I personally have to agree with Closettrekker, who wrote almost exactly what I would have. Interference in the timeline, whether it all be in a single universe or in a Many Worlds scenario, becomes PART of continuity once it’s established on-screen.

This is really a core philosophical point of the movie, it seems — about being challenged to become ‘the person you were meant to be,’ with certain essential personality traits, qualities, realizations, truths etc. The details may differ, but we see how they self-actualize.

Setting aside the technical quirks of time travel and universes, I have to (again, for the nth time) note that it’s dramatically uninteresting for a non-Trekker audience to see characters arrive fully formed. If a large, wide audience is to become interested in this story, we have to see the characters’ journeys, how they evolve.

I disagree that simply retelling the “past we already know” about Kirk is satisfying — Tarsus IV and a stack of books with legs etc etc. I doubt any of that was intended from the beginning, they are facts that accumulated over the run of a series that was written by many different people, introduced conveniently to explain how Kirk knows so-and-so from years ago, or play up the fact that he’s the Youngest Bestest Officer Ever in a trial scene, etc — i.e. they are all plot devices, and not particularly elegant ones either, they’re akin to deus-ex-machina endings.

To start over with a flawed, human Kirk who rises to a challenge is much more interesting, much more appealing. For those who ‘know’ the story it’s interesting to see things click into place, for those who don’t, they will empathize with the character’s journey. Either way, it sets the groundwork for stories where the appeal of the TOS gang is not based on sentimental rememberings, but by strong character arc writing.

Only if time was “supposed to be interfered with”.

In the “Prime” timeline, Tasha was dead long before that. In the altered one (the result of “YE”), Tasha ended up alive in the RSE. If TNG was still within the “Prime” timeline, the birth of Sela would never have occurred.

It simply wasn’t clear until “Unification” that the timeline had ever been altered. That doesn’t change the fact that it was.

First of all, they didn’t “create” the element in the story utilized to venture into another timeline. TOS did. Furthermore, venturing into another timeline does not break continuity. The possibility of an alternate timeline being created due to interference with the past is part of the fabric within that continuity which we know as “canon”.

#224—”This film may contain elements of Star Trek, but having the main story play with or change what came before …”

They are “playing with” or “changing what came before”.

Everything that came before (ENT-NEM) is part of a long series of events that leads the broader story to this point. Everything you have seen happened. There’s no getting around that, nor can it be “changed”.

I do not understand why you cannot get your mind around that. It isn’t really that difficult.

#225—”The main goal for most time-travel stories is to restore the known timeline…”

Been there… again…and again…and again.

I’m not opposed to a unique outcome, and clearly—I am not alone.

To a point we’re arguing different semantics here. Or perhaps it’s different perspectives. Closettrekker, to a point I think you’re right. But I also think McCoy and I are right, as well. It simply depends on what vantage point one has.

“There is no “change” in continuity. Everything depicted in all 5 television series and 10 previous films happened already. In fact, that chain of events has led the story to this point. What happens next only “adds” to that continuity.”

It may be true that there is no “change” in the sense that the story suggests that all those events did occur in one continuum, but I’d argue that from the point-of-view of the broad audience, people entering Trek from this point will have a different view of at least Kirk’s past and that of the Enterprise, so one could certainly argue that there *will* in fact be a change in how people perceive that world, because it’s not the same world anymore. But unless you can say that future stories can take place comparably in *both* continua, then there’s absolutely an argument to be made that going forward, the continuity of Star Trek’s fictional world to date will no longer be added to, at least by this particular storytelling team.

“You act as if ENT-NEM somehow ceases to be a part of the broader story (which is the only way there could be any “loss of continuity”).”

Well, not ENT, because the temporal incursion occurs later, but unless the history of the new continuum plays out equivalently to the history of the old, then it is indeed possible (if maybe even likely?) that TOS-NEM *do* cease to be part of the ongoing story, at least until some future producer decides that it’s time to go back to continuum A and pick up the story again.

