That just doesn't make sense!

Beefy78

Parallels shows that in Trek lore, parallel universes exist. But plenty of other episodes, and First Contact, show that it's possible to travel back in time and make changes to the timeline in your own universe.

First Contact is a decent example not only in terms of the direct plot of that film but when Picard orders the Enterprise back to their own time the Universe they return to has had its timeline altered and now the Federation's first proper contact with The Borg comes much earlier than it was established in TNG that it had happened (hence Seven of Nine's family being assimilated when studying the Borg several years before the events of Q Who. There's no suggestion that the Enterprise E returned to a different Universe, it's just that they returned to a timeline which had been altered.

Myrddin

Beefy78 wrote: »

Parallels shows that in Trek lore, parallel universes exist. But plenty of other episodes, and First Contact, show that it's possible to travel back in time and make changes to the timeline in your own universe.

First Contact is a decent example not only in terms of the direct plot of that film but when Picard orders the Enterprise back to their own time the Universe they return to has had its timeline altered and now the Federation's first proper contact with The Borg comes much earlier than it was established in TNG that it had happened (hence Seven of Nine's family being assimilated when studying the Borg several years before the events of Q Who. There's no suggestion that the Enterprise E returned to a different Universe, it's just that they returned to a timeline which had been altered.

Therin lies the conflict of writing, that I mentioned some pages ago. Trek shows us that it's possible to alter your own timeline, AND possible that other alternate timelines exist. Look at the Alt Universe for example.

In Star Trek 2009, there is a time travel event that causes the new timeline to exist. This must run alongside the established timeline, because the cannon Spock would never have existed if the original timeline was wiped out. And we all know he did exist, because, well, he showed up later on in the film.

The cannon timeline isn't wiped out, but, the galaxy was destroyed. [I've only seen the film once about two years ago but thats the basic jist]

Beefy78

You're saying that the original timeline still exists because otherwise it's a paradox. I get that and my very limited understanding of physics tells me that that is also the current established theory on the way these things would play out if time travel was achieved.

However, my basic point is that this flies in the face of what they'd established the laws of time travel to be in Trek up until that point.

Look at Yesterday's Enterprise. The Enterprise C goes forward in time and that actions change the timeline. They're consistent in that the Enterprise hasn't gone forward and moved to a parallel universe, they've gone forward in time and altered the established timeline. Guinan says that something has changed. Not that the old ship has moved from another timeline into theirs but that their timeline has altered. At least one of the crew (Beverly?) makes the point that if the Enterprise C goes back then their lives as they know them cease to exist. Picard sacrifices his life and the life his crew in order to send the Enterprise C back in time but if changes to the timeline merely create alternate realities then that sacrifice is pointless.

I know it's silly to get hung up on this and I'd be more than happy if there'd been a single line of explanation in the 2009 film to state that the original timeline had been protected from the changes in the timeline and continues to exist, and that is why in my first post I asked if such a line was in there and I just missed it. But without it the belief that the timeline exists just flies in the face with Trek's established laws of temporal mechanics and it doesn't sit well with me for some reason. I know it shouldn't bother me but it does.

Myrddin

Beefy78 wrote: »

However, my basic point is that this flies in the face of what they'd established the laws of time travel to be in Trek up until that point.

Hence the reason we're discussing it in this very thread Really though, Trek itself shows us that both scenarios can happen. First Contact is a timeline changer...while the whole Alternate Timeline story is a parallel universe leaving both timelines in tact.

I know it's silly to get hung up on this and I'd be more than happy if there'd been a single line of explanation in the 2009 film to state that the original timeline had been protected from the changes in the timeline and continues to exist, and that is why in my first post I asked if such a line was in there and I just missed it. But without it the belief that the timeline exists just flies in the face with Trek's established laws of temporal mechanics and it doesn't sit well with me for some reason. I know it shouldn't bother me but it does.[/QUOTE]

Why shouldn't it still exist? The alternate universe, parallels, etc tell us it's just as likely as any other explanation. Also again, the Spock Paradox proves it still exists

filmbuffboy

EnterNow wrote: »

I know it's silly to get hung up on this and I'd be more than happy if there'd been a single line of explanation in the 2009 film to state that the original timeline had been protected from the changes in the timeline and continues to exist

exactly. there needs to be some sort of explanation, even just one line to appease fans who have been watching star trek for decades!!!

somuj

Beefy78 wrote: »

You're saying that the original timeline still exists because otherwise it's a paradox. I get that and my very limited understanding of physics tells me that that is also the current established theory on the way these things would play out if time travel was achieved.

