OTHER SCIENCE FICTION SERIES

Star Trek (Old & New) Continuity Conumdrums

POSTED BY: ROCKETJOCK
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 20:29
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2502
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, May 14, 2009 6:22 PM

ROCKETJOCK


Warning: The following is going to be EXTREMELY SPOILERIFIC re: The J.J. Abrams Star Trek movie, and I am not, repeat NOT, spoilerizing text. If you haven’t seem it yet, Proceed past the following gap at your own risk!
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
In cruising various discussion groups & web sites over the last week, I’ve seen some questions about the new Star Trek movie – and it’s relationship to the Prime/Classic Trek universe – repeated by multiple persons, sometimes with a grin, sometimes with a “gotcha!”, and sometimes with a “Hah, I’ve found one logical flaw with this new timeline, therefore it’s all crap” attitude. Sometimes these points have been well reasoned out, sometimes . . . not so much.

So, in an effort to get my own continuity geekitude out of my system, I’m going to list the most repeated, along with own possible answers, and ask all you kindly folks for your own opinions and/or observations on same.

Ground rules:

A. We assume that the two continuums were identical until the arrival of the Narada in the past.

B. We ignore any paradoxes that might result from previous time travelers from other Trek series visiting times before that point. If altering the time stream is possible at all, we have to assume the universe has enough flexibility to absorb a certain amount of paradox. So no, I’m not going to worry about whether Mr. Data’s head is still buried in San Francisco, or if Ben Sisko’s picture is in the history books about the Bell Riots.

C. We’re not going to worry about stylistic differences in special effects – the transporter effect, for example, varied greatly between TOS, the Kirk-Era movies, and the post ST-TNG shows. That reflects artistic decisions by the FX teams involved more than it does any change in Starfleet tech.

D. I’m using a Q&A format for simplicity’s sake.

Q1: Jim Kirk was born in Riverside, Iowa in the original timeline, so why is he born somewhere in deep space near the Klingon border in the Alternate Reality?

A1: It’s possible that the stress of being in a battle caused his mother to enter labor prematurely. It’s also possible that the USS Kelvin was diverted from a course towards Earth to investigate early precursors of the Narada’s arrival. I prefer the second answer since it doesn’t require changing Jim Kirk’s canonical birthdate.

Q2: How did Spock know of the cultural connections between Vulcans and Romulans, since that fact wasn’t known until the events of “Balance of Terror”, (which would still be some years in the future)?

A2: The Narada was identified as Romulan, (presumably from markings rather than design profile) and Captain Nero appeared on the Kelvin’s viewscreen . Given twenty-five years of divergent military history following the destruction of a Starfleet vessel by a Romulan ship, it’s not surprising if the Alternate Timeline has a greater grasp of the Vulcan/Romulan connection than the “Prime” universe had at the equivalent point.

Q3: This Enterprise seems considerably more advanced than her prime-universe equivalent; how could technology advance so quickly on one timeline but not the other?

A3: Partially this is an illusion caused by the sort of stylistic differences referred to in rule C (above); the rest can be accounted for out of context. After the Narada/Kelvin incident, one can easily imagine a new war – or a series of skirmishes damned close to one – erupting between UFP and the Star Empire, with perhaps the Klingons getting into the mix as well. This would undoubtedly lead to major advances in starship design and weaponry systems even in such a relatively short time as 25 years. This is, of course not to mention the UFP’s other major research impetus, namely that a mystery ship came out of frickin’ nowhere and blew the living shit out of a ship-of-the-line. . . And they’re still out there somewhere!

Q4: Uhura makes mention of the Cardassians – but surely the Federation won’t make contact with them for decades yet?

A4: She’s ordering a drink called a Cardassian sunrise. I could go into a bar and order a Singapore sling, but it doesn’t mean I’ve been to the Malay Peninsula. And surely the UFP might have heard about the Cardassians, even named a drink after them, long before official first contact.

Okay, and now for the big one:

Q5: It’s been officially stated that both the “New” and “Original timelines co-exist. But surely this contradicts Star Trek cannon, which has previously shown that interference with history simply changes the original timeline, not that it splits off a new reality.

A5: This is the glitch that has the most weight behind it, IMHO, but it’s also the one that troubles me the least. Why? Because parallel worlds also have the weight of cannon behind them, even in the original series, starting with the Mirror Universe. Movie writer Roberto Orci specifically referenced the ST:TNG episode “Parallels” as citing a scientific rationale for the survival of both timelines.

Given the titanic forces involved in the one-way time jump (a Supernova collapsing into a freakin’ black hole to start with, not to mention two active warp drives at play as well), it’s not hard to imagine that Spock, Nero and company weren’t just shifted downtime, but also a quantum vibratory level or two “sideways” as well.

