Kelvin Timeline all but confirmed

[captainkirk]

Alex Kurtzman spoke in a new video about canon and timelines:

"If you are a fan of Trek you are going to see a lot of things which hearken back to the original series and elements of the original series. I am not just talking plot, but the spirit of what that show was. We are going to be revisiting a couple of things on Star Trek: Discovery that I think people are going to find familiar. Without spoiling anything we are adhering to a timeline and sticking to the rules, but also I think finding some new areas and avenues that have only been alluded to, but never fully explored."
"You have got a roomful of people with very different and very devoted relationships to Star Trek in that writers’ room. And that carries on a pretty proud tradition of Trek being written by fans.
You have to respect canon as it’s being written. You cannot say, 'That never happened.' No, no no, you can’t do that, they would kill you. Star Trek fans would kill you. No, you have to respect canon. You have to understand the timelines and what the different timelines were and what the different universes were and how they all worked together. You have to keep very meticulous track of who, what, where, when and why. And we have people in the writer’s room whose sole job is to say, 'Nope, can’t do that!'" (Emphasis mine)

First of all he disagrees with the idea many people here have been putting forward that canon should be ignored. Secondly, he never mentions a specific timeline, but instead mentions keeping track of the events of all the timelines which again makes me think the series is going to start in one timeline and end up in an altered version of it.

Feel free to disagree.

 

[cultcross]

And we have people in the writer’s room whose sole job is to say, 'Nope, can’t do that!

Nothing has made me more concerned about this show than that.

Hopefully he's just referring to script supervisors. If they've got a resident canon rager, they're in trouble.

 

[CorporalClegg]

"No." and "Can't" are two words that should never be uttered during the creative process. (The obvious exceptions to legality, of course.)

 

[Jesse1066]

Alex Kurtzman spoke in a new video about canon and timelines:

"If you are a fan of Trek you are going to see a lot of things which hearken back to the original series and elements of the original series. I am not just talking plot, but the spirit of what that show was. We are going to be revisiting a couple of things on Star Trek: Discovery that I think people are going to find familiar. Without spoiling anything we are adhering to a timeline and sticking to the rules, but also I think finding some new areas and avenues that have only been alluded to, but never fully explored."
"You have got a roomful of people with very different and very devoted relationships to Star Trek in that writers’ room. And that carries on a pretty proud tradition of Trek being written by fans.
You have to respect canon as it’s being written. You cannot say, 'That never happened.' No, no no, you can’t do that, they would kill you. Star Trek fans would kill you. No, you have to respect canon. You have to understand the timelines and what the different timelines were and what the different universes were and how they all worked together. You have to keep very meticulous track of who, what, where, when and why. And we have people in the writer’s room whose sole job is to say, 'Nope, can’t do that!'" (Emphasis mine)

First of all he disagrees with the idea many people here have been putting forward that canon should be ignored. Secondly, he never mentions a specific timeline, but instead mentions keeping track of the events of all the timelines which again makes me think the series is going to start in one timeline and end up in an altered version of it.

Feel free to disagree.

This is consistent though with the idea that it's a visual reboot (or reimagining) that's in full story continuity with the other series.
Well, it could be interpreted that way, at least.

 

[Mirror Mirror]

Alex Kurtzman spoke in a new video about canon and timelines:

"If you are a fan of Trek you are going to see a lot of things which hearken back to the original series and elements of the original series. I am not just talking plot, but the spirit of what that show was. We are going to be revisiting a couple of things on Star Trek: Discovery that I think people are going to find familiar. Without spoiling anything we are adhering to a timeline and sticking to the rules, but also I think finding some new areas and avenues that have only been alluded to, but never fully explored."
"You have got a roomful of people with very different and very devoted relationships to Star Trek in that writers’ room. And that carries on a pretty proud tradition of Trek being written by fans.
You have to respect canon as it’s being written. You cannot say, 'That never happened.' No, no no, you can’t do that, they would kill you. Star Trek fans would kill you. No, you have to respect canon. You have to understand the timelines and what the different timelines were and what the different universes were and how they all worked together. You have to keep very meticulous track of who, what, where, when and why. And we have people in the writer’s room whose sole job is to say, 'Nope, can’t do that!'" (Emphasis mine)

First of all he disagrees with the idea many people here have been putting forward that canon should be ignored. Secondly, he never mentions a specific timeline, but instead mentions keeping track of the events of all the timelines which again makes me think the series is going to start in one timeline and end up in an altered version of it.

Feel free to disagree.

Seems to be saying this is a visual style change, but not a change to canon. Which is what some of us have been saying the whole time

 

[fireproof78]

"No." and "Can't" are two words that should never be uttered during the creative process. (The obvious exceptions to legality, of course.)

Limitations can make good art.

