posted
I agree with bX's take on things - the prime timeline continues on without Romulus, Spock, Nero or the Narada, but continues on anyway. The new movie takes place in an alternate timeline that split from the prime one the minute the Narada emerged and set upon the Kelvin. It doesn't have Vulcan but presumably will still have Romulus, as I can't see Spock Prime (which sounds like the coolest Transformer ever) keeping his mouth shut and letting the planet die in 129 years.
-------------------- Quidquid latine dictum sit altum viditur
Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by bX: I think your nomenclature has me confused, G2K. I think that you are asserting that everything in the new movie is alternate, even the so-called Prime Timeline where the supernova is going to blow up the galaxy or whatever...
I do not think that the Prime timeline (e.g. TOS, et cetera) or anyone from it appears in this film.
One universe, one timeline is the basic way Trek's done it. Travel to the past and mess with stuff and you monkey about with the future. Hence no Enterprise over the Guardian of Forever's planet when McCoy went through, hence no Starfleet when Sisko and Jadzia were beamed through the chroniton particles when the microsingularity exploded, hence the Borgified Earth visible from the Enterprise-E's viewscreen, and so on.
quote:Anyway, the JJVerse (Neroverse? BH timeline? 2009 timeverse? Dawsonverse?) continues on with a youth-y crew, tons of lensflares
More proof of an alternate universe . . . we mere 20th Century-born folk would be blinded by such incessant flashing!
quote:But the Primeline goes on too.
I just can't get there from here. If we accept this as part of the rest of the Trek lore, and if we accept the rationale of the Monsterprise characters as stated, then the Primeline has been nullified.
quote:I'm sorry I'm not grasping your BH / SN stardate thing.
I'm sorry it wasn't more clear.
BH = Black Hole timeline, the one starting with the 2233 event of a black hole pooping out the Narada. The main timeline of the new film. The main action of the new film occurs in BH 2258.
SN = Supernova timeline. This is the one Nero and Spock came from, departing in SN 2387. It is what most people are assuming is the Prime (TOS, TNG, etc.) timeline.
PT = Prime timeline. "The Cage" occurs in PT 2254.
Nero = Nero of the Supernova timeline, since that's the only one we know, really.
Supernova Spock = Spock from the Supernova (SN) timeline. Listed in the film credits as Spock Prime. Also a workable band name.
NOBH = "Nero-Only Black Hole" timeline . . . i.e. what if Supernova Spock escaped or otherwise did not enter the SN 2387 black hole. Given that seconds pass between Nero's entry and Spock's, I have explored slightly the idea that history was altered after Nero went in but before Spock . . . i.e. the Supernova timeline should've been changed by Nero's arrival alone. But I think this is simply one of the film's many plot holes.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
posted
Well -- but in the same way that Kirk was insulated from the time line's change in Guardian of Forever, and in the same way that the E-E was insulated by being in the Borg sphere's wake, Spock could have been insulated from his proximity to the black hole.
HOWEVER.
Think on what you're saying -- if the Primeverse is nullified, where did Nero come from? The only explanation is that his arrival in the past created an alternate time line.
You reference various Trek episodes and films to demonstrate your point: I will reference two -- "Mirror Mirror", where a similar but different universe exists alongside the "Prime" universe, and TNG's Parallels, where Worf is shifted back and forth between what turn out to be TENS OF THOUSANDS of similar, but different, parallel realities.
The simply fact is that Trek allows for alternate realities. For whatever reason, you are refusing to accept this. I don't understand.
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
"Think on what you're saying -- if the Primeverse is nullified, where did Nero come from? The only explanation is that his arrival in the past created an alternate reality."
posted
Heaven Forbid ye olde greate nutpain Andrew gets bored! Rain down from upon high the distate ye have with words, as opposed to the much easier, and far less of an annoyance; silence.
For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure I'm 100% in agreement with Guardian 2000, though barring any new fiction from the "Prime" universe other than novels, comics and the upcoming STO, it's looking likely, that barring any precedent, time travel in this particular movie has "split" the universes, and it's going to follow from that.
Though, I'd just as soon relegate a destroyed Romulus to the universe that the Spock Prime character is from, and not the "Roddenberry Universe."
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Personally, I don't understand the big push against Spock Prime being "our" Spock. I mean, let's be blunt here -- Trek plays around with time so much, that, shit, DS9 didn't even end in the same universe it started (remember that shifting episode where O'Brien switched universes to alert his alter-ego-self to avoid having the station blown up?)
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
[EDIT: I had a much longer post typed up and it somehow got lost so I will leave just the statement below for now and try to retype my extended thoughts later.]