However, my basic point is that this flies in the face of what they'd established the laws of time travel to be in Trek up until that point.

Look at Yesterday's Enterprise. The Enterprise C goes forward in time and that actions change the timeline. They're consistent in that the Enterprise hasn't gone forward and moved to a parallel universe, they've gone forward in time and altered the established timeline. Guinan says that something has changed. Not that the old ship has moved from another timeline into theirs but that their timeline has altered. At least one of the crew (Beverly?) makes the point that if the Enterprise C goes back then their lives as they know them cease to exist. Picard sacrifices his life and the life his crew in order to send the Enterprise C back in time but if changes to the timeline merely create alternate realities then that sacrifice is pointless.

I know it's silly to get hung up on this and I'd be more than happy if there'd been a single line of explanation in the 2009 film to state that the original timeline had been protected from the changes in the timeline and continues to exist, and that is why in my first post I asked if such a line was in there and I just missed it. But without it the belief that the timeline exists just flies in the face with Trek's established laws of temporal mechanics and it doesn't sit well with me for some reason. I know it shouldn't bother me but it does.

http://trekmovie.com/2011/03/25/leonard-nimoy-defends-new-star-trek-movie-universe-doesnt-expect-sequel-return-more/

Takes Leonard Nimoy's word for it.

Myrddin

somuj wrote: »

http://trekmovie.com/2011/03/25/leonard-nimoy-defends-new-star-trek-movie-universe-doesnt-expect-sequel-return-more/

Takes Leonard Nimoy's word for it.

He's right about the need to establish a new timeline, free from established cannon...it's just the absolute & total needlessness of destroying the normal timeline that bothers me! Could they not have just let it alone, & continue on in the new timeline without having to write it as destroyed.

Kiith

When did they destroy the original timeline?

Myrddin

Kiith wrote: »

When did they destroy the original timeline?

I think when the term 'destroy' is used, at least when I use it in this context, it's that they needlessly destroyed Romulus & Vulcan, & needlessly interfered with the cannon timeline. Why do this? Was Abrahms so insecure about his own timeline running alongside the established one, that he had to throw this spanner in the works.

I really need to watch the film again, I watched it three years ago this Christmas...

Pride Fighter

The race of morons, I forget their name, they are far from home and look for things to make us go. They kidnap LaForge and nearly kill him. They make no sense to me.

Also the episode where an advanced species plants a new first officer on the Enterprise, but only has laser weapons tech and they try get the Enterprise destroy their enemy for them.

They dont make sense to me looking back now.

norrie rugger

Pride Fighter wrote: »

The race of morons, I forget their name, they are far from home and look for things to make us go. They kidnap LaForge and nearly kill him. They make no sense to me.

Also the episode where an advanced species plants a new first officer on the Enterprise, but only has laser weapons tech and they try get the Enterprise destroy their enemy for them.

They dont make sense to me looking back now.

Pakleds

Goldstein

norrie rugger wrote: »

Pakleds

^ He is smart

norrie rugger

Heh heh heh

Cookie_Monster

filmbuffboy wrote: »

exactly. there needs to be some sort of explanation, even just one line to appease fans who have been watching star trek for decades!!!

there is: it's a stupid **** film that made a total mess of everything

filmbuffboy

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

there is: it's a stupid **** film that made a total mess of everything

Ah I thought it was a decent sci fi action flick. Very enjoyable.

Annoying it messed with cannon, but you have to admit that its the success of this and the next star trek film that could possibly sway those in charge to give a new tv show the go ahead.

Before this film, the future viability of Star trek either on tv or the big screen was in major doubt.

Myrddin

filmbuffboy wrote: »

Ah I thought it was a decent sci fi action flick. Very enjoyable.

Annoying it messed with cannon, but you have to admit that its the success of this and the next star trek film that could possibly sway those in charge to give a new tv show the go ahead.

Before this film, the future viability of Star trek either on tv or the big screen was in major doubt.

