Infinate Timelines

[Set Harth]

It was definitely a pre-existing timeline as far as I'm concerned.

One which just happens to be identical to the Prime before Nero goes back, and which also conveniently happens to be a designated emergence destination for time-travelers originating in the Prime. Curious.

It's quacking pretty much like a duck at this point.

 

[Silvercrest]

Well, that's the thing. Aren't there a certain number of differences that apparently predate Nero going back? I don't have a list handy, but as I recall, they're things that can fall on either side of "intended to be original timeline if you allow for artistic license and squint hard" or "highly similar but existing timeline". I'll have to go back and look them up again.

So, I choose the latter. Occam's Razor. It eliminates the need to accommodate questions such as whether Khan, V'Ger, the whale probe, or Sybok are still out there. Or whether the writers still have to stay true to Enterprise continuity. Those things might never have happened here. It also invalidates the question of whether the Prime timeline is still there. Of course it is. Spock just left it.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

It was definitely a pre-existing timeline as far as I'm concerned.

One which just happens to be identical to the Prime before Nero goes back

You don't know that, and the characters don't know that - you can't. Even if the sole difference is just a butterfly flapping its wings in Alpha Centauri in 2,347,564 BC at 5:47am, that would be a different timeline.

The only way to verify whether the timelines were originally the same would be to check every detail of every thing that ever happened in both universes up to Nero's incursion. Even Q couldn't do that (in his case it's because he would get bored, but still...)

 

[Set Harth]

It was definitely a pre-existing timeline as far as I'm concerned.

One which just happens to be identical to the Prime before Nero goes back

You don't know that, and the characters don't know that - you can't.

I do know that, because I have access to a resource that isn't available to the characters: the writers. By the above argument, no two of the ten prior films in the franchise are necessarily in the same continuity. But we know they are intended to be.

Aren't there a certain number of differences that apparently predate Nero going back?

You tell me. How much do we see of STXI's 2233 before Nero goes back? How much of this can be proved to be necessarily different from Prime 2233? When have we ever seen the Prime universe's Kelvin before?

It eliminates the need to accommodate questions such as whether Khan, V'Ger, the whale probe, or Sybok are still out there. Or whether the writers still have to stay true to Enterprise continuity. Those things might never have happened here.

Enterprise aside, it is generally true that things from previous canon might not happen this time around, due to the so-called "butterfly effect"; thus the Abramsverse, even if not a preexisting timeline, ends up potentially indistinguishable from a "similar but not identical" preexisting timeline.

It also invalidates the question of whether the Prime timeline is still there. Of course it is. Spock just left it.

This is still true even if the Abramsverse is not a preexisting timeline.

Occam's Razor.

Unfortunately, Occam's Razor does not apply to your conclusion, which relies on a mechanism of time travel involving at least as many assumptions as the alternative. Occam's Razor isn't about freeing the hands of future writers.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

If Kurtzman & Orci want the two universes to be the same up to Nero's incursion, then that's fine by me. I didn't know they'd made an official announcement. Got a link?

By the above argument, no two of the ten prior films in the franchise are necessarily in the same continuity.

What do the previous movies have to do with anything? Not all of them involve time travel and even when they do, the underlying logic isn't necessarily the same.

thus the Abramsverse, even if not a preexisting timeline, ends up potentially indistinguishable from a "similar but not identical" preexisting timeline.

Now you're contradicting yourself. I thought the writers already made them highly distinguishable - by making an official announcement about their intent.

 

[Gary Mitchell]

I once ran a D&D adventure where time was beginning to unravel and the adventurers had to stop whatever was happening. At the center of the disturbances was a laboratory with three scientists-- Professeurs Roquefort, Camembert, and Jarlsberg-- conducting temporal experiments.

That sounds really cheesy.

 

[Silvercrest]

You tell me. How much do we see of STXI's 2233 before Nero goes back? How much of this can be proved to be necessarily different from Prime 2233?

