ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Alternate realities

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this Dec. 07 2011, 9:41 pm

Quote:

If Star Trek '09 is not another timeline but instead an altered timeline then ultimately the movie doesn't really matter. In all of the series and movies the timeline always had to be maintained by either the people involved or corrected by time travel police. Eventually the mess created in the '09 movie will be cleaned up by someone or some group.


the thing is that the timeline[s] were never really "CORRECTED" in those cases


and lets not forget that even in those cases, an attempt to fix things was immediately undertaken


in 09 20 years passed between the point of change and the rest of the film., if someone/group from the future was going to try to fix thinbgs it would have happened already.


Photobucket

Captain Caloocan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 14

Report this Dec. 08 2011, 10:38 pm

Quote: stovokor2000-A @ Dec. 07 2011, 9:41 pm

>

>the thing is that the timeline[s] were never really "CORRECTED" in those cases

>and lets not forget that even in those cases, an attempt to fix things was immediately undertaken

>in 09 20 years passed between the point of change and the rest of the film., if someone/group from the future was going to try to fix thinbgs it would have happened already.

>


 


The fix would come after the planet Vulcan was destroyed since that single action was the most damaging to the original historical timeline & the prior 20 years didn't alter history drastically. So soon after the movie's end the fix should happen.


I feel fine.

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this Dec. 09 2011, 10:25 am

how can you say the prior 20 years didn't alter history drastically?


We didnt see enough to know one way or the other.It was once said in trek......."One man can summon the future", and its likely pleanty of people lived,died or had different lives due to Neros attacking the Kelvin.


Who knows what could have happened, we know that due to his actions the Federation developed new tech, the Enterprise was launched about 10 years later, who knows how many lives were effected by that?


Nero's attact could have lead to hostilities between the Romulans and the Federation well before Kirk originally encountered them in Balance of terror.


Sorry bud, but the idea that fixing things 20 years later is extreamily shortsighted.


Photobucket

guillermo.mejía

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2852

Report this Dec. 09 2011, 12:12 pm

Quote: stovokor2000-A @ Dec. 09 2011, 10:25 am

>

>how can you say the prior 20 years didn't alter history drastically?

>We didnt see enough to know one way or the other.It was once said in trek......."One man can summon the future", and its likely pleanty of people lived,died or had different lives due to Neros attacking the Kelvin.

>Who knows what could have happened, we know that due to his actions the Federation developed new tech, the Enterprise was launched about 10 years later, who knows how many lives were effected by that?

>Nero's attact could have lead to hostilities between the Romulans and the Federation well before Kirk originally encountered them in Balance of terror.

>Sorry bud, but the idea that fixing things 20 years later is extreamily shortsighted.

>
I don't think shortsighted is even the right word. It's very...reckless to try to fix a 20 year old problem with tie travel. Why would Starfleet bother with anything else whne every proble can be solved that way.


Romulans destroyed your bases on the Neutral Zone? Time Travel.


Cestu III colony is lost to the Gorn? Time Travel


Xindi destroyed Florida 100 years ago (from the new movie's POV)? Time Travel.


BTW, nice Kor signature. It is both cool and creepy at the same time.

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this Dec. 09 2011, 12:41 pm

Quote: guillermo.mejía @ Dec. 09 2011, 12:12 pm

Quote: stovokor2000-A @ Dec. 09 2011, 10:25 am

>

>

>how can you say the prior 20 years didn't alter history drastically?

>We didnt see enough to know one way or the other.It was once said in trek......."One man can summon the future", and its likely pleanty of people lived,died or had different lives due to Neros attacking the Kelvin.

>Who knows what could have happened, we know that due to his actions the Federation developed new tech, the Enterprise was launched about 10 years later, who knows how many lives were effected by that?

>Nero's attact could have lead to hostilities between the Romulans and the Federation well before Kirk originally encountered them in Balance of terror.

>Sorry bud, but the idea that fixing things 20 years later is extreamily shortsighted.

