Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
A l t e r E g o

Timeline Talk

Timeline of Star Trek...   18 members have voted

  1. 1. ...which do you believe is true of the timeline in Star Trek...

    • I believe it is a different timeline, like in the Mirror Universe
      12
    • I believe it is an altered timeline, the Original is now erased
      6

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

21 posts in this topic

I vote option 1.

 

This timeline is, imo, just a different timeline as is the Mirror Universe.

 

Anyone else having fun wondering how things are going to be different, or not, in this one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your example for #1 doesn't really fit. The Mirror Universe isn't a timeline but rather a complete universe that originated on it's own and only 'touches' our universe in those instances where there's a crossover like in "Mirror, Mirror", "Crossover" or "In a Mirror Darkly". Those episodes aren't portraying a universe that is an "offshoot timeline" but rather a completely independent universe.

 

As to the gist of the question (or what I think the gist is), falling back on 43 years of Star Trek episodes and movies I believe that Star Trek has established that there is one single timeline. It can be altered and altering it changes the future of that single timeline thus requiring a temporal prime directive in order to protect history, the present and the future.

 

I'm not sure how to vote though, I'd want to know something first. At the start of Star Trek (2009) are we in the same timeline, same universe and same reality as TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT and the first 10 Star Trek movies or are we in an alternate/parallel universe that has nothing to do with TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT and the first 10 Star Trek movies?

 

If the movie begins in the same timeline, same universe and same reality as TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT and the first 10 Star Trek movies but then is altered by Nero going back in time and doing the things he did then in my view based on the precedents set down by 43 years of Star Trek all of Star Trek history is altered from that point forward.

 

If it's not in the same timeline, same universe and same reality from the start then it's just a Mirror Universe movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your example for #1 doesn't really fit. The Mirror Universe isn't a timeline but rather a complete universe that originated on it's own and only 'touches' our universe in those instances where there's a crossover like in "Mirror, Mirror", "Crossover" or "In a Mirror Darkly". Those episodes aren't portraying a universe that is an "offshoot timeline" but rather a completely independent universe.

 

Well, the Mirror Universe is an alternate timeline in that it is an alternate series of events that continues even when there is no contact between the two. There is no evidence to suggest it isn't just another alternate quantum reality as shown in Parallels (well really, no strong evidence either way). However, it definitely seems to be one that is not particularly difficult to make contact with.

 

As to the gist of the question (or what I think the gist is), falling back on 43 years of Star Trek episodes and movies I believe that Star Trek has established that there is one single timeline. It can be altered and altering it changes the future of that single timeline thus requiring a temporal prime directive in order to protect history, the present and the future.

 

Many Star Trek episodes do suggest one mutable timeline, however there are others that do suggest multiple parallel timelines (Parallels, Non Sequitor, Azati Prime). Additionally, the form of time travel may not always be clear, especially due to the fact that forms of shielding do exist (The Guardian of Forever, temporal wakes, temporal shielding, etc).

 

I'm not sure how to vote though, I'd want to know something first. At the start of Star Trek (2009) are we in the same timeline, same universe and same reality as TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT and the first 10 Star Trek movies or are we in an alternate/parallel universe that has nothing to do with TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT and the first 10 Star Trek movies?

 

That is presumably the case, but may not necessarily be so. I believe that was definitely the intention, though.

 

If the movie begins in the same timeline, same universe and same reality as TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT and the first 10 Star Trek movies but then is altered by Nero going back in time and doing the things he did then in my view based on the precedents set down by 43 years of Star Trek all of Star Trek history is altered from that point forward.

 

If it's not in the same timeline, same universe and same reality from the start then it's just a Mirror Universe movie.

 

The case can be made that Nero and Spock Prime start in the prime timeline and jump into the past of a slightly alternate timeline. There is a precedent for this (The U.S.S. Defiant NCC-1764 moves from 2268 in one universe to 2154 in another). Plus there are no known incidents in the Star Trek universe for time travel caused by traveling into an artificially created black hole, so nothing is really contradicted. So, I suppose technically one could look at it is "not real", but no single quantum reality is less valid than any other. They all happen, they all count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your example for #1 doesn't really fit. The Mirror Universe isn't a timeline but rather a complete universe that originated on it's own and only 'touches' our universe in those instances where there's a crossover like in "Mirror, Mirror", "Crossover" or "In a Mirror Darkly". Those episodes aren't portraying a universe that is an "offshoot timeline" but rather a completely independent universe.