Whew. And I didn’t even get into the non-continuity issues of whether Spock Prime is morally obligated to warn Starfleet – or at least his younger self – of upcoming menaces like the Doomsday Machine, or the Space Amoeba from “The Immunity Syndrome”, so that they can be halted before they destroy inhabited worlds. Or the tremendous tactical advantage Transwarp Transportation is going to give the Federation (if they can maintain the secret, that is . . .) Or how the hell a single supernova could threaten the whole galaxy . . .

So, anybody else got any?


"I have been, and always shall be, your friend." -- Spock Prime


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 14, 2009 6:34 PM

PEULSAR5

We sniff the air, we don't kiss the dirt.


As far as the more advanced Enterprise, you left out the events of ST: First Contact, where Zephram Cochran and his team would be influenced by interacting with 24th century explorers in their subsequent ship designs. This is one of the explanations why ST: Enterprise had some technology that seemed more advanced than the original series (smaller communicators, glowing nacelles, etc)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 14, 2009 8:21 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Q1. The second part of A1 was my assumption.

Q2. A2 was also my assumption.

Q3. I call hogwash on "stylistic differences" - that's whole engineering levels of difference. The second part of A3 is fair. Consider the growth of the NASA R&D from 1970 until today, 2009. Compare to the period 1960 until 1969. The destrction by Narada was a catalyst. 25 years of R&D with the greater catalyst makes a big diff. The original 5-year Mission was to explore strange new worlds and to seek out new civilizations. This alternate post-Narada Mission is the same, but added "and not get our azzes kicked in the same way as 25 years ago."

Q4. Just because you know of a planet does not mean anybody has been there, or verified life is present. Do we have any drinks named after Venus, Mercury, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Pluto, Neptune? Or is Caddassia named after something else on Earth? Most of our planets were named after Gods. The translations allow that "Caddassia" is what Our Language calls it, not what they named it in their language. So we found a planet, Uhura didn't say she'd met any Caddassians.

Whoa! What? Time changes alter the ORIGINAL timeline??? I guess I've missed out on Star Trek canon - when was this explained? This is the first I've heard of such a thing, anywhere. This would mean ST:TOS is now deleted. it also means this film is false, as soon as the Narada changed Kirk's life, Spock would have already known of his "new" beginnings with Kirk, and not been surprised that Kirk was not Captain.
I would need to see where this is proclaimed.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 15, 2009 2:41 AM

RIPWASH


I'm copying and pasting the following that was written by Greg Dean over at Reallifecomics.com. I think his thoughts are pretty good on this subject in terms of the time-line.

Quote:

As someone who has spent a lot (I mean a LOT) of time thinking about the working mechanics of time travel, and will generally give any time travel story/book/movie a fair shake, I will say this about how Abrams handled it: 1) Time travel via black hole is silly, but I'll let it be seeing as how the original Kirk managed to take a Klingon Bird of Prey for a ride around the sun to go back in time... and 2) If you forget about the method, the actual WAY it was handled makes complete, utter, and total sense.

You have to alter how you think about time. Back to the Future treated time as a linear thing.... you would go back and forth on this line, and any changes you make would then propagate forward, irrevocably changing your future. You go back and give a sports almanac to a psycho, for instance, and when you return to the future, events have taken place in a vastly different fashion, meaning your original time no longer exists...unless, of course, you just went even FURTHER back and stopped it all from happening... etc, etc, etc. Worked well enough for the movies, but the flaw here is thinking of time as a line you travel back and forth on. It doesn't work that way... not according to Einsteinian physics, anyway. Going forward in time is easy - get on a ship and haul ass away from the planet at as close to light speed as you can, then turn around and come on back - presto, you're in the future. Time has sped up, due to the time dilation effect of traveling at near-light speed. Doesn't exactly work in reverse.

Quantum theory, on the other hand, gives us a slightly different way of looking at time travel... it's not actually moving back and forth on some imaginary line, but going to an alternate universe. Another dimension, really. The theory works like this: there are innumerable universes existing in innumerable dimensions, where every possible outcome of every possible action has in fact taken place. In some cases, these dimensions can be wildly different - universes where Hitler won WWII, or where the Soviet Union took over the United States. (Yeah, I watched a lot of Sliders.) The interesting thing is, that because of these infinite permutations, universes exist that are in the EXACT state of the past of your OWN universe. So somewhere out there, there would be a universe that is CURRENTLY an exact copy of any moment in history. This concept was played around with in Timeline, which despite being a terrible movie, was actually a pretty good book. (It's Crichton - that's usually how it works.)

The long and the short of it is this - under quantum physics, traveling in time is an action that is more like SPACE travel than time travel. You're going to another universe, one that is IDENTICAL to a previous time in history. The upshot of this is that it's nondestructive... assuming you could control the movement to and from the destination universe (instead of being sucked into a black hole), you could in fact travel back to your own "time" and nothing would have changed. This is the model used by Star Trek, and frankly, I'm ecstatic that this is how they did it.

