Chekov is easily explained, since he was born after the timeline divergence. His parents must simply have decided to have a kid four years earlier.
So it's not the same character. Another troubling implication.
Either that or Chekov Prime was actually 26 in "Who Mourns for Adonais?" and was lying about being 22 for some reason. (Or maybe he was stuck on a sublight ship and time-dilated for several years.)
That's a bit of a stretch, but I suppose it's plausible.
Sure, Bruce Greenwood's Pike is significantly older than Jeffrey Hunter's would've been, but you can say the same about James Cromwell as Zefram Cochrane.
Not really. Cochrane is said to have been rejuvenated by the Companion. The age as depicted in First Contact works fine.
There is no continuity problem in the new movies that doesn't already have an equivalent in prior Trek canon. This is the same false claim that the purists always make when damning the newest incarnation, the fiction that no continuity errors have ever existed in Star Trek before. It's just that we've had more time to gloss over those older continuity errors in our minds.
I'm much more concerned about what damage he's done to the Prime timeline than in what he chooses for his own world. The inconsistencies are annoying, but the real problem is the implications of the time travel.
It's not exclusive. In "Yesteryear," when Spock was going back to restore his own timeline, he wished Thelin long life and prosperity in his. That means he fully expected Thelin's timeline to survive and coexist with his.
As I recall, Picard said something similar to the holographic police officer before ending the program in The Big Goodbye. It doesn't prove the Holodeck program "world" continued after Picard walked out.
Furthermore, Spock's statement to Therin could be interpreted as hopeful but uncertain, or even in reference to whatever Therin's life is in the corrected timeline where Spock is restored to the Enterprise. Take to mind what the Guardian said to the landing party in City... "Your vessel, your beginning, all that you knew is gone."
Besides, the idea of one timeline "erasing" another is gibberish. It's silly and self-contradictory. In order for one thing to replace another, it has to come after another. The idea of a single moment in time coming after itself is nonsense. If two versions of a single moment exist, then by definition they exist simultaneously. They must be parallel timelines, because it's both physically and logically impossible for them to be anything else. So stories that portray one timeline "erasing" another are WRONG. They are mistakes.
I'm not saying Prime universe
didn't happen up to and including 2387... especially since the events of the Prime universe led up to Nero's incursion. They had to happen, for 2009 to take place. However, as in the aftermath of the Battle of Sector 001, that temporal incursion would have ended additional propagation of the Prime timeline (as in the phenomenon witnessed by the E-E following the Borg Sphere's departure through the temporal corridor into Earth's past).
We have seen it: The timeline changes and ceases to exist. You want it back, you need someone who was protected from those changes to go back in time after them and fix whatever was done. Spock Prime wasn't able to accomplish this with Nero, hence there is no more natural propagation of the Prime timeline after 2387 unless it's fixed.
Christopher, if all different timelines could co-exist evenly and without hurting each other as you're positing here, there would be zero motivation underpinning the Temporal Cold War. That makes no sense whatsoever. You're advocating a position that isn't supported by anything in Star Trek.
The makers of the new movies have chosen to employ a more scientifically accurate and logical theory of time travel than previous stories, and it is ridiculous to call that an error. It's a correction.
Christopher, I'm reeling from seeing something in Abram's films referred to as "scientifically accurate."
Even still, though, I don't buy your assertion that it is ridiculous to call that an error. If they decided to do Harry Potter 4 with no magic whatsoever, with the explanation they wanted to improve the scientific accuracy, I would indeed have called that an error, because
the existence of magic and the particular manner in which it works is an integral part of the Harry Potter mythos.
To depict otherwise would have grossly contradicted what came before, and Harry Potter fans would be justifiably outraged.