 

Well, the Mirror Universe is an alternate timeline in that it is an alternate series of events that continues even when there is no contact between the two. There is no evidence to suggest it isn't just another alternate quantum reality as shown in Parallels (well really, no strong evidence either way). However, it definitely seems to be one that is not particularly difficult to make contact with.

 

As to the gist of the question (or what I think the gist is), falling back on 43 years of Star Trek episodes and movies I believe that Star Trek has established that there is one single timeline. It can be altered and altering it changes the future of that single timeline thus requiring a temporal prime directive in order to protect history, the present and the future.

 

Many Star Trek episodes do suggest one mutable timeline, however there are others that do suggest multiple parallel timelines (Parallels, Non Sequitor, Azati Prime). Additionally, the form of time travel may not always be clear, especially due to the fact that forms of shielding do exist (The Guardian of Forever, temporal wakes, temporal shielding, etc).

 

I'm not sure how to vote though, I'd want to know something first. At the start of Star Trek (2009) are we in the same timeline, same universe and same reality as TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT and the first 10 Star Trek movies or are we in an alternate/parallel universe that has nothing to do with TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT and the first 10 Star Trek movies?

 

That is presumably the case, but may not necessarily be so. I believe that was definitely the intention, though.

 

If the movie begins in the same timeline, same universe and same reality as TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT and the first 10 Star Trek movies but then is altered by Nero going back in time and doing the things he did then in my view based on the precedents set down by 43 years of Star Trek all of Star Trek history is altered from that point forward.

 

If it's not in the same timeline, same universe and same reality from the start then it's just a Mirror Universe movie.

 

The case can be made that Nero and Spock Prime start in the prime timeline and jump into the past of a slightly alternate timeline. There is a precedent for this (The U.S.S. Defiant NCC-1764 moves from 2268 in one universe to 2154 in another). Plus there are no known incidents in the Star Trek universe for time travel caused by traveling into an artificially created black hole, so nothing is really contradicted. So, I suppose technically one could look at it is "not real", but no single quantum reality is less valid than any other. They all happen, they all count.

 

I believe people get confused when talking about parallel universes vs. timelines.

 

To me the timeline is just that, a line composed of the past, present and the future. It starts at the dawn of creation and goes on into infinity. In Star Trek we have the ability to jump backwards and forwards on the timeline and we have the ability to alter what happened in the past and by altering the past we alter the future. The existence of the Temporal Prime Directive means that in the universe of Star Trek the timeline is a straight line with no branches. Alter yesterday and tomorrow will be completely different than it otherwise would have been.

 

The past 43 years of Star Trek indicate that there are parallel universes and maybe even parallel timelines, not timelines that branch off from a single starting point but completely independent timelines... which to my thinking would just be a parallel universe.

 

Parallels and Non Sequitur, in my mind are very much the same. Worf is flashing between parallel universes caused by Geordi's VISOR. Harry doesn't have Geordi there to flash him into different parallel universes. In these 2 episodes, they aren't dealing with time travel but rather parallel universe travel. Harry wakes up on Earth in the current and proper date he's just in a different place with a different position and different life experiences. Same in Parallels, Worf isn't in a different time he's in a different Worf.

 

With Azati Prime, you'll have to refresh my memory on it's time travel/parallel universe aspects. I can remember Daniels taking Archer into the future but don't remember how that episode is relevant.

 

I also don't accept the notion that different methods of time travel can cause the 'rules' of time travel to be different. If, as Star Trek has established over 43 years time is a single straight line that can not deviate left or right then the method of jumping backward or forward makes no difference. You're still on the same single straight line.

 

If you're not on the same, single straight line then you're in a parallel universe of which the Mirror Universe is one. Worf jumps to multiple others and Harry jumps to one. They jumped off "our" timeline and into another one. So yes, the Mirror Universe is a different timeline but it did not originate from 'our timeline'.

