Why "Star Trek" is not right...

[OneBuckFilms]

Spock: Why did you tell kirk to keep your existence a secret, when you alone could reveal the truth (or something like that)?

Spock Prime: He inferred that universe ending paradoxes would occur should my presense be revealed.

Spock: You lied.

Spock Prime: I implied.

Something like that.

Where does that exchange suggest that they know for certain - or even strongly suspect - that more than one universe exists? Because "paradoxes" is plural?

Seems to me that one would worry more about time paradoxes if one believed oneself to be moving back and forth along a single time stream rather than branching into a new universe at every change.

Spock Prime is talking about falsely implying that a Paradox would result if Kirk revealed Spock Prime's existence.

Since this is false, that tells me that there is no possibility of a Paradox, ergo: Alternate Reality

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Spock: Why did you tell kirk to keep your existence a secret, when you alone could reveal the truth (or something like that)?

Spock Prime: He inferred that universe ending paradoxes would occur should my presense be revealed.

Spock: You lied.

Spock Prime: I implied.

Something like that.

Where does that exchange suggest that they know for certain - or even strongly suspect - that more than one universe exists? Because "paradoxes" is plural?

Seems to me that one would worry more about time paradoxes if one believed oneself to be moving back and forth along a single time stream rather than branching into a new universe at every change.

Spock Prime is talking about falsely implying that a Paradox would result if Kirk revealed Spock Prime's existence.

Since this is false, that tells me that there is no possibility of a Paradox, ergo: Alternate Reality

It doesn't tell me that, not in the slightest. It may tell you that, but you've reached that conclusion based on your own assumptions and reasoning - it's not like Spock actually says anything here that indicates that he knows with certainty, or strongly suspects, that he's in another universe.

In fact, there's no necessary logic to the position that someone meeting oneself or "revealing oneself" to an earlier incarnation would constitute any more or less a breach of causality - and hence a "paradox" - than any other aspect of time travel within a single universe already does. So even if Spock Prime doesn't believe that anything he does is likely to create a paradox it doesn't follow that he knows himself to be in an alternate reality.

It's not exactly canon, but Spock has met and interacted with himself in the past on another occasion - the animated episode "Yesteryear" - without harm. So one could just as easily argue that Spock knows there's little danger in revealing himself to others in the past because he's done it before without problem.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I loved the way time travel and alternate timelines were treated in the DS9 Millenium novel trilogy (and although not canon, the novels have influenced the STXI writers) - they simply didn't know. The Niners knew alternate realities existed, and theorized they could be the result of time travel, but there was also evidence of a single, mallable timeline. There was mention of 23rd century Klingon assault fleets slingshotting around the sun to attack Earth in the past - those fleets were never seen nor heard from again. Were they somehow destroyed, or did they succeed only to create a Klingon-dominated alternate reality?

From the POV of the nuTrekkers, someone came from the future and altered history. Spock Prime is a ghost from a future that won't happen, just like Old Janeway was in "Endgame" or Daniels was in Enterprise.

As for emotional impact, knowing Amanda might still exist in the multiverse didn't lessen the gutpunch I got when she died in STXI. From this POV, she'd dead.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

Where does that exchange suggest that they know for certain - or even strongly suspect - that more than one universe exists? Because "paradoxes" is plural?

Seems to me that one would worry more about time paradoxes if one believed oneself to be moving back and forth along a single time stream rather than branching into a new universe at every change.

Spock Prime is talking about falsely implying that a Paradox would result if Kirk revealed Spock Prime's existence.

Since this is false, that tells me that there is no possibility of a Paradox, ergo: Alternate Reality

It doesn't tell me that, not in the slightest. It may tell you that, but you've reached that conclusion based on your own assumptions and reasoning - it's not like Spock actually says anything here that indicates that he knows with certainty, or strongly suspects, that he's in another universe.

In fact, there's no necessary logic to the position that someone meeting oneself or "revealing oneself" to an earlier incarnation would constitute any more or less a breach of causality - and hence a "paradox" - than any other aspect of time travel within a single universe already does. So even if Spock Prime doesn't believe that anything he does is likely to create a paradox it doesn't follow that he knows himself to be in an alternate reality.

