Was the Abramsverse already an alternate universe?

[RandyS]

^ Agreed.

I would have been just as satisfied with a flat-out reboot - it still wouldn't have erased the prime timeline - but one takes what one can get.

I'm with you on this. This is what should have happened.

 

[F. King Daniel]

According to old Best of Trek books and Interstat letters, disgruntled fans have been saying new incarnations of Trek are alternate universes since TMP premiered, with it's radically different visual style and comparatively frosty crew interactions. The same happened again when WoK came along - there were fans who couldn't reconcile it and it's militaristic Starfleet or continuity issues with the prior movie and television series. And then there were fans who refused to accept it because Spock died, because Kirk was an absentee father etc. There were also fans who considered WoK to be the true continuation of the TV series but refused to accept TMP.

I wonder if those people's opinions changed over time?

 

[Therin of Andor]

According to old Best of Trek books and Interstat letters, disgruntled fans have been saying new incarnations of Trek are alternate universes since TMP premiered, with it's radically different visual style and comparatively frosty crew interactions.

Actually, some would say we've been in an alternate universe ever since "Yesteryear" (TAS). Spock mentions at the end that the timeline seems the same since he fixed it, but his pet I-Chaya died earlier than he'd remembered.

When TAS premiered the Enterprise bridge suddenly gained an extra turbolift entrance, Arex, M'Ress, and round bases on the chairs. And Vulcan gained a heavenly body that looked suspiciously like a moon. (And the turboshaft door and moon followed him to ST:TMP.)

 

[Nerys Myk]

We've been in an alternate universe since "The Corbomite Maneuver" (James T. Kirk Universe) and then went into another universe with "The Man Trap" (Red skirt Uhura universe)

 

[Hober Mallow]

According to old Best of Trek books and Interstat letters, disgruntled fans have been saying new incarnations of Trek are alternate universes since TMP premiered, with it's radically different visual style and comparatively frosty crew interactions. The same happened again when WoK came along - there were fans who couldn't reconcile it and it's militaristic Starfleet or continuity issues with the prior movie and television series. And then there were fans who refused to accept it because Spock died, because Kirk was an absentee father etc. There were also fans who considered WoK to be the true continuation of the TV series but refused to accept TMP.

I wonder if those people's opinions changed over time?

I see all the various iterations of Star Trek as essentially separate works produced by different people at different time which are supposed to very broadly fit together -- but not really. I see TMP as the first Trek reboot, TWOK as another reboot attempt. I've never understood the psychology behind the need for everything to fit together into one grand continuity. It doesn't, and it never did. Roddenberry's Trek is very different from Meyer/Bennet's Trek, as the later Berman series are from the other versions and JJ Abram's Trek.

 

[Belz...]

No. Branching timelines specifically do not erase anything from continuity as the original timeline still exists in parallel to the alternate.

More to the point, they don't erase negatives and DVDs in real life.

Plus Khan is a white man in JJverse.

He was pretty white in the original 'verse, too.

It gets very fiddly when people use nitpicks or retcons as proof in instances like this. I hear that Enterprise is the result of time tampering in First Contact, but that undermines the entire point of the series as a prequel to the Star Trek mythos, and breaks the direct links it establishes with "The Tholian Web" (the USS Defiant in "In a Mirror, Darkly" and it's service records for Archer and Hoshi) and "The Pegasus" (as awful as "These are the Voyages" was). It's saying "these nitpicks mean it's an AU but those other ones don't"

I don't know. Trek seems to go either way, depending on the write. I don't think that "predestination" is the default, and the alternative the exception. Besides, if you have travelers from the future, they have to have that future first, no ? In fact, why wouldn't all time-travel events create an alternate timeline ? Aside from the narrative impact of destroying Vulcan, there is no qualitative difference between this and Sisko replacing a historical figure.

In both of those cases - ST:FC, and that DS9 episode - we have no proof that it still wasn't predestination.

No, of course. It's my personal interpretation.

Already addressed: this reflects TMP's decades-old retcon of the Klingon appearance

Which DS9 un-retconned in "Trials and Tribilations."

First, it was a joke. Second, ENT explains this. True Klingons have ridges.