Yep true...it was a decent sci-fi/action flick, & it has revitalized the brand. But, Trek as we all know & love is dead. If this film & its sequel do result in Trek returning to tv...it won't be the way we remember it.

Also, I'm not sure I want Trek to come back, it's a victim of its own success & there's not a whole lot more you can do with it short of more bad guys.

helimachoptor

If you create new baddies.. you need to be be overpowered to make the threat genuine.. however if that means each encounter results in the fed ship get its a$$ kicked then they'll have to de-power the baddies.. hello voyager/borg scenario

Myrddin

helimachoptor wrote: »

If you create new baddies.. you need to be be overpowered to make the threat genuine.. however if that means each encounter results in the fed ship get its a$$ kicked then they'll have to de-power the baddies.. hello voyager/borg scenario

My point exactly, was tried with the Borg. They then needed another baddie, hence The Dominion. You can't just keep introducing new baddies at will, & that was the premise behind Enterprise...set in an era we had little cannon of.

And thats why it if comes back to tv ever, it'll likely be in JJ's universe, where they have carte blanche basically...& again, it'll be vastly different to classic Trek.

I always loved the idea of a show, that didn't have to focus on main characters. 6 episodes of a Starship, 6 episodes on Earth, 6 Episodes on the Klingon Homeworld, 6 episodes with the baddies etc etc & eventually tie it all in together near the end.

downwithpeace

EnterNow wrote: »

I always loved the idea of a show, that didn't have to focus on main characters. 6 episodes of a Starship, 6 episodes on Earth, 6 Episodes on the Klingon Homeworld, 6 episodes with the baddies etc etc & eventually tie it all in together near the end.

Back when DS9 was still being aired a group of old friends and myself had a talk about something like that and we bounced ideas around for a while, beer was involved, my idea was about a story from three angles but I don't remember the details only the outline.

Start: Romulans and something they do, an attack or incident requiring a response.
Middle: Split between separate Federation and Klingon responses leading to eventual combined response.
Finish: The confrontation of the three groups, preferably a battle.

To be done as a mini-series.

FGR

I'd just like a series based on a starship in the alpha quadrant possibly 10/20 years after the Dominion War.

A torn up Romulan Empire, Cardassian Union that's still recovering from the war..Dominion outposts left scattered throughout the quadrant as well as threats that are unheard of from the Beta Quadrant.

It doesn't need to have an overseeing all conquering enemy. I'd rather have the enemy of the week episodes back again instead of 'rediscovering' an old universe.

God I always hated prequels. In the case of reboots I don't like the Trek boot either..

filmbuffboy

downwithpeace wrote: »

Back when DS9 was still being aired a group of old friends and myself had a talk about something like that and we bounced ideas around for a while, beer was involved, my idea was about a story from three angles but I don't remember the details only the outline.

Start: Romulans and something they do, an attack or incident requiring a response.
Middle: Split between separate Federation and Klingon responses leading to eventual combined response.
Finish: The confrontation of the three groups, preferably a battle.

To be done as a mini-series.

a mini series would be great. something one season long. the whole cumulative battle thing has been done to death though. miniseries' based on romulus or the klingon homeworld would be cool too, rather than just simply basing everything from the federations point of view.

whatever they do in the future of trek tv, it needs to be way different from what has come before for it to succeed.

Indricotherium

filmbuffboy wrote: »

downwithpeace wrote: »

Back when DS9 was still being aired a group of old friends and myself had a talk about something like that and we bounced ideas around for a while, beer was involved, my idea was about a story from three angles but I don't remember the details only the outline.

Start: Romulans and something they do, an attack or incident requiring a response.
Middle: Split between separate Federation and Klingon responses leading to eventual combined response.
Finish: The confrontation of the three groups, preferably a battle.

To be done as a mini-series.

a mini series would be great. something one season long. the whole cumulative battle thing has been done to death though. miniseries' based on romulus or the klingon homeworld would be cool too, rather than just simply basing everything from the federations point of view.

whatever they do in the future of trek tv, it needs to be way different from what has come before for it to succeed.

I don't think a series like that would be very accessible to non fans.

Indricotherium

As for doesn't make sense:

The defiant was designed to engage large static cube shaped ships with loads of shooters on it, and yet it can only shoot at things it is flying straight toward.

