Will the original timeline ever be restored?

[RandyS]

No, you're missing my point. The universe that Nero changed was one of those alternates that Worf visited. Or didn't, whatever. There are 285,000 realities out there, and the last movie took place in one of those. The universe we saw from 1966-2005 was not part of the storyline.

At least, that's how I choose to interpret it.

But that's not the intent of the movie. It wasn't a story about some weird alternate Spock visiting another alternate Trekverse. The whole point of Nimoy's guest-appearance was for the original Spock, the one we've been watching for the last forty years, to symbolically pass the torch to the new Trek universe. He absolutely was from the 1966-2005 continuity.

Emotionally and dramatically, that was the whole point. Spock Prime was supposed to the "real" Spock, the one from "Amok Time" and "Wrath of Khan," etc. Otherwise, why bother to include another alternate Spock at all?

I think I understand where RandyS is coming from. I don't think he's denying that Spock Prime came from the 1966-2005 continuity, but he may be in the Star Trek XI was already a slightly different continuity even before Nero's arrival camp.

Yes, exactly.

Of course, we all know that wasn't really Abrams' intent when he made the movie. Of course the 1966-2005 timleine was changed by XI, but I was offering the "Parrallels" concept as a reason for why it doesn't have to be. The fans are going to keep bitching about this until a future film reverses it, which it mostly likely won't.

But I still say that those 285,000 universes exist, call them whatever you wish, they exist.

 

[RandyS]

They should have just called it a reimagining, and be done with the convoluted explanations. It would have made for a much cleaner movie that could be enjoyed for what it is.

Agreed.

 

[Christopher]

But I still say that those 285,000 universes exist, call them whatever you wish, they exist.

Has anyone ever said they don't? I'm just wondering why you think there are only 285,000, when "Parallels" explicitly said there were over ten million, and those were just the ones the quantum fissure connected to.

 

[Set Harth]

Of course the 1966-2005 timleine was changed by XI

No, it wasn't.

But I still say that those 285,000 universes exist, call them whatever you wish, they exist.

Strawman.

I think I understand where RandyS is coming from. I don't think he's denying that Spock Prime came from the 1966-2005 continuity, but he may be in the Star Trek XI was already a slightly different continuity even before Nero's arrival camp.

There's a significant problem with that assumption. If the above is the case, why did Spock go to that particular reality? No reason is given. Complete randomness? Whereas the situation as intended by the creators of the film provides a deterministic rationale for why Nero and Spock end up in the Abramsverse.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

But I still say that those 285,000 universes exist, call them whatever you wish, they exist.

Has anyone ever said they don't? I'm just wondering why you think there are only 285,000, when "Parallels" explicitly said there were over ten million, and those were just the ones the quantum fissure connected to.

Given that the nu-timeline diverges well before the TNG era, I'd really expect the nu-timeline not to be connected to that fissure.

 

[Therin of Andor]

They should have just called it a reimagining, and be done with the convoluted explanations. It would have made for a much cleaner movie that could be enjoyed for what it is.

For you, perhaps. But there would be a significant number of fans who would decided that they would be ignoring the film altogether, since it was not what they wanted to see.

An announced complete "reimagining" would not have necessarily been more profitable or popular.

And the general populace, who chose to check out the movie, really couldn't care two hoots whether the timeline has changed or not - but they had a great time at the cinema and many of them will be there again for a sequel.

 

[los2188]

I offer you a different point of view. I think it's same to say that this is an alternate timeline and that the original timeline still continues...agreed? I don't think it was intentionally done, but how about this.....the differences that you do see in JJ-verse like eye colour, hair, ship....etc...can that be explained by being in an alternate or parallel timeline? For example....in the TNG episodes Parallels, at one point and in one timeline, Data's eyes are blue which can be said is due to different decisions made and different things done during that timeline, am I correct? So why not with JJ-Verse? Kirk was born on the Kelvin....maybe earlier than he was supposed to have been. Chekov served about the Enterprise at the age of 17 instead of 22 as it is said in the original TOS. Why? Different circumstances. Now I know that not all differences should be, or are to blame for differences. Troi never kissed Riker with a beard before the events of Insurrection....alternate universe? No. We know that that is not the case. Poor attention to details. But we know this is an alternate timeline, or a parallel timeline, so why not have blue warp nacelles instead of red. Am I making any sense? I know this wasn't intended and it doesn't bother me that Kirk's eyes are blue, but why not just say it's due to different circumstances in another timeline simply because you can and to appease the nerdy trekkers who think all details are important....again, am I making any sense?

