View Single Post
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 42
05-15-2009, 04:54 PM
Originally Posted by naterag View Post
how come the history hasnt change. please cyptic follow the new movie stay ture to trek
I believe those who jumped on this comment were wrong to do so.

One of the consistent threads in Star Trek has been time travel stories.

From TOS through Deep Space Nine ("Trials and Tribble-ations") and Voyager ("Future's End I & II" and "Relativity"), it was well-established that there is a primary timeline, and that changing events in the past changes the future.

TNG explored this in "Time's Arrow" and even more explicitly in "Cause and Effect".

The 29th-century computer hardware left behind in 1960s America in VOY:"Future's End I & II" was explicitly said to be the precursor to the computing technology leading to the United Federation of Planets as we knew it from TOS onward.

But by far one of the best Star Trek episodes was also one of the clearest on this subject that changing the past changes the future: TOS:"The City on the Edge of Forever". The Enterprise, her crew, and even the Federation are shown to be gone completely as a result of a change to the timeline in the past, which Kirk and Spock must travel into the past to prevent.

So by virtually all of canonical Star Trek, Nero's actions in the new Star Trek movie should have been propagated into the future of TOS, TNG, and so on. What happened in the movie should be the reality of Star Trek Online, according to how time travel has normally worked in canonical Star Trek.

naterag actually has the correct understanding of how changing the past normally works in Star Trek.

However, there are some problems with this. For one, the momentous changes made in the Star Trek universe from the Star Trek movie, had they been carried forward as usual, should have been the normal state of things in TOS, TNG, etc.... but they weren't. (This is the opposite of the usual "retconning" process, where something known in the "present" of the Star Trek universe to have happened in the past is explained as a product of time travel from the future to produce that effect.) The only way those changes would not be a part of the primary timeline is if Nero had been stopped (which he seems not to have been), or if they led to an alternate timeline.

In the movie, the characters are made to say explicitly that theirs is an alternate timeline. (Which I thought was completely ludicrous. If you're not going to make your story part of the "real" Star Trek universe, why use that universe at all? Dumb, IMO.) So yes, it does seem that the events of the movie haven't altered the primary timeline of the TOS+ era, and that effect is explained, even if artificially.

But it runs counter to most of established Star Trek, where changing the past usually changes the future.

So maybe we can cut naterag a little slack on this one?