It's not exactly canon, but Spock has met and interacted with himself in the past on another occasion - the animated episode "Yesteryear" - without harm. So one could just as easily argue that Spock knows there's little danger in revealing himself to others in the past because he's done it before without problem.

Yesteryear utilized a very different time travel scenario.

The thing is, things have changed in Trek 09 such that the differences are irreconcilable with already established continuity.

We also run into something more fundamental: simple cause and effect.

Spock clearly remembers a different past for James Kirk that James Kirk remembers, which tells me that events cannot unfold as Spock remembers them, in and of itself a paradox, and thus not possible.

Either it applies or it does not. If it doesn't apply, then there is no logic to the workings of the universe.

If it DOES apply, then the fact that cause and effect would be violated by a linear timeline in Trek 09 excludes that as a possibility.

Causality excludes a linear timeline as a physical possibility.

Therefore, we either have a completely separate Parallel Reality, or we have a new universe created the moment the Narada arrived in 2233.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

I loved the way time travel and alternate timelines were treated in the DS9 Millenium novel trilogy (and although not canon, the novels have influenced the STXI writers) - they simply didn't know. The Niners knew alternate realities existed, and theorized they could be the result of time travel, but there was also evidence of a single, mallable timeline. There was mention of 23rd century Klingon assault fleets slingshotting around the sun to attack Earth in the past - those fleets were never seen nor heard from again. Were they somehow destroyed, or did they succeed only to create a Klingon-dominated alternate reality?

From the POV of the nuTrekkers, someone came from the future and altered history. Spock Prime is a ghost from a future that won't happen, just like Old Janeway was in "Endgame" or Daniels was in Enterprise.

As for emotional impact, knowing Amanda might still exist in the multiverse didn't lessen the gutpunch I got when she died in STXI. From this POV, she'd dead.

This is precisely right, and why I applaud the writer's efforts in this regard.

There are still some serious dialog clunks, and not necessarily those related to the time travel/alternate reality scenario (Scanning "Solar Systems"? Using Federation where Starfleet would have been much better both dramatically and logically when Kirk was Dared to do better?), but overall, I think they utilized a typically "Star Trek" way to preserve Canon while altering it.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I think Spock Prime and possibly Nero (and co) are the only ones who could know if they are in a branch universe, given an understanding of how red matter works combined with a knowledge of advanced physics, but neither seem to say anything conclusive.

I didn't see any evidence that any of the characters could know what happened - straight-up time travel, changed timeline creating new universe, or new universe that was always there. All I know is that the writers don't intend us to believe the old universe was changed and put facts in the brains of the characters regardless of whether they could know those facts, for the purpose of reciting dialogue to communicate the writers' intentions to us.

New universe vs pre-existing is up for grabs, so I'm opting for pre-existing simply so we can have the Eugenics Wars take place in the 90s in the original continuity and fob all the "corrections" such as a 21st C Eugenics Wars (ie, our universe) onto the new reality. But it's definitely a new reality one way or the other.

 

[YARN]

I applaud the writer's efforts in this regard.

overall, I think they utilized a typically "Star Trek" way to preserve Canon while altering it.

What matters is not that according to the technical details in the fine print we find that our new Trek does not "officially" displace what came before. What matters is whether or not the new stuff feels like home, whether the characters feel like the same characters, and stories feel like Trek stories.

Suppose, for whatever reason that defies logic, you were a fan of Stargate Universe. Imagine you sat down to watch the show and found that the ship traveled through a magical hypergate. Strangely, the show now has a laugh track. Everyone is light-hearted and it now has a plot that actually develops. "By the book" it would still be Stargate Universe (according to its own technobabble), but who could be blamed for saying that s/he was watching a different show?

What matters is not whether you thread the lawyerly loopholes of canon just right (Aha! We found a technicality that will allow us to claim both continuities!), but whether the it has the same heart and soul.

I wish people would stop acting like the writers were really throwing us a bone here. "See, your universe still exists. They didn't destroy anything." Right, as if our DVD's would no longer play the old episodes if the last film violated Trek canon! Indeed, what they were actually doing was trying to distance themselves from the trek fan base (this Is NOT your father's Oldsmobile!*) without drawing the unmitigated wrath of hardcore Trekkies. They didn't do it because they love you. They did it to market a film.