 

'Our timeline' means going back to Archer and Enterprise through Cpt Pike in "The Cage", through Cpt Kirk in TOS and right through to Star Trek Nemesis. That is 'Our Timeline'. The Mirror Universe didn't come into being because Kirk, Scotty, Bones and Uhura were part of a transporter malfunction. Their timeline was already in existence. So in all of these discussions, my understanding of the term "alternate timeline" was that we begin with the TOS timeline and something happens that changes history... Nero travels back in time and kills George Kirk altering all of history from that point forward or Bones McCoy travels back in time preventing the death of Edith Keeler and altering all of history from that point forward and so on thus creating an alternate history within our timeline. Our future is changed because of an alteration on the past. If those events aren't corrected then we're in an 'alternate timeline' and what might have been will never happen unless the timeline is set right by traveling back and correcting the thing that causes history to change.

 

A parallel/mirror universe is just a duplication of what makes up our universe (or we're a duplication of what makes up their universe). Those multiple parallel/mirror universes are independent with their own timelines. What happens in one doesn't have to happen in another and what happens in another doesn't affect what happens in any other.

 

Chekov being born in 2245 in "our universe" doesn't mean that he can't be born in 2241 in an alternate/parallel/mirror universe but if he's born in 'our universe' and he's being represented as being the same person then he has to be born in 2245, not 2241. If he's born 4 years earlier then he's not the same person

 

If time in Star Trek isn't a single, straight line then why does the Temporal Prime Directive exist? Why does Temporal Investigations exist? Why did Daniels bother with making sure that "the timeline" wasn't altered?

 

Remember, we're not talking about what current day science believes about what time travel is or could be. We're not talking about the latest, greatest theory and most up to date thought process on quantum mechanics. We're talking about what has been established as "Star Trek reality" over the course of 43 years.

 

If we have 43 years worth of an incorrect theory (when it comes to reality) then we just have an incorrect theory in a Sci Fi show, but because we have 43 years worth of history with that possibly incorrect theory we have to stick with it as 'reality' for the Star Trek universe. We can't just throw out 43 years and say "Well, they were wrong and now we're going to change the rules". Changing the rules means invalidating the previous 43 years of 'history'.

 

The case can be made that Nero and Spock Prime start in the prime timeline and jump into the past of a slightly alternate timeline. There is a precedent for this (The U.S.S. Defiant NCC-1764 moves from 2268 in one universe to 2154 in another). Plus there are no known incidents in the Star Trek universe for time travel caused by traveling into an artificially created black hole, so nothing is really contradicted. So, I suppose technically one could look at it is "not real", but no single quantum reality is less valid than any other. They all happen, they all count.

 

Yes, it is possible that they didn't 'time trave' in their own timeline but rather jumped into a parallel universe. If that's the case then again, this is a "Mirror Universe" movie and I wish they "the people in charge" hadn't made that choice. I accept it either way, but I remain disappointed in the choices that they made when making this movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think to be honest the writers did create a potentially contestive plot device to tell their story, and it does make perfect sense to want to, as VGB suggests, to 'follow the rules'...but this is how Orci and Kurtzman saw, from their perspective, what they felt the only way to both give a 'fresh take'-however one feels about that 'version'-and still retain everyting that had been created before, from Archer to Janeway...I accept their stating that it all remains, is unharmed...I would have no less than all my favorites 'untouched'...I just can't see them being so foolish as to dare imply or intend otherwise, no matter their desire to 'jump-start' the franchise, which I was a loyal fan of whatever the rest of the planet's felings about it, and I am not alone in that 'continued faith' so to speak....I suppose you just have to accept the 'odd singularity' effects that preumably enable this way of doing it all, among other things....if you want to like and take the film franchise into one's fandom...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Azati Prime establishes that the Sphere Builders are capable of seeing multiple timelines, thus indicating the existence of multiple timelines.

 

Alternate quantum realities (i.e. parallel and alternate timelines) do in fact branch off of one another. The idea is that every option that can happen, does happen. So for every choice, every alternative happens in an alternate timeline. As for the mirror universe, there is some debate as to whether or not it did branch off at some point.

 

And there can be different rules for different methods of time travel. The Defiant's move between universes and time frames is an example of that.

 

But if you want to get all bent out of shape about things getting erased? Go ahead. That's your choice. We've been given a perfectly acceptable explanation as to how the prime timeline is preserved. To worry over possible erasure is needless worrying. But if you want to that is your right because no one is forcing you to accept it.