“Star Trek continuity is not bound by timelines. One event still leads to another, regardless of what timeline in which it takes place.”

That’s very much dependent on one’s point of view. ;) No, seriously.Let’s say I’m a guy sitting on Gateway in Continuum A. If I’m watching Spock and Nero, I might see them go back in time. maybe they come out at some point in the same space-time as I am, but more likely, they vanish, maybe never to be seen again. Now one of two things happens, depending on how one interprets all this: either the universe *changes* because of the actions in the past (cf. “City on the Edge of Forever”) or nothing happens because all the “action” takes place in some alternate world (Continuum B).

But if we, the audience, are following that alternate world now, events in that world lead to a future in Continuum B that’s no longer the same future as in Continuum A, and thus the past events might well no longer lead to the future events that we’ve known. From the audience perspective, the direct continuity from past to future that has lasted all this time ceases, and is thus broken. Unless, of course, the story does include a way to knit it all back together.

“The only way that continuity would be lost is if the writers had disregarded previously established continuity (which is the criteria for a “reboot”)—which they have not. Clearly, their story depends upon that very continuity.”

The writers haven’t disregarded continuity, no. But they have created a story that appears, on the face of it, to be a whole elaborate way to “sidestep” that continuity, so that they *can* disregard it going forward. It might not be a “conventional” reboot, but if the changes are not set right (and for all I know, they might be, so the usual caveats remain in place), the effect is essentially the same: for the purposes of ongoing storytelling, the old universe is cast aside and a new one begun. Once again, from the perspective of the audience, there is still an effective break in continuity, no matter how much it is also explained by *using* continuity.

“Asking the writers to stay within a singular timeline is not the same as asking them to honor continuity. They have done the latter, and the former has nothing to do with it.”

Again, here, we’re talking two different sorts of continuity, and while they have appeared to honor a continuity in which a chain of events can include characters going back in time and altering the world, it does not honor the continuity of the fictional world’s stricture and the events therein.

” It is also possible for you to have “seen” a loss in continuity. Yes, the visuals are part of it and for this version of Trek, there’s a lot of turns.”

Visual continuity? Yes. But not story continuity. And visual continuity is simply nowhere near as important to me as Star Trek’s canon.”

I myself am more willing to be flexible with the visuals than I am about the storytelling continuity.

“In fact, I would have been somewhat disappointed to see a souped-up retro take on the window dressing.”

Here I don’t necessarily agree. For example, there are some wonderful modelers out there who have done modernized, sophisticated takes on the original Enterprise, and I would have been overjoyed to see that sort of update take place for the film. Dennis Bailey, Jason “Vektor” Lee, Koji Kuramura, Douglas E. Graves, and others have done truly amazing renditions, all of which are preferable, in my mind, to even the relatively limited (compared to the level of nuts they might have gone!) change embodied in Ryan Church’s design. I would have preferred to see that ethic of making the original designs new again to the approach they’ve taken, but that’s simply an aesthetic quibble, and not as critical as the other aspect.

“It’s all about the characters, story, the message, and themes. This is fiction—not an historical piece.”

I agree about the story, message, characters, and themes, but I also believe that maintaining a consistent fictional world is intrinsic to all those things. Break that consistency, and at least story, characters, and message are compromised.

Starting the film out after TNG and going back in time to change things is the story element the writer’s used to change things. They created something to alter continuity. I would say a really aggressive more rather than clever at this point. During the course of, and all the way to the end of the film, continuity is altered from what we knew as TOS.

Again, as a writer, if you invent a story element and send it back in time to change things, you are sending the character back to change what came before. If you leave the audience there, you have left them someplace new. No one was asking for that.

The main goal for most time-travel stories is to restore the known timeline (known continuity). It has been said that one of the main goals of the film is to change things to draw a different audience. That change they are referring to is the break in continuity.

