Kelvin Timeline all but confirmed

[Dukhat]

This show is officially, canonically, set in the "prime universe", aka it is in continuity with ENT, TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY and the TOS & TNG movies. Contrasted to the "Kelvin universe", which is the continuity of the 3 nuTrek movies (and potentially ENT, although this part is debatable after the "effects backward in time"- approach of Beyond).

These are the two timelines that officially exist. And DIS is part of the former, not the latter.

Every fan is of course allowed to have his own interpretation and/or headcanon. Like @BillJ 's approach, where TMP and ENT already were reboots. However, those are fanon theories, and different from official canon.

The point is settled.
Can we please move the "I think DIS is a reboot"-theories and arguments to their respective fan interpretation-threats? And not try to argue facts?

Or maybe change the threat-title to "THEORY: Discovery is set in the Kelvin timeline/ a reboot even though not confirmed"?

I have a better idea. Why don't you just quote the relevant statements made by TPTB which unequivocally state that DSC takes place in the prime timeline?

 

[Rahul]

I have a better idea. Why don't you just quote the relevant statements made by TPTB which unequivocally state that DSC takes place in the prime timeline?

http://ew.com/article/2016/08/10/star-trek-tv-series/
"Star Trek: Discovery will be set in the “Prime Universe” (so in the timeline of the original shows, not the J.J. Abrams reboot films)" (Entertainment Wekly)

http://trekmovie.com/2017/07/06/ale...covery-will-spark-debate-and-adhere-to-canon/

The whole "10 years before Kirk, Spock and the Enterprise" (you know, the original one) in the trailers...?


Jeez, what's with all those "Alt-facts" in this thread?

 

[Prax]

So, I was trying to find the Fuller quotes from a year ago. It was rather difficult to find the direct quotes of what I remember hearing at the time, but here goes:

Collider.com August 10th, 2016

“Since we are doing this series in 2016, and all the other series have been produced in a timeline that isn’t as sophisticated as we are now in terms of what we can do production-wise, we’re going to be reestablishing an entire look for the series. Not only for the series, but for what we want to accomplish for Star Trek beyond the series. So we have to start early on with a touch point where people can understand and have access into it, show them how we’re reimagining Star Trek and then hold their hand as we pull them hopefully into iterations a lot of different timelines beyond what we have seen.”

“There’s an incident and and event in Star Trek history, that’s been talked about but never been explored. To do this series, we’re telling a much more serialized story, to dig deep into a very tantalizing storyline. And we have a character who’s on a journey, and in order to understand something that is alien she first has to understand herself,”
Read more at http://www.comingsoon.net/tv/news/7...eveal-timeline-names-more#pVluBl5MWIHIr4qr.99

“We’ll probably have a few more aliens than you typically have on the show. We wanted to paint a picture of Starfleet where we’re going to have new exciting aliens and also new imagining of existing aliens,” Fuller previously told EW. And will there be a gay character? “Absolutely we’re having a gay character,” he added.
Read more at http://www.comingsoon.net/tv/news/7...eveal-timeline-names-more#pVluBl5MWIHIr4qr.99

Aintitcool.com - August 28th, 2016

"Really when we developed the story it could take place in either Prime or Kelvin so the timeline was relatively inconsequential. But there was the cleanliness of keeping our series independent of the films. That way we don't have to track anything [happening in the movie universe] and they don't have to track what we're doing. And you can have two distinct universes -- one where Sulu is straight and one where Sulu is gay."

Trekcore.com had a slightly different version of this quote. Both are from the same interview on KERN-FM radio(which I have not listened to)

"Really, when we developed this story, it could take place in either Prime or the Kelvin [timeline] – the timeline was relatively inconsequential, but there was the cleanliness of keeping our series independent of the [Abrams] films. That way, we don’t have to track anything they’re doing; they don’t have to track anything we’re doing – and you can have two distinct universes.

I think [the Prime decision] was just part of the conversation. I remember Alex and I talking about it very early on, where it should be, and we felt there was something nice about the Prime universe because there are so many aspects of the Original Series that would be fun to explore with updated production values."

