Was the Abramsverse already an alternate universe?

[C.E. Evans]

In this case, I think they did. Or as close as they could with totally breaking the fourth wall.

I had already amended my post to say that I think what's said onscreen counts more--and the only thing said onscreen was that Nero changed a timeline of events. Whether that timeline was of the original universe or an already alternate universe still remains debatable. It really can go either way, depending on how you want to roll with it.

It's a bit hard to say you're from a specific timeline with in the context of the story. You can place the dots and hope the viewer will draw the lines. If they want to ignore the dots for what ever reason, that's not the writers' fault.

It just means that the situation is subject to more than one interpretation. Many stories have been written that people can look at in different ways.

 

[-Brett-]

I just figured that the NuTrek universe was shifted to an alternate timeline going both forwards and backwarsd in time from the point of divergence of Nero's arrival.

How is that possible? There's no logical way that Nero's arrival could have affected the past - only the present and anything derived from it.

The Enterprise-E will no longer be around for first contact. Or if it is, it'll be the NuEnterprise-E and it'll do things very differently. Just one example. Every event pre-2233 influenced by a time traveler from post-2233 will have been altered.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I had already amended my post to say that I think what's said onscreen counts more--and the only thing said onscreen was that Nero changed a timeline of events. Whether that timeline was of the original universe or an already alternate universe still remains debatable. It really can go either way, depending on how you want to roll with it.

It's a bit hard to say you're from a specific timeline with in the context of the story. You can place the dots and hope the viewer will draw the lines. If they want to ignore the dots for what ever reason, that's not the writers' fault.

It just means that the situation is subject to more than one interpretation. Many stories have been written that people can look at in different ways.

I don't think this is one of them.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

The Enterprise-E will no longer be around for first contact. Or if it is, it'll be the NuEnterprise-E and it'll do things very differently. Just one example. Every event pre-2233 influenced by a time traveler from post-2233 will have been altered.

Incorrect. The prime timeline still exists. It hasn't been erased.

 

[Lance]

The question asked by this thread is whether, like the Mirror universe, the nuTrekverse has existed parallel to the 'Prime' timeline all along, rather than splintering from some specific incident.

Spock etc theorize that the destruction of the Kelvin was the point where the timeline changed, but truthfully... I take that just as Spock throwing out a hypothetical. There's enough evidence on-screen (IMO) to suggest that even before the arrivial of the Narada, the nuTrekverse was already very much in established, and very different to how the 'Prime' universe was at the same point in time.

The Kelvin incident obviously had ramifications for James T. Kirk personally, making a difference to *his* life and changing him as a person, but it doesn't in itself explain the sheer number of things that are different in the 'new' universe more broadly.

 

[C.E. Evans]

It's a bit hard to say you're from a specific timeline with in the context of the story. You can place the dots and hope the viewer will draw the lines. If they want to ignore the dots for what ever reason, that's not the writers' fault.

It just means that the situation is subject to more than one interpretation. Many stories have been written that people can look at in different ways.

I don't think this is one of them.

This thread actually proves that it is one of them, or else the idea wouldn't be questioned.

 

[F. King Daniel]

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"

Is White Khan proof of an AU dating back to the 70's? IMO only if Wrath of Khan is an AU to "Space Seed" also, because in the latter Khan has Montelban's natural white skin tone and had his followers changed into Aryan youths. Does a change in accent justify it? Or a change in Saavik's or Cochrane's or Kahless not having head bumps in TOS but having them in TNG? I guess I'm all or nothing - if one nitpick is okay then all similar ones throughout Trek have to be too. Each to their own - even if I similarly think it undermines the effort gone to to explain Khan's backstory and earlier resurrection in ID if he wasn't the same floating popsicle found by Kirk Prime in "Space Seed"

 

[C.E. Evans]

In such a case, a good course of action--IMO--is to do what most of the world does: not take this stuff too seriously.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Definitely the best course of action

 

[Set Harth]

Is White Khan proof of an AU dating back to the 70's?

