How can the original timeline still exist?

[tenmei]

I reckon you can explain a lot of stuff that happened quite easily with the simple assumption that people assume that the dimensions diverged with the Kelvin Disaster. It didn't, you just need to think carefully about it.

I apologise if this has already been postulated in the thread.


Prime-verse: In the timeline that we're familiar with, things proceed as we have witnessed them. Captain Picard assumes command of the Enterprise E, fights in the Battle of Sector 001 - travels BACK in time to 2063 and helps Cochrane make his first warp flight. At a later point, Romulus is destroyed catalysing the events in STXI.

Abrams-verse: As we know, Nero encounters and destroys the Kelvin which is the assumed divergence point for the universe. I put forward to you that the reason that the universe is already so radically different (the arrowhead insignia being used on the Kelvin and the ships looking so radically different, to give two examples) is that, in the future of the Abrams-verse, the events of the TNG unfold radically different, Picard doesn't necessarily take command of the Enterprise-E, the Battle of Sector 001 doesn't necessarily take place and Picard doesn't necessarily help Cochrane make his first warp flight - or events are radically altered.

Thus, events in the universe alter from 2063 onwards (and not from the middle of the twenty third century as generally postulated) with, for example, Cochrane suggesting the arrowhead symbol he glimpsed on Abrams-Picard as the insignia of the Starfleet that comes into existence much later (history would record that it was Cochrane who came up with the idea, but wouldn't say where he got the idea from). The ships look massively different from this simple catalyst too.

 

[Nerys Myk]

How "in-universe" could the movie establish that the Prime Universe still exists? Spock and Nero wouldn't know since they left that Universe. So unless there is a third crossover from the Prime-U or someone waves a magic wand that picks-up the P-Universe from the New-Universe there's no way for our heroes (and through them us) to know. So that means we can only go "out-universe" for the answer.( creator's comments) Or accept that since Nero and Spock exist the Prime-U does too.

I reckon you can explain a lot of stuff that happened quite easily with the simple assumption that people assume that the dimensions diverged with the Kelvin Disaster. It didn't, you just need to think carefully about it.

I apologise if this has already been postulated in the thread.


Prime-verse: In the timeline that we're familiar with, things proceed as we have witnessed them. Captain Picard assumes command of the Enterprise E, fights in the Battle of Sector 001 - travels BACK in time to 2063 and helps Cochrane make his first warp flight. At a later point, Romulus is destroyed catalysing the events in STXI.

Abrams-verse: As we know, Nero encounters and destroys the Kelvin which is the assumed divergence point for the universe. I put forward to you that the reason that the universe is already so radically different (the arrowhead insignia being used on the Kelvin and the ships looking so radically different, to give two examples) is that, in the future of the Abrams-verse, the events of the TNG unfold radically different, Picard doesn't necessarily take command of the Enterprise-E, the Battle of Sector 001 doesn't necessarily take place and Picard doesn't necessarily help Cochrane make his first warp flight - or events are radically altered.

Thus, events in the universe alter from 2063 onwards (and not from the middle of the twenty third century as generally postulated) with, for example, Cochrane suggesting the arrowhead symbol he glimpsed on Abrams-Picard as the insignia of the Starfleet that comes into existence much later (history would record that it was Cochrane who came up with

People have theorizied that the split happened earlier, usually citing FC as you have. Of course we've seen Prime-U ships and Uniforms after FC so I'm not sure that works. They've cited the Arrow head too. Of course the Kelvin predates the Enterprise so is possible that the E "inherited" it from the Kelvin. Or the Kelvin and the E could be part of the same fleet and it's a fleet and not a ship emblem. Evidence for this would be non-Enterprsie Starfleeters wear the arrow head (Court Martial for one)

The ship ( the Kelvin) isn't all that radically different. Especially since we don't know what a ship from 2233 looks like.

 

[Sci]

What you call 'creative intent' I call fanboy pandering. A bone thrown out for those who would have been irate if they had just come out and said "yeah, all that old stuff has been 'erased'. "

You haven't provided any actual evidence that what they say is their creative intent is not their creative intent.

