Kelvin Timeline official Encyclopedia entry

[F. King Daniel]

From the Vegas con:

Effects rippling both back and forward through the timeline. Not the way I'd have liked it (I want Data's head under San Francisco with all his memories up until TNG season 5!) but it's official now. And it frees them from any continuity issues with the old shows as well as the new series.

 

[publiusr]

The way I might have explained it was that--in the final black hole-like opening, Narada was torn to pieces--and those made it to different places in the timeline--explaining the similar looking Romulan drone from ENTERPRISE, the NX-01 era tech looking more advanced than Daedalus only TOS history. That and the time travel story from Voyager lead to to the Kelvin Timeline--with ships looking more advanced.

 

[Christopher]

Effects rippling both back and forward through the timeline. Not the way I'd have liked it (I want Data's head under San Francisco with all his memories up until TNG season 5!) but it's official now. And it frees them from any continuity issues with the old shows as well as the new series.

It does say (insofar as I can make it out with words missing) that a lot of stuff is still the same in both. The retroactive-change idea is just meant to open the door for some things to be different, or to justify the things that already seem to be different (e.g. the Kelvin's huge size, Pike being about a decade too old, Earth's cities being so much more built up). The general idea seems to be that most of the pre-2233 history is the same, but that certain details don't align.

The way I might have explained it was that--in the final black hole-like opening, Narada was torn to pieces--and those made it to different places in the timeline--explaining the similar looking Romulan drone from ENTERPRISE, the NX-01 era tech looking more advanced than Daedalus only TOS history. That and the time travel story from Voyager lead to to the Kelvin Timeline--with ships looking more advanced.

No. Enterprise was always, always meant to lead into the same history as TOS, TNG, and the rest. It was a prequel. It was never meant to branch off into an alternate history. (This was confirmed by "These Are the Voyages...," despite all the other things wrong with that finale.) The differences in the appearance of the technology are merely differences in the real-world technological sophistication of the respective productions. Roddenberry didn't want Starfleet technology to literally look like it was made with 1960s resources; that was just the closest he and his staff could come to approximating future tech on their budget. Which is why they completely redesigned the look of the entire universe once TMP came along, and why Roddenberry asked fans to pretend that the Klingons had always had ridges and TOS just hadn't portrayed them accurately.

Besides, aside from superficial aesthetics, I don't agree that ENT tech did look more advanced than TOS tech. NX-01's consoles had cooling fans, while NCC-1701's consoles were advanced enough not to need them. NX-01 had handholds all over the bridge and the corridors in case the gravity went out, while NCC-1701 was advanced enough not to need them. TOS tech looked more minimalist, more exotic, less practical, and all of that makes it look farther removed from today's technology. And then there are obvious things like the lack of computer voice interfaces, the less reliable transporters, the lack of deflector shields and tractor beams, etc. As long as you can distinguish between the advancement of the in-universe technology and the advancement of the real-world production techniques used to simulate it, I think it's clear that NX-01's tech is distinctly less advanced.

 

[F. King Daniel]

It does say (insofar as I can make it out with words missing) that a lot of stuff is still the same in both. The retroactive-change idea is just meant to open the door for some things to be different, or to justify the things that already seem to be different (e.g. the Kelvin's huge size, Pike being about a decade too old, Earth's cities being so much more built up). The general idea seems to be that most of the pre-2233 history is the same, but that certain details don't align.

I suspect it's future-proofing the movie and TV continuities more than anything else. With two entirely separate teams furthering adventures in the 23rd century, those retroactive bits of pre-2233 backstory continuity (like the USS Franklin) are only going to get muddier.

 

[Christopher]

I suspect it's future-proofing the movie and TV continuities more than anything else. With two entirely separate teams furthering adventures in the 23rd century, those retroactive bits of pre-2233 backstory continuity (like the USS Franklin) are only going to get muddier.

The time frame of Discovery has not been announced yet. Fans have just jumped to the conclusion that it's pre-TOS based on the erroneous assumption that registry numbers increase chronologically (which is disproven by the numbers on the Constellation, Grissom, et al.). And yes, I've seen that AICN interview claiming the number was a hint to the time frame, but I gather that AICN is not the most trustworthy source.

Sure, for all we know, it could be pre-TOS (although I'd be enormously surprised if it were, since that seems like a very limiting time frame). But until there's an actual announcement, it shouldn't be talked about as if it were a fact. It's just a speculation at the moment. Keeping track of the difference between the two is always important.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I only said "23rd century", which Bryan Fuller hinted at himself when he mentioned "charting a course to the 23rd century" (click) at SDCC.

My current guess is that it'll be set around the time of The Motion Picture, as Planet of the Titans would have been.

 

[Kruezerman]

It does say (insofar as I can make it out with words missing) that a lot of stuff is still the same in both. The retroactive-change idea is just meant to open the door for some things to be different, or to justify the things that already seem to be different (e.g. the Kelvin's huge size, Pike being about a decade too old, Earth's cities being so much more built up). The general idea seems to be that most of the pre-2233 history is the same, but that certain details don't align.

Was he a decade too old? Wasn't the Kelvin always that size?

It's something that was always meant to be that way, but the entry above just gives some legalese kinda stuff to cover their butts.

 

[Nerys Myk]

As long as you can distinguish between the advancement of the in-universe technology and the advancement of the real-world production techniques used to simulate it, I think it's clear that NX-01's tech is distinctly less advanced.

They might have even underplayed the look of the NX-01. At times it seemed too close to present day.

 

[BillJ]

From the Vegas con:

Effects rippling both back and forward through the timeline. Not the way I'd have liked it (I want Data's head under San Francisco with all his memories up until TNG season 5!) but it's official now. And it frees them from any continuity issues with the old shows as well as the new series.

