Random thought for Verus purposes

[Ted C]

Should the new movie be treated as part of the overall Star Trek canon for debate purposes, or does the fact that it's an alternate timeline mean that any "New Trek"-related versus debates should not reference TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT?

As some have noted in the Pure Trek forum, the warp speed of the "new" Enterprise seems much faster than anything in TNG. The weapons on the movie Enterprise behave differently from anything ever seen before in Trek.

Is Star Wars vs New Trek an entirely separate debate?

[Havok]

Separate universe, separate debate. Nothing in the nST universe has happened yet aside from what is in Star Trek. Fuck, they even say that on screen.

Somehow, I imagine this is going to need to be explained AT LENGTH and AD NAUSEAM for a long while though.

[Batman]

They were required to explain the existance of NX-01 when TMP showed it didn't. They didn't bother to. Excuse me for NOT expecting them to be overly concerned where making things actually make sense is concerned.

[Havok]

And hell, if anyone went, "Oh well the new Enterprise is 3000 feet blah blah blah", you just say nST shields can't stop missiles form 120 years into the future... how well do you think they will do against missiles from a civilization that has advanced millenia past that.

[Worlds Spanner]

Yeah, I really think that XI has be seen as entirely separate, and we haven't seen enough action to begin to quantify things.

[LadyTevar]

An amusing Random Image:

At Marcon, the Klingon cohort had a grand meeting to celebrate some milestone or another, and many Klingons gathered on the Grand Stairway to listen to their leaders. Inspiring speeches were given in Klingon and in English, and all were encouraged to live well the next few years.

Then as the KAG assembly ended the 501st Legion (Stormtroopers) entered and arrested the Klingon High Commander for 'public nuisance' and 'illegal assembly'.

[skies]

Should the new movie be treated as part of the overall Star Trek canon for debate purposes, or does the fact that it's an alternate timeline mean that any "New Trek"-related versus debates should not reference TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT?

As some have noted in the Pure Trek forum, the warp speed of the "new" Enterprise seems much faster than anything in TNG. The weapons on the movie Enterprise behave differently from anything ever seen before in Trek.

Is Star Wars vs New Trek an entirely separate debate?

It makes more sense to treat it as two separate debates, the way original BSG and nBSG vs SW would both be valid, yet separate, debates.

[Darth Wong]

It seems that any attempt to treat it as a unified continuity is going to be a huge mess even if you're strictly talking Star Trek without any crossovers, so why should it be any different for "vs" debates?

[Silver Jedi]

It seems to me that the least SOD breaking method is to *gasp* treat it like an alternate timeline in the same universe. I wouldn't arbitrarily assume that the "new" enterprise has weapons and shields orders of magnitude different from those of the original Enterprise any more than I would make that assumption about the Mirror Universe Enterprise. If it is shown to be that different in based on the new movie, or in some later movie, we accept and analyze that, and come up with some convoluted explanation involving the Kelvin incident to satisfy the SOD geek within us.

In other words, I'd treat the original Trek timeline we know and love kinda like the SW EU: facts from it are true unless shown to be changed in the new timeline.

[Havok]

I disagree. We have already witnessed changes that can't just be attributed to The Kelvin Incident and a "new timeline" and everything that was "supposed" to happen can no longer be guaranteed. Also, if you are arguing from the POV of the movie, as I initially said, nothing else has happened yet and to say "well this is how something might turn out" etc. is retarded.

It is best to treat it as it's own universe and it's on "Vs" with no other outside sources unless deemed canon.

[Batman]

I fail to see the difference between alternate timeline and different universe, really. Either way the Big E isn't what it used to be, neither are the core characters, so how does it matter WHY they're different? They ARE. Alternate timelines in Trek happen to look suspiciously close to the original for storytelling and monetary purposes. Doesn't mean they couldn't wind up looking like the current movie.

[Alyeska]

Under the multiverse theory, any alternate timeline is also an alternate universe. Either way, nST should be treated as a separate entity from ST. Simple as that. It is the duty of the thread originator to specify which continuity.

[Simon_Jester]

I disagree. We have already witnessed changes that can't just be attributed to The Kelvin Incident and a "new timeline" and everything that was "supposed" to happen can no longer be guaranteed. Also, if you are arguing from the POV of the movie, as I initially said, nothing else has happened yet and to say "well this is how something might turn out" etc. is retarded.

It is best to treat it as it's own universe and it's on "Vs" with no other outside sources unless deemed canon.

On the other hand, there are limits to how much it can plausibly differ from the main timeline. The butterfly effect can change the course of a hurricane, but it cannot prevent winter from changing into spring. Likewise, the Kelvin incident might motivate Starfleet to build bigger and tougher ships, but it wouldn't give them fundamentally different technology to do it with. So things that the alt-timeline Enterprise is capable of shouldn't be drastically outside the performance envelope of main-timeline Star Trek, and vice versa.

