Which timeline after the upcoming movie?

[Quark's Lobe]

^^Yeah, it would be fun to extrapolate the future of the new "Abramsverse" timeline. However, I expect we novelists (and comics authors) will be somewhat constrained in our ability to do that by the likelihood of sequels. Anything we extrapolated about the Abramsverse timeline would run the risk of being contradicted by ST XII or XIII.

But hopefully once the sequels do come out, we'll at least be able to extrapolate (or rather, interpolate) stuff between the extant films. Maybe even explore how certain events in the original timeline happened differently (or similarly) here.

Hi Christopher and thanks very much for the response. <<<Warning - this post will contain slight spoilers for the new movie, but nothing that isn't already pretty well-known for anyone who's been keeping up on it.>>> I guess my thought was not so much seeing Trek lit extrapolate on the Abramsverse future, but on its past, or rather the time between the destruction of the Kelvin and the time when the bulk of this movie occurs, 25-ish years later. (Besides, I assume that it wouldn't be too long before the two timelines would for the most part sync up again anyway).

Specifically, what was so special about the crew of the Kelvin that, once they are prematurely killed, causes so many obvious ripples between the two timelines? If Nero's destruction of that ship was the only thing he changed (I presume he then time-jumped again 25 years into the future and did not actually hang around all those years), why are there such large-scale difference in terms of the Enterprise design, where it was built (Iowa as opposed to California), etc? Was the engineer of the Kelvin someone who would have gone on to design the nacelles of the Enterprise, for example, and in his absence someone else did it slightly differently, leading to the design changes in the new film's Enterprise?

In other words, the murder of George Kirk and the crew of his ship seems to have ramifications well beyond the mere facts that it made Jim Kirk's childhood kinda sucky and apparently led him to learn to drive a stick. Chris Pike, for one, seems to have a much different career aboard the Enterprise. Did the absence of George Kirk from the timeline somehow cause this? Same thing for Chekov and Uhura and others who seem to be serving on the Enterprise much earlier than in Timeline A. And why is the technology so advanced compared to the old series (aside from the obvious out-of-universe explanation that it's being filmed 50 years later)? In the new timeline, did some ramification of the Kelvin's loss lead to an advancement in technology in Timeline B that wasn't there in Timeline A?

Anyway, I'm babbling. But I think it would be very cool if these kinds of questions were eventually tackled by the talented authors of Trek lit. I'm not quite sure the format they would be tackled in. Probably stories set in Timeline B that would allow an informed reader to say, "Hey, that's why a particular aspect of this timeline is different!" rather than a blatant explanation. Obviously, the general public wouldn't care much about this stuff, which is why I'm sure the film won't touch on any of this, but I think it would be of some interest to many of the readers of Trek lit who are keen on learning those kinds of details.

 

[Thrawn]

This is a fun conversation to read, but mostly all I want to do is say that every time someone calls the current timeline Harold I burst out laughing. 10 points to Christopher.

 

[Herbert1]

Hi Christopher and thanks very much for the response. <<<Warning - this post will contain slight spoilers for the new movie, but nothing that isn't already pretty well-known for anyone who's been keeping up on it.>>> I guess my thought was not so much seeing Trek lit extrapolate on the Abramsverse future, but on its past, or rather the time between the destruction of the Kelvin and the time when the bulk of this movie occurs, 25-ish years later. (Besides, I assume that it wouldn't be too long before the two timelines would for the most part sync up again anyway).

Specifically, what was so special about the crew of the Kelvin that, once they are prematurely killed, causes so many obvious ripples between the two timelines? If Nero's destruction of that ship was the only thing he changed (I presume he then time-jumped again 25 years into the future and did not actually hang around all those years), why are there such large-scale difference in terms of the Enterprise design, where it was built (Iowa as opposed to California), etc? Was the engineer of the Kelvin someone who would have gone on to design the nacelles of the Enterprise, for example, and in his absence someone else did it slightly differently, leading to the design changes in the new film's Enterprise?

