Atoz 77
Vice Admiral
[M:0]
[ss:Insurrection]
Posts: 4,065
|
Post by Atoz 77 on Jan 15, 2010 8:28:56 GMT -6
Well, it's still up in the air anyway as to whether or not time travel is even possible. There's obviously a great deal of confusion here. My perspective from the beginning of the topic has been the Star Trek perspective -- how does this relate to all the episodes we've seen in which time travel did happen? It's not really a question of agreeing or disagreeing. From a philosophical point of view, the divergent timeline appears to just pop into existence fully formed, from nothing. It doesn't have a past history because it wouldn't even exist if you hadn't caused the divergence. From any point in the divergent timeline, if you took a time machine backwards, you'd have to stop at the divergence, because that universe didn't even exist prior to it (like in "Back to the Future 2").
|
|
edify
Lt. Jr. Grade
Posts: 150
|
Post by edify on Jan 15, 2010 22:04:27 GMT -6
Well, it's been awhile since I've seen Back to the Future 2, but if I remember correctly that film went by the same philosophy that the new Star Trek film did. That is, the past in the divergent timeline would be the same as the original timeline. It would differ at the point of divergence.
For instance, Marty McFly and Doc Brown went into the future to take care of business with Marty's future kids. While they were there in the future, Biff takes the almanac and steals the DeLorean, giving it to himself in the past. He returns to his time (the future), where Doc Brown and Marty take the DeLorean back to the time they left. However, the time they left is now completely different because Biff has now become a millionaire (due to the future Biff giving himself the almanac some time ago). The future they just left was part of the original timeline, so as Doc Brown explained to Marty, they can no longer return to that future because they're now in the timeline that Biff changed. If they were to go into the future (say to stop Biff from going back in time in the first place), they couldn't stop him -- the reason being that if they went into the future, they would travel into *that* timeline's future. The original timeline was cut off from them. So the only course of action was to travel into the past to get the almanac back from Biff before he used it to make money off of betting on sports. Once they did that, even though it was technically still a divergent timeline because Biff traveled into the past, they were able to restore (we can only assume) the future that they saw previous because Biff's simply being there didn't change any other events. The past still existed and they could have traveled to it, but the point of divergence (and therefore the point they had to travel to to restore the timeline) was when Biff gave his past self the almanac.
The principle is the same in the new Star Trek movie. They could theoretically travel back and stop Nero from destroying Vulcan in the first place, which would likely restore events that would happen in the future as if Nero had never been there, but at this point in time they had never time traveled yet.
|
|
PIKE
Cadet
One beep for YES[ss:Cloak]
Posts: 35
|
Post by PIKE on Jan 18, 2010 14:14:51 GMT -6
So in this new timeline, Vulcan is detroyed, Spock's mother is dead, Spock is Sucking face more than Kirk? Spock will never fight Kirk in Amok Time beacuse Vulcans not there, his soon to wife on Vulcan is dead anyway. Alot of things would be completely changed, so all of what we've learned and loved about Star Trek is completely different. What I truely love is that the Enterprise's engine room in the new movie looks like the basement of a tenament building.
|
|
edify
Lt. Jr. Grade
Posts: 150
|
Post by edify on Jan 18, 2010 19:45:46 GMT -6
So in this new timeline, Vulcan is detroyed, Spock's mother is dead, Spock is Sucking face more than Kirk? Spock will never fight Kirk in Amok Time beacuse Vulcans not there, his soon to wife on Vulcan is dead anyway. Alot of things would be completely changed, so all of what we've learned and loved about Star Trek is completely different. What I truely love is that the Enterprise's engine room in the new movie looks like the basement of a tenament building. The events of Amok Time may still happen. First of all, we don't know for certain that Spock's future wife was killed. Of course, it would be a pretty big coincidence if she survived, but since the new film was really about destiny, then using that same philosophy it's entirely possible that she survived. Secondly, Spock will still go through pon farr. The events will unfold differently, but they will still unfold.
|
|
Atoz 77
Vice Admiral
[M:0]
[ss:Insurrection]
Posts: 4,065
|
Post by Atoz 77 on Jan 19, 2010 8:26:25 GMT -6
What I truely love is that the Enterprise's engine room in the new movie looks like the basement of a tenament building. I was disappointed with the whole look of the ship. This certainly wasn't the Enterprise I know at all. For that reason more than anything else, I regard the new movie as a completely alternate (or divergent if you prefer) universe. It doesn't effect anything in the universe I live in at all.
