I've tried to understand the whole two timelines thing since I was made aware of the fact that there are two timelines in Trek, but no matter how much I try I can't manage to find it makes sense. What's the deal?
What the heck is the point of having two timelines?
- Thread starter carcinoGeneticist
- Start date
In a nutshell:
In Star Trek, much is known about the main characters. Even if not all the events we know about were ever shown on-screen, those events were alluded to in dialogue to an extent that we "know" the outcome of stories we haven't seen.
Setting these newer stories in an alternate timeline was a way of making outcomes uncertain again: we don't "know" what happens to these characters because we haven't yet seen the future of this timeline.
In terms of the timeline itself:
At the time the original Star Trek stories were written, the prevailing real-world theory held that there was a single timeline -- you could go forward; you could go back; you could alter something and break the timeline, such that it would need to be "fixed" in order to "restore" things to "the way they should be".
Since then, real-world theory has acknowledged other possibilities, including one which says that any significant decision point has the potential to lead to more than one outcome -- or more than one timeline.
en.wikipedia.org
In Star Trek, much is known about the main characters. Even if not all the events we know about were ever shown on-screen, those events were alluded to in dialogue to an extent that we "know" the outcome of stories we haven't seen.
Setting these newer stories in an alternate timeline was a way of making outcomes uncertain again: we don't "know" what happens to these characters because we haven't yet seen the future of this timeline.
In terms of the timeline itself:
At the time the original Star Trek stories were written, the prevailing real-world theory held that there was a single timeline -- you could go forward; you could go back; you could alter something and break the timeline, such that it would need to be "fixed" in order to "restore" things to "the way they should be".
Since then, real-world theory has acknowledged other possibilities, including one which says that any significant decision point has the potential to lead to more than one outcome -- or more than one timeline.
Tree diagram (probability theory) - Wikipedia
The Kelvin Timeline is a contrivance to allow the creative flexibility of storylines that don't stick strictly to established continuity.
Personally I went into ST09 "blind" and expected it to be a direct prequel to TOS itself. But then the story went in unexpected directions like having the planet Vulcan destroyed. The "alternate reality" concept was good enough for me.
Trek fandom generally expects everything to fit together, instead of accepting completely different and unconnected continuities like you see with comic book franchises or anime.
Kor
Personally I went into ST09 "blind" and expected it to be a direct prequel to TOS itself. But then the story went in unexpected directions like having the planet Vulcan destroyed. The "alternate reality" concept was good enough for me.
Trek fandom generally expects everything to fit together, instead of accepting completely different and unconnected continuities like you see with comic book franchises or anime.
Kor
It allows everything old to co-exist with everything new. Spock Prime only leaves the prime timeline after all his episode appearances, so they're intact, too.
Multiple Timelines also allow contradiction in newer works that take place during or before existing works.
It's the easiest / path of least resistance to fixing issues that occur with cannon over a Franchise with 58+ years of IRL content.
It was literally so the movie people could do whatever they wanted without having to worry about what the TV people were doing, back when the Star Trek rights were split between Paramount (movies) and CBS (tv). Now the companies have re-merged and the movies fizzled out due to Paramount's financial struggles so it's kind of just a thing they did for awhile.
There's actually several timelines in Trek, and have been since TOS. There was the Mirror Universe, Lazarus B's universe, and then Kelvin.
In TNG'S parallels we are shown branches of time from various decisions with Worf implying multiple timelines at play.
Then in Voyager there are different timelines referenced that Braxton is from and needs reintegration with his temporal selves.
Plus, Daniels in Enterprise shows us a timeline where the Enterprise J exists but altered by other events from various factions.
There is no point.
Personally, I view it as another universe that was altered by Nero. That's it. All the rest of it about an alternate timeline seems oversimplified nonsense, especially after Lower Decks and Prodigy, and even Strange New Worlds.