 

[Therin of Andor]

I offer you a different point of view. I think it's same to say that this is an alternate timeline and that the original timeline still continues...agreed?

The screenwriters have already said this. And, at the end of their "Countdown" comic tie-in to the 2009 movie, they deliberately show that the timeline with Picard, Worf and B-4/Data continues.

I don't think it was intentionally done, but how about this.....the differences that you do see in JJ-verse like eye colour, hair, ship....etc...

There have been plenty of other times where actors have been switched, or where SPFX and models were updated without mention.

Saavik changes eye-colour and hairstyle in the prime timeline. Zefram Cochrane, too. Senator Cretak changes her face, voice and height. Ditto Tora Ziyal - twice! Molly O'Brien ages years between episodes in the same season, without the alien heritage excuse of Alexander or Naomi Wildman.

But people can change their eye-colour even today: contact lenses. Maybe the new Kirk is no longer allergic to Retinox 5, due to his different life experiences, and the chemical changed the other Kirk's eye colour the first time he used it?

am I making any sense?

It's not a problem worth sweating over.

 

[Greg Cox]

Don't forget Data's cat changing sex!

Yeah, I'm inclined to think this stuff doesn't really require an in-universe explanation. It's a theatrical experience. Sometimes the cast and art direction changes. New writers forget about a bit of trivia from an episode ten years ago. That's just how it works . . . and always has.

I mean, I don't recall people fretting about alternate universes, or searching for complicated explanations, when they recast Darrin on Bewitched. Or when a blonde Mae Clarke was replaced by a brunette Valerie Hobson in the second Universal Frankenstein movie. Or, more recently, when Bruce Banner suddenly looked more like Mark Ruffalo than Ed Norton.


(I have to ask: do Star Wars fans think the universe in which Han shot first is a different universe than the one where Greedo shot first?)

 

[Set Harth]

Kirk was born on the Kelvin....maybe earlier than he was supposed to have been.

I'm not aware of any problem with the timing of Kirk's birth, and the location's not a problem because he never said he was born in Iowa, just that he was from there. And he is still from there in the film.

Chekov served about the Enterprise at the age of 17 instead of 22 as it is said in the original TOS. Why? Different circumstances.

I would chalk that one up to the previous alteration in the timeline.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

(I have to ask: do Star Wars fans think the universe in which Han shot first is a different universe than the one where Greedo shot first?)

There's a version in which Greedo shot first?

 

[Christopher]

....the differences that you do see in JJ-verse like eye colour, hair, ship....etc...can that be explained by being in an alternate or parallel timeline?

We see those differences because the characters are being played by different actors. But those differences do not exist within the hypothetical reality that those actors are simulating. Remember: Spock Prime recognized Kirk and Scott on sight. He didn't ask why their eyes changed color or their voices were different, because in-universe, there was no difference.

 

[Greg Cox]

....the differences that you do see in JJ-verse like eye colour, hair, ship....etc...can that be explained by being in an alternate or parallel timeline?

We see those differences because the characters are being played by different actors. But those differences do not exist within the hypothetical reality that those actors are simulating. Remember: Spock Prime recognized Kirk and Scott on sight. He didn't ask why their eyes changed color or their voices were different, because in-universe, there was no difference.

Exactly. Just like Samantha didn't wonder why Darrin looked different all of a sudden. And just like nobody in IRON MAN 2 noticed that Rhodey looked different.

Heck, in the previous cycle of Batman movies, nobody noticed when Harvey Dent changed from Billy Dee Williams to Tommy Lee Jones! Or, in the more recent Bat-films, when Rachel Dawes was played by two different actresses in successive films.

As audience members, we're expected to pretend that the characters are the same, even when they're being played by different actors. That's all part of the illusion.