 

But this is where the franchise is now and where it will be staying for the time being. Don't like it? Don't watch it again. Don't buy it. Just watch the old episodes and movies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Azati Prime establishes that the Sphere Builders are capable of seeing multiple timelines, thus indicating the existence of multiple timelines.

 

If I remember correctly (and I may not) they can see the probabilities of those timelines taking place. In other words, the actions of Archer and the Enterprise crew had the ability to prevent those timelines from coming into existence. If 'a' happens then the 'b' timeline will take hold but if 'c' happens then 'f' timeline will take hold and so on.

 

 

Alternate quantum realities (i.e. parallel and alternate timelines) do in fact branch off of one another. The idea is that every option that can happen, does happen. So for every choice, every alternative happens in an alternate timeline. As for the mirror universe, there is some debate as to whether or not it did branch off at some point.

 

Fact? Parallel universes and different timelines is a theory, not a fact. I accept this theory in Sci Fi, I reject it in reality.

 

As for the mirror universe 'branching off', where in canon is there evidence that it did? The only evidence that I've seen is that it existed at the time of the trireme (4th or 5th century I believe), it existed at the time of the pirates (15th to 18th century), it existed in the early 20th century (WWI and WWII), it existed at the latter half of the 20th century (Moon landings and nuclear subs), it existed at the time of first contact, it existed in the time of Archer, it existed in the time of Kirk and it existed in the time of Sisko.

 

I may be forgetting some event in Star Trek history that would indicate that it did branch off but as right now I can't for the life of me think of what that event might be and would be very interested in knowing it. I haven't watched Mirror, Mirror for a while so maybe I'll watch it tonight.

 

And there can be different rules for different methods of time travel. The Defiant's move between universes and time frames is an example of that.

The Defiant, according to Enterprise went from one universe to another. That's not time travel as such. That's moving from one universe to another, it just so happens that the time in the new universe is different than the time in the old universe.

 

When I flew to Las Vegas last summer I went from the Eastern time zone to the pacific time zone. Did I time travel or simply go to a different place that calculated time differently from the place that I left from?

 

 

But if you want to get all bent out of shape about things getting erased? Go ahead. That's your choice.

Excuse me but this isn't my poll question, I'm not 'bent out of shape'. The question was asked, I am calmly voicing my thoughts on the subject, and yes it is my choice. I also believe I've earned that right with the amount of money I've pumped into this site for the past 6+ years not to mention the amount of time as a fan of the franchise that I've spent over the past almost 40 years.

 

We've been given a perfectly acceptable explanation as to how the prime timeline is preserved. To worry over possible erasure is needless worrying. But if you want to that is your right because no one is forcing you to accept it.

 

"Perfectly good" for some is garbage to others. I'm not saying that it's either but I do think it's a bit of a cop-out by lazy writers that didn't want to honor Star Trek canon.

 

As for "worrying over possible erasure", I'm not worrying about anything. Alterego asked the question, it's a good question and can stir good debate. I welcome it and I welcome everyones opinions on the matter but don't expect me to just sit on my thumbs and not express my thoughts when asked to, and this question being posted is asking everyone to express their opinion.

 

 

But this is where the franchise is now and where it will be staying for the time being. Don't like it? Don't watch it again. Don't buy it. Just watch the old episodes and movies.

 

Shall I link to the multiple instances where I said that I really liked the movie in and of itself? I've watched the movie multiple times, I went out and paid a lot of money to get 4 full sets of the glasses from Burger King to save. When the DVD comes out I'll get a copy of it for my collection. Just because I'm disappointed in the direction that they decided to go in doesn't mean that I all of the sudden turn my back on the franchise. I believe that some choices that they made were a mistake, I believe Star Trek V was a mistake... I still have a copy of it though. I believe Star Trek Nemesis was a mistake... I still have a copy of it.

 

Something to consider when thinking about Star Trek (2009) and it's success. I haven't seen any other polls around the internet and I haven't seen any other discussions at other sites, so I can only judge the reaction based on what we have here right now.

 

I don't know the exact number of Star Trek fans but let's say it's around 20,000,000. If our rating poll for the movie is representative of the fanbase as a whole then on the surface it looks pretty good...

 

81.38% of the voters (myself included I feel I must add) either loved it or at least liked it a lot.

