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

Proof that Enterprise happens in a seperate timeline?

lostshaker

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2293

Report this Nov. 03 2011, 10:21 pm

This assessement proves nothing. ENT specifically mentioned Khan and the Eugenics movement in the Augment Trilogy. VGR's "Future's End" showed the 1990's as something one would expect different from TOS, but was suggested to be a predestination time loop. For all we know, the DY-100 Class could have been constructed by Chronoworks, which was all based of Captain Braxton's 29th Century timeship. Fact is, the Eugenics Wars were never shown, so the political landscape of TOS is vague and open to interpretation.

OtakuJo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16362

Report this Nov. 03 2011, 11:14 pm

According to The Rise and Fall of Khan Noonien Singh books, the DY-100 was based on Ferengi technology salvaged at Roswell.


lolz I know -- "Book No Is Canon" blah blah blah, but I just couldn't resist putting it in there.


The history of pre-TOS Star Trek jumps about all over the place. (Archer also mentions his great grandfather having fought in the Eugenics War at one point, but DS9 Doctor Bashir I Presume says that the Eugenics War was around 200 years before the 24th century -- ie. Around Ent. time. Probably something to do with the point that DPIP aired in 1997, during which time TOS would have us believe the Eugenics Wars were either happening or already over.)


The Past Tense episodes of DS9 would have us believe that Federation ideals were somehow inspired by the Bell Riots of 2024, which would render the dystopian legal system portrayed in Encounter at Farpoint, and the subsequent Third World War as little more than afterthoughts. A minor "Oops" on the road to utopia.


Star Trek is riddled with these contradictions. At a certain point you gotta say Yup it's just a story, and take it as it is. The historical framework is a cool thing to have, and does much to enhance the "reality" of the universe, but at the end of the day it is a fictional history as much as that of Arthur C. Clarke or George Orwell, or any other sci-fi writer making predictions about times that have already passed.


Have you ever danced with a Tribble in the pale moonlight?

lostshaker

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2293

Report this Nov. 04 2011, 9:48 am

Quote: OtakuJo @ Nov. 03 2011, 11:14 pm

>

>According to The Rise and Fall of Khan Noonien Singh books, the DY-100 was based on Ferengi technology salvaged at Roswell.

>The history of pre-TOS Star Trek jumps about all over the place. (Archer also mentions his great grandfather having fought in the Eugenics War at one point, but DS9 Doctor Bashir I Presume says that the Eugenics War was around 200 years before the 24th century -- ie. Around Ent. time. Probably something to do with the point that DPIP aired in 1997, during which time TOS would have us believe the Eugenics Wars were either happening or already over.)

>


Nice point regarding the Ferengi/Roswell. Now I'm in a deadlock as to which I prefer... hmmm????


Ronald D. Moore said that the 200 year quote in "Doctor Bashir, I Presume" was a mistake and they meant 300 years.  But the misstep is still the same. Overall consistency demands that it took place around the 1990's, as Khan himself said that... and who best to know?


 

lostshaker

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2293

Report this Nov. 04 2011, 9:55 am

Quote: /view_profile/ @

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>

>This assessement proves nothing. ENT specifically mentioned Khan and the Eugenics movement in the Augment Trilogy. VGR's "Future's End" showed the 1990's as something one would expect different from TOS, but was suggested to be a predestination time loop. For all we know, the DY-100 Class could have been constructed by Chronoworks, which was all based of Captain Braxton's 29th Century timeship. Fact is, the Eugenics Wars were never shown, so the political landscape of TOS is vague and open to interpretation.

>

 

Okay but that proves nothing either.  The ST 2009 movie and prime star trek timelines have different histories but both have the same enterprise with the same crew but they're still different timelines.


I totally agree both positions prove nothing definitely, as the Eugenics wars haven't been directly shown and as OtakuJo mentioned - TOS was all over the place. Not quite sure what you mean by the second line, but then again I ignore any mention of Abram's colonoscopy.

Invader_Wishfire

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 27518

Report this Nov. 04 2011, 11:54 am

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>In the original series episode "Space Seed" they describe events in their history that don't correspond with our history.  Examples include Khan becoming the absolute ruler of more than a quarter of the planet in 1992   But in Enterprise episode "Storm Front pt 2" while the timeline is being restored we see some clips of history from their timeline which include: the Malta Summit, Saddam Hussein, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Nelson Mandela, 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden.  I wouldn't expect all of these things to have still happened in the timeline of TOS with such different earlier histories between each series.