You’re kidding right? You really can’t grasp the issue? The audience in TNG was moving forward through the timeline. It didn’t matter from any real perspective that Tasha survived the second time around. The audience ended up in prime. In the new film, you are taking the audience back in time to TOS (which by the way now looks different) and creating a new alternate timeline. By the end of the film, as we are lead to believe, the audience will be left in the alternate time line—or the new film is trying to say that the last 40 years was the alternate timeline. Either way, it’s dis-joining to do. This film should then be called “Star Trek: Alternate Realities”.

This film may contain elements of Star Trek, but having the main story play with or change what came before misses the point of the original series which is to tell good sci-fi. The whole notion of the characters living differently in a different time (Nimoy) was the wrong way to go. The film should have avoided time travel and concentrated on the early development of the characters.

It is only “correct” from Guinan’s perspective. It isn’t so much that she fears it is the “wrong timeline”—but that the Enterprise-D is supposed to be a ship of exploration and peace, rather than a ship of war.

“In the end, the timeline is restored. The audience gets back to where they were from the previous episode.”

But that is debatable. Who is to say that Tasha Yar was always supposed to go back with the Enterprise-C, become captured by Romulans and give birth to a daughter named Sela who becomes (in a bad storytelling twist) a powerful member of the Romulan establishment?

What you are suggesting is that time is somehow supposed to be interfered with in that instance. If that is the case, who is to say that time isn’t supposed to be interfered with 8 years after the events depicted in Nemesis?

You?

That assumes that I agree upon your definition of “continuity”, which I certainly do not. There is no “change” in continuity. Everything depicted in all 5 television series and 10 previous films happened already. In fact, that chain of events has led the story to this point. What happens next only “adds” to that continuity.

You act as if ENT-NEM somehow ceases to be a part of the broader story (which is the only way there could be any “loss of continuity”). Star Trek continuity is not bound by timelines. One event still leads to another, regardless of what timeline in which it takes place. The only way that continuity would be lost is if the writers had disregarded previously established continuity (which is the criteria for a “reboot”)—which they have not. Clearly, their story depends upon that very continuity.

Asking the writers to stay within a singular timeline is not the same as asking them to honor continuity. They have done the latter, and the former has nothing to do with it.

Interference with the past can result in an altered timeline. That is part of Star Trek canon, and indeed, its continuity.

“It is also possible for you to have “seen” a loss in continuity. Yes, the visuals are part of it and for this version of Trek, there’s a lot of turns.”

Visual continuity? Yes. But not story continuity. And visual continuity is simply nowhere near as important to me as Star Trek’s canon. In fact, I would have been somewhat disappointed to see a souped-up retro take on the window dressing.

I’ve already seen what Star Trek’s father envisioned the 23rd Century to look like from the perspective of the 1960’s. IMO, it would be asurd to ignore 4 decades of perspective-altering progress with regard to what the future might look and feel like.

It’s all about the characters, story, the message, and themes. This is fiction—not an historical piece.

But it is easy to logically deduce that’s it has happened.”

Perhaps, perhaps not. Based on the evidence, it’s just as easy to conclude that the “changes” were always meant to have occurred at those points in time.

” “In both “First Contact” and “Enterprise”, the “changes” can be equally argued to loop back into the existing timeline, much like the oddity of Kirk’s endlessly time-traveling glasses. ;) ”

I don’t think so, especially when Daniels says to Archer that “History does not record that any of this ever happened.” ”

But any of *what*? And since it clearly *did* happen, perhaps it’s Daniels who came from a future where things are different, rather than the continuum of the various shows? Since ENT was clearly intended to be a prequel to the other series, we can conclude that what happened in that show was the earlier period of that world.

“The other examples are obvious and well-documented—that Starfleet is not made aware of the Borg until the 24th Century, when “Q” introduces them to Picard and the Enterprise-D. It seems obvious that those Borg in the Arctic were not supposed to be there…”

Except that StarFleet had no idea that they were Borg, or likely what they were at all, exactly, until “Q Who?”. I always thought that “Regeneration’ also neatly explained why Picard didn’t do anything to get rid of the Borg drones and wreckage in “First Contact”. In short, he couldn’t, because he realized what the unknown creatures that history recorded as having been found in the Arctic actually were, and had to leave them alone to keep history intact. I gave Mike Sussman big kudos for neatly linking it all together.