This makes no sense to me.

filmbuffboy

Indricotherium wrote: »

I don't think a series like that would be very accessible to non fans.

thats a fair point. but star trek as we know it has been done to death. whatever its future is it does need to be fresh in some way or form

Myrddin

Indricotherium wrote: »

As for doesn't make sense:

The defiant was designed to engage large static cube shaped ships with loads of shooters on it, and yet it can only shoot at things it is flying straight toward.

This makes no sense to me.

I'm fairly sure the Defiant has standard dorsal phaser banks. The pulse cannons are for fore, and there are fore & aft torpedo bays.

Can't remember if it was shown on tv, but I'm fairly certain in canon there are at least dorsal phaser arrays on her

GreenWolfe

Indricotherium wrote: »

As for doesn't make sense:

The defiant was designed to engage large static cube shaped ships with loads of shooters on it, and yet it can only shoot at things it is flying straight toward.

This makes no sense to me.

I'm not too sure about this, but I think it was that the Defiant was a very manoeuvrable and speedy warship, so it could zip around Borg cubes and avoid their cutting rays, so weapons that fire in all directions might not be necessary. The Defiant was designed to be made quickly with as little resources as possible. More complex weapons would consume more resources and make testing more difficult, lengthening the time the ship could get to the front.

A heavy cruiser or explorer-type vessel would be much less manoeuvrable than a Defiant-class, so it would have much less flexibility in moving around during a battle. So weapons with a wider field of fire would make more sense on a ship that can't move as fast or as quickly.

norrie rugger

EarthlyPangaea wrote: »

I'm not too sure about this, but I think it was that the Defiant was a very manoeuvrable and speedy warship, so it could zip around Borg cubes and avoid their cutting rays, so weapons that fire in all directions might not be necessary. The Defiant was designed to be made quickly with as little resources as possible. More complex weapons would consume more resources and make testing more difficult, lengthening the time the ship could get to the front.

A heavy cruiser or explorer-type vessel would be much less manoeuvrable than a Defiant-class, so it would have much less flexibility in moving around during a battle. So weapons with a wider field of fire would make more sense on a ship that can't move as fast or as quickly.

I get what he is saying though.
For the ship to do as you state, darting around the cube, then it would spend very little time actually facing the cube. It would spend most time with its sides/top/bottom facing the cube, while travelling around it. Why then does it have the main cannons facing forward only?

Myrddin

norrie rugger wrote: »

I get what he is saying though.
For the ship to do as you state, darting around the cube, then it would spend very little time actually facing the cube. It would spend most time with its sides/top/bottom facing the cube, while travelling around it. Why then does it have the main cannons facing forward only?

2:02 - Dorsal Phasers

Also, close combat like that makes it much harder for larger targets to get a lock, keeping your distance to use your main weapon is suicide against the Borg.

There probably isn't enough power to have phaser cannons on all four quarters, the best all round design is a heavy frontal assault, & secondary weapons for the other directions. If Defiant was going up against a Cube, the manoeuvres would have to be short, sharp turns & rapid changes of direction...cannons probably arn't as effective doing this, as opposed to standard phaser arrays

Kiith

It definitely had a traditional phaser array as well as the phaser cannons. It is a good point however, as it wouldn't be facing directly at the Cube all that often. Maybe it was just that it was cheap and easy to build? Seems to have been fairly common in later years.

Did Star Trek have Newtonian Physics? As in could the Defiant move in one direction, while facing/firing in another direction?

cyrusdvirus

Kiith wrote: »

It definitely had a traditional phaser array as well as the phaser cannons. It is a good point however, as it wouldn't be facing directly at the Cube all that often. Maybe it was just that it was cheap and easy to build? Seems to have been fairly common in later years.

Did Star Trek have Newtonian Physics? As in could the Defiant move in one direction, while facing/firing in another direction?

i don't see why not. burst of thrust to get you travelling, then disengage main engines and use bow/stern trhusters to orient you in the direction of thh threat/target.

remember that episode of voyager (fury, according to Mamory alpha) where they have to keep making minor course corrections while at warp and they automated the course corrections and warp jumps so it was almost seamless.... i'm sure the defiant would have been able to do the same in a combat situation