-4

Being a lifelong Trek fan, I am still bewildered by the Abramsverse Trek films.

The use of the black hole created by the red matter apparently affects space-time much like the quantum rift from the TNG episode "Parallels" (7th season). Spock is not just thrown back in time, but also into another quantum reality. Unlike a parallel universe, as stated by Uhura in the film, the quantum reality would have the changes to objects like starship and uniform designs, character ages and origins, and even looks. This would also explain why Khan, who was born a Sihk warrior at least 150 years before any 'time change' that created the events in the film happened, suddenly became a scrawny white guy. It also explains why the design of Federation ships is so radically different. Is there anything out there that can give a good in-universe answer as to why so much has changed BEFORE the actual intervention of "old Spock" and Nero?

How this is supposed to play out canonically?

EDIT: Apparently, my question leads readers astray. What I want to know is this: Is there a canon-based reason for the dramatic changes seen in the Abramsverse?

closed as unclear what you're asking by Valorum, Stan, Ward, Royal Canadian Bandit, Monty129 Oct 29 '14 at 21:20

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 8
    I can't help thinking this is more of a rant than a question... They cast an actor who they felt would do the best job of the role. How's it different to having an Austrailian playing James Bond? – Liath Oct 29 '14 at 18:39
  • 1
    There isn't a canonical explanation for changes earlier in the timeline, you're right, but if you'd like some headcanon, I like the explanation used in the Flashpoint comics: when Spock and Nero travelled back in time, it created ripples that travelled throughout the timestream, changing other things as well. Totally unofficial, but if you need an in-universe explanation for something that was basically just a casting decision, it works. – Nerrolken Oct 29 '14 at 18:45
  • "how this is supposed to play out canonically?" What is the "This" referring to in this sentence? I am unable to find what your question actually is. – Thien Oct 29 '14 at 18:45
  • 4
    VTC - This is a rant; scifi.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask – Valorum Oct 29 '14 at 18:47
  • 3
    The only actual question I see in here is "Is there an in-universe explanation for Khan's cross-timeline change in appearance?" If that is your question, pretty much everything else should be edited out. If it's not... pretty much everything should still be edited. – jwodder Oct 29 '14 at 18:48
2

There is no in-universe explanation, but there doesn't need to be one. That is not because we should merely suspend disbelief, but because you're looking at the changes in the wrong way. In short, the changes did not even occur, in-universe.

Consider for a moment that Captain Picard in the future doesn't actually look like Patrick Stewart. We're seeing an interpretation of events, like when the Voyager crew went into the Q Continuum. What we see on TV isn't actually how the events would look, were they real: it's just been made that way so that we can understand it in the context of our own lives. Also, because you have to cast actors to play roles.

So when you look at the design aesthetics of the original reality's world, and compare it with the design aesthetics of the new reality's world, you're insinuating that the changes you detect have something to do with that fictional reality. They don't. They're just an updated/altered interpretation for the screen, purely a result of the interpretation having been produced at a different era in our own lives.

Neither aesthetic is the "correct" one.

It's the same as many casting changes (although some are woven into the fabric of a narrative; e.g. Dr Weir in Stargate: Atlantis): nobody asked for an in-universe explanation for Saavik radically changing her facial structure between ST2 and ST3. It's because the change did not occur in-universe.

  • I can understand an aesthetic change. We see a lot of that from TNG on as each series got more money and progressed in special effects technology. I also understand casting issues. You can't recast 70 and 80 year olds and dead people to play younger versions of themselves. What I don't understand is why they couldn't simply use improved effects and a bigger budget to give us the same feel as TOS? I don't mind better looking computers compared to the old "lit jewels" models of TOS, but such drastic changes on such an established franchise seem to be very out-of-touch. – Mighty Ferengi Oct 29 '14 at 19:02
  • 2
    @MightyFerengi: “such drastic changes” – which ones, exactly? – Paul D. Waite Oct 29 '14 at 19:11
  • I listed two in my question, but there is also the question of Delta Vega (Vulcan has no moon), an Enterprise that can now travel through atmosphere and submerge itself as well, Klingon head piercings... – Mighty Ferengi Oct 29 '14 at 19:15
  • 1
    I would not call a Klingon head piercing a "drastic change". – Thien Oct 29 '14 at 19:16
  • 1
    drastic -"likely to have a strong or far-reaching effect; radical and extreme." I do not see piecing to have a far-reaching radical and/or extreme effect. Or to phrase it into a question, "How has the addition of a piercing radically and extremely affected the Star Trek universe?" – Thien Oct 29 '14 at 19:22
0

"...why so much has changed BEFORE the actual intervention of "old Spock" and Nero?"

Don't you answer your own question here?

"The use of the black hole ... affects space-time much like the quantum rift ... Spock is not just thrown back in time, but also into another quantum reality. ... the quantum reality would have the changes to objects like starship and uniform designs, character ages and origins, and even looks. ... . This would also explain why Khan, who was born a Sihk warrior at least 150 years before any 'time change' that created the events in the film happened, suddenly became a scrawny white guy."

  • That's my suggestion, but I am looking for something more in-universe. – Mighty Ferengi Oct 29 '14 at 19:05
  • So what is the conundrum? – Thien Oct 29 '14 at 19:06
  • "The new Star Trek reboot universe is very aesthetically different from the original series aesthetics. Is there an in-universe explanation that ties these aesthetic differences together or explains the changes aesthetically?" Is this your question? – Thien Oct 29 '14 at 19:09
  • I removed "conundrum" from my question in favor of a more direct question. – Mighty Ferengi Oct 29 '14 at 19:10
  • 3
    I see the change, but how does the following add to you question? "I realize all too clearly that the films were nothing more than a chance for Rod Roddenberry and Paramount to make some money... " I feel it is a rant that has nothing to do with your question. – Thien Oct 29 '14 at 19:18

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.