Star Trek: Into Darkness

This forum is for discussing Chuck's videos as they are publicly released. And for bashing Neelix, but that's just repeating what I already said.
User avatar
CharlesPhipps
Captain
Posts: 4700
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2017 8:06 pm

Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness

Post by CharlesPhipps »

Deledrius wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 4:57 am Given that the characters and events of ST09 don't line up with history as we know it previous to the Temporal Incursion, we have two options:

Either

1) Nero's Incursion was not the initial point of divergence, and we can't make any predictions without more knowledge, or
2) The writers are morons who didn't actually plan out any consistency with the established timeline and characters, meaning that any attempts to make sense of it are bound to be wild guesses that don't conform to any logical sense or causality and we can't make predictions at all.

These two movies are about what looks good on screen. Everything else is there as a prop to that.
The method of time travel matters in Star Trek. Daniels destroyed time by removing Archer from the ENT era but the Enterprise crew knew who Mark Twain was when they took him to the future. The Kelvinverse can exist simultaneously with the Primeverse.

Just blame "Red Matter Wormholes."
Thebestoftherest
Captain
Posts: 3508
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2019 2:22 pm

Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness

Post by Thebestoftherest »

I just hope we can go forward, either TR to remake the fun of the sixties today or go forward. I don't mind prequels but make it loser in connections.
User avatar
Makeshift Python
Captain
Posts: 1592
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 2:37 pm

Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness

Post by Makeshift Python »

The whole point of creating the Kelvin timeline was so that the Abrams films could be free to do whatever they wanted without conflicting with the original timeline. Two timelines would proceed onto their own accord. Had the films not fizzled out, today we would have been getting Paramount movies based on one universe and CBS shows on another. Neither was supposed to negate the other.
Post Reply