The reason? Nothing is predictable. "Spock Prime" is not in his own past, but is actually in another universe... one that began to differ from his original timeline the second Nero's vessel came out the other side. Every event that took place from then on served to alter the future irrevocably. Cause and effect don't apply here... young Spock and "Spock Prime" are two different individuals, and nothing "Spock Prime" does is in any danger of causing paradoxes, or altering timelines... in short, you CANNOT know what to expect from this series of movies. In this universe, nothing that happened in any existing Star Trek show or film can be counted on as "future canon". It will not happen the way it did originally.

Now, my dad was a little upset about this, because he thought that this essentially meant that "everything we knew was erased and essentially never happened." Not so... not only did it happen, but the original, "Prime" Star Trek universe continues to exist - it's just now short one Ambassador Spock. :) These things happen.



As for the stylistic look of the film. That didn't bother me one bit. In the 60's when TOS was produced, that was THEIR vision of the future. Needless to say, things we have TODAY far surpass the look and design of what they thought things would look like in the TOS timeline. So it's a no-brainer that this movie took the design in a futurisic bent from what we have TODAY.


*********************************************
Mal: You think she'll hold together?
Zoë: She's torn up plenty, but she'll fly true.
Mal: Could be bumpy.
Zoë: Always is

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 15, 2009 4:19 AM

ROCKETJOCK


Quote:

Originally posted by Peulsar5:
As far as the more advanced Enterprise, you left out the events of ST: First Contact, where Zephram Cochran and his team would be influenced by interacting with 24th century explorers in their subsequent ship designs. This is one of the explanations why ST: Enterprise had some technology that seemed more advanced than the original series (smaller communicators, glowing nacelles, etc)



As I understand it, the theory you advance was first proposed, rather tongue-in-cheekly, by one of the Enterprise production staff, but was never accepted as cannon (fannon, perhaps.) But even if it were so, since Enterprise takes place before the Prime/Alternate schism point, any effects would be part of the Alternate Reality's past as well.

"So, the Enterprise has had its maiden voyage, has it? She is one well-endowed lady! I like to get my hands on her ample nacelles if you'll pardon the engineering parlance." -- Montgomery Scott

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 15, 2009 6:06 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:

Whoa! What? Time changes alter the ORIGINAL timeline??? I guess I've missed out on Star Trek canon - when was this explained? This is the first I've heard of such a thing, anywhere. This would mean ST:TOS is now deleted. it also means this film is false, as soon as the Narada changed Kirk's life, Spock would have already known of his "new" beginnings with Kirk, and not been surprised that Kirk was not Captain.
I would need to see where this is proclaimed.



Well, yeah, that's been the premise behind most Trek time-travel stories, most notably in The City of the Edge of Forever, Voyage Home and First Contact. But, there are also parallel universes, as was pointed out. So, they are not mutually exclusive concepts. Yes, changing the past can effect the original timeline, as long as the time travel is within the same universe. However, if one changes over to a parallel universe in the course of the time travel, which is essentially the case here, then time can be changed without effecting the original timeline. Thus, TOS and this film can co-exist.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 16, 2009 6:58 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
However, if one changes over to a parallel universe in the course of the time travel, which is essentially the case here, then time can be changed without effecting the original timeline. Thus, TOS and this film can co-exist.


Well put, Story!

Man did I like the new movie.


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 11:18 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:

Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:

Whoa! What? Time changes alter the ORIGINAL timeline??? I guess I've missed out on Star Trek canon - when was this explained? This is the first I've heard of such a thing, anywhere. This would mean ST:TOS is now deleted. it also means this film is false, as soon as the Narada changed Kirk's life, Spock would have already known of his "new" beginnings with Kirk, and not been surprised that Kirk was not Captain.
I would need to see where this is proclaimed.



Well, yeah, that's been the premise behind most Trek time-travel stories, most notably in The City of the Edge of Forever, Voyage Home and First Contact. But, there are also parallel universes, as was pointed out. So, they are not mutually exclusive concepts. Yes, changing the past can effect the original timeline, as long as the time travel is within the same universe. However, if one changes over to a parallel universe in the course of the time travel, which is essentially the case here, then time can be changed without effecting the original timeline. Thus, TOS and this film can co-exist.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."


I don't agree with Voyage Home. They wanted to save Earth in the future (their time). They went back in time to correct a problem in the past. This was to cause the future (their time) to not be destroyed. What would be the purpose of allowing their own time in their own timeline or dimension to be destroyed, if the other timeline they visit will occur anyway? If they jump ahead in time again, in the new future, they will not have returned to their own timeline, they will have returned to the other dimension's timeline, where they are already present and now they appear as doubles. ( if the monolith did not destroy Earth, they would not have originally went back in time, therefore they would still be there as the original set of themselves in that timeline.
This is according to your supposition that the timelines occur in parallel.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 3:19 AM

ZZETTA13


I know this is a wee gripe…..and it really isn’t a gripe but an observation.