Absolutely not, unless we're redefining the term "proof", for the simple reason that we never get to see Khan in the Abramsverse before Marcus and 31 get their hands on him. In other words the situation indicated by the IDW comic, though not considered "canon", cannot be disproved.

If, for example, the writers never thought about it one way or the other

That isn't exactly what we would call a workable standard. "Maybe the writers didn't care"? Really? How would such a thing be established? It breaks down to nothing more than wishful thinking.

It's not much of a stretch to say it will happen again in the future.

It is indeed a stretch to assert with 100% certainty that this specific aspect of the Abramsverse timeline will be retconned. If you do that, you're basically just saying that things are guaranteed to work out the way you want them to. Is that how things normally work?

This one doesn't.

"the act of time travel itself creates a new universe that exists in PARALLEL to the one left by the time traveler" - Orci

It's an abrupt discontinuity from everything in the previous timeline

That does not mean the timelines are not part of the same overall continuity. How can they not be, if one is created and/or influenced by events in the other?

In comic books, that would be a kind of mindfuck meta-crossover; in Star Trek, it's called "Tuesday."

That's kind of the point, actually. Spock Prime is now living in a different universe in which he interacts with a version of his younger self. In Star Trek one can travel between parallel universes much like you or I could visit different rooms in the same building.

Inasmuch as the Star Wars galaxy and the Milky Way are analogous to locations. That DOES NOT make them part of the same continuity.

Uh, no. The Milky Way galaxy is a real place; the Star Wars galaxy is fictional ( and they are locations, as opposed to being analogous to locations ). The analogy to locations works in the Trek case because we have characters who went on a journey from one timeline to the other. Can the same be said for the Milky Way galaxy and the GFFA?

For you, maybe.

My statement was about the intent of the writers and as such was not about me at all.

 

[Nerys Myk]

It just means that the situation is subject to more than one interpretation. Many stories have been written that people can look at in different ways.

I don't think this is one of them.

This thread actually proves that it is one of them, or else the idea wouldn't be questioned.

It's Star Trek, everything is "questioned".

 

[C.E. Evans]

For you, maybe.

My statement was about the intent of the writers and as such was not about me at all.

My statement was about the intent of the writers and how others may value it.

I don't think this is one of them.

This thread actually proves that it is one of them, or else the idea wouldn't be questioned.

It's Star Trek, everything is "questioned".

Not everything (although it is hard to find what isn't), but it is a fictional universe with many possibilities. Fans have spent nearly fifty years thinking, agreeing, and disagreeing about them.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Well we have absolutely no idea what happened to the debris from the Narada.

Ooooh, true! And no way of knowing when it emerged from the time stream.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

If you mean things that happened in the TOS time frame, before Nero's arrival, then obviously those things will be unchanged because there's no way Nero could have possibly affected them.

Of course he could. If, for example, the TOS timeline contains a temporal incursion in which USS Kelvin traveled from 2237 to the Man-Kzin Wars of the 21st century, then DESTROYING Kelvin in 2233 would have prevented Kelvin's 21st century time travel adventure. Nero would therefore arrive in a timeline where Kelvin never got involved in the Man-Kzin wars; the EFFECT on the timeline would manifest before the cause is actually present.

When Nero and Spock arrived in the past, they affected all events after that time, but there is no logical way they could possibly affect events BEFORE that time.

See above. Significantly, if their arrival affected the past of that timeline, those changes would already have been in place before they were physically present in that universe. There is, again, the question of what happened to the Narada's debris after Enterprise blew it to pieces.

what do you suppose happened to all the debris from the Narada when it got sucked into the black hole at the end of the first film?

Oh, that. Well we have absolutely no idea what happened to the debris from the Narada.

Which is kind of the point, isn't it? You're insisting that there's "no way" Nero's arrival could have affected the past. There are, in fact, a multitude of ways he could have done so, either by killing a time traveler before he has a chance to change the past, or just by virtue of his bloated corpse winding up in the past where it wouldn't otherwise be.