|
|
PIKE
Cadet
One beep for YES[ss:Cloak]
Posts: 35
|
Post by PIKE on Jan 20, 2010 18:50:51 GMT -6
You are right thats the best way to look at it, this new movie, doesn't give me the same feeling and any of the series or other movies, (for granted some of the Star Trek movies were bad). This movie was more about Wow and Flash and less on content. Only thing I liked was the Bones character (true to charater) everything else, didn't impress me.
|
|
Dax123
Commander
[ss:NX-01]
Posts: 1,207
|
Post by Dax123 on Jan 21, 2010 13:06:15 GMT -6
I agree captainpike, I did not feel the spark that the previous movies and series gave me. It just wasn't the same. To be honest I was hoping for much better. I know that part of this is because it is not the same actors and everything is too special featurey( I know thats not a word). I prefered it when it had less action. That is just my opinion though.
|
|
PIKE
Cadet
One beep for YES[ss:Cloak]
Posts: 35
|
Post by PIKE on Jan 25, 2010 13:50:31 GMT -6
There have been many episodes in any incarnation of Star trek that has dealt with time travel and alternate realities, but atleast they would always come back to the original reality. This new movie leads us into a differant reality or divergent (thank you Atoz, love that word). The older Spock would have found a way to fix this reality, not stand by and see what happens.
|
|
Arkroyal
Lt. Commander
I'm a historian, not an engineer![ss:Federation]
Posts: 440
|
Post by Arkroyal on Jan 26, 2010 13:32:10 GMT -6
Why do I read this thread? I always end up feeling like a bad Trek fan for loving the film. I wouldn't *be* a Trek fan but for that film.
Interestingly I was making a list on a word document for Star Trek and I looked and noticed I'd written "Film Reality" to indicate the nuTrek timeline.
|
|
Trip
Ensign
]
Posts: 58
|
Post by Trip on Jan 26, 2010 20:16:52 GMT -6
Why do I read this thread? I always end up feeling like a bad Trek fan for loving the film. I liked it too and it was still a good movie even if you dismiss it from a lineup of Star Trek movies. I still don't really see the main problems with the new movie, why is everyone sore?
|
|
edify
Lt. Jr. Grade
Posts: 150
|
Post by edify on Jan 27, 2010 1:52:56 GMT -6
Why do I read this thread? I always end up feeling like a bad Trek fan for loving the film. I wouldn't *be* a Trek fan but for that film. Interestingly I was making a list on a word document for Star Trek and I looked and noticed I'd written "Film Reality" to indicate the nuTrek timeline. Arkroyal, don't feel like a bad fan at all. I have been a huge fan of Star Trek ever since I was a kid (introduced to Trek by The Next Generation). I absolutely loved the movie, and if you go back a few pages most of my posts have been defending the movie, and defending the stance that both universes exist (rather than simply pretending this new universe doesn't or that this is a completely separate universe -- it's a divergent timeline, but still within the same universe of Trek we grew up with). So just know that there are hardcore fans (or at least I'm one hardcore fan) who has welcomed this new movie into Trek canon with open arms. I'm not necessarily happy with many of the changes but I was extremely grateful that they did it within the bounds of Trek -- Nero changing the past rather than simply a cold reboot of the series.
|
|
Atoz 77
Vice Admiral
[M:0]
[ss:Insurrection]
Posts: 4,065
|
Post by Atoz 77 on Jan 29, 2010 8:52:34 GMT -6
I'm not necessarily happy with many of the changes but I was extremely grateful that they did it within the bounds of Trek -- Nero changing the past rather than simply a cold reboot of the series. Now I'm confused again, Ed. All along you've been claiming that Nero didn't change the past, he merely created a divergent timeline so that both timelines still existed somewhere! So which is it?
|
|
Arkroyal
Lt. Commander
I'm a historian, not an engineer![ss:Federation]
Posts: 440
|
Post by Arkroyal on Jan 29, 2010 10:52:43 GMT -6
But he changed the past which created the divergent timeline in the first place.
|
|
edify
Lt. Jr. Grade
Posts: 150
|
Post by edify on Jan 30, 2010 23:39:29 GMT -6
Yes, Atoz, exactly what Arkroyal said. Nero did change the past (I never claimed that he didn't), and it was that changing of the past that created an alternate timeline. What I did say was that the divergent timeline was created not when Vulcan was destroyed (though that was a major change), but it happened when Nero entered the past. That didn't happen in the original timeline so that was the point of divergence between the two.
|
|
Atoz 77
Vice Admiral
[M:0]
[ss:Insurrection]
Posts: 4,065
|
Post by Atoz 77 on Feb 1, 2010 8:31:42 GMT -6
But how can the original timeline still exist if the past was changed?
|
|