"[The time period we chose] came pretty organically, because we are going to try to achieve a new look for ‘Star Trek’ that is very much ‘Star Trek,’ but also our interpretation of ‘Star Trek.’ I love each of the shows I work on to have a distinct aesthetic […] so it seemed like a good place to start our signature look for the ‘Star Trek’ universe and work our way forward as we tell the stories."

And The last one I found was a Tweet from him just a month ago. I have no idea what he's talking about.

 

[Rahul]

And The last one I found was a Tweet from him just a month ago. I have no idea what he's talking about.

Jeez. I like Bryan Fuller, but his twitter is an assault to the eyes...

Here he was talking politics, specifically Trumps' corruption, and how we (real world) are in "the darkest timeline" (just without the mirror mirror beards). The picture Fuller posted (that's minimized in your pic) was "Sisko -> directly followed by Janeway". As in "the woman Captain following the black Captain". A reference to Obama and Clinton. Where Clinton would have been elected in the "prime" timeline, and in our (dark) we got Trump.

This has nothing to do with Discovery though.

 

[fireproof78]

http://ew.com/article/2016/08/10/star-trek-tv-series/
"Star Trek: Discovery will be set in the “Prime Universe” (so in the timeline of the original shows, not the J.J. Abrams reboot films)" (Entertainment Wekly)

http://trekmovie.com/2017/07/06/ale...covery-will-spark-debate-and-adhere-to-canon/

The whole "10 years before Kirk, Spock and the Enterprise" (you know, the original one) in the trailers...?


Jeez, what's with all those "Alt-facts" in this thread?

Even those quotes will not be sufficient. I'm a fan of healthy skepticism as the next guy, but the level of mistrust in TPTB is shocking.

Jeez. I like Bryan Fuller, but his twitter is an assault to the eyes...

Here he was talking politics, specifically Trumps' corruption, and how we (real world) are in "the darkest timeline" (just without the mirror mirror beards). The picture Fuller posted (that's minimized in your pic) was "Sisko -> directly followed by Janeway". As in "the woman Captain following the black Captain". A reference to Obama and Clinton. Where Clinton would have been elected in the "prime" timeline, and in our (dark) we got Trump.

This has nothing to do with Discovery though.

The fact that you had to explain it was exhausting.

 

[Prax]

His Twitter feed is exhausting. Not only did I feel like a stalker, it's a very uncomfortable place.

 

[captainkirk]

http://ew.com/article/2016/08/10/star-trek-tv-series/
"Star Trek: Discovery will be set in the “Prime Universe” (so in the timeline of the original shows, not the J.J. Abrams reboot films)" (Entertainment Wekly)

http://trekmovie.com/2017/07/06/ale...covery-will-spark-debate-and-adhere-to-canon/

The whole "10 years before Kirk, Spock and the Enterprise" (you know, the original one) in the trailers...?


Jeez, what's with all those "Alt-facts" in this thread?

The first quote is from an EW article, not someone working on the show. The second is meaningless because Kirk, Spock, and the Enterprise exist in both timelines.
I am well aware Fuller stated it was Prime, but as he himself admitted, it could probably take place in either one. And to my eyes so far it's been way more consistent with the new movies than anything else.

 

[Rahul]

The first quote is from an EW article, not someone working on the show. The second is meaningless because Kirk, Spock, and the Enterprise exist in both timelines.
I am well aware Fuller stated it was Prime, but as he himself admitted, it could probably take place in either one. And to my eyes so far it's been way more consistent with the new movies than anything else.

The article is by Entertainment Weekly, a respectable news-source for this stuff, directly reporting from the guys working on the show.

It's not possible to become more official than this.

Even those quotes will not be sufficient. I'm a fan of healthy skepticism as the next guy, but the level of mistrust in TPTB is shocking.

The fact that you had to explain it was exhausting.

I'm a little bit sad, and disappointed in people, that your prediction became reality so soon

 

[captainkirk]

The article is by Entertainment Weekly, a respectable news-source for this stuff, directly reporting from the guys working on the show.