>
I don't think shortsighted is even the right word. It's very...reckless to try to fix a 20 year old problem with tie travel. Why would Starfleet bother with anything else whne every proble can be solved that way.

Romulans destroyed your bases on the Neutral Zone? Time Travel.

Cestu III colony is lost to the Gorn? Time Travel

Xindi destroyed Florida 100 years ago (from the new movie's POV)? Time Travel.

BTW, nice Kor signature. It is both cool and creepy at the same time.

thanks


Photobucket

Captain Caloocan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 14

Report this Dec. 09 2011, 7:46 pm

Quote: stovokor2000-A @ Dec. 09 2011, 10:25 am

>

>how can you say the prior 20 years didn't alter history drastically?

>We didnt see enough to know one way or the other.It was once said in trek......."One man can summon the future", and its likely pleanty of people lived,died or had different lives due to Neros attacking the Kelvin.

>Who knows what could have happened, we know that due to his actions the Federation developed new tech, the Enterprise was launched about 10 years later, who knows how many lives were effected by that?

>Nero's attact could have lead to hostilities between the Romulans and the Federation well before Kirk originally encountered them in Balance of terror.

>Sorry bud, but the idea that fixing things 20 years later is extreamily shortsighted.

>


All the series had episodes that explained & showed that the original history needed to be restored. All of those episodes are proof of that, so that makes my explanation valid. For all who responded to my comments have actually missed my main point. The first sentence from my first comment is in response to someone else, who mentioned that the '09 movie is not an alternate timeline but instead altered history. Here's my original point: if the movie is an alternate timeline, or reality, then it's a whole new ballgame for that particular world of Star Trek. If it's just altered history then original history would need to be restored. And if history is not restored in the "ALTERED HISTORY" theory then the wirters messed up, showing that they've had no respect for all prior Star Trek. There's a lot of reasons why this movie had a lot of mixed reactions. I for one thought the movie was loop-holed entertaining but I also think it was a cop out for the filmmakers. They didn't want to use their imagination in trying to make a story that fits within the parameters of all of the prior series & movies.


I feel fine.

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this Dec. 09 2011, 10:54 pm

Quote: Captain Caloocan @ Dec. 09 2011, 7:46 pm

>All the series had episodes that explained & showed that the original history needed to be restored. All of those episodes are proof of that, so that makes my explanation valid. For all who responded to my comments have actually missed my main point. The first sentence from my first comment is in response to someone else, who mentioned that the '09 movie is not an alternate timeline but instead altered history. Here's my original point: if the movie is an alternate timeline, or reality, then it's a whole new ballgame for that particular world of Star Trek. If it's just altered history then original history would need to be restored. And if history is not restored in the "ALTERED HISTORY" theory then the wirters messed up, showing that they've had no respect for all prior Star Trek. There's a lot of reasons why this movie had a lot of mixed reactions. I for one thought the movie was loop-holed entertaining but I also think it was a cop out for the filmmakers. They didn't want to use their imagination in trying to make a story that fits within the parameters of all of the prior series & movies.

>

And as I pointed out before, in just about all those cases, history was NEVER exactly restored.In every just about every case history was only returned to a point, but there were always differences.And again,in those cases even in an attempt to "fix" things was immediately undertaken

The fact that they never really restored history, and the fact that no attemp to fix things was immediate, invalids your theroy.And I understood the point of your comment, but the idea is flawed because its based on the mistaken idea that history was restored in those other cases.


Photobucket

Captain Caloocan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 14

Report this Dec. 10 2011, 11:12 pm

Quote: stovokor2000-A @ Dec. 09 2011, 10:54 pm

Quote: Captain Caloocan @ Dec. 09 2011, 7:46 pm

>

And as I pointed out before, in just about all those cases, history was NEVER exactly restored.In every just about every case history was only returned to a point, but there were always differences.And again,in those cases even in an attempt to "fix" things was immediately undertaken

The fact that they never really restored history, and the fact that no attemp to fix things was immediate, invalids your theroy.And I understood the point of your comment, but the idea is flawed because its based on the mistaken idea that history was restored in those other cases.