” “…the “changes” can be equally argued to loop back into the existing timeline, much like the oddity of Kirk’s endlessly time-traveling glasses. ;)”

I took that as merely a joke,”

Well, I think it really was, but leaving the joke aside, it does point out one of the odd potential paradoxes of time travel.

“but it may be of note that the 3 members of the “Supreme Court” of STXI who have a hand in “Lost” have made clear their own view of time travel—that nothing you do can actually alter events that are “supposed to happen”. You may subtly change the path that gets you there, but not the destination.”

Did you see the 2002 version of “The Time Machine”? That film had a similar approach to the matter. Each time Professor Hartdegan went back to try to prevent something, all he managed to do was change the circumstances of its occurrence. It may be that Nero’s attempts to change things will have a similar effect.

” “…just as “Assignment: Earth” suggested that the “changes” in that episode were what the historical record had indicated had always happened.”

Except that those “records” weren’t checked until after it was all over. It could easily have been that the “records” would not have shown such events prior to their trip to the 20th Century, and the ripple effects of those potentially altering events were simply insignificant in the grand scheme of things.”

But even then, the result is still an altered timeline that is so subtly changed that the difference was essentially irrelevant. If the end result of this film is a timeline changed that subtly, I won’t mind so much at all.

Still, I’d say that the rather clear intent of the episode is that Kirk, Spock, Gary Seven, et al. were intended to be playing out roles that history suggests were already there. Of course it’s possible to *manufacture* a scenario in which things were changed significantly, but working strictly from what was presented on-screen, that approach seems quite unnecessarily Ptolemaic. ;)

” “Show me that Paramount will continue to support storyteling in the Prime Universe after this film is over, and I won’t be threatened either. :)”

I don’t think there is a “Prime Universe”, only different timelines (one of which is referred to as “Prime” only because it is already established on screen.”

The single world stretching through the 6 TV series and 10 films—and I do think it’s quite obvious that it is one world–is what I am defining s the “Prime Universe”, so named because a) the Spock of that world, intended to be the Spock we’ve known all this time, is being referred to as Prime Spock, and b) because Prime is often a term used to refer to the first of something. Seems straightforward enough. :)

” “I’m not convinced that’s actually happened, though. I have a feeling–and, again, I could be wrong, of course–that the final scene is some years later. Bob Orci hinted at that a few months back, too.”

I hope so. To me—venturing into another timeline is one thing, but (seemingly) bad storytelling is another.”

Agreed. Leaving aside the question of different timelines, the idea of Kirk jumping straight from rebellious cadet to starship captain in one fell swoop is just too much to accept. Suspension of disbelief only goes so far, after all. ;)

Correct me if I’m wrong (I’m sure you will) but the whole synopsis behind “Yesterday’s Enterprise” is to restore the prime timeline. Guinan serves as the reminder that there is one correct timeline and that the direction they are traveling through most of the episode is not the right path. In the end, the timeline is restored. The audience gets back to where they were from the previous episode.

“I have yet to read or hear of any loss of continuity. I see no reason to believe that continuity has been broken. IMO, it has simply taken a unique turn. I find that intriguing—not threatening.”

The “unique turn” is the loss of continuity. You have identified it. How can you say you say you “have yet to read or hear of any loss” under one breath, then exclaim that it’s intriguing in another? If you are intrigued by the turn, you are intrigued by the change in continuity. It is also possible for you to have “seen” a loss in continuity. Yes, the visuals are part of it and for this version of Trek, there’s a lot of turns.

I am not threatened by the film, I simply disagree with many of the creative choices they have made. The information I have at this point in time is enough to come to that conclusion.