>

>


The mirror universe and the prime universe both had the same people with similar events (at least until Kirk's interference), so there's no reason to think that similar events wouldn't occur in the prime universe and in our own time-line.


 photo spok_zps253ab564.gif

Broadstorm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 828

Report this Nov. 04 2011, 2:41 pm

And I thought this was just going to be based on that 1 screenshot from Where Nomad Has Gone Before with the ships named Enterprise. 


Back in the 1960s, noone expected Star Trek to be relevant in the 1990s so they didn't go far enough into the future to let everyone forget about that obscure little TV show before the timeframe mentioned for the future events mentioned.  Even Picard mentioned Khan Singh in a TNG episode even though by then it should have been obvious that the Eugenics Wars had not started yet.  They are mentioned in DS9 because of what came out about Bashir.  However, if you want proof about alternate timelines, then look at TNG - The Neutral Zone, written in the 1980s about a satellite with cryogenically frozen people.  It should have been a really safe guess by then that Earth would not have artificial gravity which was demonstrated when Data & Microbrain beamed over, and since Enterprise is reduced to a holonovel for its finale using TNG crew, then maybe you can play that angle.  Of course, DS9 also takes place in another alternate reality from TNG, one in which Trills have spots instead of lumpy forehead 47 and joined Trill can survive transporters.  Oh yeah, O'Brien was a LT in TNG & was "promoted" to CPO (a lower rank) when he went over to the DS9 reality.  DS9 also operates in an alternate timeline from... DS9.  In DS9, runabouts can only transport 2 at a time, but in DS9, runabouts can transport 6 at a time.

Katariel1701

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 18

Report this Nov. 04 2011, 4:26 pm

I should find the greatest proof is in the people who watch it themselves. All of us who watch Star Trek understand the logic and positions and can cledarly see the difference timelines. As far as my knowledge goes, we do not have 3-D chess and are not running around with phasers in our utility belts (sadly). And, it's still "a forelorn conclusion none of us have ever seen an extra terrestrial before."

lostshaker

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2293

Report this Nov. 04 2011, 4:55 pm

Quote: Katariel1701 @ Nov. 04 2011, 4:26 pm

>

>I should find the greatest proof is in the people who watch it themselves. All of us who watch Star Trek understand the logic and positions and can cledarly see the difference timelines. As far as my knowledge goes, we do not have 3-D chess and are not running around with phasers in our utility belts (sadly).

>


I've got a 3-D Chess Set. Unfortunately, it's 3-D chess players that are absent.

lostshaker

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2293

Report this Nov. 13 2011, 9:02 pm

Quote: /view_profile/ @

Quote: /view_profile/ @

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>

>

>This assessement proves nothing. ENT specifically mentioned Khan and the Eugenics movement in the Augment Trilogy. VGR's "Future's End" showed the 1990's as something one would expect different from TOS, but was suggested to be a predestination time loop. For all we know, the DY-100 Class could have been constructed by Chronoworks, which was all based of Captain Braxton's 29th Century timeship. Fact is, the Eugenics Wars were never shown, so the political landscape of TOS is vague and open to interpretation.

>

 

Okay but that proves nothing either.  The ST 2009 movie and prime star trek timelines have different histories but both have the same enterprise with the same crew but they're still different timelines.

Both the Prime timeline and new timeline are the same one until the timeline splits in 2233 creating the Abrams timeline.

Both ships are very obviously not the "same" Enterprise, and some of the crew are actually very different. Jim Kirk in the new timeline is the same biological person, the son of George and Winona Kirk, but the two had very different upbringings. Thy are not the same person in both timelines.

 


The Prime timeline and Abrams' Timeline are not definitely the same. We have only Abrams', Orci's, and Kurtzman's word on that. And since they did a terrible job on the movie, I'm not willing to take them seriously. There are too many discrepancies in the film's opening sequence to assume that Abrams' timeline has anything to do with the original.

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this Nov. 27 2011, 11:23 am

Quote: lostshaker @ Nov. 13 2011, 9:02 pm

>There are too many discrepancies in the film's opening sequence to assume that Abrams' timeline has anything to do with the original.

>


 


yeah, I've heard this "song and dance" hundreds of times, and so far no one has ever cited any SOLID discrepancies.


Just a list of perception issues.


 


Photobucket

Camorite

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 5510

Report this Nov. 27 2011, 5:15 pm

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>In the original series episode "Space Seed" they describe events in their history that don't correspond with our history.  Examples include Khan becoming the absolute ruler of more than a quarter of the planet in 1992   But in Enterprise episode "Storm Front pt 2" while the timeline is being restored we see some clips of history from their timeline which include: the Malta Summit, Saddam Hussein, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Nelson Mandela, 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden.  I wouldn't expect all of these things to have still happened in the timeline of TOS with such different earlier histories between each series.