Note: I said "shouldn't," not "can't" or "won't," for a reason.

[Darth Wong]

I disagree. We have already witnessed changes that can't just be attributed to The Kelvin Incident and a "new timeline" and everything that was "supposed" to happen can no longer be guaranteed. Also, if you are arguing from the POV of the movie, as I initially said, nothing else has happened yet and to say "well this is how something might turn out" etc. is retarded.

It is best to treat it as it's own universe and it's on "Vs" with no other outside sources unless deemed canon.

On the other hand, there are limits to how much it can plausibly differ from the main timeline. The butterfly effect can change the course of a hurricane, but it cannot prevent winter from changing into spring. Likewise, the Kelvin incident might motivate Starfleet to build bigger and tougher ships, but it wouldn't give them fundamentally different technology to do it with. So things that the alt-timeline Enterprise is capable of shouldn't be drastically outside the performance envelope of main-timeline Star Trek, and vice versa.

Note: I said "shouldn't," not "can't" or "won't," for a reason.

Unless you simply reject the unworkable notion that these are two branches of a timeline and accept that it's a franchise reboot, ie- a new universe which will occasionally borrow materials from the old one.

[Batman]

I disagree. We have already witnessed changes that can't just be attributed to The Kelvin Incident and a "new timeline" and everything that was "supposed" to happen can no longer be guaranteed. Also, if you are arguing from the POV of the movie, as I initially said, nothing else has happened yet and to say "well this is how something might turn out" etc. is retarded.
It is best to treat it as it's own universe and it's on "Vs" with no other outside sources unless deemed canon.

On the other hand, there are limits to how much it can plausibly differ from the main timeline.

As evidenced by what exactly?

The butterfly effect can change the course of a hurricane, but it cannot prevent winter from changing into spring.

This is relevant to alternate timelines how, exactly, where fraction of a degree trajectory changes in minor celestial objects can change Earth from a thriving planet into a planetwide graveyard?

Likewise, the Kelvin incident might motivate Starfleet to build bigger and tougher ships, but it wouldn't give them fundamentally different technology to do it with.

Except that we know for a fact that it DID. The 'new' E-Nil IS considerably larger and and massively faster than the TOS one. They have transporter technology with a range far greater than TOS or TNG+ ever had. Whatever the nature of this new incarnation of Star Trek, it absolutely DOES have fundamentally different (or at least fundamentally more advanced) technology.

So things that the alt-timeline Enterprise is capable of shouldn't be drastically outside the performance envelope of main-timeline Star Trek, and vice versa.
Note: I said "shouldn't," not "can't" or "won't," for a reason.

Um-they MOST DEFINITELY ARE. She IS massively larger than TOS E-nil. She IS massively faster than TOS E-Nil. WHATEVER explanation you pick for that movie not being like TOS doesn't change those facts.

[Havok]

I disagree. We have already witnessed changes that can't just be attributed to The Kelvin Incident and a "new timeline" and everything that was "supposed" to happen can no longer be guaranteed. Also, if you are arguing from the POV of the movie, as I initially said, nothing else has happened yet and to say "well this is how something might turn out" etc. is retarded.

It is best to treat it as it's own universe and it's on "Vs" with no other outside sources unless deemed canon.

On the other hand, there are limits to how much it can plausibly differ from the main timeline.

No there isn't. It is a completely separate universe.

The butterfly effect can change the course of a hurricane, but it cannot prevent winter from changing into spring. Likewise, the Kelvin incident might motivate Starfleet to build bigger and tougher ships, but it wouldn't give them fundamentally different technology to do it with. So things that the alt-timeline Enterprise is capable of shouldn't be drastically outside the performance envelope of main-timeline Star Trek, and vice versa.

So how do you account for how much larger the Kelvin already was? The amount of shuttles it had and just the amount of crew that Kirk Sr saved, not accounting for who he did not? All of that was well established before the Narrada entered the timeline.

[Darth Wong]

Why do we even have to prove anything? There is no intrinsic law of the universe or of sci-fi which states that they can't simply start over and break continuity. Simon's argument relies on the implicit assumption that these are all part of a single continuity, albeit with timeline alteration.

[montypython]

Why do we even have to prove anything? There is no intrinsic law of the universe or of sci-fi which states that they can't simply start over and break continuity. Simon's argument relies on the implicit assumption that these are all part of a single continuity, albeit with timeline alteration.

Gundam universes use different characters and setting types all the time with the only common element being the mechs, the fans never minded that even with the same level of preachiness that Trek sometimes gets. It just seems that certain Trekkies are too hard-on to having only one continuity to the extent that would make anime otaku look sane.