We know as a matter of course that those red matter black holes sometimes deposit objects into the past, and that not all objects that fall into one always arrive in the same place. It would only take one random piece of the Narada being recovered by someone in the past to affect the entire timeline going forward.

The Enterprise-E will no longer be around for first contact. Or if it is, it'll be the NuEnterprise-E and it'll do things very differently. Just one example. Every event pre-2233 influenced by a time traveler from post-2233 will have been altered.

Incorrect. The prime timeline still exists. It hasn't been erased.

But THIS isn't the prime timeline. This is an alternate timeline in which none of the primeline's future events will happen. Travelers from the primeline can no longer influence this universe as they are no longer part of its continuity and therefore no longer share a common past.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

That isn't exactly what we would call a workable standard. "Maybe the writers didn't care"? Really? How would such a thing be established? It breaks down to nothing more than wishful thinking.

If you don't know the writer's intent, then the writer's intent is not important. If, in your attempt to determine the writer's intent you discover that he actually didn't think that far ahead when he was writing it, then the writer's intent remains unimportant.

Broadly speaking, "author's intent" isn't all that mysterious. It's usually reflected in background, suplemental or tie-in materials; at the very least, it gets a mention in "behind the scenes" or "making of" interviews and projects. An example: Nero being a prisoner at Rura Penthe for 25 years is well known to be the film writer's intention; Khan being responsible for the destruction of Praxis, not so much.

It is indeed a stretch to assert with 100% certainty that this specific aspect of the Abramsverse timeline will be retconned.

It already has. Why is it a stretch to assume it will continue to be in the future?

"the act of time travel itself creates a new universe that exists in PARALLEL to the one left by the time traveler" - Orci

And for the first time in Trek history we are dealing with a timeline whose main characters are native to the new timeline and are NOT, in fact, time travelers responsible for its creation. The only real question is whether or not this new timeline was created by Nero/Spock, or by something else entirely.

That does not mean the timelines are not part of the same overall continuity.

That's EXACTLY what it means, since nothing that happens in the Primeline has causal power over the alternate universe, and vice versa. Spock Prime could not, for example, prevent the destruction of Vulcan by assassinating Nero's pregnant grandmother; meanwhile, the prime universe continues to exist independent of the alternate one, so the Jean Luc Picard we are all familiar with has absolutely no way to know what happened to Nero and Spock after they fell into that black hole.

How can they not be, if one is created and/or influenced by events in the other?

Because the Abramsverse isn't influenced by events in the primeline. It's influenced by PEOPLE from the primeline after they have ceased to be a part of it.

That's kind of the point, actually. Spock Prime is now living in a different universe in which he interacts with a version of his younger self. In Star Trek one can travel between parallel universes much like you or I could visit different rooms in the same building.

But Spock Prime CAN'T travel between universes. He can no longer return to his point of origin because from his point of view it no longer exists.

They are NOT part of the same continuity, in this case; in fact, this is literally an example of a DIScontinuity since Spockprime and Nero cannot affect the new universe without permanently removing themselves from the old. For all intents and purposes, they DIED in the primeline; the two are no longer causally connected.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I'm of the belief that the Hobus star, Vulcan and the Narada wreckage were crushed into nothingness by the black holes, and that it was only the Narada and Jellyfish's warp fields which allowed them to survive transit and emerge into the past.

And as for the timelines no longer having any effect on each other, I point to Kirk or Spock dying repairing the warp core during an incident with Khan. Even if big stuff changes, there's an echo of the original history reverberating through he new one.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I'm of the belief that the Hobus star, Vulcan and the Narada wreckage were crushed into nothingness by the black holes, and that it was only the Narada and Jellyfish's warp fields which allowed them to survive transit and emerge into the past.

And as for the timelines no longer having any effect on each other, I point to Kirk or Spock dying repairing the warp core during an incident with Khan. Even if big stuff changes, there's an echo of the original history reverberating through he new one.

And every version of "Batman" always involves a gangster who dresses like an evil clown and calls himself "The Joker."

