Would you accept a flexible Star Trek timeline?

[Charles Phipps]

The creators of Doctor Who have once said that EVERYTHING has happened in all of Doctor Who's spin-off media, the show, and even contradictory elements. That's the nature of a setting where time travel is not only commonplace but a central part of the premise. Star Trek has the view faster than light travel results in time travel as a commonplace (or at least mildly uncommon thing) that can even happen to people like Quark the Bartender.

While not canon, such as it is, I've been thinking about the possibilities of all the time travel being what results in the "Timey Wimey Wibbly Wobbly" thing that is the show canon. This is a thought I had and while, again, not true given how it's presented, it does smooth out some of my issues. Basically, just the idea that time is flexible across the Federation 22nd century to 23rd century with general details true but constantly changing due to interference from outside parties.

Hypothetical Timeline

Point of Divergence (First Contact): Zephram Cochrane was always part of Star Trek's history (Timeline A) but he became a much nicer and less bitter man as a result of his encounter with Picard as well as more devoted to "selling" spaceflight to the world--which resulted in things being slightly more advanced as well as important than they were in the (Timeline B).

Point of Divergence (Enterprise): Captain Jonathan Archer was probably always an important individual in Starfleet but it's just as likely he wasn't the Captain of the Enterprise but maybe the Captain of the Constitution with the new name a result of Zephram's encounter with Picard.

The Temporal Cold War results in a lot more technology, a war with the Xindi, and other stuff happening that makes DISCOVERY happen.

Point of Divergence (Discovery): The Klingon Empire has gone through some changes as a result of a much stronger Federation, Sulliban terrorism, and possibly a much nastier version of the Augment Virus (that happened anyway in the original timeline). So they go to war with the Federation when there was previously only skirmishes. Technology is far more advanced here but two of the biggest discoveries (irony) are classified.

Michael Burnham is adopted by Sarek when she originally wasn't because Archer helps find the Kirshara when originally the Syrannites did it alone--and maybe her parents were killed because Archer stirred up the Klingons a bit more.

What effect does this have on TOS and TNG?

Not necessarily as much as it might because the Time Police (Daniels) and other people are there to keep things going reasonably similar. The details might be different but presumably they're there to make Kirk find Khan, the Organians to prevent a SECOND Klingon-Federation War, and so on.

But details will be different like the fact the TOS Enterprise probably now looks closer to its Kelvin counterpart and so on.

Timeline-C exists now that is going to be Picard where the Federation seems a lot nastier than "All Good Things" with its

Spoiler

planned Data-slaves,

Hobus possibly being a result of these changes, and a lot more pew-pew bang-bang. Picard is still Picard and the galaxy is still the galaxy but there's a rougher more actioney overtown as well as the technology being more advanced.

 

[The Old Mixer]

Timeline-C exists now that is going to be Picard where the Federation seems a lot nastier than "All Good Things" with its

Spoiler

planned Data-slaves,

Hobus possibly being a result of these changes, and a lot more pew-pew bang-bang. Picard is still Picard and the galaxy is still the galaxy but there's a rougher more actioney overtown as well as the technology being more advanced.

I think we need to be a little more careful with specific plot details of Picard outside of Future of Trek, as some might be avoiding trailers.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I think the question should be, do we accept a vague Star Trek timeline, where something like TOS happened in the world of Disco and vice-versa?

Vague like the X-Men franchise, where Bolivar Trask goes from being a tall black man in The Last Stand to a diminutive white guy in Days of Future Past and movies and events are ignored in favour of whatever they're doing at the moment.

 

[Lord Garth]

For Discovery, I've already been flexible. For Picard, I'm treating it like a sequel to TNG, DS9, and VOY.

 

[Ralphis]

When it comes to trying to give an in-universe explanation to why things in ENT and Disco look more advanced than TOS, to me, it just makes sense to think of Star Trek as a multiverse. The TNG episode Parallels has always guided my head canon (and sanity) when it comes to these things. There's literally a Trek multiverse where everything that could have happen, did happen. So timelines A, B & C all exist concurrently, as well as the Kelvin, Mirror, and an infinite number of other timelines. (I think this might actually be the point the original poster is trying to make, but I haven't had a sufficient amount of coffee yet and my brain is only at 47% functional capacity at the moment.)

Yes, all the shows are presented to us as being in the same narrative timeline, but my head canon says, "Not so fast, my friend!" And it works for me. I enjoy TOS. But I also like Disco season 2 very much.

 

[Prax]

Does anyone think that the world will look exactly like it is depicted in TOS 250 years from now?

 

[BillJ]

I think the simplest form of flexibility is treating Trek as a multiverse. Multiple timelines that share the broadest of broad strokes. That is what I do.

Does anyone think that the world will look exactly like it is depicted in TOS 250 years from now?

Will it look like TNG? Or the Abrams films? No, our future won’t. But our future isn’t the one depicted in TOS.

 

[Lord Garth]

The real future won't look like anything sci-fi depicts. It's just a matter of how close or how far off it gets. The future sure won't look like us interacting with people who look just like us except with chocolate bars on their foreheads. We have to suspend disbelief, no matter what.

In 2015, I invited a bunch of friends over and we re-watched Back to the Future, Part II on the day it was supposed to take place: October 21st. We got a big kick out of it, but almost none of it was right. Next month, I'll be doing the same with Blade Runner, which is supposed to take place in November 2019.

 

[Charles Phipps]

The real future won't look like anything sci-fi depicts. It's just a matter of how close or how far off it gets. The future sure won't look like us interacting with people who look just like us except with chocolate bars on their foreheads. We have to suspend disbelief, no matter what.