[Batman]

They DID break continuity already. As I said the 'new' E-Nil is massively larger and massively faster than the original no matter how you try to explain away her existance. Simon insists Star Trek should adhere to classic Trek standards when we already know for a fact IT DOESN'T.

[Simon_Jester]

Why do we even have to prove anything? There is no intrinsic law of the universe or of sci-fi which states that they can't simply start over and break continuity. Simon's argument relies on the implicit assumption that these are all part of a single continuity, albeit with timeline alteration.

The mere fact that people exist in recognizable form in both universes suggests that we're looking at an alternate timeline with a point of divergence not more than a few years before the Kelvin got blown up. It's one thing to say "This is a different Pavel Chekov, born to the same parents who met before the point of departure, and who were planning to name their little boy Pavel anyway when they got around to having one." It's a bit less plausible to say "everything is different and always has been and there just happens to be a Pavel Chekov."

By contrast, based on what montypython is saying about the Gundam setting, there you do have a bunch of separate "universes." But those universes contain different characters. Here, we see characters who are (at least in theory) very similar to the originals, using technology that seems at least roughly similar in nature to the originals (no replicators, for instance).

I would argue that this suggests some minimal level of commonality between the new and original Star Trek settings. We can talk about warp drives being faster, but they haven't gotten so much faster that they are now like Star Wars hyperdrives. Ships are bigger, but they still use the same basic geometry (probably for a reason), and still seem to be designed using the same set of fundamental technology.

It's a different universe, but I don't think it's a completely different one in the sense that Star Trek is completely different from, say, Babylon 5.

[Darth Wong]

The mere fact that people exist in recognizable form in both universes suggests that we're looking at an alternate timeline with a point of divergence not more than a few years before the Kelvin got blown up.

No it doesn't. That's a pure assumption on your part, and there is no deductive logic whatsoever.

[Gandalf]

The mere fact that people exist in recognizable form in both universes suggests that we're looking at an alternate timeline with a point of divergence not more than a few years before the Kelvin got blown up.

No it doesn't. That's a pure assumption on your part, and there is no deductive logic whatsoever.

Hell, look at the Mirror Universe.

We know that it diverged during 2063 at the latest, but the Deep Space Nine crewmen are all quite recognisable.

[Simon_Jester]

OK. The Mirror Universe is a good example. In Star Trek, we already have a strong precedent for parallel universes with a distant point of departure that still (inexplicably) manage to produce closely parallel versions of characters who weren't even born until centuries after the POD. It strikes me as incredibly unlikely, but the precedent is there.
_________

Darth Wong, I would predict that if two universes are widely divergent, you would not see identically named, very similar people in both universes, due to butterfly effect. In a universe with a point of departure hundreds of years ago, would my parents have even met? What about my grandparents?

That's an inductive thing, and I can't prove it by deductive logic. All I can do is point to probability- given the role of randomness in human affairs, it seems unlikely that you could have something major change (like radical advances in technology compared to the 'main' timeline) without a lot of corresponding minor changes (Pavel Chekov's parents never meet, because one of them gets hired by an R&D firm that went out of business for lack of results in the main timeline, or something like that).

Unless there was "fated" to be a Kirk, a Scotty, and so on, all in essentially the same form, regardless of what did or didn't happen in the previous two centuries, I'd think that the point of departure for the Abrams Star Trek movie would have to be close to the 2250s.
_______

But, as Gandalf points out, we already have a counterexample that violates my expectations. Therefore, I conclude, the point of departure could have been almost arbitrarily early, which opens up a lot more room for variation in what the technology is capable of. Which brings things closer to the "completely different universes" interpretation you're pushing for.

[Darth Wong]

The bottom line is that there is no reason to assume a rational connection between parallel universes in Star Trek. Their nature is entirely a matter of writer's fiat. If the writers choose to make things technically inconsistent from one series to another, that is 100% as reasonable as any alternative. There is no reason for us to leap to your bizarre assumption that if certain common characters show up in both series, then there must also be technical harmony.

Moreover, you're still ignoring the fact that you are engaging in an assumption you cannot justify, by continuing to assume that these are merely divergent paths of a single unified reality. You have not produced a shred of evidence for this claim other than the fact that certain common characters exist in multiple universes such as the Mirror Universe: a fact which actually contradicts the parallel timeline interpretation because it is so improbable that it essentially requires divine intervention.

Moreover, you are still searching for in-universe interpretations, but when discussing whether a franchise is intended to be part of the same continuity as another, that is NOT an in-universe question. That is an out-of-universe question for the writing and production staff. So if they have not declared that they intend to maintain technical continuity, then there is no reason to assume technical continuity, of any kind.

[Havok]

Somehow, I imagine this is going to need to be explained AT LENGTH and AD NAUSEAM for a long while though.