It doesn't really mean anything. If Abrams wants the next movie to be about Data's head under San Francisco in the nineteenth century, it will be there.

All "Official" means is that CBS is collecting money from it.

 

[Nerys Myk]

It doesn't really mean anything. If Abrams wants the next movie to be about Data's head under San Francisco in the nineteenth century, it will be there.

All "Official" means is that CBS is collecting money from it.

Exactly. No one making a future film or TV show is going to look at the Encyclopedia entry and go "Oops, I guess we can't do that".

 

[Christopher]

Was he a decade too old?

Jeffrey Hunter was c. 37 when he did "The Cage," set in 2254. Bruce Greenwood was c. 52 when he did ST'09, the bulk of which was set in 2258.

Wasn't the Kelvin always that size?

The point is that it's huge compared to the Constitution class of the Prime universe, so it's a bit hard to reconcile with what we know of Prime starship design.

It's something that was always meant to be that way, but the entry above just gives some legalese kinda stuff to cover their butts.

Of course. I've said in other threads that the original filmmakers intended the timeline to be the same pre-2233 and any changes to be artistic license, but their successors (and apparently the Okudas) have taken a slightly different tack that allows for certain divergences pre-2233. And I feel that interpretation works better, since some of the bits of artistic license taken by Abrams's team were considerable. (Ironically, Beyond actually meshes better with Prime history than the previous movies did.)

 

[Kruezerman]

Jeffrey Hunter was c. 37 when he did "The Cage," set in 2254. Bruce Greenwood was c. 52 when he did ST'09, the bulk of which was set in 2258.

Did the films say how old Pike was? Or the Cage, for that matter?

The point is that it's huge compared to the Constitution class of the Prime universe, so it's a bit hard to reconcile with what we know of Prime starship design.

And the Connie was the biggest starship ever built by Starfleet?

And I feel that interpretation works better, since some of the bits of artistic license taken by Abrams's team were considerable.

I feel that it's silly, everything meshes well. How many battleships do you see in the Navy? None. Does that mean there never were any? Ever?

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

It doesn't really mean anything. If Abrams wants the next movie to be about Data's head under San Francisco in the nineteenth century, it will be there.

And if it were, but then in the next movie someone else wanted to show something from pre-2233 that didn't match up, these two things wouldn't be in contradiction with each other. That's exactly the point: anything they want to be the same can be the same, and anything they want to change/ignore can be different. It frees them up to pick and choose as they please. And it's essentially a blanket get-out-of-jail-free card for any potential continuity hiccups, whether they be intentional or unintentional.

 

[BillJ]

The point is that it's huge compared to the Constitution class of the Prime universe, so it's a bit hard to reconcile with what we know of Prime starship design.

But we know next to nothing about Prime universe ships. The only design we see in TOS, is the Constitution. And there were only twelve of those. Even the local corner of space is pretty big, and it is silly to hold every follow-up to the size of a single type of ship.

 

[BillJ]

And if it were, but then in the next movie someone else wanted to show something from pre-2233 that didn't match up, these two things wouldn't be in contradiction with each other. That's exactly the point: anything they want to be the same can be the same, and anything they want to change/ignore can be different. It frees them up to pick and choose as they please. And it's essentially a blanket get-out-of-jail-free card for any potential continuity hiccups, whether they be intentional or unintentional.

They can do that without a reboot. I imagine everything about Discovery isn't going to line up with seven hundred-plus hours of Trek lore. If it is a contemporary of TOS or takes place near it in the timeline, they aren't going to worry about "Turnabout Intruder" if they want a female captain.

 

[Christopher]

I feel that it's silly, everything meshes well. How many battleships do you see in the Navy? None. Does that mean there never were any? Ever?

I never said they couldn't be reconciled. Before last month, my position was always that they could be reconciled, that there was no reason they couldn't be treated as a consistent universe, just with the same kind of differences in artistic interpretation that there have always been between different Trek series. But after hearing about the new idea that the changes could be retroactive, and after mulling it over, I've decided that I find it a preferable way to deal with certain bits of artistic license that strained my suspension of disbelief. You don't have to agree with me, but I don't have to agree with you either. There's nothing "silly" about different people having different preferences for how they choose to interpret fiction.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I really wanted to pretend all of Trek's time travels made sense and can be reconciled. But the truth is...

 

[The Wormhole]

Ah, finally a visual representation of that big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey stuff I've heard so much about for years.

 

[fireproof78]

From the Time Lord Archives. In reality, they actually started the office of Temporal Investigations to maintain their power after the Last Great TIme War.

 

[ScottJ85]

And then there are obvious things like the lack of computer voice interfaces, the less reliable transporters, the lack of deflector shields and tractor beams, etc. As long as you can distinguish between the advancement of the in-universe technology and the advancement of the real-world production techniques used to simulate it, I think it's clear that NX-01's tech is distinctly less advanced.

I think that a lot of what they were going for in the episode In a Mirror Darkly, when you see Enterprise NX-01 alongside the Constitution-class USS Defiant. The Defiant looks minimalistic in a way that reflects a certain comfort with the technology, while NX-01 looks like a rubbish bin lid with warp engines by comparison.

It's like putting a mobile phone from, say, 1999 next to a brand new smartphone. The 1999 phone has more controls, buttons and indicator lights while the smartphone looks like a flat slab of glass and metal that may not have any physical buttons. One looks a lot more sophisticated, but the other is far more advanced.

And again, a lot of it comes down to 1960s TV production techniques vs. modern TV production.