Here's the best proof of what I'm talking about: re-watch TOS episode The City on the Edge of Forever. Bones went back to the 1930's and changed THREE centuries of history. The landing party couldn't communicate with the Enterprise because the Guardian told them that it disappeared. That means 300 hundred years went by. Kirk & Spock went back to restore history in order to assure their own existence. So this episode shows that a fix doesn't need to be immediate and it shows that history was actually restored.


Also in Voyager's episode Future's End they show a Fedration timeship from the 29th century and there's a temporal prime directive. That ship went back 5 cenutries to maintain history. Another Voyager episode Timeless shows that a fix happens after 15 years went by.


Deep Space Nine's episode Trials & Tribble-ations introduced Temporal Investigations which ensures no damage has been done to history.


Time is relative so it doesn't matter whether a fix happens after 15-20 years or 300-500 hundred years. Little events can be changed but massive changes such as the planet Vulcan getting destroyed is something that will prompt historical restoration. At some point the destruction of Vulcan would need to be prevented in order to restore the most important historical events that would follow throughout the whole Star Trek timeline. Otherwise what's the point of watching any of the series or movies if they no longer exist?


I feel fine.

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this Dec. 10 2011, 11:49 pm

If you would like me to say it a 3rd time I will.

in just about all those cases, history was NEVER exactly restored.In every just about every case history was only returned to a point, but there were always differences.

And City on the Edge of Forever proves my point.In the original history, Edith never met and fell in love with a "homeless man" that was running away from the cops for stealing something to wear.But because of the actions of Bones, James T Kirk had to go back in time and alter historey again..........which in itself caused a second change in history because Edith now fell in love before she was kille.So, history was NOT actually restored.It was only changed again to a shape that more resembled the one Kirk and the others remembered.

Future's End is on point, but that ship went back in time [the first time] to investigate an explosion and the destruction of Earth, not to maintain history.The 2nd time that ship traveled back was to return Voyager to its time, but that proves my case, they tried to fix things soon after the "change/anomoly was detected.


Timeless isint even on point because they werent trying to FIX history in that episode,Harry from the future was trying to CHANGE history by preventing the crash of the ship 15 years after it happen

Trials & Tribble-ations introduced Temporal Investigations which INVESTIGATES if any damage has been done to history, they had no means to ensure anything.

What "MOST IMPORTANT" historical events, that we are aware of, requires the planet Vulcan, that cant take place on a colony?

I'll will agree that time is relative and really wouldnt matter when things happen..........if this was about a real world experance, or even if we were talking about one of the trek tv series.But thats not what were talking about, were talking about a film that used the time travel event as a plot devise so that they could make a bunch of changes.And depite the segment of the fandom that got upset, the film was a big sucsses.Theres no reason/insentive for them to "re-write" what they did in the last film.

No less, the theory they used claims that history wasnt "re-written", but that a new universe split off from the original and that thew 2 now exists independent of each other.

Bottomline, they have no need to restore anything.


Photobucket

Captain Caloocan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 14

Report this Dec. 11 2011, 10:44 pm

Quote: stovokor2000-A @ Dec. 10 2011, 11:49 pm

>

>If you would like me to say it a 3rd time I will.

>in just about all those cases, history was NEVER exactly restored.

>


For the third time you've misunderstood my use of the word "restore".


I've never once mentioned "exactly restored". When you restore an old car or painting they can never be exactly the way it was when it was first made. The Guardian at the end of City on the Edge of Forever says "Time has resumed it's shape, all is as it was before." That's basically saying "restored". Half of my point in the very beginning is actually what you've said in your last thoughts - if the '09 movie is a new universe then everything goes. I never took a stance on which category the '09 movie should be in. The other half of my point which I've said from the onset is that IF the '09 movie falls into the category of City on the Edge of Forever then there would be a need to "restore". Especially since the resources of a whole planet is far greater than that of a colony & the Vulcans' relationships with all other races would be completely different. Add in the fact that the Vulcans at the end of the movie, like Spock and Sarek, are willing to be more "emotional". Due to their population size & state of mind they are diffrent diplomatically, scientifically, etc.  All of this will completely change their contributions to history.