And yet, having Michael Keaton make a cameo as "the first batman" would not have made "The Dark Knight" a sequel to "Batman Returns," nor could we assume that Heath Ledger was playing Jack Napier's demented illegitimate son.

Continuity doesn't work that way. Strictly speaking, "Star Trek" in 2009 wasn't a sequel to Nemesis or Insurrection any more than it was a prequel to TOS. It is out of direct continuity with BOTH of them in every meaningful way; the connection to the old timeline doesn't really serve a purpose except to make some of the more die-hard fans feel better about the reboot.

Because, let's face it, no other franchise in America has a more anal fanbase than Star Trek. Almost any other character in any other universe could just go through a flat reboot and most people would barely notice. Star Trek goes through a reboot and they have to justify it with a convoluted time travel adventure just to keep the fans from rioting.

 

[Set Harth]

If you don't know the writer's intent, then the writer's intent is not important. If, in your attempt to determine the writer's intent you discover that he actually didn't think that far ahead when he was writing it, then the writer's intent remains unimportant.

Of course, we do know the writer's intent in this case, and it was made somewhat obvious in the film, so luckily there's no need for any heroic grail quest to "attempt to determine" the truth. ( But if someone did happen to go on such a quest, would that person by any chance somehow "discover that he actually didn't think that far ahead when he was writing it", in a silly bit of self-fulfilling prophecy intended as justification for ignoring intent? Who can say? )

It already has.

No, it hasn't. This is the part where you assert something as fact as though the assertion somehow proves itself. A collection of "maybe", "probably" and "seems like" doesn't get you there. And then there's the problem of explicit author intent that keeps rearing its head: the writers responsible for the comics have said what their position is. It's not credible to argue that they retconned something if their own words show that they had no intent to do so.

And for the first time in Trek history we are dealing with a timeline whose main characters are native to the new timeline and are NOT, in fact, time travelers responsible for its creation.

Spock Prime isn't a "main character"? Who cares? You're really suggesting that whether or not a character has the coveted "main character" status determines whether or not the timeline he ends up in is in the same continuity as the timeline he left?

That's EXACTLY what it means, since nothing that happens in the Primeline has causal power over the alternate universe, and vice versa.

So what? Where are all these imaginary rules coming from? The point is that both timelines exist in the same multiverse, which makes them part of the same continuity on a macroscopic level. Besides, you only assume that nothing taking place in the Prime timeline can affect the Abramsverse in the film era; given that this is ST we're talking about, I think that is far from certain. It is possible that unusual anomalies such as the Nexus could be used to travel between the timelines.

Because the Abramsverse isn't influenced by events in the primeline.

It was created by events in the Prime timeline. I'd call that influence.

He can no longer return to his point of origin

We don't know for certain that there is no way for him to return ( but what can be assumed is that using red matter black hole time travel would not cut it because it would be expected to act as before and create yet another timeline ).

For all intents and purposes, they DIED in the primeline

However, they did not die in the Prime timeline. It seems as though "for all intents and purposes" is being used here as a tool which somehow makes false statements true.

because from his point of view it no longer exists.

This is simply false. He has no reason to assume that the Prime timeline ceased to exist just because he went into the black hole ( in fact, to do so would not be logical ). If what you mean is just that "he can't get back" so "for all intents and purposes" it no longer exists, just because you can't get to a place does not mean that the place in question has ceased to exist. In this context the value of "for all intents and purposes" is exactly nothing.

They are NOT part of the same continuity, in this case; in fact, this is literally an example of a DIScontinuity

Using the word "discontinuity" does not serve as an argument that things are not in the same continuity. If you can follow a character's adventures from one universe into another, the two universes are in the same continuity. Or at least that is the sense in which I am using the term "continuity".

And yet, having Michael Keaton make a cameo as "the first batman" would not have made "The Dark Knight" a sequel to "Batman Returns," nor could we assume that Heath Ledger was playing Jack Napier's demented illegitimate son.

Continuity doesn't work that way.