I am not saying that Trek didn't need some sort of reboot (although it would be nice if Kirk were a little less like a character from Animal House and Spock were a little less like Edward from Twilight), but let's call it for what it is - a reboot.

*those who are not old enough to remember this advertisement should, at least, be old enough to be aware that the campaign did nothing to prevent this GM brand from going out of business.

 

[UFO]

As for emotional impact, knowing Amanda might still exist in the multiverse didn't lessen the gutpunch I got when she died in STXI. From this POV, she'd dead.

I was wondering, did you realise Amanda was a "copy" when you first saw STXI? Her death occurred before the "alternate reality" clue was discussed, so perhaps you thought she was the "original"?

The other issue is whether it would mean as much to someone in the movie who knew it wasn't "their" Amanda or Vulcan. It would still be a shock I should imagine though Spock Prime didn't see her die of course.

Spock clearly remembers a different past for James Kirk that James Kirk remembers, which tells me that events cannot unfold as Spock remembers them, in and of itself a paradox, and thus not possible.

That is the classic time travel paradox. Usually we ignore it or assume it is possible in some way we don’t understand. What? Time slows down the faster you travel? Ridiculous! Granted that’s not a paradox, but there is a chain of causation that produced the people that go back in time. It just gets destroyed "after" its produced them (from one point of view)!

Causality excludes a linear timeline as a physical possibility.

Hmmm, maybe. Anyway, nice reasoning.

I didn't see any evidence that any of the characters could know what happened - straight-up time travel, changed timeline creating new universe, or new universe that was always there.

No, not much. I figured Nero would have to understand the physics of it in order to work out where/when Spock Prime was going to show up and if he did Spock Prime should too. I was assuming the late 24th Century knows more about parallel universes and how or if branching happens than the 23rd. But from what KingDaniel wrote, perhaps not. Spock Prime should at least understand the side effects of red matter but perhaps he doesn’t know what happens when you get to the past?

All I know is that the writers don't intend us to believe the old universe was changed and put facts in the brains of the characters regardless of whether they could know those facts, for the purpose of reciting dialogue to communicate the writers' intentions to us.

I don’t see how you can be sure of that from what’s in the movie. I refer you to my post #74. Much of the movie still seems to retain legacy lines from when the writers appeared to be going for a same universe story. OneBuckFilm’s reasoning makes "branching/alternative pre-existing" seem likely. But such reasoning is traditionally ignored in ST. If someone at the accademy had briefly mentioned doing an assignment on parallel universe physics and branching, it would have helped (I know, and slowed down the movie to a crawl! ). I can see that keeping it unknown may sometimes work but the writers told us afterwards, so why make it mysterious in the movie? Perhaps they thought they had done all they could. I disagree.

New universe vs pre-existing is up for grabs, so I'm opting for pre-existing simply so we can have the Eugenics Wars take place in the 90s in the original continuity and fob all the "corrections" such as a 21st C Eugenics Wars (ie, our universe) onto the new reality. But it's definitely a new reality one way or the other.

I think pre-existing is the best solution for how SpockP and Nero can end up in the same universe as well (not that its a burning issue ).

 

[UFO]

What matters is not that according to the technical details in the fine print we find that our new Trek does not "officially" displace what came before. What matters is whether or not the new stuff feels like home, whether the characters feel like the same characters, and stories feel like Trek stories.

What matters is not whether you thread the lawyerly loopholes of canon just right (Aha! We found a technicality that will allow us to claim both continuities!), but whether the it has the same heart and soul.

You certainly cut to the "heart and soul" of the matter. I think it feels different in what I see as important ways. Most either think it is close enough for their tastes or don’t seem concerned. Perhaps if the nostalgia, bling and fast action starts to wear a little thin they will take another look at what has happened to Star Trek. To be fair the writers seem to be saying they want to do more in traditional ST areas so the next movie will be interesting. However I won’t be standing in line until I have read the lowest scoring ten percent of reviews to see if they point out the same problems that occurred last time. If so, I'll just buy the DVD for reference purposes!

… but let's call it for what it is - a reboot.

Perhaps a "warm boot" anyway.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

A reboot within established continuity.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

What makes this movie different is style and presentation, mostly. The core has not been changed, and what IS different outside of style and presentation (which changed over time with Star Trek anyway to varying degrees) is explained either explicitly or implicitly by the Alternate Reality/Time Travel scenario within the movie.