 

[Mr Awe]

First of all he disagrees with the idea many people here have been putting forward that canon should be ignored. Secondly, he never mentions a specific timeline, but instead mentions keeping track of the events of all the timelines which again makes me think the series is going to start in one timeline and end up in an altered version of it.

Based on the multiple references to the original Star Trek, it's clear he's talking about the Prime timeline. They are going to be consistent with that. So, this interview provides more evidence that it's a visual restyling of the Prime universe, just like many of us have been guessing.

 

[Spider]

Based on the multiple references to the original Star Trek, it's clear he's talking about the Prime timeline. They are going to be consistent with that. So, this interview provides more evidence that it's a visual restyling of the Prime universe, just like many of us have been guessing.

That's my take on it as well, and sounds good to me.

 

[Starbreaker]

Nothing has made me more concerned about this show than that.

Hopefully he's just referring to script supervisors. If they've got a resident canon rager, they're in trouble.

Sounds like something Kirsten Beyer would be in charge of, being pretty knowledgeable in Trek lore.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I suspect Kurtzman's idea of "sticking to canon" is somewhat more relaxed than that of most die-hard Trekkies.

 

[jamestyler]

I suspect Kurtzman's idea of "sticking to canon" is somewhat more relaxed than that of most die-hard Trekkies.

Indeed! If I were in the position I'd approach it in a 50/50 way - certain events are 'fixed', but not right down to the "sorry, there's a throwaway line in this episode that contradicts this impressive story point."

Using TOS as a template, there's enough vagueness and most of Trek logic was established later on or can be ignored (doubt we'll be referencing womens command abilities, for example ). There's a lot of blank slate to work with and space is big.

 

[captainkirk]

doubt we'll be referencing womens command abilities, for example

Unless Captain Georgiou really screws something up and some cranky old admiral decides that from now on women aren't allowed to command starships.

 

[BillJ]

I suspect Kurtzman's idea of "sticking to canon" is somewhat more relaxed than that of most die-hard Trekkies.

Seems like he is being intentionally vague...

we are adhering to a timeline

 

[Mr Awe]

Seems like he is being intentionally vague...

Vague?! He was pretty specific! They're sticking to the timeline. However, I agree with others that there are plenty of blank slates within the timeline to work within.

 

[Mr Awe]

I suspect Kurtzman's idea of "sticking to canon" is somewhat more relaxed than that of most die-hard Trekkies.

Well, it shows the intent or what the goal is. We'll have to see what the actual implementation is like.

 

[BillJ]

Vague?! He was pretty specific! They're sticking to the timeline. However, I agree with others that there are plenty of blank slates within the timeline to work within.

Just repeating the quote from Kurtzman: "we are adhering to a timeline". You can explore story elements from the various series without being in the same timeline.

Kurtzman has been doing this since 2006. I'm sure he is well aware of the term "Prime" timeline.

 

[Mr Awe]

Just repeating the quote from Kurtzman: "we are adhering to a timeline". You can explore story elements from the various series without being in the same timeline.

Kurtzman has been doing this since 2006. I'm sure he is well aware of the term "Prime" timeline.

That's picking and choosing parts of the interview. Don't forget parts like this:

"If you are a fan of Trek you are going to see a lot of things which hearken back to the original series and elements of the original series. I am not just talking plot, but the spirit of what that show was. "

The showrunners have consistently linked Discover to the original series and its timeline. You can choose to focus on the "a" in "a timeline" but that's ignoring everything else.

 

[BillJ]

That's picking and choosing parts of the interview. Don't forget parts like this:

"If you are a fan of Trek you are going to see a lot of things which hearken back to the original series and elements of the original series. I am not just talking plot, but the spirit of what that show was. "

The showrunners have consistently linked Discover to the original series and its timeline. You can choose to focus on the "a" in "a timeline" but that's ignoring everything else.

You can explore story elements from TOS without being in the same timeline. Much like the Abrams films (two of which Kurtzman co-wrote) explore more in-depth Spock's relationship with his mother.

If it takes place in the Prime timeline, why the need for word games? He could have replaced "a" with "the" or "Prime" if the series takes place in the same timeline as TOS and the other shows.

You have to understand the timelines and what the different timelines were and what the different universes were and how they all worked together.

This statement could mean he doesn't see all the various shows as taking place in the same universe.

 

[captainkirk]

There's also the fact that he says:
"Without spoiling anything we are adhering to a timeline"
So in the past they openly said it's Prime, now the timeline is some kind of spoiler? I don't think things are quite as simple as everyone assumed based on Fuller's statement.

 

[Mr Awe]

You can explore story elements from TOS without being in the same timeline. .

"A timeline" isn't a word game. It's a recognition that the show takes place within a larger context that they will follow. It's only overly worried Trekkies who are nitpicking every single word like that!

To go with your interpretation, you'd have to throw the gist of all their statements. Of course, the proof is in the pudding. We'll see in the actual show. But, they've made their intent quite clear.