From beginning to end I'm just mentioning an "either/or + results" comment on the '09 movie.


I feel fine.

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this Dec. 11 2011, 11:20 pm

Quote: Captain Caloocan @ Dec. 11 2011, 10:44 pm

>For the third time you've misunderstood my use of the word "restore".

>I've never once mentioned "exactly restored". When you restore an old car or painting they can never be exactly the way it was when it was first made. The Guardian at the end of City on the Edge of Forever says "Time has resumed it's shape, all is as it was before." That's basically saying "restored". Half of my point in the very beginning is actually what you've said in your last thoughts - if the '09 movie is a new universe then everything goes. I never took a stance on which category the '09 movie should be in. The other half of my point which I've said from the onset is that IF the '09 movie falls into the category of City on the Edge of Forever then there would be a need to "restore". Especially since the resources of a whole planet is far greater than that of a colony & the Vulcans' relationships with all other races would be completely different. Add in the fact that the Vulcans at the end of the movie, like Spock and Sarek, are willing to be more "emotional". Due to their population size & state of mind they are diffrent diplomatically, scientifically, etc.  All of this will completely change their contributions to history.

>From beginning to end I'm just mentioning an "either/or + results" comment on the '09 movie.

>


Definition of the word "RESTORE" as it applies in this context

re·store/riˈstôr/
Verb:    

   1. to Bring back to its previous state; to reinstate.
   2. Return (someone or something) to it former condition, place, or position.

Sorry buddy but I didnt misunderstand your use of the word, you just choose the wrong word to express what you wanted to say.There was no need to say "exactly", the words "restore & fix" imply a return to what it was before with no changes.

Anyway, I did misunderstand your over all point so for that I'm sorry, but I have a question.....

what did you mean by, " the fact that the Vulcans at the end of the movie, like Spock and Sarek, are willing to be more "emotional"????.

Granted I see that as a possibility, but nothing in the film suggested it as fact.Nu Sarek wasnt really that much emoinal then his prime universe counterpart.




Photobucket

Captain Caloocan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 14

Report this Dec. 13 2011, 1:44 pm

Quote: stovokor2000-A @ Dec. 11 2011, 11:20 pm

>

>Definition of the word "RESTORE" as it applies in this context

re·store/riˈstôr/
Verb:    

   1. to Bring back to its previous state; to reinstate.
   2. Return (someone or something) to it former condition, place, or position.

Sorry buddy but I didnt misunderstand your use of the word, you just choose the wrong word to express what you wanted to say.There was no need to say "exactly", the words "restore & fix" imply a return to what it was before with no changes.

Anyway, I did misunderstand your over all point so for that I'm sorry, but I have a question.....

what did you mean by, " the fact that the Vulcans at the end of the movie, like Spock and Sarek, are willing to be more "emotional"????.

Granted I see that as a possibility, but nothing in the film suggested it as fact.Nu Sarek wasnt really that much emoinal then his prime universe counterpart.

>


I don't see "no changes" in those definitions. My example of restoring a car or painting is applicable to restoring history. It's impossible to restore a car or painting to their previous state or former conditon with "no changes", there will be at least one thing different. By definition, without "no changes" in that definition, you can restore them to their original state or former condition. You can restore history to its original state or former condition but there will be at least one thing different. So I don't see this as a wrong choice of a word. At least in my opinion.