>


 this is nothing but a case of new canon vs old canon (old canon being what spock stated in Space Seed and new being what was seen in DS9, Voyager, and Enteprise). 


IMO, this is no different then debates about the Earth/Romulan war, bassed solely on ten minutes of dialog that was seen in Balance of Terror.


Personally i tend to go with the newer canon from DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise, instead of what was either said or commented on in TOS. this is not saying anything against TOS, it is only reconizing where the greater info is at.


"What i Hate more then anything else is someone that thinks that they know everything. That must mean that I really hate myself", "Freedom is the right of all setient beings!" (Optimus Prime: Transformers), "That's on small step for man, one giant leap for mankind!" Neil Armstrong 8-5-30 to 8-25-12

Camorite

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 5510

Report this Nov. 27 2011, 5:21 pm

Quote: /view_profile/ @

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>

>This assessement proves nothing. ENT specifically mentioned Khan and the Eugenics movement in the Augment Trilogy. VGR's "Future's End" showed the 1990's as something one would expect different from TOS, but was suggested to be a predestination time loop. For all we know, the DY-100 Class could have been constructed by Chronoworks, which was all based of Captain Braxton's 29th Century timeship. Fact is, the Eugenics Wars were never shown, so the political landscape of TOS is vague and open to interpretation.

>

 

Okay but that proves nothing either.  The ST 2009 movie and prime star trek timelines have different histories but both have the same enterprise with the same crew but they're still different timelines.


i don't agree with this marshal as there is nothing showing that trek09 diverges from the prime line before the Kelvin encounters the time portal and is destroyed.


"What i Hate more then anything else is someone that thinks that they know everything. That must mean that I really hate myself", "Freedom is the right of all setient beings!" (Optimus Prime: Transformers), "That's on small step for man, one giant leap for mankind!" Neil Armstrong 8-5-30 to 8-25-12

Camorite

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 5510

Report this Nov. 27 2011, 5:25 pm

The Prime timeline and Abrams' Timeline are not definitely the same. We have only Abrams', Orci's, and Kurtzman's word on that. And since they did a terrible job on the movie, I'm not willing to take them seriously. There are too many discrepancies in the film's opening sequence to assume that Abrams' timeline has anything to do with the original.


What discrepancies would these be lotsa? I will have to watch the movie agian, but i don't remember anything that happens before the time portal appears that would point to any divergence from the prime line.


"What i Hate more then anything else is someone that thinks that they know everything. That must mean that I really hate myself", "Freedom is the right of all setient beings!" (Optimus Prime: Transformers), "That's on small step for man, one giant leap for mankind!" Neil Armstrong 8-5-30 to 8-25-12

Camorite

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 5510

Report this Nov. 27 2011, 5:26 pm

Quote: stovokor2000-A @ Nov. 27 2011, 11:23 am

Quote: lostshaker @ Nov. 13 2011, 9:02 pm

>

>There are too many discrepancies in the film's opening sequence to assume that Abrams' timeline has anything to do with the original.

>

 

yeah, I've heard this "song and dance" hundreds of times, and so far no one has ever cited any SOLID discrepancies.

Just a list of perception issues.


I agree, imo, 95% of these so-called discrepencies can be explained by a simple use of common sence and logic.


"What i Hate more then anything else is someone that thinks that they know everything. That must mean that I really hate myself", "Freedom is the right of all setient beings!" (Optimus Prime: Transformers), "That's on small step for man, one giant leap for mankind!" Neil Armstrong 8-5-30 to 8-25-12

guillermo.mejía

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2852

Report this Nov. 27 2011, 7:38 pm

Quote: stovokor2000-A @ Nov. 27 2011, 11:23 am

Quote: lostshaker @ Nov. 13 2011, 9:02 pm

>

>There are too many discrepancies in the film's opening sequence to assume that Abrams' timeline has anything to do with the original.

>

 

yeah, I've heard this "song and dance" hundreds of times, and so far no one has ever cited any SOLID discrepancies.

Just a list of perception issues.

 

I have just read this comment from you for the second time tonight. There are in fact discrepancies in the Kelvin and elsewere that Nero cannot posibly be responsable for, such as Checkov's and Pike's age, as well as the Kelvin itself. I posted several of these already in another thread so I won't go into them here.


As for Enterprise being an alternate timeline (the htread's subject) I think not. It's place is canon is far more stable, as a main spinoff show than the status of TAS for example. You can claim that there are time discrepancies, but those are mearly the effects of reconn in the lore, since, as it was already said, comments made in TOS are vague and based on guess work on the writters part. Just because they got iPads and cellphones right, you can;t expecty them to get everything right. 

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: sonofspock1

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