Basically, yeah. But it's more that the filmmakers wanted the creative freedom to tell whatever stories they needed to, rather than be limited by established continuity. Since they were revisiting the franchise's most famous characters, telling stories about Kirk and crew just a decade or so before TOS, they would've been more restricted than something like Enterprise that focused on new characters in an unexplored time. Making it an alternate timeline freed them up to go wherever the stories took them. (Although the second movie kind of threw that out the window when they decided to rehash Khan.)
At the time the original Star Trek stories were written, the prevailing real-world theory held that there was a single timeline -- you could go forward; you could go back; you could alter something and break the timeline, such that it would need to be "fixed" in order to "restore" things to "the way they should be".
Since then, real-world theory has acknowledged other possibilities, including one which says that any significant decision point has the potential to lead to more than one outcome -- or more than one timeline.
Tree diagram (probability theory) - Wikipedia
Not exactly. The relative state formulation (the "many-worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics) was proposed by John Wheeler in 1957. And parallel timelines as a story device have been part of science fiction since at least Murray Leinster's "Sideways in Time" in 1934. So the possibility was certainly known then, which is why TOS gave us "Mirror, Mirror."
What's changed is that more recent theoretical work has solidified the case for the MWI, as well as demonstrating mathematically that time travellers would either be constrained to create their own future (because they'd quantum-correlate the past with the present they came from so that it's the only timeline they can perceive resulting from it) or would split onto all possible quantum paths at once, including the original timeline as well as any alternatives that might result from the time travel. Either way, the original timeline could never be "erased" like in fiction.
Yes, I find it strange that Trek fans are so hostile to the idea of having more than one continuity, when so many other franchises have many continuities.
Especially when this Trek's already established precedents allow for both to co-exist and interact, which many other franchises don't.
My personal theory on why they went for "alternate timeline" instead of "it's a reboot, cope," is that:
-On the one hand, we're right in the middle of the Battlestar Galactica reboot and all the fan backlash that was happening there. Especially during pre-production of the 2006 movie, the dust wouldn't have settled yet. I'm sure many of the powers-that-were were concerned about a similar fan backlash if they just straight up reset everything. An "alternate timeline" that's established as part of the storytelling may well have seemed like a good way around that. (And possibly would have worked if they'd handled it better.)
-On the other hand, doing the "alternate timeline" approach meant they could do the Nimoy crossover and so in a way, have their cake and eat it too, getting the creative freedom to do basically whatever they wanted and getting the nostalgia bump by having the classic actor be present.
Ultimately, the main problem with the Abrams movies is nothing to do with the "alternate timeline" being handled poorly (though it was), it's because Abrams knew nothing about Trek and the movies play more as Star Wars than Star Trek. The Force Awakens may be a rushed, derivative rehash of Star Wars, but at least it fits in the world, tonally and thematically. Star Trek (2006) and even more so Into Darkness both forget the fundamental message of Star Trek as a franchise - which is that there's hope. If we only try to look for fair and non-violent solutions to problems, we may not find a perfect answer but we can make the world better.
I could deal with the glitches in continuity. I love SNW and I'm a huge fan of Macross, which is a franchise that does not give two hoots about continuity between series. But the movies just don't hold up to the themes and ideals that Trek represents to me. So I don't own them and I don't watch them and I get on with my life - but I do talk about why I don't watch them to encourage creatives of all sorts to make sure their Trek story fits the themes.
Sorry, that got off track, but I needed to vent. Happy Friday!
-On the one hand, we're right in the middle of the Battlestar Galactica reboot and all the fan backlash that was happening there. Especially during pre-production of the 2006 movie, the dust wouldn't have settled yet. I'm sure many of the powers-that-were were concerned about a similar fan backlash if they just straight up reset everything. An "alternate timeline" that's established as part of the storytelling may well have seemed like a good way around that. (And possibly would have worked if they'd handled it better.)
-On the other hand, doing the "alternate timeline" approach meant they could do the Nimoy crossover and so in a way, have their cake and eat it too, getting the creative freedom to do basically whatever they wanted and getting the nostalgia bump by having the classic actor be present.