Q1: What color were Captain Kirk’s (William Shatners) eyes in the original tv series of Star Trek?

A1: Brown.

Q2: What color are the new-younger Captain Kirk”s eyes in the new Trek film?

A2: Blue.

Q3: Why was such a simple obvious detail missed?

I can hear the answers forming up now. Contact lenses! Well, as far as I know Kirk didn’t need glasses. He had perfect vision.

I for one am not taking anything away from a movie that I have enjoyed watching very much, and as a si/fi fan myself minor details like this don’t bother me in the least. But what I am questioning is why. If Dr. McCoy had been played by “Carrot Top” people would have been jumping out of their seats screaming WTF?

My sister is a Trek fan. She has all the box dvds and though I’ve introduced her to Firefly ( which she loves) her fandom really still is with Trek. There is an uneasy alliance that exist between Trekkies and Browncoats with many people being fans of both ( myself included, though I‘m a major browncoat) Still she didn’t even know a new Trek film was at the theater until a friend of her’s informed her the day before. We do live busy lives.

Anyway I pointed this discrepancy of Captain Kirk out to her and she was like…..What? Joss, IMO would never have made a mistake like this. That’s just my thoughts. The only gripe that she had was that she was unhappy with young Kirk’s seeming to be the womanizer that he was. I mean the sexy, Jolly Green Giant chick was hot, but if she’d become with child….would she have had a sprout? (< sorry bad joke)

Anyway, my wife and I were wondering about the “ Spock/Uhura” thang? We never remembered them being so………well, close!

Anyhow, just a little post about some thoughts on the new Trek movie.

Z, Kirk, out




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 3:41 AM

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN


The only difference I see is classic Kirk Prime with brown eyes and Kirk Beta with blue. Is that what you meant?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 4:42 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Actually, one niggling little detail of the movie bothers me.

Did or did not captain pike very specifically name KIRK to be his first officer, prior to leaving the ship ?

I do believe he did, didn't he ?

So why the fekk did Spock not follow the chain of command as presented to him by a superior officer ?

Seriously, that gave me a sense of WTF??!! for like, a half hour of the whole flick, I just couldn't wrap my brain around *everyone* pretending they hadn't heard that.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 8:25 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Actually, one niggling little detail of the movie bothers me.

Did or did not captain pike very specifically name KIRK to be his first officer, prior to leaving the ship ?

I do believe he did, didn't he ?

So why the fekk did Spock not follow the chain of command as presented to him by a superior officer ?

Seriously, that gave me a sense of WTF??!! for like, a half hour of the whole flick, I just couldn't wrap my brain around *everyone* pretending they hadn't heard that.

-F


As I recall, the significant dialogue as Pike was leaving the ship:
Kirk is First Officer.
Spock, you are now the Captain.
Spock, be careful with her, she is brand new.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 8:29 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Not a problem between shows, but I was bothered when Spock leaves the bridge, giving Checkov the Con, in a hurry to get to the transporter room to save his parents on Vulcan. Then Checkov tinkers a bit, and something comes up where he knows how to effect the transportation of a moving object, so he leaves the bridge with somebody else in charge as he rushes to the Transporter Room, and effects the successful transportation of Kirk & Sulu. After all of this has transpired, suddenly Spock staunters into the Transporter Room and hops on a disk - WHAT? He took the scenic route while his parents are about to die? As Captain he couldn't get to the Transporter Room in less than 2-3 times as long as Chekov did? was that the Logical Route? That just seemed lame.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Three-Body Problem by Liu Cixin
Sat, March 23, 2024 18:09 - 7 posts
Video Games to movie and tv series and other Cartoon / video game adaptions
Thu, March 7, 2024 14:26 - 42 posts
Favourite martial arts film of all time-
Wed, March 6, 2024 15:02 - 54 posts
PLANETES
Tue, March 5, 2024 14:22 - 51 posts
Shogun, non scifi series
Tue, March 5, 2024 13:20 - 4 posts
What Good Sci-Fi am I missing?
Mon, March 4, 2024 14:10 - 53 posts
Binge-worthy?
Mon, February 12, 2024 11:35 - 126 posts
Are There New TV Shows This Fall You Must See?
Sat, December 30, 2023 18:29 - 95 posts
The Expanse
Wed, December 20, 2023 18:06 - 27 posts
What Films Do You Want To See In 2023?
Thu, November 30, 2023 20:31 - 36 posts
Finding realistic sci-fi disappointing
Thu, October 5, 2023 12:04 - 42 posts
Worst Sci-Fi Ever.
Wed, October 4, 2023 17:51 - 158 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL