIII, so the whole question will be moot since we won't really know if he did or didn't. In any event it's not a problem for STXI.

He could, but under MWI, why?

 

[Set Harth]

It's not my personal belief that he would, I'm just following up on the supposition that more time travel would be "worth doing" even in MWI. Even if we were to assume that Spock felt this way, it's not something that would necessarily be covered within the scope of the film.

 

[shapeshifter]

But in MWI further timetravel would NOT be back to a time earlier in the timeline you left, it would be back in time to another, different universe/timeline. Any changes you do there would screw up that Universe. You'd actually be messing around where you shouldn't be. This Spock knows that, any attempt to fix things would be illogical.

 

[Set Harth]

But in MWI further timetravel would NOT be back to a time earlier in the timeline you left, it would be back in time to another, different universe/timeline. Any changes you do there would screw up that Universe.

I know that. I was responding to this: Even if traveling back in time means the Prime universe you're leaving won't change, isn't it worth doing so given you're creating another in which the horrible thing that happened in yours doesn't happen?

 

[publiusr]

There is nothing to say that JJ and company might not to a reset in a later movie which results in the TOS enterprise we all know and love moving offat the end. Who can say. One thing about the reset. If young Spock mindmelds with Spock Prime (off screen--who might have found a way back to his own timeline), then he would have acess to lots of information that wouldn't have to be explained off screen. Pines' Kirk would not know what a Doomsday Machine it, but Quinto's Spock would--and thus explain it to the audience as Kirk's go-to science guy.

 

[lawman]

Knowing that such a thing is possible doesn't make it wise. That you can do a thing doesn't mean you should. ...

Again, Spock has experienced time travel, he has seen what can happen. If he has decided not to, it MUST be logical.

You know, that's a fair point. I'm not necessarily arguing that Spock had to go back to correct the divergence (which would certainly have resulted in a rather different movie)... I'm just saying that he could, and had past experience doing so under similar circumstances. Thus my objection is that we didn't get so much as a line of dialogue about him considering it, much less explaining whatever logic might have led him to reject the possibility.

It was all just swept under the rug, instead. That's lazy writing. (Like so much else in this movie: "accept it because this is how we showed it on screen, and never mind if it's plausible!")

[Timeline self-correction] really makes no sense science-wise, even in the context of highly speculative theories about How Time Travel Works. It's an invention of sci fi writers because it can make for an interesting story if the characters are struggling against fate, yet the entire universe seems dead set on thwarting them.

Where it doesn't work: as a cheap cop-out to get the writers easily to the Reset Button. The universe should work against the characters, not coddle them!

It also doesn't work when it's a cheap cop-out to get characters into positions familiar to the audience because it's their "destiny." (Even if everything else is different, to the point of entire planets being destroyed.)

What happened when you were getting popcorn: the screenwriters interjected a rather glaring and awkward (but necessarily so, since there's no other way to do it) scene where the characters stand around on the bridge and in essence tell the audience that "hey, this isn't the normal time travel thing. This is a new universe, not time travel per se."

How did they know that? Well, they shouldn't. There's no way for them to know something like that. An altered timeline should be indistinguishable from a different universe, for the people inside the timeline and/or universe.* The screenwriters downloaded that info into their brains, because that's the only way to get that information across to the audience within the context of the movie. It was so clumsy that I almost started giggling in the movie theater when it happened, but I immediately understood the intent behind it. To make it any more obvious, Orci and Kurtzman would have had to wander into the scene and directly tell us their intention.

Yeah, I saw that scene, and reacted much like you did to the laughably unsubtle exposition. What's odd was that it failed in two ways at once: first of all, it was obvious from the start that this this film wasn't showing us the familiar Trek timeline, and anyone in the audience who cared about that distinction would have to be an utter moron not to have noticed it. Second (and here I differ with you), despite its bluntness the scene was still not clear about the distinction between an altered timeline and a parallel universe (both of which exist in Trek lore), as evinced by the extensive debate in these forums about the ambiguities of Uhura's phrase "alternate reality."

 

[Devon]

What's odd was that it failed in two ways at once:

No.

first of all, it was obvious from the start that this this film wasn't showing us the familiar Trek timeline, and anyone in the audience who cared about that distinction would have to be an utter moron not to have noticed it.

There is no "failure" here. So what does that have to do with anything? It's part of the story. The film requires no pre-existing knowledge, so why assume that the audience has to know the difference already?

Second (and here I differ with you), despite its bluntness the scene was still not clear about the distinction between an altered timeline and a parallel universe (both of which exist in Trek lore), as evinced by the extensive debate in these forums about the ambiguities of Uhura's phrase "alternate reality."

That's not even an issue to the audience. What they now know is that things have changed because someone was thrown back into time. The issue if its an alternate timeline, universe, etc., remains an issue with very few people at this point.

 

[Therin of Andor]

It was all just swept under the rug, instead. That's lazy writing. (Like so much else in this movie: "accept it because this is how we showed it on screen, and never mind if it's plausible!")

It's not lazy writing at all. In real life, we don't always understand everyone's motivations. Sometimes events just happen and there's no time to ponder why or why not things happen.

Why must we always be spoonfed all the answers?

There's nothing wrong with movies that leave certain questions unanswered.

 

[lawman]

^^Yes, it is. Fiction isn't real life, obviously, and one of the things that's made it so appealing to people for so long is that in fiction, things make sense. Ideally, they make sense in a way that actually demonstrates some sort of theme from which one can extract philosophical meaning.

In contrast, stories in which things "just happen" and characters' motivations can't be understood fail to meet that standard. Such stories typically fall into one of three categories:

A) the work of small children who haven't yet internalized cause-and-effect or empathy with other people

B) deliberately avant-garde literary fiction seeking to emulate the ambiguities of modern life as a theme in itself

C) poor writing by authors who just can't (or won't bother to) do any better

Leaving "certain questions unanswered" is a perfectly legitimate thing for a story to do, so long as it serves some thematic point (e.g., the classic "Lady and the Tiger"). Larding a narrative with implausibilities heaped upon contrivances with no larger purpose than to keep things moving to a predetermined endpoint is quite another thing. And that's what I saw in this film.