I'm thinking more of things which should date from before that year. If, for example, Sarek was provably a different age. But I would need to study the movie again to find examples (if there are any). I haven't watched it in a while.

When have we ever seen the Prime universe's Kelvin before?

Not seeing the connection here.

It also invalidates the question of whether the Prime timeline is still there. Of course it is. Spock just left it.

This is still true even if the Abramsverse is not a preexisting timeline.

Not necessarily. There are plenty of examples in Trek that show timelines being wiped out by travel to the past. Part of the argument is whether that happened here. But if you treat it as a preexisting timeline, the debate doesn't apply.

Occam's Razor.

Unfortunately, Occam's Razor does not apply to your conclusion, which relies on a mechanism of time travel involving at least as many assumptions as the alternative. Occam's Razor isn't about freeing the hands of future writers

Hmm. Let's just say I'm applying Occam's Razor to the debate itself, rather to the mechanics of time travel. And if the writers wanted to do the same, it would free their hands.

Argument 1 is that Spock and Nero went back and diverged a new timeline. Apart from what we see on screen, we have to assume that "butterfly effects" resulted in
1) regular contact with Romulus much earlier,
2) a Chekov who's a different age,
3) a Kirk who quite probably didn't live on Tarsus IV and wouldn't be able to identify Kodos, and
4) an Enterprise that (I think) was built at a different time.

On top of that, we know there are things like V'Ger and the whale probe that existed before 2233 and must still be on their way. Unless Abrams or someone wants to retell those tales, we will probably have to assume that "butterfly effects" somehow diverted those threats, or someone else took care of them instead.

And on top of that, we still have to keep continuity with Enterprise.

Argument 2 is that Spock and Nero found their way into an entirely different timeline that already existed and which currently happens to resemble the TOS timeline. There's a Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Pike, Enterprise, etc. There was someone named Admiral Archer who had a dog. But they are not required to have the same histories. And no other assumptions are required.

That's the option I pick. It's supported equally by what we see onscreen (except for some rather unsupported assertions made by Spock). And it's a lot easier to discuss.

I once ran a D&D adventure where time was beginning to unravel and the adventurers had to stop whatever was happening. At the center of the disturbances was a laboratory with three scientists-- Professeurs Roquefort, Camembert, and Jarlsberg-- conducting temporal experiments.

That sounds really cheesy.

Critics. (Literary, food... it's all the same.)

 

[Set Harth]

And if the writers wanted to do the same, it would free their hands.

That doesn't make much sense. Why would the writers need to "do the same" to determine their own intent? And what indication is there that they wanted to have a free hand to such an extent?

Now you're contradicting yourself. I thought the writers already made them highly distinguishable - by making an official announcement about their intent.

What I was saying may have been unclear. The comment in question was not about writer intent but the relative condition of timelines. My point was that due to the butterfly effect the alleged advantage of the "Abramsverse as preexistent timeline" scenario is also shared to some extent by the "Abramsverse as new timeline" scenario.

 

[Silvercrest]

And if the writers wanted to do the same, it would free their hands.

That doesn't make much sense. Why would the writers need to "do the same" to determine their own intent? And what indication is there that they wanted to have a free hand to such an extent?

I'm just saying they could take that route if they wanted an easy way out of such bothersome things as Enterprise continuity. No indication at all that they will.

Now you're contradicting yourself. I thought the writers already made them highly distinguishable - by making an official announcement about their intent.

What I was saying may have been unclear. The comment in question was not about writer intent but the relative condition of timelines. My point was that due to the butterfly effect the alleged advantage of the "Abramsverse as preexistent timeline" scenario is also shared to some extent by the "Abramsverse as new timeline" scenario

Yes, it certainly is. It's just that there are a few more complications to the latter scenario, so I don't care for it as much.

And much of what I was saying was which scenario I prefer, not which scenario must be true. After all, as long as onscreen evidence supports either one...