 

[RandyS]

We've been in an alternate universe since "The Corbomite Maneuver" (James T. Kirk Universe) and then went into another universe with "The Man Trap" (Red skirt Uhura universe)

Now that's over-thinking it a bit.

 

[BillJ]

We've been in an alternate universe since "The Corbomite Maneuver" (James T. Kirk Universe) and then went into another universe with "The Man Trap" (Red skirt Uhura universe)

Now that's over-thinking it a bit.

No more than many people around here are over-thinking the Abramsverse.

 

[Nerys Myk]

We've been in an alternate universe since "The Corbomite Maneuver" (James T. Kirk Universe) and then went into another universe with "The Man Trap" (Red skirt Uhura universe)

Now that's over-thinking it a bit.

It's a joke directed at the way some fans will latch on to anything to declare (insert any Trek here) as not of the body.

 

[Hober Mallow]

We've been in an alternate universe since "The Corbomite Maneuver" (James T. Kirk Universe) and then went into another universe with "The Man Trap" (Red skirt Uhura universe)

Now that's over-thinking it a bit.

Actually, it goes back to "The Cage," when Pike refers to the Enterprise as a "United Earth" ship. All subsequent references to the UFP are continuity errors. "The Cage" is the only canon Trek.

 

[Jerikka Dawn]

We've been in an alternate universe since "The Corbomite Maneuver" (James T. Kirk Universe) and then went into another universe with "The Man Trap" (Red skirt Uhura universe)

Now that's over-thinking it a bit.

Actually, it goes back to "The Cage," when Pike refers to the Enterprise as a "United Earth" ship. All subsequent references to the UFP are continuity errors. "The Cage" is the only canon Trek.

Amusingly, we went from "United Earth Space Probe Agency" to "Federation" within just a few episodes after Kirk and crew visited the late 1960s. Apparently their actions in the past caused the UESPA timeline to branch off to the UFP timeline. Whatever they did eventually caused all that "United Earth nonsense" to be abolished by 2079

 

[Anduril]

Word of God from Orci dating back to a Trekmovie.com Q+A has always been that the timelines diverged in 2233, that they were identical before that. ST'09 supports this with Spock's line that the timeline disruption "Beginning with the attack on the USS Kelvin...". Into Darkness seems to confirm this, by bending over backwards to explain how and why Khan was revived earlier than "Space Seed" (all stemming from the Narada's arrival and the destruction of Vulcan), and with Admiral Marcus' models, which include the Aries IV, Phoenix, Ringship Enterprise, NX-Alpha and Enterprise NX-01, all of which are part of the pre-2233 shared past. There was even a scene, cut from the final version of the movie, explaining why Carol has a British accent now. If the timelines were always separate, there would be no need for any of that at all and they'd never have bothered.

The videogame and comics seem to treat nuTrek as an all-out reboot (extra-galactic Gorn etc), but the movies themselves will always take precedence over tie-ins.

FWIW, the novel writers over in Trek Lit have confirmed a few times that in 2387 (their "present" is 2385) Romulus is burning and Spock is falling into a black hole with Nero. There have already been several little nuTrek references in the books, to things that would be common to both timelines (and the whole branching timeline concept was detailed in DTI: Watching the Clock)

There you go. People are still wondering this?

 

[C.E. Evans]

Word of God from Orci dating back to a Trekmovie.com Q+A has always been that the timelines diverged in 2233, that they were identical before that. ST'09 supports this with Spock's line that the timeline disruption "Beginning with the attack on the USS Kelvin...". Into Darkness seems to confirm this, by bending over backwards to explain how and why Khan was revived earlier than "Space Seed" (all stemming from the Narada's arrival and the destruction of Vulcan), and with Admiral Marcus' models, which include the Aries IV, Phoenix, Ringship Enterprise, NX-Alpha and Enterprise NX-01, all of which are part of the pre-2233 shared past. There was even a scene, cut from the final version of the movie, explaining why Carol has a British accent now. If the timelines were always separate, there would be no need for any of that at all and they'd never have bothered.