In other words, the murder of George Kirk and the crew of his ship seems to have ramifications well beyond the mere facts that it made Jim Kirk's childhood kinda sucky and apparently led him to learn to drive a stick. Chris Pike, for one, seems to have a much different career aboard the Enterprise. Did the absence of George Kirk from the timeline somehow cause this? Same thing for Chekov and Uhura and others who seem to be serving on the Enterprise much earlier than in Timeline A. And why is the technology so advanced compared to the old series (aside from the obvious out-of-universe explanation that it's being filmed 50 years later)? In the new timeline, did some ramification of the Kelvin's loss lead to an advancement in technology in Timeline B that wasn't there in Timeline A?

Anyway, I'm babbling. But I think it would be very cool if these kinds of questions were eventually tackled by the talented authors of Trek lit. I'm not quite sure the format they would be tackled in. Probably stories set in Timeline B that would allow an informed reader to say, "Hey, that's why a particular aspect of this timeline is different!" rather than a blatant explanation.

You believe that Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman won't address these questions in their script and they will need to be addressed by the authors of Star Trek literature? It seems to me that both Orci and Kurtzman are big fans of Star Trek and have thought about these questions for some time.

 

[Quark's Lobe]

^^ I believe it will be addressed in very general terms by Older Spock explaining that Nero has changed the timeline. I do not think they are going to go into any kind of detail for exactly how that caused specific events like these to diverge. Nor would I want them to, as I want this movie to connect with mainstream audiences who have no need for details like these, as well as connecting with more hardcore Trek fans.

 

[Christopher]

Specifically, what was so special about the crew of the Kelvin that, once they are prematurely killed, causes so many obvious ripples between the two timelines? If Nero's destruction of that ship was the only thing he changed (I presume he then time-jumped again 25 years into the future and did not actually hang around all those years), why are there such large-scale difference in terms of the Enterprise design, where it was built (Iowa as opposed to California), etc? Was the engineer of the Kelvin someone who would have gone on to design the nacelles of the Enterprise, for example, and in his absence someone else did it slightly differently, leading to the design changes in the new film's Enterprise?

In other words, the murder of George Kirk and the crew of his ship seems to have ramifications well beyond the mere facts that it made Jim Kirk's childhood kinda sucky and apparently led him to learn to drive a stick. Chris Pike, for one, seems to have a much different career aboard the Enterprise. Did the absence of George Kirk from the timeline somehow cause this? Same thing for Chekov and Uhura and others who seem to be serving on the Enterprise much earlier than in Timeline A. And why is the technology so advanced compared to the old series (aside from the obvious out-of-universe explanation that it's being filmed 50 years later)? In the new timeline, did some ramification of the Kelvin's loss lead to an advancement in technology in Timeline B that wasn't there in Timeline A?

Well, as was said about Enterprise, we shouldn't assume the technology is more advanced just because it looks sleeker and more modern. The difference could simply be one of design, not functionality. And there's actually a good case to be made that "low-tech" controls should be around in the future, because even an advanced, computerized vessel still needs simple manual controls that the crew can fall back on in case of malfunctions. That's actually what most of the knobs and dials and buttons in the space shuttle cockpit are for. So just because a control center has equipment that looks low-tech, that doesn't mean the civilization that built it isn't capable of more. It could simply be that the engineers designing the Constitution class in the original timeline were more conservative in their design philosophy, more concerned with sturdy, reliable functionality than with having all the latest gadgets and gewgaws.

As for other things, I'm just speculating here, but it's possible that an earlier attack by the Romulans could put Starfleet on more of a defensive footing, maybe altering their approach to designing and building the fleet. Different people might've ended up in charge, people whose approach was deemed more fitting to that climate, and they would've made different decisions and chosen subordinates who came up with different designs.

As for McCoy, Scotty, Uhura, and Sulu, we don't know when they started serving aboard the Enterprise, so we don't really know that their paths through life have been altered much at all (unless you go by what's been established about their pasts in various books, though there's no single version). The one big anomaly is Chekov, who seems considerably older than he should be.