 

[Pauln6]

What makes this movie different is style and presentation, mostly. The core has not been changed, and what IS different outside of style and presentation (which changed over time with Star Trek anyway to varying degrees) is explained either explicitly or implicitly by the Alternate Reality/Time Travel scenario within the movie.

I think the characterisations were very good for the most part and I wanted to watch these characters, whether they are carbon copies of the originals or not (and of course they can't be). In some ways, the movie was more faithful than it should have been to the sixties version - it is lamentably sexist for example - and even more sexist than the original when you compare the two versions to their contemporaries. Other issues, such as the change in the look of the tech, should just be taken in their stride though.

However, I think there is some evidence that a chipping away at the core might take place if they become too complacent. The suggestion that liberal Starfleet has 'lost' something, leaving it weak and useless, so that it needs a violent rule-breaker to save it, is a bit scary. Their attitude to Nero at the end was worrying too e.g. that Kirk has to justify his decision to offer Nero rescue WITH dialogue and then blasts the helpless ship WITHOUT dialogue to justify that decision beyond their talk touching on revenge and summary justice with no visible consideration to whether there are any prisoners or children on board the vessel etc.

It says more about the cynicism of our modern society compared to the optimism of the sixties writers but I personally think that the optimism is what made Star Trek great. I was never a huge fan of the over-sanitisation of the Starfleet personel in the TNG era but the writers need to consciously resist any erosion of the core morality of the franchise just to satisfy a more bloodthirsty modern audience.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

What makes this movie different is style and presentation, mostly. The core has not been changed, and what IS different outside of style and presentation (which changed over time with Star Trek anyway to varying degrees) is explained either explicitly or implicitly by the Alternate Reality/Time Travel scenario within the movie.

That's pretty much right, yep.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

That would explain why some seem willing have Spock find his "human" self, but perhaps they don't realise the implications of what they would be missing? If he "lost it" more often or became as, or more emotional than an average human, where's the point? Where is Spock?

Spock is Spock. Avoiding being human while MOSTLY succeeding, striving to be logical and occasionally failing. Best summed up in one of my favorite Spock lines:

"Are you sure this isn't a good time for a colorful metaphor?"

As you also point out, Vulcans do have strong emotions that they control, for a reason. Telling even a half Vulcan that that's not really necessary seems problematic at best.

Nobody said it wasn't necessary. But it's also not supposed to be EASY. It's an internal conflict that Spock has to grapple with as part of the landscape of his character, the same way Kirk has to grapple with David's death, the same way Data has to grapple with his brother being pure evil, the same way Riker and Deanna have to grapple with their un-resolved past relationship, the same way Worf has to grapple with his Klingon heritage on a shipfull of humans, the same way Alexander has to grapple with that same heritage while for being basically RAISED by humans.

It is the PRESENCE of the conflict between emotion and logic that makes Spock who and what he is. Without that conflict he wouldn't be Spock, he'd by White Tuvok, and nobody would give a shit.

Even if the writers think Spock is already too iconic to damage by humanising him

Spock was ALREADY humanized, that's what you're not getting. The more important thing about his character is that he HATES being humanized and tries hard as hell to keep people from noticing. That human part of him that is always present is burried beneath LAYERS of mental discipline; sometimes he lets it slip, and feels ashamed. Othertimes he lets it loose on purpose ("Tell her, 'I feel fine.'") because it seems appropriate.

That's what I'm worried about!

Why worry? Spock did this overtly throughout TOS and the movies. He got more and more comfortable with his human side as time went on. The closest he ever came to being a full-blown Vulcan was in TMP, and even his fellow Vulcans realized his human background was too strong for him to ever achieve the Kholinar. What were their exact words? "His answer lies elsewhere."

 

[Crazy Eddie]

That chunky dialog was ambivalent at best. For the entire movie NuKirk and NuSpock et al. acted like Spock Prime and Nero were from THEIR future and not some parallel universe.

For me it is no big emotional payoff to have Spock Prime witness the destruction of Vulcan if his planet Vulcan is safe and secure in another universe...Nero gave the impression he was going to have Prime Spock suffer by watching his planet Vulcan destroyed...but if it wasn't his Vulcan that was destroyed that scene looses all emotional impact.