The videogame and comics seem to treat nuTrek as an all-out reboot (extra-galactic Gorn etc), but the movies themselves will always take precedence over tie-ins.

FWIW, the novel writers over in Trek Lit have confirmed a few times that in 2387 (their "present" is 2385) Romulus is burning and Spock is falling into a black hole with Nero. There have already been several little nuTrek references in the books, to things that would be common to both timelines (and the whole branching timeline concept was detailed in DTI: Watching the Clock)

There you go. People are still wondering this?

It's Trek. People will always wonder about various things. Always will.

 

[RandyS]

We've been in an alternate universe since "The Corbomite Maneuver" (James T. Kirk Universe) and then went into another universe with "The Man Trap" (Red skirt Uhura universe)

Now that's over-thinking it a bit.

Actually, it goes back to "The Cage," when Pike refers to the Enterprise as a "United Earth" ship. All subsequent references to the UFP are continuity errors. "The Cage" is the only canon Trek.

Yes, but your example, as well as Nerys' are small "continuity errors" made when the show (and therefore the Star Trek "world") was still being developed, and so are understandable.

The Abramsverse is a rather large one, with a built-in explanation of why it should be considered a paralell universe.

THAT's why I said it was being over-thought.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Now that's over-thinking it a bit.

Actually, it goes back to "The Cage," when Pike refers to the Enterprise as a "United Earth" ship. All subsequent references to the UFP are continuity errors. "The Cage" is the only canon Trek.

Yes, but your example, as well as Nerys' are small "continuity errors" made when the show (and therefore the Star Trek "world") was still being developed, and so are understandable.

The Abramsverse is a rather large one, with a built-in explanation of why it should be considered a paralell universe.

THAT's why I said it was being over-thought.

Relax, Cupcake. It's a joke.

Whats this large error?

 

[RandyS]

Actually, it goes back to "The Cage," when Pike refers to the Enterprise as a "United Earth" ship. All subsequent references to the UFP are continuity errors. "The Cage" is the only canon Trek.

Yes, but your example, as well as Nerys' are small "continuity errors" made when the show (and therefore the Star Trek "world") was still being developed, and so are understandable.

The Abramsverse is a rather large one, with a built-in explanation of why it should be considered a paralell universe.

THAT's why I said it was being over-thought.

Relax, Cupcake. It's a joke.

Whats this large error?

First, we're both men. At least I am. So don't call me cupcake.

But, to answer your more serious question, The whole movie was a large error.

As for the built in explanation, see the TNG episode "Parrallels". Even Bob Orci copped to using this as his inspiration for writing the Abramsverse.

 

[BillJ]

As for the built in explanation, see the TNG episode "Parrallels". Even Bob Orci copped to using this as his inspiration for writing the Abramsverse.

I'm confused how this is a bad thing?

A writer writing a Star Trek movie uses past elements of Star Trek. Shocking! I hate to see all the fanrage that would've been lobbed at Harve Bennett if he had used characters and elements from TOS when making The Wrath of Khan...

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Yes, but your example, as well as Nerys' are small "continuity errors" made when the show (and therefore the Star Trek "world") was still being developed, and so are understandable.

The Abramsverse is a rather large one, with a built-in explanation of why it should be considered a paralell universe.

THAT's why I said it was being over-thought.

Relax, Cupcake. It's a joke.

Whats this large error?

First, we're both men. At least I am. So don't call me cupcake.

But, to answer your more serious question, The whole movie was a large error.

The movie was a divergence from established patterns, but considerably less of a "mistake" than Insurrection and Nemesis.

 

[F. King Daniel]

But, to answer your more serious question, The whole movie was a large error.

As for the built in explanation, see the TNG episode "Parrallels". Even Bob Orci copped to using this as his inspiration for writing the Abramsverse.

Yep, and just like Data's chart in "Parallels" shows, the divergence point is whether or not the Narada appeared and attacked the USS Kelvin on stardate 2233.04.
[YT]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzUEu7Gb7Cg[/YT]
[YT]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMK0qLVt0UU[/YT]

 

[shapeshifter]

Too bad those two clips cannot be required viewing before access to this forum is granted, might save a ton of repetition where this topic is concerned.