But I think it would be very cool if these kinds of questions were eventually tackled by the talented authors of Trek lit. I'm not quite sure the format they would be tackled in. Probably stories set in Timeline B that would allow an informed reader to say, "Hey, that's why a particular aspect of this timeline is different!" rather than a blatant explanation. Obviously, the general public wouldn't care much about this stuff, which is why I'm sure the film won't touch on any of this, but I think it would be of some interest to many of the readers of Trek lit who are keen on learning those kinds of details.

I wouldn't be surprised to see fiction that explores background elements hinted at in the film, that develops the characters' backstories in more depth, that sort of thing. I'd hope the emphasis isn't just on "Here's how this is different from the TOS timeline," though. Heck, a lot of what the movie's going to establish is probably going to be about things that have never been definitively established in the original timeline anyway.

 

[Quark's Lobe]

As for other things, I'm just speculating here, but it's possible that an earlier attack by the Romulans could put Starfleet on more of a defensive footing, maybe altering their approach to designing and building the fleet. Different people might've ended up in charge, people whose approach was deemed more fitting to that climate, and they would've made different decisions and chosen subordinates who came up with different designs.

Yeah, this is exactly the sort of thing I mean! I think it would be very fun to see the Trek lit allude to this stuff if the publishing schedule ever allowed. Maybe even another Myriad Universes novel exploring it.

I wouldn't be surprised to see fiction that explores background elements hinted at in the film, that develops the characters' backstories in more depth, that sort of thing. I'd hope the emphasis isn't just on "Here's how this is different from the TOS timeline," though. Heck, a lot of what the movie's going to establish is probably going to be about things that have never been definitively established in the original timeline anyway.

I agree. Any explanation related to a particular timeline change would hopefully just be a throwaway line of dialogue as sort of a wink to the reader, not something that would carry the story itself. Besides, it sounds like no native residents of the new timeline (with the exception of Kirk and possibly young Spock if the rumor of the 'two Spocks' meeting is true) know that their timeline is a divergent one, and even Kirk and Quinto Spock would have very little knowledge of what the differences are in relation to Timeline A. So, it would be difficult for characters to acknowledge the differences without a convenient plot device like Guinan "sensing" that they are in a new timeline, which I don't see happening.

 

[JD]

"our" Spock follows Nero into the past and that alternate timeline he created, gets somehow rejunivated, and from that point on, will be the Spock played by Quinto.

No, they are two different Spocks, from different points in history. The only way in which one 'becomes' the other is that Quinto's Spock will, eventually, live long enough to age naturally into the version played by Nimoy.

I don't know if they ever meet face to face in this film, but it is possible.

Spoiler: Pine, Quito, and Nimoy

I know I read in an interview with either Abrams, Kurtzman or Orci that Nimoy does have at least one scene with both Quinto and Pine. I don't know if we see the three together, but they have said that Nimoy does have scene(s) with them.

 

[Therin of Andor]

this whole explanation puts a lie to the writers' other explanation that there was "no way" to fit Kirk into the movie because he died in Generations. If this is an alternate timeline, why not have an older, alternate Kirk who didn't experience those events?

Because Shatner told them "I don't do cameos" and therefor any Old Kirk character in JJ's ST would have to have been an important character, making major contributions throughout the film, but that's not the story they'd already plotted out.

So there's no "lie".

 

[Dayton Ward]

Did he actually say "I don't do cameos," or is this another one of his deadpan interview answers, or someone else thinking they know what he said/meant?

I ask, because Shatner's resume is littered with cameos. I mean, does anybody think he was a vital component and made major contributions to the plot of Dodgeball?


(Not that I'm arguing for Shatner's inclusion in the new flick. I'm just curious about the whole "cameo" thing.)

 

[Christopher]

^^Well, maybe Shatner's position wasn't that he wouldn't do cameos as a rule, but that he wouldn't play James T. Kirk merely as a cameo because the role deserved more than that. Just speculating, though.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Did he actually say "I don't do cameos," or is this another one of his deadpan interview answers, or someone else thinking they know what he said/meant?

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=s...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

 

[Dayton Ward]

^ Wow. Thanks. Where would I be without you?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I ask, because Shatner's resume is littered with cameos. I mean, does anybody think he was a vital component and made major contributions to the plot of Dodgeball?

He was absolutely vital to National Lampoon's Loaded Weapon 1.