Another failed analogy, so soon? The Nolan films could have been established as sequels to the Keaton movies if they had been intended as such and designed that way, but they weren't. Batman Begins made that impossible ( unless you believe Wayne's parents were magically resurrected to get them ready for a second death ).

Strictly speaking, "Star Trek" in 2009 wasn't a sequel to Nemesis or Insurrection any more than it was a prequel to TOS.

Apples and oranges. ST09 was never intended to be a TOS prequel, given that it is in an alternate timeline. However, it is in fact a sequel to Nemesis in terms of its Prime timeline content and from Spock Prime's perspective.

It is out of direct continuity with BOTH of them in every meaningful way

Its entire plot results from events taking place after Nemesis in the Prime timeline. How is that not "meaningful"? Or is "meaningful" just another one of those words that magically gets you everything you want?

except to make some of the more die-hard fans feel better about the reboot.

Always asserted as fact, never proven. Probably because it's just something disgruntled fans always say which happens to be nothing more than speculation. On a related note, it's not a reboot, despite the fact that some people insist in calling it one.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

If you mean things that happened in the TOS time frame, before Nero's arrival, then obviously those things will be unchanged because there's no way Nero could have possibly affected them.

Of course he could. If, for example, the TOS timeline contains a temporal incursion in which USS Kelvin traveled from 2237 to the Man-Kzin Wars of the 21st century, then DESTROYING Kelvin in 2233 would have prevented Kelvin's 21st century time travel adventure.

You'll notice I said BEFORE Nero's arrival.

2237 is after.

Anything that happened before 2233 - specifically, before the Narada and Kelvin encountered each other - must be assumed to be identical.

You can speculate all you like about what happened to the debris from the Narada, but that's all that is - speculation. For all we know, it was simply destroyed, and nothing else happened to it. Thinking that it could have somehow found its way into the pre-2233 past is technically possible, but not very likely.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I'm of the belief that the Hobus star, Vulcan and the Narada wreckage were crushed into nothingness by the black holes, and that it was only the Narada and Jellyfish's warp fields which allowed them to survive transit and emerge into the past.

And as for the timelines no longer having any effect on each other, I point to Kirk or Spock dying repairing the warp core during an incident with Khan. Even if big stuff changes, there's an echo of the original history reverberating through he new one.

And every version of "Batman" always involves a gangster who dresses like an evil clown and calls himself "The Joker."

And yet, having Michael Keaton make a cameo as "the first batman" would not have made "The Dark Knight" a sequel to "Batman Returns," nor could we assume that Heath Ledger was playing Jack Napier's demented illegitimate son.

Continuity doesn't work that way. Strictly speaking, "Star Trek" in 2009 wasn't a sequel to Nemesis or Insurrection any more than it was a prequel to TOS. It is out of direct continuity with BOTH of them in every meaningful way; the connection to the old timeline doesn't really serve a purpose except to make some of the more die-hard fans feel better about the reboot.

Because, let's face it, no other franchise in America has a more anal fanbase than Star Trek. Almost any other character in any other universe could just go through a flat reboot and most people would barely notice. Star Trek goes through a reboot and they have to justify it with a convoluted time travel adventure just to keep the fans from rioting.

The early script for ST'09 directly hinted at a connection between the old and new:

KIRK
Going back in time... you changed all our
lives.
SPOCK PRIME
Yet remarkably, events within our
timelines, characteristics, people...
seem to overlap significantly. Tell me
about the rest of the crew? Chekov--
Uhura --?
KIRK
Tactical and Communications --
SPOCK PRIME
-- Sulu --
KIRK
-- he's the helmsman, why?
SPOCK PRIME
Dr. McCoy would assert our meeting here
is not a matter of coincidence... but
rather, indication of a higher purpose.
KIRK
... he'd call it a damn miracle.
SPOCK PRIME
Yes he would. Perhaps the time stream's
way of attempting to mend itself. In
both our histories, the same crew found
its way onto the same ship in a time of
ultimate crisis -- therein lies our
advantage.
(rises)
We must go-- there's a Starfleet outpost
not far from here
​

http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Star-Trek.html