Gene Roddenberry said in the book The Making of Star Trek that Kirk was born in Iowa.
If you're going to place your faith in a Star Trek creator, why not pick Roddenberry? Who, again, stated that Jim Kirk was born in Iowa, not simply from there.
Roddenberry's Kirk Prime was born in Iowa, not nuKirk. That was the point I was making before: in the original timeline the Kelvin could have been on it's way home to Earth, where Kirk could have been born then.
Shock or stress induced labour will result in a premature birth in six plus hours for a first child. Two or three hours (or more) for a subsequent pregnancy. Immediately after Robau's murder Winona was obviously in heavy labour, not early stages. Premature babies don't just fall out.
OK, fine, how about this? Maybe Winona didn't want to give birth on a starship, and the 23rd century doctors had a way of delaying the pregnancy until she got back to Earth such as stasis, which was then declared moot when the Narada attacked? You see, in science fiction there's a multitude of ways to explain shit like this.
Memory Alpha had this; The Star Trek canon is generally defined as all live-action television series and feature films released by Paramount Pictures. Strange, it doesn't seem to mention the personal opinions of some guy who worked on one of the eleven movies.
Some guy? It was the movie's
writers, not some janitor cleaning the Paramount office toilets. What you're forgetting is that canon is also dictated by whoever is in charge and writing Star Trek
at the time. In 1986 in Star Trek IV, Kirk makes an offhanded remark to Jillian that he was "from Iowa" (and according to you, Roddenberry meant him to be born there). In Star Trek '09, the script dictated that almost-born-Kirk is in a starship that's nowhere near Earth, let alone Iowa. So guess what? Kirk's line in STIV is now invalidated. That doesn't mean that it's an alternate universe, just that new information has superseded the old information. This happens is Star Trek (and any television show or movie) all the time.
But didn't Prime Spock's appearance occur twenty-eight years into the movie? How did Spock change history, if anything he seem to be trying to alter events "back" toward what he remembers (or misremembers) from the prime universe.
Spock changed history by inadvertently creating the black hole that sucked both him and Nero into the past. It was his fault that Nero was sucked back to 2233. The fact that Spock arrived decades later means nothing; he still arrived in the changed timeline he originally created. And where exactly in the movie did Spock try to alter events back to the original timeline?
As far as I'm concerned you can believe whatever you want about just what universe the movie started in. But Orci and Kurtzman state that it's the prime universe at the start of the film, and that's where old Spock is from too. And that's good enough for me, various insignificant nitpickings notwithstanding.
)
