I didn't come up with the post so I couldn't explain the logic...but it's not the same timeline is it? It's an entirely different reality. I would assume that was where this particular poster was coming from. Everything and everyone was altered.
That's not true. The filmmakers' intent was that this was an alternate timeline that branched off from the original because of Nero's time travel. I mean, come on, that's why
they cast Leonard Nimoy in the film -- to make it clear that this was a direct continuation of the same reality, merely a different offshoot of it like the ones in TNG: "Parallels" or the Mirror Universe or the Myriad Universes
books. If they'd intended it to be an unconnected reality, a wholesale reboot like Battlestar Galactica
, they wouldn't have cast Nimoy -- or had him quote canonical Spock dialogue like "I have been and always shall be your friend," proving that this is the same Spock we saw in TWOK and TSFS. His presence was meant to be the throughline that tied this film in to the rest of Star Trek
and established it as part of the same whole. I guess some people didn't get it.
What's Paramount's/CBS' official take on the realities, if you know it? Is it "official" canon that there are two, or has the prime one been "rebooted" into
the "alternate"? I ask because I doubt we'll see any canon stuff from the prime universe again.
The filmmakers based their approach on the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics. Their intent is that different timelines coexist in parallel rather than replacing one another. The Prime timeline and the Abrams timeline both exist. The creators of the film wanted to create a new version of Star Trek
that grew out of the original and did not invalidate the original.
Since Star Trek: Online
is set in 2409 in the Prime timeline, it should be clear that CBS has no objection to the idea of the Prime timeline continuing to exist after 2387. And of course Pocket and IDW continue to publish new fiction set in the Prime timeline in multiple eras. There is no intent for the Prime timeline to be "erased" in any way.
Mr. Laser Beam wrote:
^ I don't agree. I view them as different. A universe is a physical location, a timeline is a sequence of events. Not the same thing.
Technically speaking, that's true. However, it is routine in fiction to use "universe" as a synonym for "timeline" -- e.g. "Mirror Universe" rather than "Mirror Timeline." It leads to much confusion.
In physics terminology, a "timeline" would more formally be called a measurement history. MWI postulates that the universe can have multiple measurement histories that are causally isolated: an observer in one cannot perceive or be affected by any of the others. Which means they might as well be separate universes, even though they're actually just quantum states of a single universe.
...and also why the Kelvin looks so much more advanced than anything in TOS.
That doesn't need to be explained any more than the difference in the characters' faces and voices needs to be explained. It's simply a difference in the interpretation of the fictional reality of Star Trek
. If the makers of TOS had had more money and technology at their disposal, their Enterprise
would've looked more "advanced" too. Star Trek
is a simulation of a hypothetical world. The only difference in advancement is in the resources applied to creating the simulation. But differences in the sophistication of the simulation shouldn't be taken literally as differences in the "actual" in-universe sophistication of the technology.
(By analogy, consider a long-running video game series. Do you think of the rather crude-looking Lara Croft of the first Tomb Raider
game as inhabiting a separate universe from the much more lifelike Lara of the most recent game? Or do you assume that the earlier version was simply a less accurate, more figurative rendering of what Lara Croft has hypothetically looked like all along?)