 

4.9% are indifferent.... think it was 'average'

 

13.72% either disliked it a lot or outright hated it.

 

Looks good, but if this is the way the rest of future Trek will be and you have almost 14% of that 20,000,000 disliking/hating the direction of the franchise that's a huge loss if they stop paying for tickets and DVD's.

 

You have to suppose that you'll pick up new fans, but I would doubt that you'd pick up almost 14% of that initial 20,000,000. So if the purpose was to gain fans and our poll is indicative of the fanbase as a whole, they've actually lost fans. That 20,000,000 number would be something like 17,256,000 to 18,256,000.

 

I have no idea if those numbers have any basis in fact or not, I'm just thinking out loud. But the possibility of losing 14% of your avid fanbase is something that really could kill the franchise... at least as far as future projects are concerned.

 

Now, in keeping with your theme of "if you don't like it then don't watch it..." I'll say the same thing, these are my opinions. I believe you'll agree that I'm entitled to them and I believe that you'll agree that I've earned if not paid for the right to express them. If you don't like them, you don't have to read them. Remember, I'm not trying to force my opinion on you. I didn't pose the question. I just gave my honest and open opinion... as I always have for the past 6+ years and will continue to do for as long as I keep the site online.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I remember correctly (and I may not) they can see the probabilities of those timelines taking place. In other words, the actions of Archer and the Enterprise crew had the ability to prevent those timelines from coming into existence. If 'a' happens then the 'b' timeline will take hold but if 'c' happens then 'f' timeline will take hold and so on.

I think its later than Azati Prime in the series (but they do reference their ability to see alternate timelines in Azati Prime) but they do say that a growing number of timelines favour Enterprise's success in stopping them. So they can see multiple timelines.

 

Fact? Parallel universes and different timelines is a theory, not a fact. I accept this theory in Sci Fi, I reject it in reality.

 

I meant fact in the Star Trek universe. It was just a theory in the Star Trek universe until Worf's incident in Parallels. Whether or not the theory is true in our reality is still unproven (and will probably remain that way for some time).

 

As for the mirror universe 'branching off', where in canon is there evidence that it did? The only evidence that I've seen is that it existed at the time of the trireme (4th or 5th century I believe), it existed at the time of the pirates (15th to 18th century), it existed in the early 20th century (WWI and WWII), it existed at the latter half of the 20th century (Moon landings and nuclear subs), it existed at the time of first contact, it existed in the time of Archer, it existed in the time of Kirk and it existed in the time of Sisko.

 

I may be forgetting some event in Star Trek history that would indicate that it did branch off but as right now I can't for the life of me think of what that event might be and would be very interested in knowing it. I haven't watched Mirror, Mirror for a while so maybe I'll watch it tonight.

 

There is no definitive evidence that the Mirror Universe did branch off. It is likely however.

 

The Defiant, according to Enterprise went from one universe to another. That's not time travel as such. That's moving from one universe to another, it just so happens that the time in the new universe is different than the time in the old universe.

 

When I flew to Las Vegas last summer I went from the Eastern time zone to the pacific time zone. Did I time travel or simply go to a different place that calculated time differently from the place that I left from?

 

It is time travel because the Defiant didn't jump to the same point in time in the Mirror Universe. It jumped back over one hundred years. It traveled through time.

 

Something to consider when thinking about Star Trek (2009) and it's success. I haven't seen any other polls around the internet and I haven't seen any other discussions at other sites, so I can only judge the reaction based on what we have here right now.

 

I don't know the exact number of Star Trek fans but let's say it's around 20,000,000. If our rating poll for the movie is representative of the fanbase as a whole then on the surface it looks pretty good...

 

81.38% of the voters (myself included I feel I must add) either loved it or at least liked it a lot.

 

4.9% are indifferent.... think it was 'average'

 

13.72% either disliked it a lot or outright hated it.

 

Looks good, but if this is the way the rest of future Trek will be and you have almost 14% of that 20,000,000 disliking/hating the direction of the franchise that's a huge loss if they stop paying for tickets and DVD's.

 

You have to suppose that you'll pick up new fans, but I would doubt that you'd pick up almost 14% of that initial 20,000,000. So if the purpose was to gain fans and our poll is indicative of the fanbase as a whole, they've actually lost fans. That 20,000,000 number would be something like 17,256,000 to 18,256,000.