What we're actually talking about is canon. The rules of Trek-time-travel are canon. For that canon to be re-written, changing the the context of hours of classic 'Trek material, you're damn well going to have to put it on the screen.

No, because they're the guys in charge of Star Trek, and ST canon is whatever they say it is.

 

[Prologic9]

I'm not sure what gives you the impression I have to prove anything to you, but how about a little perspective;

Why should anyone elevate these off-the-cuff comments from the writers as 'canon,' when they went to far greater trouble to write and produce the "Countdown" comic series to serve as the background for the film, and yet they refuse to grant even that as officially being 'canon.'

Logically the later would carry far more weight than the former.

---

Here's another logical argument. If a sequel were made, and for some reason they clearly defined the events in question to exist within a single timeline, would that in anyway contradict what was said or done in Star Trek XI?

No, it wouldn't. And that right there is why it isn't canon, because if you can't defy it, then obviously it was never defined.

 

[Sci]

I'm not sure what gives you the impression I have to prove anything to you,

You claimed that they did not constitute creative intent. You have to provide evidence for that claim or else you have failed to engage in logical argumentation.

Why should anyone elevate these off-the-cuff comments

They are not off-the-cuff. In particular, Roberto Orci's comments on the matter, in which he cites the "many worlds" theory of quantum mechanics, were quite lengthy and well thought-out.

Why should anyone elevate these off-the-cuff comments from the writers as 'canon,' when they went to far greater trouble to write and produce the "Countdown" comic series to serve as the background for the film, and yet they refuse to grant even that as officially being 'canon.'

Because they didn't make Countdown, other creators did. And because they are specifying their creative intent with the canonical installment -- in short, they are saying what that canonical installment meant -- when they make those comments.

Logically the later would carry far more weight than the former.

No, a comment specifying creative intent for a canonical installment is much weightier than a non-canonical installment produced by other creators.

However, it is worth noting that Countdown establishes that the Prime Timeline continues to exist after both Nero and Spock have entered the black hole.

Here's another logical argument. If a sequel were made, and for some reason they clearly defined the events in question to exist within a single timeline, would that in anyway contradict what was said or done in Star Trek XI?

Yes, because ST09 established that the Prime Timeline continued to exist after Nero entered the black hole but before Spock did.

But, of course, that new revision would then be canonical, because canon is whatever the creators of Star Trek say it is.

 

[Prologic9]

You claimed that they did not constitute creative intent. You have to provide evidence for that claim or else you have failed to engage in logical argumentation.

No more than you have to provide evidence that it does, which you haven't.

They are not off-the-cuff. In particular, Roberto Orci's comments on the matter, in which he cites the "many worlds" theory of quantum mechanics, were quite lengthy and well thought-out.

That's fair, I can't really think of how to describe the comments. Suffice to say I would rank their "official writing" above outside remarks that refer to it.

Because they didn't make Countdown, other creators did.

Then why are they credited with writing it?

No, a comment specifying creative intent for a canonical installment is much weightier than a non-canonical installment produced by other creators.

An artist doesn't get to specify the intent of his work outside of said work, period. If you're a writer and you can't tell your story with your story, then you've clearly failed. Incidentally I was listening to the new commentary for STII the other night, and Nick Myers summed this up nicely.

Yes, because ST09 established that the Prime Timeline continued to exist after Nero entered the black hole but before Spock did.

You keep saying that and yet... it doesn't.

But, of course, that new revision would then be canonical, because canon is whatever the creators of Star Trek say it is.

So lets say that Orci gives an interview tomorrow and reveals that Nero Killed Kirk at the end of the movie. Now I'm certain that didn't happen (I've seen the movie), but according to your viewpoint as long as they say it aloud it is automatically true, without any regard to what is actually on the screen? Is that how it works?

 

[Sci]

Because they didn't make Countdown, other creators did.

Then why are they credited with writing it?

They're not. They have a "Story" credit, which means they developed (at least part of) the outline. Tim Jones and Mike Johnson are the ones credited with actually writing it.

An artist doesn't get to specify the intent of his work outside of said work, period.