From the POV of the characters, the existence of alternate realities with respect to time travel is speculative - it may well be supported by quantum theory, but neither Spock nor Nero and certainly not the younger versions of these characters can know with certainty that this present and the "prime future" are not in the same Universe.

There's a little known but often used sci-fi trope in Star Trek called "Guesswork as fact." It is ubiquitous in all series, and badly abused in Voyager and DS9 where some characters' off-hand guess about some exotic particle is used to instantly manufacture a new device that works perfectly the first time without any undesired side effects.

In real engineering or in real science, your first guess is rarely totally correct. Neither is your second, neither is your third. Amazingly, STXI actually--and it seems, intentionally--avoided this trope by having the main characters take educated guesses about what was going on and turn out to be totally wrong.

The most obvious and frequency cited example is Scotty's line, "If the design of their ship makes any sense at all I should be setting you down somewhere in the cargo bay. Shouldn't be a soul in sight." More subtle than this is Spock's initial theory about the black hole technology. If you recall, his original assumption is that Nero traveled through time INTENTIONALLY, that the same technology that could be used to create a black hole to destroy a planet could be used to travel through time. He seems to be guessing that Nero's encounter with the Kelvin was just an unfortunate coincidence in a plan that was otherwise predicated on stealth.

For realism we should keep in mind that just because some dialog is canonical or even fits the fact doesn't mean it is actually CORRECT. NuSpock makes the assumption that a parallel universe exists, but there's no way he can know that for sure. He could be completely wrong and the timeline has been permanently changed, or it could be that the black hole actually transplanted Nero to a completely different galaxy that just happens to be almost identical to the Milky Way for some reason (there's a Miri Earth, right? Why not a Miri Galaxy?)

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

There's a little known but often used sci-fi trope in Star Trek called "Guesswork as fact." It is ubiquitous in all series, and badly abused in Voyager and DS9 where some characters' off-hand guess about some exotic particle is used to instantly manufacture a new device that works perfectly the first time without any undesired side effects.

In real engineering or in real science, your first guess is rarely totally correct. Neither is your second, neither is your third. Amazingly, STXI actually--and it seems, intentionally--avoided this trope by having the main characters take educated guesses about what was going on and turn out to be totally wrong.

Very interesting. Thanks.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

newtype_alpha,

One flaw in this is that you are assuming that at the end, Spock and Spock Prime are incorrect.

The evidence seen on screen (events portrayed that cannot be reconciled with events as remembered on-screen) make a linear timeline impossible without violating basic causality.

Even the circumstantial evidence, setting aside dialogue directly related to theory, point to a Multiverse.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Time travel violates causality by its nature; happens all the time in these stories. So that's not an argument against this all being a single universe.

It's not clear from the movie that the characters know themselves to be moving between universes. There's no indication of it at all in the actual story; it could be any other time travel story in Trek's history. So if it weren't for one speculative line on nuSpock's part and the stated intent of the writers then this alternative timeline stuff could be discounted altogether.

As it is, there's no strong logical reason not to ignore it if one chooses until and unless some story is done "in canon" in which it actually becomes an issue - and that could probably happen only in the event of a "return to the future."

 

[OneBuckFilms]

Time travel violates causality by its nature; happens all the time in these stories. So that's not an argument against this all being a single universe.

It's not clear from the movie that the characters know themselves to be moving between universes. There's no indication of it at all in the actual story; it could be any other time travel story in Trek's history. So if it weren't for one speculative line on nuSpock's part and the stated intent of the writers then this alternative timeline stuff could be discounted altogether.

As it is, there's no strong logical reason not to ignore it if one chooses until and unless some story is done "in canon" in which it actually becomes an issue - and that could probably happen only in the event of a "return to the future."

Then what did Spock Prime admit to falsely implying?

 

[Sector 7]

As far as Sarek's talk with Spock about emotions, Sarek's speech to Spock after his fight with the bullies is almost word for word the same speech Selek (actually an older Spock) gave to young Spock in TAS "Yesteryear":

http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Yesteryear_(episode)

Yesteryear (episode) "What you do not yet understand, Spock, is that Vulcans do not lack emotion. It is only that ours is controlled. Logic offers a serenity humans seldom experience in full. We have emotions, but we deal with them... and do not let them control us." - Spock, to his younger self