 

I have no idea if those numbers have any basis in fact or not, I'm just thinking out loud. But the possibility of losing 14% of your avid fanbase is something that really could kill the franchise... at least as far as future projects are concerned.

 

Firstly, I highly doubt this movie lost 14% of the fan base. A far larger poll at Trekbbs (roughly 10 times the size of this poll) gives the "below-average" and "poor" a combined number of only 9%. And there is no guarantee all of them will walk away (not everyone who disliked TFF or NEM, or any other Trek incarnation walked away). However, this movie has undoubtedly increased the number of people who will be willing to watch future Trek projects. They may not be hard-core Trekkies, but they're still going to spend money on Star Trek. DVDs sales will likely be strong and word of mouth will be good. Star Trek is also one of maybe three summer releases, thus far, that have managed to combine critical praise with box office success (Up and Harry Potter 6 being the other two). There is even talk that with the increase to ten Best Picture nominees that Star Trek could actually be a Best Picture nominee (it won't win, even if it does get the nod). All of this points to the next movie being even more successful.

 

Now, in keeping with your theme of "if you don't like it then don't watch it..." I'll say the same thing, these are my opinions. I believe you'll agree that I'm entitled to them and I believe that you'll agree that I've earned if not paid for the right to express them. If you don't like them, you don't have to read them. Remember, I'm not trying to force my opinion on you. I didn't pose the question. I just gave my honest and open opinion... as I always have for the past 6+ years and will continue to do for as long as I keep the site online.

Fair enough.

 

Excuse me but this isn't my poll question, I'm not 'bent out of shape'. The question was asked, I am calmly voicing my thoughts on the subject, and yes it is my choice. I also believe I've earned that right with the amount of money I've pumped into this site for the past 6+ years not to mention the amount of time as a fan of the franchise that I've spent over the past almost 40 years.

 

We've been given a perfectly acceptable explanation as to how the prime timeline is preserved. To worry over possible erasure is needless worrying. But if you want to that is your right because no one is forcing you to accept it.

 

"Perfectly good" for some is garbage to others. I'm not saying that it's either but I do think it's a bit of a cop-out by lazy writers that didn't want to honor Star Trek canon.

 

As for "worrying over possible erasure", I'm not worrying about anything. Alterego asked the question, it's a good question and can stir good debate. I welcome it and I welcome everyones opinions on the matter but don't expect me to just sit on my thumbs and not express my thoughts when asked to, and this question being posted is asking everyone to express their opinion.

 

 

But this is where the franchise is now and where it will be staying for the time being. Don't like it? Don't watch it again. Don't buy it. Just watch the old episodes and movies.

 

Shall I link to the multiple instances where I said that I really liked the movie in and of itself? I've watched the movie multiple times, I went out and paid a lot of money to get 4 full sets of the glasses from Burger King to save. When the DVD comes out I'll get a copy of it for my collection. Just because I'm disappointed in the direction that they decided to go in doesn't mean that I all of the sudden turn my back on the franchise. I believe that some choices that they made were a mistake, I believe Star Trek V was a mistake... I still have a copy of it though. I believe Star Trek Nemesis was a mistake... I still have a copy of it.

 

Alright, I apologize. I was wrong. I unfairly took out some my anger and frustration at the other 'haters' (for the record, I don't think you're a 'hater'. Your complaints are based in fact and are rational). I'm just really tired of having the same argument over and over again. So I think now we should just agree to disagree at this point. I'm not going to change your mind and you're not going to change mine. Let's just end it. (Plus, constantly quoting each other is really tiresome and confusing).

 

I know I switched things around there. I felt this was the better place to finish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alright, I apologize. I was wrong. I unfairly took out some my anger and frustration at the other 'haters' (for the record, I don't think you're a 'hater'. Your complaints are based in fact and are rational). I'm just really tired of having the same argument over and over again. So I think now we should just agree to disagree at this point. I'm not going to change your mind and you're not going to change mine. Let's just end it. (Plus, constantly quoting each other is really tiresome and confusing).

 

I know I switched things around there. I felt this was the better place to finish.

