Chronologies and Timelines

[Mr. Laser Beam]

With all this talk about calendar dates:

Does ST XI do anything with them? Or does it use only stardates?

And speaking of ST XI, and chronologies and timelines: I can't wait to see what Trek novels will do with this. I don't just mean stories taking place in the Abramsverse (although we will probably get those). I mean stories that use BOTH timelines in one novel.

And don't tell me that's a story idea, 'cos it obviously isn't.

 

[Trent Roman]

Like a crossover? I'd hope not. Yes, I realize that the movie itself is technically that; old universe Spock meets new universe Spock, but for whatever reason, the idea really doesn't appeal to me. Too fanfic-y, perhaps. NuTrek and Harold should remain seperate.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I didn't necessarily mean a crossover. *whistles innocently*

 

[JD]

If they were to do a crossover, I would hope that they would wait until we have had several movies to really develop the differences between the two.

 

[captcalhoun]

they should do a story where the nu Trek univverse appears to crossover with the old one, only to have it turn out to be a zombie-verse! *








*this is not a serious story idea. see the Ultimate Fantastic 4 arc 'Crossover'...

 

[Paris]

Maybe just a story that occurs in the same fashion in both universe's. Or rather, a story that fits with both Uni's, where the differences in the timeline aren't a factor. Then it's not a crossover, just a TOS story. I wonder if Dave Galanter's new TOS book, Troublesome Minds, will work with both continuities? I know he probably wouldn't have been privy to the plot of the movie, but maybe the story fits in both...

 

[TheAlmanac]

I think they pretty clearly didn't count anything from non-canonical sources.

Really? The "SD 1312 = 13 months, 12 days" placement seems pretty non-canonical to me.

Your premise is flawed. Although the Okudas did mention that in passing as a "conjectural theory espoused by some fans," they never claimed that they actually based their own calculations on that conjecture. Mention is not endorsement. The reference is in the appendix regarding stardates, and is listed among multiple points of discussion that merely point out the numerous contradictory bits of information and speculation that are out there regarding stardates. That's separate from their actual decisions regarding the body of the chronology itself.

From the first edition, pages 38-39:

2264

Captain James Kirk, in command of the U.S.S. Enterprise, embarks on a historic five-year mission of exploration.

Date is conjecture: Assumes "Where No Man Has Gone Before" took place 13 months and 12 days into the mission, per one conjectural theory for stardates. (The episode was set on stardate 1312.) This system for determining stardates was not adhered to in later episodes, but is at least useful for pegging the start of Kirk's mision in relation to that episode.

Sounds like an "actual decision regarding the body of the chronology itself" to me.

Any reference that seems "welcoming" to tie-in fiction is presumably more by happenstance, or at best neutrality, than any intentional effort at inclusion.

Fine, you explain their movie dating, then.

That's a classic logical fallacy: "If you can't give an explanation, then my explanation must be the right one." It doesn't work that way.

Someday, you'll relax and realise that a smiley means I'm kidding.

I don't know when, but I live in hope.

 

[Christopher]

Maybe just a story that occurs in the same fashion in both universe's. Or rather, a story that fits with both Uni's, where the differences in the timeline aren't a factor. Then it's not a crossover, just a TOS story. I wonder if Dave Galanter's new TOS book, Troublesome Minds, will work with both continuities? I know he probably wouldn't have been privy to the plot of the movie, but maybe the story fits in both...

Given what's been revealed about the movie to date, it would be difficult to write a story that can fit interchangeably in either continuity.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Given what's been revealed about the movie to date, it would be difficult to write a story that can fit interchangeably in either continuity.

For what it's worth, Christopher, I consider "Make-Believe" a story that can fit either place. I've started describing it as "the first Abramsverse story." And I don't even like the term "Abramsverse," because it's a delineation that I feel is unnecessary.

 

[TheAlmanac]

All Star Trek: Enterprise stories can fit in both timelines.

 

[Trent Roman]

^ If anything, Enterprise fits better because you don't have to explain the dichotomy between ENT-era technology and the fugliness of TOS-era technology (indeed, I wonder if we'll get a technological update with the new film); the iBridge looks far more the successor to Archer's Enterprise than the Duplo bridge.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[8of5]

Maybe just a story that occurs in the same fashion in both universe's. Or rather, a story that fits with both Uni's, where the differences in the timeline aren't a factor. Then it's not a crossover, just a TOS story. I wonder if Dave Galanter's new TOS book, Troublesome Minds, will work with both continuities? I know he probably wouldn't have been privy to the plot of the movie, but maybe the story fits in both...

Given what's been revealed about the movie to date, it would be difficult to write a story that can fit interchangeably in either continuity.

Unless I've missed something I'd have thought the vast majority of five-year-missions stories would fit in either timeline just fine: Same characters, same ship, same mission. Why not same which ever random alien or event of the moment pesters them too?