Says who?

Yes, because ST09 established that the Prime Timeline continued to exist after Nero entered the black hole but before Spock did.

You keep saying that and yet... it doesn't.

Yes, it does.

Heck, there's Memory Alpha on the subject:

Spock, piloting the Jellyfish, was able to extinguish the supernova by using red matter to create a black hole which enveloped the star, but before he could escape, he was intercepted by Nero, now in command of a technologically-advanced Narada. Both ships were pulled into the black hole, with the Narada going in first.

But, of course, that new revision would then be canonical, because canon is whatever the creators of Star Trek say it is.

So lets say that Orci gives an interview tomorrow and reveals that Nero Killed Kirk at the end of the movie. Now I'm certain that didn't happen (I've seen the movie), but according to your viewpoint as long as they say it aloud it is automatically true, without any regard to what is actually on the screen? Is that how it works?

Yes, because this is a work of fiction. If Orci and Co. make the next Trek movie on the basis of the assumption that Nero killed Kirk, then that means that Nero killed Kirk canonically, and ST09 is simply now no longer in continuity with the canon. That's why the term "retcon" was invented -- to describe intentional contradictions of prior installments in a canon.

Star Trek has always been full of retcons. Probably the most obvious, and most basic, retcon is when TOS's "Arena" and "A Taste of Armageddon" establish the U.S.S. Enterprise to be a starship of the United Federation of Planets when "The Cage," "Where No Man Has Gone Before," and "The Corbomite Maneuver" had previously established the U.S.S. Enterprise to be a starship of United Earth. There's a clear contradiction between the two, but since the idea that the Enterprise is a Federation starship is now the idea supported by the creators of Star Trek, it's the one that's canonical.

 

[EJA]

If we have to accept the idea that the timeline definitely diverged because of Nero's time travel, could its divergence have been brought about by Daniels' temporal police from the 31st century, or a successor organization even further in the future? Maybe this is a new way to prevent paradoxes without erasing any lives that may emerge in new timelines: Whenever someone goes back in time and changes an established event, the temporal police just split the timelines and prevent the original timeline being contaminated.

 

[barnaclelapse]

Captain Robau personally told me that everyone is right about everything in regards to the original timeline.

So, that's it then.

 

[Greg Cox]

I maintain, against all opinions, that the best explanation of the new movie is that there was no divergence from original history of any kind -- that Star Trek 2009 is, literally, the correct and proper history of the Prime universe, existing without contradiction alongside the rest of the Primeverse.

But, creatively, that defeats the whole point of the time-travel business: to create a new new future in which we don't know that Kirk is going to be killed by Soren, that Sulu will someday captain the Excelsior, Scotty will get caught in a transporter baffle, Spock and Uhura will never get married, etc.

The movie made a point of having Young Spock state explicitly that whatever futures they might have had prior to the Narada's intervention no longer apply. Spock was basically talking to the audience in that scene, explaining that the old continuity had been flushed out the airlock and anything could happen.

(Whether that continuity still exists in another reality doesn't really matter since we're never going to see it on screen again.)

Forget "canon" and the "rules" of time-travel. What matters is that STAR TREK's future is no longer set in stone.

Ultimately, the rules are whatever give the new movies the most freedom . . . .

(That being said, I also love Dr. Who's "timey-wimey" explanation.)

 

[Saul]

Just seems strange that will all the other timeline messing in the other series and movies that there wasn't such a drastic change as Trek XI. Xindi attack on Earth for example.

 

[FredH]

Just seems strange that will all the other timeline messing in the other series and movies that there wasn't such a drastic change as Trek XI. Xindi attack on Earth for example.

The Xindi attack wasn't a change. As now established by ENT, it had, in fact, happened a century before the events of TOS; it's just that we (and the writers of TOS) didn't know it until ENT showed us.

(Now, based on comments by FutureGuy over the course of the series, things probably had been changed from some "earlier" version of the timeline, which we've never seen. The changes wrought by the Temporal Cold War created the Prime timeline, just as Nero's later tampering created the JJverse.)