Ultimately, the main problem with the Abrams movies is nothing to do with the "alternate timeline" being handled poorly (though it was), it's because Abrams knew nothing about Trek and the movies play more as Star Wars than Star Trek. The Force Awakens may be a rushed, derivative rehash of Star Wars, but at least it fits in the world, tonally and thematically. Star Trek (2006) and even more so Into Darkness both forget the fundamental message of Star Trek as a franchise - which is that there's hope. If we only try to look for fair and non-violent solutions to problems, we may not find a perfect answer but we can make the world better.
I could deal with the glitches in continuity. I love SNW and I'm a huge fan of Macross, which is a franchise that does not give two hoots about continuity between series. But the movies just don't hold up to the themes and ideals that Trek represents to me. So I don't own them and I don't watch them and I get on with my life - but I do talk about why I don't watch them to encourage creatives of all sorts to make sure their Trek story fits the themes.
Sorry, that got off track, but I needed to vent. Happy Friday!
Perhaps, but people who try to theorize about creators making decisions based on fan reactions tend to forget that creators can be fans too. The "Supreme Court" Abrams assembled to make the movies -- himself, Bryan Burk, Damon Lindelof, Roberto Orci, and Alex Kurtzman -- included two hardcore Trek fans, a moderate fan, and two non-fans, so they could make something that worked for old and new audiences alike. I think they just didn't want to break entirely from the old continuity because of their own attachment and respect toward it, as well as recognition of the larger fanbase's attachment. As with the composition of the "Court" itself, they wanted to strike a balance between being true to the continuity and being free to go their own way.
Also, was there really that much backlash to the Galactica reboot? Modern BSG fandom likes to pretend that they were always some huge fanbase rivalling Trek's, but that's revisionist history. The original BSG was a flop, its ratings starting out strong but quickly plummeting, and it was only partially syndicated afterward as TV movies, so it didn't have as much chance to build a large fanbase in reruns as Trek did. At most, it had a small but loyal cult following. If there was any perception of backlash, it's only because the Internet allows a tiny minority of complainers to draw disproportionate attention to their angry ravings and make it seem like they represent some larger movement.
As I said, there was a 5-person team, 3 of whom had moderate to encyclopedic knowledge of Trek. No film is made by just one person. Abrams had plenty of Trek knowledge at his disposal. He just chose to take a new approach to it, because that was the point of the exercise from the beginning. After the cancellation of Enterprise, there was a perception that "franchise fatigue" had set in, that there was no longer a sufficient audience for the franchise in its previous mode. And most of the previous Trek movies had been midlevel successes at best, nowhere near as profitable as the huge blockbusters that had come to dominate the industry. So the studio's goal was to reinvent Trek for a new, modern moviegoing audience, to make it appeal to people who weren't into Trek before. That wasn't out of Abrams's ignorance, it was simply what Paramount hired him to do. They would've asked the same of whatever director they hired. They chose Abrams because of his success at reviving another Paramount property, Mission: Impossible. (He started with M:I 3, but that was six years after the previous movie, so it did constitute a revival.)
The problem with comparing Abrams's Trek work to his Star Wars work is that the power dynamic is different. On ST, Abrams and Bad Robot were given full creative control to reinvent the franchise however they wished. On SW, Abrams was a hired gun answering to Kathleen Kennedy and obligated to keep the films consistent with her vision of the continuity and style of the series. Also, people are bizarrely determined to ignore the fact that The Force Awakens was at least as much the work of Lawrence Kasdan, the co-writer of The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi, as it was Abrams's work.
My head canon is that every single episode takes place in a timeline of its own, which is closely related, but not necessarily identical to the timelines of other episodes in the same series.
That way, I never have to worry about inconsistencies between individual episodes
(I'm not serious, of course. But even if I were, so what? This is only fiction and entertainment we're talking about. Consistency isn't a sacred thing for me as a viewer. If I were a writer though, things would be different.)
He should have left the Kelvin timeline, too. We don't know that there wasn't something he was supposed to do in the Prime timeline that he didn't do because he was no longer there to do it.
Similar threads
