Star Trek 2009 discontinuity from canon.

Hi fellas,
my first post here...
Been watching all the trek films recently, love most of them, especially the original series and their cast.
Was initially apprehensive whether the alternate reality could match the greatness of the predecessor, but surprisingly, it surpassed my expectations by a long way... Superb film...
However, the whole point of creating an alternate reality was to maintain the canon, which a reboot would have destroyed. One particular aspect in the story didn't seem to go well:

In the 2009 movie, it is explained that the romulan world was destroyed by a supernova, when spock still survived.. However, in the next generation series of star trek, which occurs 70 years after the kirk era, the romulan world still exists...

Could you guys correct me if I am wrong or confirm whether this indeed was a departure from continuity?
Thanks and cheers!

 

The destruction of Romulus occurs after the end of all the other series. That's why Spock's ship is so shiny and advanced.

Spock, being Vulcan, was still very much alive through every star trek series (except Enterprise, since he wasn't born yet then). As evidenced by his multiple guest starring roles on TNG. (Like the Reunification episodes)

 

Romulus' destruction won't occur until years after the time frame in which TNG took place. It's still the 24th century, just later in that century.

Specifically: Romulus is destroyed in the year 2387. TNG took place from 2364 to 2371.

 

Aah!
Thank you guys for the clarifications!
Not really familiar with the television shows and vulcan life cycle so pardon me for this question that might seem really silly!
So this movie was perfect indeed!
Figures, as they wouldn't simply have ignored such a large detail..
Thanks again guys!

 

It's both a departure from continuity and part of it. It's what makes having parallel universes so great! I, for one, love that it's not actually a reboot and explained through Star Trek (and maybe even possbily, real life - see Michio Kaku) logic.

But yeah,

- Nero and Spock go through black hole.
- Both appear in different portions of past and resulting actions create alternate universe
- Spock still is the connection to the Prime universe having knowledge of Picard, Ricardo Montalkhan, etc.

I still like to think that Nero/Spock didn't just change the past by going through wormhole but actually entered an Alternate Universe that was "already there" so to speak. This would explain things like Pike looking different, Khan looking different, extra-galactic Gorn, Klingons looking different, Federation ships looking hundreds of times more advanced than even ships in the 24th century, etc.

 

apparently you missed the most important aspect of the film, the part where spock goes back in time and thus begins a chain of events that creates an ALTERNATE timeline. TNG exists in a different timeline.

 

except that this is not the case. the film states that it was the past and that once the kelvin was destroyed, things changed. before kelvin/narada incident, 2009 film's timeline was indistinguishable from the prime timeline.

 

I understand that but I'm looking for a way to explain the many apparent inconsistencies throughout. Even before the Narada's arrvial, people and things looked different than they did from their Prime counterparts. As just one example, the ships looked way more sleek and advanced then even anything in the original TOS movies and this is prior to the Narada's arrival. I understand some have argued that the Narada allowed the Federation to bump up their technology in comparison to Prime, but again things were obviously different before that occurred.

I'm not saying you're wrong and in fact, what you mentioned is what they said in the movie but none of these explain the inconsistencies found throughout the Alternate Universe.

 

Take a look at the videos in my signature - pre-Abrams Trek is riddled with HUGE game-breaking continuity errors. Voyager and TOS can't possibly co-exist in the same universe going by their treatment of warp speed, for example. The new movies fit in just fine as the writers intended (a branching continuity from 2233), IMO.

If Saavik and Zefram Cochrane can look completely different with nobody noticing, than the Enterprise can look sleeker too. It's all the same thing.

 

Yeah, I understand. In the end it's what you and Chowda are saying is correct. I'm just kind of nitpicking and trying to explain away inconsistencies but it's like you said - when the Narada arrived, it created the Alternate Universe. Trying to explain differences in looks, extra-galactic aliens and other things really isn't worth thinking too much about when in the end Abrams and company are just trying to make Star Trek appealing again (or to the masses or whatever).

 

This is being explained in some way in the comics.

 

Yeah, I've heard. I'm guessing it's going to explain something like he actually did look like Ricardo Montalkhan in the AU but for some reason altered his physical appearance using some technology or whatever.

Edit: I think I did see previews of the comic and in fact, he actually does look like Montalkhan so I'd say it's a safe assumption.

 

That doesn't explain the big change in Khan and his followers from Space Seed through to Wok...

Plus, Marla's initial assessment of Khan was "probably a Sikh" is obviously completely wrong.

 

Here's an image.

How is that obvious? Every time I read a story about a Sikh in the local paper, the guy's last name turns out to be... well, you know.

 

I remember as a little kid when I saw WoK how I thought Khan looked so much like a singer for a heavy metal band.

Didn't see that part of the preview. Awesome and thanks much for sharing that!

 

Needs more spandex.

 

Sikhs are forbidden from removing or trimming hair from any part of the body. Khan was clean shaven and had a waxed chest. Also, no turban. That he didn't immediately apply a turban upon his revival says it all.

 

Or he could just be really bad at it: sort of like saying he's descended from Sikhs but he himself ignores the requirements of the religion because "fuck you I'm Khan Noonien Singh bitches". I don't really see someone with a God complex subscribing to religion anyway.

 

Sikhism nowadays is as much an ethnic identity as it is a religious one. Just as one can be a "secular Jew", there's a fair number of sikhs outside of Punjab that either shave or go without turbans.

Heck, maybe Khan was their version of a secular sikh nationalist or something carving out the equivalent of Khalistan out of South Asia and ruling it as some sort of twisted eugenics crossed movement. Wouldn't be the first time.