In 2015, I invited a bunch of friends over and we re-watched Back to the Future, Part II on the day it was supposed to take place: October 21st. We got a big kick out of it, but almost none of it was right. Next month, I'll be doing the same with Blade Runner, which is supposed to take place in November 2019.

I'm taking my replicant harem to see that but we have to avoid the acid storms.

 

[Prax]

If disbelief can be suspended for TOS, then surely it can be suspended enough to imagine that Enterprise took place before it without being in an alternate timeline.

Also, this fictional future doesn't need to look like the actual future, but how I can imagine the future. ENT is supposed to reflect a society closer to today, but still look futuristic, but still carry a lot of retro elements from TOS.

If I were to ponder the actual future, it won't include spaceships, but I could see Naval ships looking like the NX-01 interiors a hundred years from now.

 

[Lord Garth]

If disbelief can be suspended for TOS, then surely it can be suspended enough to imagine that Enterprise took place before it without being in an alternate timeline.

Also, this fictional future doesn't need to look like the actual future, but how I can imagine the future. ENT is supposed to reflect a society closer to today, but still look futuristic, but still carry a lot of retro elements from TOS.

If I were to ponder the actual future, it won't include spaceships, but I could see Naval ships looking like the NX-01 interiors a hundred years from now.

I suspend my disbelief for all of them, which is independent from how much I like each series.

The only time I was taken right out of the show or movie I was watching was when I heard the Nokia noise in the 2009 movie. My thought was, "Okay, they're trying a little bit too hard to make it seem more contemporary there..."

 

[BillJ]

When I see the Enterprise with a hundred fighter craft and little robots that go out and do hull work, it is my opinion that we aren't in Kansas anymore. Why do I need to stick a guy in an ion pod when the technology is clearly there for an automaton to do it?

I applaud people that can make it work in their heads, I simply can't. So I go with the multiverse idea, which is actually more interesting to me on a story level than one continuous timeline.

 

[Charles Phipps]

When I see the Enterprise with a hundred fighter craft and little robots that go out and do hull work, it is my opinion that we aren't in Kansas anymore. Why do I need to stick a guy in an ion pod when the technology is clearly there for an automaton to do it?

Probably because people want to do it. You can do automation as the primary function of space travel but people want to go into space.

 

[Tim Thomason]

I take the producers at their word. Kirk is somewhere in Starfleet during Discovery. He probably fought in the Klingon War. If we traveled into an episode of TOS, and talked to the computer about what happened ten years prior, she'll probably mention Admiral Anderson and Philippa Georgiou and the crazy stuff we saw onscreen.

It doesn't fit. It doesn't make sense. But the Star Trek universe hardly ever made sense before. Aliens don't look like humans, language is a lot more complicated to translate, the transporters are used way too liberally than they have a right to be.

It's our job to try to reconcile the two programs, especially since the production doesn't seem too interested (although, yes, they have made great strides in Season 2).

 

[thribs]

The continuity of Star Trek isn't even that hard to follow. This isn't something like the X-Men comics. There is no excuse to not follow it.

 

[Phoenix219]

When I see the Enterprise with a hundred fighter craft and little robots that go out and do hull work, it is my opinion that we aren't in Kansas anymore. Why do I need to stick a guy in an ion pod when the technology is clearly there for an automaton to do it?

I applaud people that can make it work in their heads, I simply can't. So I go with the multiverse idea, which is actually more interesting to me on a story level than one continuous timeline.

Well the idea of this thread (and some of my own musings elsewhere) isn't that its one continuous timeline, but one continuously being rewritten, due to the cause and effect nature of time travel. I guess its not that far from the "multiverse" but there is a sense of logic and iterations and layers that get us to where we are, rather than "infinite things happened in infinite places and they are all parallel." To me, THAT is more interesting, than either a multiverse OR one continuous predestined timeline. (Although, I actually think both a multiverse and a constantly changing timeline are BOTH in play at once...)

 

[BillJ]

Well the idea of this thread (and some of my own musings elsewhere) isn't that its one continuous timeline, but one continuously being rewritten, due to the cause and effect nature of time travel. I guess its not that far from the "multiverse" but there is a sense of logic and iterations and layers that get us to where we are, rather than "infinite things happened in infinite places and they are all parallel." To me, THAT is more interesting, than either a multiverse OR one continuous predestined timeline. (Although, I actually think both a multiverse and a constantly changing timeline are BOTH in play at once...)

If it is a timeline that it is constantly rewritten, then that would mean things that existed would no longer exist. We would just be working with a rolling retcon. I’d rather have a multiverse where everything out there exists in some form.

 

[BillJ]

Probably because people want to do it. You can do automation as the primary function of space travel but people want to go into space.

I’m talking about the episode “Court Martial”. Where Ben Finley is stuck in a pod to take readings, for no particular reason.

 

[Phoenix219]

If it is a timeline that it is constantly rewritten, then that would mean things that existed would no longer exist. We would just be working with a rolling retcon. I’d rather have a multiverse where everything out there exists in some form.

We are already working with a rolling retcon, and this would be the mechanic to actually explain it.

Of course things that existed would no longer exist. Thats a staple of time travel. In Back to the Future, Marty's entire life is gone when he gets back, replaced with something he never experienced and will never have memories of. Its the nature of the beast. They all existed at one point, and are part of the fabric of how the current world came to be, from a casual view point. In some cases, our heroes are the lynchpins that hold the entire fabric of multi-rewrites together. Its how something can outlast its own history/timeline and be a relic from a world that no longer exists. Everything existed, even if it is no longer accessible.

 

[Charles Phipps]

If it is a timeline that it is constantly rewritten, then that would mean things that existed would no longer exist. We would just be working with a rolling retcon. I’d rather have a multiverse where everything out there exists in some form.

I'd argue it'd be more things would be changed.