the universe is slightly different too, its the story thats somewhat is similar
Star Trek Beyond...wait for the dvd
- Thread starter Bowser
- Start date
the universe is slightly different too, its the story thats somewhat is similar
Along with the first movie and V'GER
"From hell's heart, I stab at thee... For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee"
Khan's final words.
An inference to Herman Melville's "Moby Dick" and Captain Ahab.
[Yes, I still have a copy of that book, more then 40 years old.]
I thought you told me you went fishing with Captain Ahab
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Sorry. Maybe we're mixing things up.
Star Trek The Original Series and Star Trek The Next Generation are literally the same universe, at different times (there's even crossover).
The premise of ST:TNG is that it is the same universe, a couple of generations after Kirk's time.
And while the formula for stories may be similar, it is new stories with new characters.
Rhoda was a spinoff of Mary Tyler Moore.
Same universe (there's even crossover), similar formula, different character, different stories.
(Am I dating myself here?)
It really depends on how you define "spin-off". In t.v. / film I would see it as anything that is promoting itself as part of an already existing product but with focus on separate characters.
As such, ST:TNG can be argued to be a spin-off from ST: OS. More obvious spin-offs are ST: DS9, ST: V and ST: E. They rely on the same universe / history etc but change the focus in each show.
The new film series is also a spin-off albeit done in a way that gives the series a strong whiff of reboot, even though it occurs in a different timeline - because it is still effectively within the same story: Spock from the OS just happened to go back in time (i.e. jumped to another time-line) and thus this new series is spinning off from that event.
A reboot would be such as The Amazing Spider-man being a reboot of the earlier Spider-man film series - same basic origin story, no reference to those films etc. So it's not a spin-off.
That's how I see it, anyway.
As such, ST:TNG can be argued to be a spin-off from ST: OS. More obvious spin-offs are ST: DS9, ST: V and ST: E. They rely on the same universe / history etc but change the focus in each show.
The new film series is also a spin-off albeit done in a way that gives the series a strong whiff of reboot, even though it occurs in a different timeline - because it is still effectively within the same story: Spock from the OS just happened to go back in time (i.e. jumped to another time-line) and thus this new series is spinning off from that event.
A reboot would be such as The Amazing Spider-man being a reboot of the earlier Spider-man film series - same basic origin story, no reference to those films etc. So it's not a spin-off.
That's how I see it, anyway.
Yes. The new movies are about seperate new characters just as TNG is. The appearance of the original Spock should make that very clear IF nothing else does.
If there are parallel universes, there may be many versions of me but they are not me. They are all different people each with their own lives.
><
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Hang on. Not quite.
Yes. The new movies are about seperate new characters just as TNG is. The appearance of the original Spock should make that very clear IF nothing else does.
If there are parallel universes, there may be many versions of me but they are not me. They are all different people each with their own lives.
><
They are not new characters; they are the same character - up until the split in time.
Kirk of the new movies has the same 30 years of history as in ST:ToS. It simply diverges after that.
Divergent versions of you is not the same as separate, parallel versions of you.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Not sure why you say that. The premise of the movies is that they have diverged from a common history. i.e. any differences are due to new external circumstances.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Because the premise of the movies is that they're not 2 separate people.
Are you denying the premise of the movies? That, up until the visit from the time-travelling Romulans, there was only one Kirk, one Spock and one Bones?
Hmm, I think you're getting into realms of philosophy and the like, with various theories of time-travel up for grabs. One of which is the many-world's theory, that suggests that any jump in time is actually to another parallel universe/dimension that was identical up to the moment you arrived. And where every possible outcome of every decision we are faced with occurs in separate such universes. So when we travel in time we are not actually looping back onto our own timeline but to another universe that merely looks the same as the history we know, right up to the point of our arrival.
Otherwise you are left with having to explain paradoxes... Such as explaining why Nero would go back in time to destroy Vulcan since by the time he was born, if indeed he ever was in the revised timeline, it had already been destroyed, thus negating the purpose of his time travel in the original timeline.