I'm going to watch Azati Prime shortly, I remember the instance that you're talking about but don't fully remember it. My memory of it is that they were talking about projections, like in a presidential election here in the U.S. when they project that this state will vote this way and that state will vote that way and when all is said and done they were wrong and the votes went a different way.

 

And you're correct, I'm not a hater. If I were I wouldn't have created a special section for the movie with a special portal box for it. I know that I'm somewhat vocal with my disappointment in them making an Alternate Universe movie rather than making a "Pre-TOS" movie. I was excited to see the "Pre-TOS" movie that never came. As much as I liked the movie I also felt let down by several things.

 

One thing that I do like in terms of Star Trek (2009) and the 'alterations' is the idea that "Our Spock" and Nero from "our universe" didn't time travel within our timeline but rather jumped into an alternate universe. That gives Spock the 'cover' that he would need to avoid breaking the temporal prime directive and not attempting to set things right.

 

Also, to clear up any confusion... when I say that the Defiant didn't time travel but rather jumped into an alternate universe at a different time I'm not considering that as "time travel". To me, time travel would be of they had stayed in 'our universe' and went into 'our past'. The Defiant went into a different year but in a different universe.

 

As for leaving things as they are and agree to disagree, that's fine with me. Personally, I enjoy good debate about subjects that are debatable. As I tried to explain to someone else, this is the proper place for such a debate to take place. Especially when it's between people that have publicly stated multiple times their enjoyment of the movie as a whole.

 

I, as have many people have voiced negative opinions about Star Trek V and about Star Trek Nemesis in the past, but there hasn't been such a reaction to those negative opinions. I find it curious that when some aspects of this new movie are criticized that there's such resistance and such an effort to silence the negative opinions.

 

To the topic of this thread though, the timeline and time travel maybe a detailed review of all Star Trek time travel episodes, what happened in them and what the attitudes/laws in them were would be helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Yesterday's Enterprise' for example....great ep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was watching Trials and Tribble-ations yesterday and O'Brien wanted to go and buy who he thought was Kirk a drink. It was pointed out to him that they couldn't directly interact with anyone and O'Brien said "Yeah, we don't want to risk changing the timeline". "THE" timeline, singular. He didn't say "We can't risk creating a new timeline", he said they couldn't risk changing the timeline.

 

There are instances where the term "alternate timeline" is brought up, but it has always been the implication that an "alternate timeline" meant that the original timeline no longer existed. It replaces the original timeline.

 

I really am interested to hear any canon explanations on why there's a Temporal Prime Directive and a Temporal Investigations section if the case is that an 'alternate timeline' only branches off of the original rather than replacing the original.

 

I fully accept the concept that the red matter caused Spock and Nero to not only time travel but to time travel to an alternate/mirror universe thereby nothing at all happens in "our Star Trek past" it all happens in an alternate universe's past. If that's the explanation for what happened then I'm completely fine with it. I'm disappointed that they made this an alternate universe movie, but I accept it and hope (though don't expect) that they will make a "TOS Universe" movie down the road. I know that won't happen, but it's my hope just like it's my hope that someday they'll make a DS9 movie.

 

They (the writers and director) should have just had the balls to come right out and say that this would be an alternate universe movie rather than trying to make everyone think it was a TOS universe movie.

 

I haven't voted yet, but if the option was there I'd vote "I believe it's a different timeline IN an alternate/mirror universe".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know there's no canon to support this, but I'd wonder if the TOS temporal events are not what got Starfleet started with the TI office. 'CITY' certainly would make the brass shudder, to think what one person, no matter their intent, could do to the timeline....in the Alan Dean Foster treatment of 'Yesteryear', the Guardian's planet is described, in the wake of its discovery, as supporting, with considerable effort by the Federation, ground-based p installations, and missile tubes to defend it from conquest by hostiles who could easily alter history....in addition to an orbital facilty I believe to protect the planet...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know there's no canon to support this, but I'd wonder if the TOS temporal events are not what got Starfleet started with the TI office. 'CITY' certainly would make the brass shudder, to think what one person, no matter their intent, could do to the timeline....in the Alan Dean Foster treatment of 'Yesteryear', the Guardian's planet is described, in the wake of its discovery, as supporting, with considerable effort by the Federation, ground-based p installations, and missile tubes to defend it from conquest by hostiles who could easily alter history....in addition to an orbital facilty I believe to protect the planet...