It's not possible to become more official than this.

If it's said in the show, it's more official. Anything said outside of that may or may not have any bearing on what's true. For example, Ryan Church designed the new Enterprise to be 366m long, but they scaled it up to more like 600m. Now even though there is evidence for it being the old size, I will concede that it's more than likely 600m, even though that's not what the designer intended.

I'm a little bit sad, and disappointed in people, that your prediction became reality so soon

My disagreeing with your interpretation of a fictional universe in a TV series makes you disappointed in people? And I thought my life was sad.

 

[Rahul]

My disagreeing with your interpretation of a fictional universe in a TV series makes you disappointed in people? And I thought my life was sad.

A little bit

 

[Shalashaska]

How is this 107 pages long

 

[RAMA]

As if this thread isn't increasingly silly enough...we have a Trump apologist trying to Gaslight us about direct Fuller quotes. Just laughed out loud.

 

[captainkirk]

As if this thread isn't increasingly silly enough...we have a Trump apologist trying to Gaslight us about direct Fuller quotes. Just laughed out loud.

What Trump apologist? If you're talking about me I think Trump is a Denebian slime devil. I haven't seen anyone mention him here before.

 

[fireproof78]

The article is by Entertainment Weekly, a respectable news-source for this stuff, directly reporting from the guys working on the show.

It's not possible to become more official than this.



I'm a little bit sad, and disappointed in people, that your prediction became reality so soon

Unless GR states it, then its always up for debate

 

[MadeIndescribable]

And to my eyes so far it's been way more consistent with the new movies than anything else.

But that's just the aesthetics of a 21st Century film and TV franchise. Unless I've missed something we've seen nothing that specifies anything in terms of the 23rd Century fictional narrative.

 

[captainkirk]

But that's just the aesthetics of a 21st Century film and TV franchise. Unless I've missed something we've seen nothing that specifies anything in terms of the 23rd Century fictional narrative.

Well there's the repeating delta pattern on the uniform that we'd never seen before.

 

[Prax]

Are you talking about me? I thought we were friends

If I'm not mistaken, I thought "gaslighting" is when you deceive someone by constantly making someonoe think they were wrong about day to day details-wearing them down and making them think they are losing their mind, thus gaining a false "moral superiority" and advantage over them, to take advantage OF them.

Someone asked for official quotes, so I went looking for the "prime" quotes. For every remark that Fuller made a year ago, there were dozens of articles that made "announcements" without actually quoting what he specifically said. It was a good reminder of why TV/Film producers have to be so careful of what they exactly say about an anticipated project.

If you were talking about me, I have never used the "T" word on this (or any other forum) and as a general rule shun all political rhetoric to the Abyss where it belongs.

EDIT: Also, regarding Fuller's tweet: I genuinely did not know it was political in nature. It had 25 comments attached and every one of them was about Star Trek. I assumed the tweet was as well. I guess I, and up to 25 others are naive.

 

[MadeIndescribable]

Well there's the repeating delta pattern on the uniform that we'd never seen before.

Again, that's just part of the aesthetics, its the narrative that will specify the timeline.

 

[captainkirk]

Again, that's just part of the aesthetics, its the narrative that will specify the timeline.

True, but since we don't know the story yet all we have to go on are the visuals. And so far nearly all the visuals are based on things from the new movies. Even little things like Sarek's costume. They could have based it on his outfit from Journey to Babel or The Search For Spock, but instead it's based on the one from ST09.

 

[MadeIndescribable]

True, but since we don't know the story yet all we have to go on are the visuals. And so far nearly all the visuals are based on things from the new movies. Even little things like Sarek's costume. They could have based it on his outfit from Journey to Babel or The Search For Spock, but instead it's based on the one from ST09.

But the look of 09 has nothing to do with it being a new timeline, just a new era in filmic/televisual production. Take the Kelvin itself, visually it has more in common with Pine's Enterprise than Shatner's, but is still prime universe as it was built before the split.