The easiest way to explain it is the many-world's explanation, or some version thereof, where time travel to your own timeline is impossible, and all we actually do is travel to another universe/dimension that is identical up to the point of arrival.
Whether that makes them separate characters or not... who is to say. If one considers character not just to be the biological person but their experiences as well, then perhaps one could say that they are identical characters up to the point of divergent, and after that they are divergent, and thus different, characters based on the same biology.
As said, all a bit philosophical.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
No. I am not. SiaSL is.
The premise of the ST movies is quite simple and explicit.
A time traveller came back and altered events, causing Kirk and crew to follow a divergent path from that point on.
There's no indication whatever of parallel universes. The only premise of the movies is that time travel happens, and alters events from that point on.
I haven't any idea why you are introducing parallel universes. There is only one 10-year-old Kirk, one 20-year-old Kirk.
As a matter of fact, there is no reason in the movies to posit that there is more than one 30- or 40- or 50-year-old Kirk. (There might be two Kirks in alternate timelines, but that is not a given. The movies only posit that events of the future were changed, not that they were duplicated.)
You guys are over-engineering this without warrant.
Using time travel, he altered events, changing the course of the future. The world he came from had a fully-intact Vulcan.
No. The easiest way to explain it is that time travel can alter the course of the future. There is no rationale for a many worlds interpretation
No, it really isn't.
The premise is quite simple. A lot simpler than you're making out.
But ultimately, it's immaterial to the original assertion. The Kirk that first encountered Nero is exactly the same Kirk as the one who never met Nero.
They are not two different characters, although they arguably do develop differently over the course of the movies. (Still, that is due to external factors.)
Whatever the premise of the story, any explanation not explicitly given either in the film or in previous canon is open to interpretation.
Since you can not prove whether it is prima face time travel or whether it is via the many-world's notion, or indeed any other, you are simply whistling in the wind as to any claim it is one over the other.
And since some of those notions lead to the Kirks being different people rather than the same space-time versions, there is no way to prove otherwise, other than through mere confidence.
As for being the easiest explanation, your very explanation to avoid the paradox of Nero wanting to destroy Vulcan is the epitome of the many-world's explanation. Seems you can't escape it, even when you want.
Since you can not prove whether it is prima face time travel or whether it is via the many-world's notion, or indeed any other, you are simply whistling in the wind as to any claim it is one over the other.
And since some of those notions lead to the Kirks being different people rather than the same space-time versions, there is no way to prove otherwise, other than through mere confidence.
As for being the easiest explanation, your very explanation to avoid the paradox of Nero wanting to destroy Vulcan is the epitome of the many-world's explanation. Seems you can't escape it, even when you want.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
No, I am simply addressing what actually happens in the plot. You are inventing constructs to explain it in a preferred way, but those constructs are not part of the storyline as presented, nor do they need to be.
Which means SiaSL's claim that they are different characters has no basis.
The implicit premise of the film is that there is only one Kirk, Spock and McCoy - at least up until the appearance of Nero. Nero is the driver of the altered course of events. So, no parallel universes.
No, it really isn't. It's the epitome of the time travel to the past can alter the course of the future.As for being the easiest explanation, your very explanation to avoid the paradox of Nero wanting to destroy Vulcan is the epitome of the many-world's explanation. Seems you can't escape it, even when you want.
I've no idea why you're got a bee in your bonnet about parallel universes.
O... heres somethin positive i can say about it... it was more watchable than Superman vs Batman.!!!
The producers & director say they set it in another universe so they could tell new stories without following all the previous continuity.
The original Kirk did not serve under Pike. The new Kirk served under Pike before anyone travelled back in time & supposedly changed things.
<>
The original Kirk did not serve under Pike. The new Kirk served under Pike before anyone travelled back in time & supposedly changed things.
<>