You have to remember though that Enterprise, Daniels and the Temporal Cold War were all before TOS. So by the time of Kirk they'd already know about time travel and the ramifications of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right you are, I was thinking about that...ooops. Imagine how Starfleet would have wanted to keep the facts of how forces from AHEAD in time had been manipulating the then-present...it would be chilling, to a population rocked by the Xindi Crisis...

Edited by Voyager recruit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't there a fan theory that the Mirror Universe was the result of the TNG crew/Borg not travelling back through time (Star Trek: First Contact, ENT: "In a Mirror Darkly")?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wasn't there a fan theory that the Mirror Universe was the result of the TNG crew/Borg not travelling back through time (Star Trek: First Contact, ENT: "In a Mirror Darkly")?

The theory does exist and has been discussed, but is unlikely. There are indications that the Terran Empire extends back beyond the time of First Contact.

It is a possible point of divergence (if such a point exists) but it being the point of divergence is not definitive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Preserver',a Shatner novel, ghost-written by Judy and Gar Reeves-Stevens, is for the uninitiated a tale of Kirk vs. his Mirror conterpart, still alive as is he in the future century....it has a scene at the end, in which Zephrem Cochrane is holding a coin, and thus the metaphor of chance-i.e., quantum probabilities, I suppose, and he appaprently chooses to use a flip, to decide whether or not to tell the Vulcans about what he has just encountered ...and therein is the paradox of realities...an interesting way to ponder in print the 'what ifs'....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure how to vote though, I'd want to know something first. At the start of Star Trek (2009) are we in the same timeline, same universe and same reality as TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT and the first 10 Star Trek movies

 

No. When we first see the Kelvin they had already been investigating the lightning storm in space for at least a few minutes. The lightning storm marked the departure from the Prime timeline. If the movie started a few minutes earlier then we would have seen the new timeline's creation, but we didn't.

 

You also have to remember that all the time travel stuff that happened before was deliberate. It was intentional. Someone or something knew it was going to happen. This black hole thing took everyone by surprise. Maybe forming adjacent or alternate time lines is just the way time travel works in an uncontrolled environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had to choose the first answer because it is closest to what I think happened, but I don't think it is like the mirror universe.

 

But even if the timeline had been altered it wouldn't necessarily erase the original. I think it still exists as an abstract but without physical form. It's like deleting a document from your computer. There is still a memory imprint and in many cases can be recovered. Like in Yesterday's Enterprise (which I guess disproves what I said about the 2009 movie being the first accidental time travel but doesn't disprove my basic theory) the altered Guinan was able to sense that something just wasn't right. Had Yar not been on the C the original timeline might have been restored completely (or close enough that the changes D made to C wouldn't materially effect things). So the Prime timeline at that point didn't have material form while C Prime was in New D's timeline, but it still existed and was still recoverable as an abstract. It wasn't erased completely. If it had been then Guinan's intuition would have been erased as well.

 

I think the same thing happened here. The Prime timeline is still out there in the ether, it still exists as an abstract without physical form, and it still might be recoverable. In fact there is speculation that the 2009 movie is actually the first of a trilogy that will end with the original timeline restored, with the possible exception that Romulus might be saved.

Edited by Lt. Van Roy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My post got deleted by a bad mod.

 

When Nero came through to the 23rd century it split that timeline, one he comes though and sets off forking of different posibilities, the other he didn't come through and the descendant timelines we watched were still there.

 

I don't understand the debate here.

 

All possibilities exist. Timetravel just increases the possibilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing we do know, however, is the altered timeline is (for the time being anyway) the only one with substance. Nero's ending up in the past was the trigger that splintered the movie timeline off from the prime timelime. Then Spock came through about 25 years later. He didn't appear in the prime timeline,which would have created yet another splintering. Instead he came through to the timeline altered by Nero. There are only two possibilities. Either 1) Spock could have been sent to any time along any timeline and it is an unbelievable coincidence that he just happened to reappear in the movie timeline or; 2) The timeline altered by Nero was the only one possible for him to arrive at (although the time within the timeline could have been different). Both are possible but odds greatly favor the latter.

 

This is especially true when you consider that Nero was able to calculate the exact time and location of Spock Prime's arrival.

Edited by He Who Shall Not Be Named

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0