 

[Christopher]

^Yup, and the same goes for changes in the design and execution of the sets or ships. Sometimes it's just poetic license. Of course the Primeverse NCC-1701's equipment wasn't actually built using 1960s-vintage dials and buttons and switches; that's just the closest the 1960s production team could get to representing what it would look like. A production team using 2009 technology can offer a different interpretation.

 

[Greg Cox]

^Yup, and the same goes for changes in the design and execution of the sets or ships. Sometimes it's just poetic license. Of course the Primeverse NCC-1701's equipment wasn't actually built using 1960s-vintage dials and buttons and switches; that's just the closest the 1960s production team could get to representing what it would look like. A production team using 2009 technology can offer a different interpretation.

Huh? Next you're going to be telling me that 23rd century Starfleet officers don't really wear miniskirts and go-go boots.

Let's not get crazy here . . . .

 

[los2188]

Oy. I know why there a differences in physical aspects of the characters and ships and such. Different actors. Different designs. Different ideas on what certain things should look like. I GET IT. But I'm talking about it in a parallel universe. Data's cat...prime universe. Saavik...prime universe. Zefram Cochrane....prime universe. Data's emotion chip...prime universe. The Enterprise D bridge in Generations...prime universe. Please don't tell me about differences within the prime universe. I get it. I'm talking about the parallel universe in regards to Trek 09 only. All I am saying is that couldn't those differences be explained because it is a parallel universe? I'm not saying that it HAS to be explained. I'm not saying it NEEDS to be explained. I'm not even saying that it's all that important, but if, and when, the question is posed to someone new to Trek, why can't that be a valid reason or at least thought of as maybe it's due to it being a parallel universe. I know that it's not intended to be, but to me...it would make some sense that it being a parallel universe that there would be some slight changes even physically. That's all. Again, I refer to TNG episodes Parallels or even Yesterday's Enterprise I understand the real reasons for the changes...meaning new actors...new visions, etc. I'm talking about it within the context of the movie. To me, there's sort of a built in excuse, not that it's needed, as to why there are some differences. That's all. And....I'm done....smooth as an android's bottom, eh, Data?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

All I am saying is that couldn't those differences be explained because it is a parallel universe?

In a way just as meaningful as explaining the sex change of Data's cat as an off-screen prank played by the Q, yes it can. There; it's an in-universe explanation. But what did you gain by it?

Really, every inconsistency has an in-universe explanation of some kind or other, if you are willing to except tortured, pretzel logic, or I could just get a lot of mileage out of that Q deus ex machina. The point is, why go that far?

But if you want a yes or no answer, of course the answer is yes, for what it's worth.

 

[Therin of Andor]

In a way just as meaningful as explaining the sex change of Data's cat

People get the sex of cats wrong all the time. We took a young female cat to get spayed once, and the vet suddenly realised it had tiny testicles. My Dad was pleased; it was a cheaper operation.

 

[Sci]

Chris Pine is Kirk now.

When all is said and done, we ultimately will have six hours of Star Trek production, in which Chris Pine played Kirk, then (most likely) he'll be gone forever from that role. Place that against the multiple dozens of hours of Star Trek with that non-Pine guy playing Kirk.

William Shatner is still Kirk.

Screen time, or lack thereof, doesn't correspond to how iconic one's performance becomes. Heath Ledger had about 15-20 minutes of actual screentime as the Joker in The Dark Knight, but I promise you that his iconic performance will be remembered long after Jack Nicholson's in Batman is forgotten.

Which doesn't mean that Pine will displace Shatner in having a definitive performance as Kirk, of course. But it also doesn't mean that Shatner's Kirk will be definitive just because there's more of it.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I always thought that we were supposed to believe that everything about the Kelvin's timeline was the exactly same as the Prime timeline, right up to the point when the Narada came through. I also always thought that any visual discrepancies, between Star Trek in 2009 and Star Trek in 1966, were simply a result of the filmmakers re-imagining what the Prime timeline looked like. I got over that within the first two seconds of my first viewing.

YES! Thank you.

In-universe, the technology and characters look the same. The difference is, we're seeing the Star Trek universe through the eyes of 2009, not 1966.

That Spock Prime instantly recognized Chris Pine's Kirk (despite blue eyes and bushy brows) and Simon Pegg's Scotty (despite escaping hairline and being skinny as a rake) shows that in Trek's world, they are the same.