ETA: Hmm. The TCW can even be used to explain away inevitable differences between our real history and Star Trek's. We do whatever we do, then one day FutureGuy comes along, and suddenly a bunch of genetic supermen left Earth on one of the atomic sleeper ships we had available in 1996; you remember those, right?)

 

[thumbtack]

Forget "canon" and the "rules" of time-travel. What matters is that STAR TREK's future is no longer set in stone.

Now, there's no need to be rational about any of this.

 

[Greg Cox]

Forget "canon" and the "rules" of time-travel. What matters is that STAR TREK's future is no longer set in stone.

Now, there's no need to be rational about any of this.

Silly me, what was I thinking?

 

[Wowbagger]

Forget "canon" and the "rules" of time-travel. What matters is that STAR TREK's future is no longer set in stone.

Now, there's no need to be rational about any of this.

Silly me, what was I thinking?

That Star Trek fans are rational. In the words of Neil Patrick Harris as Dr. Horrible in Commentary: The Musical, "HAH!"

And, you know, you're exactly right: the point of this whole alternate timeline thing, the point of all the incredible effort and sometimes contorted storytelling and having Nimoy in it and everything, was simply to liberate AbramsTrek from the canonical restraints of the Primeverse while still giving it a very solid excuse to reference and mirror the Primeverse as often as desired -- thereby pulling off the major miracle of keeping mainstream audiences and canonistas and more, ah, creatively-minded (sane?) fans such as yourself happy all at the same time. So I get that.

Indeed, my whole point in attempting to reconcile the two timelines into one unified, internally consistent timeline relates to that impulse. My reasons are threefold: first, there's my obvious fondness for the old timeline. Plain and simple. Second, I really do think the "unified timeline" theory makes the most sense in terms of the movie's own strict logic, and, as a geeky canon freak, I'm going to argue for it for that reason alone.

Thirdly, though... what I'm really trying to show is that one doesn't need a new timeline to break free from canon, because you can already do anything you want within the existing canon -- give Klingons forehead ridges, put Borg on Enterprise, blow up Vulcan, change UESPA to the UFP, whatever -- and leave it to the hardcore fans to explain away the inconsistencies. Those explanations are usually a lot easier than they look.

In fact, I was inspired in large part by your own Eugenics Wars duology. My feeling is, if you can make the problem of the Eugenics Wars go away simply by studying real history, carefully parsing all the dialogue in "Space Seed," and connecting the imaginary dots (I loved all three Khan books, by the way), and if I can make the problem of Vulcan's destruction in 2258 fit in with the Primeverse timeline simply by using my imagination and the tools canon presents to me, then it will conclusively show that canon never puts any bindings on a writer, because no matter what said writer makes up we'll find some way to make it fit in with what came before. Making things fit into canon is just what we Trekkies do. In fact, I wish we did more of that these days, instead of the incessant whining about supposedly intolerable inconsistencies between, say, Enterprise and Next Gen, or Voyager and reality.

I've mostly been working out my idea for fun (I know: I have a perverse idea of fun), but maybe I'll post my thoughts on the "unified timeline" theory on BBS in the next couple of weeks -- perhaps around Christmas, when I'll have some time to tidy my thoughts together into something other people can read.

Lastly: I do hope -- and believe -- that you're going to be wrong about the death of the Primeverse on screen. I expect that we're going to spend the next ten years in the Abramsverse. Then we'll eventually get a TV show back on the air, it will be set in the far(ther) future, and the new show will pretend to be in both timelines at once, referencing one over the other whenever it sees more writing opportunities in so choosing. I suppose it's absurdly sentimental of me to hope this happens. But, hey, I'm a Trekkie. I think I started out this post with a comment about how rational we are.

Cheers.

 

[USS Excelsior]

Given that there are an infinite number of universes then all timelines exist, including the Prime one.

 

[Traveller]

^Don't say that! I dared to suggest it a few pages back and they almost ripped my face off

 

[DonIago]

And in several timelines they did.

 

[Traveller]

^LOL!

 

[EJA]

The writers of the film are like Kirk. They changed the rules.