 

[Christopher]

Unless I've missed something I'd have thought the vast majority of five-year-missions stories would fit in either timeline just fine: Same characters, same ship, same mission. Why not same which ever random alien or event of the moment pesters them too?

You'll see. Theoretically it could be done, but only by glossing over the specifics of the chronology, the characters' backstories and certain of their relationships, certain worldbuilding aspects, etc. to the point that it would be a fairly superficial story. Of course there were a number of Trek novels in the Richard Arnold era of the '90s that came close to that, but they aren't regarded among the most memorable novels.

Rather than going for the generic and homogenized, I think there'd be more value in taking advantage of the differences in the new timeline, in terms of tone as well as continuity, to tell stories that are unique to it, that take advantage of the new potentials it creates.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

All Star Trek: Enterprise stories can fit in both timelines.

"Regeneration" won't. It's a sequel to an event that would not occur in the film's future in the same way, if it happened at all.

 

[TheAlmanac]

All Star Trek: Enterprise stories can fit in both timelines.

"Regeneration" won't. It's a sequel to an event that would not occur in the film's future in the same way, if it happened at all.

I think it could still happen, in the same way that Sela could be the child of someone from a different timeline...

 

[Allyn Gibson]

All Star Trek: Enterprise stories can fit in both timelines.

"Regeneration" won't. It's a sequel to an event that would not occur in the film's future in the same way, if it happened at all.

I think it could still happen, in the same way that Sela could be the child of someone from a different timeline...

That's possible. Or, for all we know, the Borg wreckage in Antarctica found in "Regeneration" had nothing to do with First Contact and might have come from the Abramsverse's Borg.

It also occurs to me that if someone went digging under San Francisco post-Star Trek XI, they would find Data's head, a relic from a future timeline that no longer existed from that point in time.

There may be other temporal relics from destroyed and/or inaccessible timelines I'm not considering.

 

[Stevil2001]

If Pine-Kirk went back in time to 1930, would he see Shatner-Kirk macking it with Edith Keeler?

 

[Christopher]

All Star Trek: Enterprise stories can fit in both timelines.

"Regeneration" won't. It's a sequel to an event that would not occur in the film's future in the same way, if it happened at all.

But thanks to the convolutions of time travel, it is a part of the film timeline's past. FC/"Regeneration" is the core timeline looping back onto itself from 2371 to 2063 and thence through to 2152. ST09 branches off from that core timeline in a different direction in 2233 -- so anything that happened prior to 2233, including incursions from the future, is still a part of that timeline's history just as much as it's a part of the core timeline's history. If two timelines can coexist, if the existence of one does not preempt the other, then it follows that they can affect each other's shared past as well. Since it is the same single history, up to the point of divergence.

There is precedent for this. Look at "Endgame." Admiral Janeway came from one timeline, travelled back, and did things that created a different timeline. Her presence in the past of timeline A is still a part of the past of timeline B, because they're the same past. A similar argument can be made for "Timeless," "The Visitor," "All Good Things...," the Sphere Builder storyline on ENT, etc. Heck, the whole plot of the movie is dependent on that principle, since Nero comes from a different timeline than the one he creates, but his experiences in the first timeline lead to actions that have lasting consequences in the second.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Maybe just a story that occurs in the same fashion in both universe's. Or rather, a story that fits with both Uni's, where the differences in the timeline aren't a factor. Then it's not a crossover, just a TOS story. I wonder if Dave Galanter's new TOS book, Troublesome Minds, will work with both continuities? I know he probably wouldn't have been privy to the plot of the movie, but maybe the story fits in both...

Given what's been revealed about the movie to date, it would be difficult to write a story that can fit interchangeably in either continuity.

It'd sure make an interesting Crucible series...

 

[Broccoli]

All Star Trek: Enterprise stories can fit in both timelines.

Which makes me happy, because I love Enterprise.

However, I highly doubt that the TPTB of the new movie are going to consider the events in ENT when they crafted this story/future stories.

But thanks to the convolutions of time travel, it is a part of the film timeline's past. FC/"Regeneration" is the core timeline looping back onto itself from 2371 to 2063 and thence through to 2152. ST09 branches off from that core timeline in a different direction in 2233 -- so anything that happened prior to 2233, including incursions from the future, is still a part of that timeline's history just as much as it's a part of the core timeline's history. If two timelines can coexist, if the existence of one does not preempt the other, then it follows that they can affect each other's shared past as well. Since it is the same single history, up to the point of divergence.

There is precedent for this. Look at "Endgame." Admiral Janeway came from one timeline, travelled back, and did things that created a different timeline. Her presence in the past of timeline A is still a part of the past of timeline B, because they're the same past. A similar argument can be made for "Timeless," "The Visitor," "All Good Things...," the Sphere Builder storyline on ENT, etc. Heck, the whole plot of the movie is dependent on that principle, since Nero comes from a different timeline than the one he creates, but his experiences in the first timeline lead to actions that have lasting consequences in the second.

In short...time travel is weird.