Paramount Plans Another New STAR TREK Film, Set ‘Decades’ Before TREK ’09

Am I the ONLY person who doesn’t fall for the whole ‘alternate universe/timeline’ crap?

Spock himself said in the 2009 movie that due to the Nerada’s (sp?) coming back in time and doing what they did, ALTERED what would have been their timeline.

It was never an alternate timeline, but their prime timeline which had been altered.

Abrams came up with that crap after fan outrage.
Yeah, if the original premise is true that it was not an alternate timeline, but rather the altered prime timeline, where the prime timeline itself was changed, and no longer existed in its previous form, then you’ve basically undone the original crew adventures that follow: the Next Generation, Deep Space 9, Voyager, etc. So, by retconning and making it an alternate timeline, those other shows can still exist in continuity.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, if the original premise is true that it was not an alternate timeline, but rather the altered prime timeline, where the prime timeline itself was changed, and no longer existed in its previous form, then you’ve basically undone the original crew adventures that follow: the Next Generation, Deep space 9, Voyager, etc. So, by Rheon and making it an alternate timeline, those other shows can still exist in continuity.
Like the first two seasons of Picard.
 
I know Trek went to this well A LOT, but man...if anything makes me hate time travel, it's Trek screwing around with time travel.

...have there been episodes where Time Travel FAILED? I mean, where we see the protagonists:
1) Fail to complete the timey-wimey trip forward or backward, and vanish?
2) Realize that the changes made have permanently affected the present... no way around it?

I think the closest ST every got was with the Voyager: Year of Hell storyline, with Annorax trying to bring his family back to life.
 
...have there been episodes where Time Travel FAILED? I mean, where we see the protagonists:
1) Fail to complete the timey-wimey trip forward or backward, and vanish?
2) Realize that the changes made have permanently affected the present... no way around it?

I think the closest ST every got was with the Voyager: Year of Hell storyline, with Annorax trying to bring his family back to life.
Not exactly a "failure," but there's a DS9 episode, if I recall, about the "Bell Riots" where somewhere in the 21st century, there are some kind of riots that help lead to the formation of the Federation down the road. The original history was that Gabriel Bell died in the riots, but then Sisko got stuck back in time with Bashir, and Bell, like, ended up dying early on in the episode with Sisko stepping in to pretend to be him.

So, when they get back to their actual time, the history books now show Sisko as Bell, because he took Bell's identicard or whatever, and recordkeeping got spotty around that period so I suppose there were no other images to show Bell being A TOTALLY DIFFERENT PERSON.

Anyway, that's the closest to "failure" that I can think of. It kinda doesn't make sense to include a true failure scenario in a long-running show like that, because (assuming your show's premised on a linear timeline), you fundamentally alter the timeline to end up with a totally new timeline in the future based on the butterfly effect, or the characters disappear into the past and are never heard from again.

There IS an episode of Ray Bradbury Theater that adapts "A Sound of Thunder," which truly is one of these "failure" scenarios, but that's a one-off show like The Twilight Zone, so it doesn't quite count.
 
I like how Austin Powers III handled time travel: "I suggest you don't worry about those things and just enjoy yourself."

Because no matter what theory one uses to explain time travel, it's all BS, because none of it makes sense.

I particularly dislike the "supposed to" or other destiny/predetermination approaches. Trek's "Tomorrow is Yesterday" and "Assignment: Earth", and Twilight Zone's "No Time Like the Past" (not that I don't enjoy those episodes overall). In the latter example, "time" won't "let" the guy kill Hitler. Gimmeabreak
 
cheap asses, just want to do Star Trek but not pay any for the big names
I know, right? You'd think that they're in it to make a profit and that a cast of relative unknowns would save them money or something. How dare they try to make a sound business decision and not cast a whole bunch of very well-known and very expensive actors on an already expensive effects heavy show. Since that alone wouldn't be enough to make the show extremely expensive to produce, why don't they hire some very well known and highly paid producers, directors, and writers to boot so that each episode will only cost as much an MCU movie.
 
You would think so, but no, not if we follow the rules of star trek style time travel. The Narada appears in 2233, creating a divergent timeline (Kelvin A). it's past is identical to Prime until the events of (for example) Tomorrow is Yesterday. Kelvin A Kirk and Company don't go back to 1969 (and if they do they don't run into Prime Kirk). So the Kelvin A past is slightly different from 1969 forward. Then 2233 happens again, and the Narada appears in this slightly different reality, crating Kelvin B, then City on the Edge of Forever doesn't happen, the loop happens again, creating Kelvin C which diverges from Prime in 1930. After a few loops Times Arrow doesn't happen, moving the divergence to 1893, ect. Then you add in the new time travel events that do happen in the new timeline. This happens again and again until the appearance of the Narada doesn't cause an alteration in a later time travel event, compared to the previous loop, thus creating a stable timeline, one where the USS Kelvin looks like it does at the beginning of the movie. Let's call this timeline Kelvin W. That's the one we've been watching, where a prequel isn't on the Prime timeline. Simon Pegg put forward a version of this explanation a while back, if I remember correctly.
That was like reading a segment of a script from The Big Bang Theory.
 
IMG_8404.jpeg
 

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top