I understand what G2k is saying, but as I said it is (a) not what the writers/producers/director intended, and more importantly, (b) not dramatically viable within the context of the film.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay: Let me rephrase:
"Think on what you're saying -- if the Primeverse is nullified, where did Nero come from?
If you're assuming Nero originated from the Primeverse, then he came from the Primeverse . . . one since nullified.
I don't think time travel would work like the seemingly-deity-driven versions seen in Back to the Future where people disappear off pictures as if it's a constantly-updating report card on your time alterations.
If something goes to the past it has gone to the past . . . in doing so it will almost inevitably destroy the existing timeline in favor of an altered one, but the effects can be minimized with extreme care and caution.
quote:The only explanation is that his arrival in the past created an alternate reality."
From where do parallel universes originate? Time travel has never been known to create them previously in Trek, so far as I know.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: From where do parallel universes originate?
From wherever any universe originates. There exist an infinite number of universes that represent all possible outcomes of all possible scenarios. They are neither created nor destroyed, they simply exist.
quote:Time travel has never been known to create them previously in Trek, so far as I know.
Time travel doesn't create them. "Time travel" in the sense of moving from point A to point B along a linear time continuum independent of space is impossible. Space and time are the same thing. What you're doing when you time travel is crossing over into another universe, an alternate reality running parallel to the one you started in. You didn't create it; it already existed. And the one you left from is not destroyed; it persists, but from your point of view, your reality has changed.
As the audience, we follow the point of view of the characters, so it seems to us like there is one timeline and one universe that can be changed. But this view is not reflective of the more complex reality. It's like thinking the Sun orbits around the Earth.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: [EDIT: I had a much longer post typed up and it somehow got lost so I will leave just the statement below for now and try to retype my extended thoughts later.]
Don't feel bad. My browser puked and then ate my earlier post replying to Snay, which is why I have the two-second superquickie post ("/=") above.
quote:I understand what G2k is saying, but as I said it is (a) not what the writers/producers/director intended, and more importantly, (b) not dramatically viable within the context of the film.
I agree that Orci intended time travel to be a producing agent of parallel universes. I am not aware of anyone else having said that, but I'll roll with it for now.
I just wish they'd said that in the film, instead of bollocks-ing a bunch of stuff up*. The film as presented just doesn't fit such an idea, so near as I can tell, and certainly doesn't fit if we try to fit the film in the context of Star Trek's continuity.
A timeline that persists after a timeline change without outside influence (the pocket of the Borg time vortex in First Contact, or the Guardian in "City...") is no timeline at all, in the Trek rationale . . . that is a parallel universe. Proximity gives us no definite security . . . the Kerr Loop temporal event in "Yesterday's Enterprise" affected the Enterprise-D with the time changes, producing not an alternate universe but instead a revised timeline, which the Enterprise-C's return re-revised and corrected.
Consider also the Trek history of black holes. The only times they've been entered have been "Parallax"[VOY1] and "Scorpion, Pt. II"[VOY4]. "Scorpion", like this movie, featured a created one. In that case, the ship travelled to a different universe. (In "Parallax" nothing temporal or multi-universal happened at all.)
Thus, to my mind, Romulus still exists in the Primeline, because Supernova Spock came from somewhere else altogether.
(*But, then, I would also prefer a film with fewer plot holes or science abuses. Sometimes a little technobabble ain't a bad thing.)
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: Time travel doesn't create them. "Time travel" in the sense of moving from point A to point B along a linear time continuum independent of space is impossible. Space and time are the same thing. What you're doing when you time travel is crossing over into another universe, an alternate reality running parallel to the one you started in. You didn't create it; it already existed. And the one you left from is not destroyed; it persists, but from your point of view, your reality has changed.
But that's not Trek's take, historically. Otherwise there would be no point in all these efforts to change the past that occur in Trek, because they would have no meaning for those not involved.
That is to say, only the time traveler could benefit from the act of time travel to change the past. Everyone not on the time travel bus is going to be in the same circumstance, just without the time traveler now.
To borrow a phrase (no offense), the idea is not dramatically viable within the context of dozens of hours of Trek. ST4, FC, "Visionary", et al. all become meaningless, selfish diversions for the time travelers.
Nor is that even Orci's take. He thinks time travel spawns a parallel universe, which makes little sense.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim:
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: Universe /= timeline
Incorrect. Universe = timeline. Space = time. See above.
My take is that there is one timeline per universe, but the two terms are not synonyms in this context.
If I exit this spacetime continuum called the Universe, where do I go? That, to me, is another universe. It has its own timeline, but merely changing a timeline does not change the universe . . . merely its content. Nor would changing the laws of the universe universally (e.g. the gravitational constant, or lightspeed) change the timeline, necessarily, assuming linear time.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
so I will leave just the statement below for now and try to retype my extended thoughts later.]
Printer-friendly view of this topic