As far as the Vulcans being more emotional, In TOS Spock asked Sarek why he married his mother & Sarek said that it was the logical thing to do. After Amanda died in the movie Sarek answered that same question differently. He said it was because he loved her, so this one is fact because a Vulcan would never say this. It was because of her death that Sarek & Spock really had to confront their emotions. If I'm not mistaken old Spock told young Spock that he should embrace his emotions or something along the lines of that, you can confirm this for me. Young Spock showed in his acting that he took to heart what his father & old Spock told him. Old Spock & Sarek should have leadership & counseling roles for the remaining population of Vulcan. I guess we'll find out which direction the filmmakers decide to go with this in the next movie.


I feel fine.

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this Dec. 13 2011, 9:54 pm

I don't see "no changes" in those definitions.

to Bring back to its previous state;

previous state means what it was before exactly, not "close to what it was before"

 My example of restoring a car or painting is applicable to restoring history.

I dont agree.

 It's impossible to restore a car or painting to their previous state or former conditon with "no changes", there will be at least one thing different.

true, which is why I dont agree with useing the word "restore" when talking about rebuilding a car or repairing a painting.


you can restore them to their original state or former condition. You can restore history to its original state or former condition but there will be at least one thing different.

And that different thing means history wasnt trully "restored"

So I don't see this as a wrong choice of a word. At least in my opinion.

thats cool, we agree to disagree on the use of the word is all

As far as the Vulcans being more emotional, In TOS Spock asked Sarek why he married his mother & Sarek said that it was the logical thing to do. After Amanda died in the movie Sarek answered that same question differently. He said it was because he loved her, so this one is fact because a Vulcan would never say this.

And why was it the "logical thing to do"????

Because he loved her, and thats what was being said in that line.Nu Sarek only answered differently for 2 reasons,

1] because his wife just died, you might remember Sarek Prime showed as much emotion when his son died and was left on the Genisis planet.

2] JJ and the writers wanted a a line that was more "directly" understood by all.

If I'm not mistaken old Spock told young Spock that he should embrace his emotions or something along the lines of that,

sort of, but to tell the truth, he only told his youngerself to do what his long life taught him to do.come to terms with how he feels.

Young Spock showed in his acting that he took to heart what his father & old Spock told him. Old Spock & Sarek should have leadership & counseling roles for the remaining population of Vulcan. I guess we'll find out which direction the filmmakers decide to go with this in the next movie.

sorry, I think your seeing more in it then was intended.But I guess we will see in about a year

Captain Caloocan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 14

Report this Dec. 15 2011, 11:40 am

If Sarek's going to admit to loving his wife after she died then why not admit to it when she was alive? Vulcans would never say that they love someone since that's admitting to having an emotion. Since he's admitting to it after she died he is therefore more emotional by movie's end. Sarek Prime never used the word "love" so to me that showed he was less emotional. Vulcans aren't devoid of emotions but constantly suppress them instead of coming to terms with them or admitting to them. If old Spock is suggesting to come to terms with how he's feeling then that's no longer suppressing emotions. Also, I don't think that when young Spock was listening to his father & old Spock that he let what they said go in one ear & out the other. It's clear there that he took to heart what they said. Young Spock and Sarek should be more emotional by the next movie if they maintain continuity.

guillermo.mejía

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2852

Report this Dec. 15 2011, 1:02 pm

Sarek Prime never used the word "love" so to me that showed he was less emotional.


Sounds to me like someone hasn't seen or remembers the TNG episode Sarek was in.


Not sure what Capt. Caloocan is responding too, but I don't think that Alternate Sarek has to be any more emotional than Prime Sarek. Sure he happened to use the actual word 'love' in the movie rather than emply it like he did in TOS, but thanks to his illness in TNG we learned that he loved Amanda. In fact, to be married at least 3 times (and I say 3 because Sybok was Spock's half brother so Amanda couldn't be the mom), I'd say Sarek Prime was quite emotional...probably as a result of being ambassador to Earth.


Other than the fact that Mark Leonard had a more commanding presence as Sarek, I think the 2009 Sarek was done just right.

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum