Star Trek (2009) - Alternate Reality or Timeline?

[Snowman37]

Everyone talks about Star Trek (2009) as if it were an alternate reality, allowing the prime reality (1966-2005) to continue. However, the movie was about vengeful Romulans from the future, not a parallel world. To me, it is the classic Star Trek time-travel story history gets screwed up, resulting in an alternate timeline. This time, 24th century Romulans screw up the 23rd century. It's up to the Enterprise crew and Ambassador Spock of the future to save the day. What makes the movie unique is that it's told from the perspective of the new timeline, and no attempt is made to restore the future. Future Spock simply shrugs and leaves to help the surviving Vulcans colonize a new world. Er... what happened to restoring the future?

[DigiFluid]

I don't think the line between the two is quite so well-defined as some treat it. By my understanding, an alternate timeline is an alternate reality.

Everything we've ever heard about alternate universes in science fiction stems from specific events happening in a different way (whether minute or colossal) and thus creating a version of reality different from our own.

That's exactly the same as how one would describe an alternate timeline.


Thus in my view, the two are largely interchangeable.

[P-90_177]

Everyone talks about Star Trek (2009) as if it were an alternate reality, allowing the prime reality (1966-2005) to continue. However, the movie was about vengeful Romulans from the future, not a parallel world. To me, it is the classic Star Trek time-travel story history gets screwed up, resulting in an alternate timeline. This time, 24th century Romulans screw up the 23rd century. It's up to the Enterprise crew and Ambassador Spock of the future to save the day. What makes the movie unique is that it's told from the perspective of the new timeline, and no attempt is made to restore the future. Future Spock simply shrugs and leaves to help the surviving Vulcans colonize a new world. Er... what happened to restoring the future?

Without any more red matter spock can't alter the future to restore it. Besides, the way Star Trek shows Time travel is that there are an infinite number of parralel universes anyway, so from spocks point of view, somewhere in some universe history is playing itself out exactly as it would have done without his or neros interference so it's illogical to try and change things when he can be of some use in the timeline he is currently in.

[Snowman37]

I don't think the line between the two is quite so well-defined as some treat it. By my understanding, an alternate timeline is an alternate reality.

You're right, I meant to say parallel reality. To me, a parallel reality and an alternate timeline are two separate things. I'm writing a novel about a timeship which has screwed up the history and the future, but it features a present-day relatively close to our own. The story is told from an alternate timeline that is told from the perspective of an alternate timeline, the original having been lost due to time-paradoxes. I'm going with the principle that there can only be one timeline, and that it can be rewritten over and over. There is no proper timeline, except that it is defined as being proper by those who originate in that timeline. If you're timeline gets rewritten, and you manage to survive this via time paradox, you're screwed unless you're determined enough to restore your lost timeline. Spooky, eh? This is why I really love how the 2009 Star Trek film rebooted Star Trek. It's like the writers and I think alike.

Everything we've ever heard about alternate universes in science fiction stems from specific events happening in a different way (whether minute or colossal) and thus creating a version of reality different from our own. That's exactly the same as how one would describe an alternate timeline. Thus in my view, the two are largely interchangeable.

To me, the difference is that an alternate reality, parallel universe, or whatever you want to call it, always existed. An alternate timeline overwrites the story's prime reality and is erased when the proper timeline is restored.

In terms of the TV/movie portion of Star Trek, it would go like this...

Original Timeline
Star Trek (original series)
Movies 1-6 (original cast)
The Next Generation (Seasons 1-5)
The Next Generation (Season 6) / Deep Space Nine (Season 1)
The Next Generation (Season 7) / Deep Space Nine (Season 2)
Deep Space Nine (Season 3) / Voyager (Season 1) / Generations (TNG movie)
Deep Space Nine (Season 4) / Voyager (Season 2)
Deep Space Nine (Season 5) / Voyager (Season 3) / First Contact (TNG movie)
Deep Space Nine (Season 6) / Voyager (Season 4)
Deep Space Nine (Season 7) / Voyager (Season 5) / Insurrection (TNG movie)
Voyager (Seasons 6&7)
Nemesis (TNG movie)
Enterprise (Star Trek prequel)

New Timeline
Enterprise (Star Trek prequel)
Star Trek (2009 movie)

The original series, the spin-offs (TNG, DS9, VOY), and all ten movies never happened. Only the Enterprise prequel series remains. We have a new origin story for the Enterprise (NCC-1701) and crew, and an entirely new future to explore. The original timeline is effectively gone (in universe), granted it still exists for the viewers via DVD's and reruns.

Without any more red matter spock can't alter the future to restore it.

The Enterprise can just slingshot around the sun to when the Narada arrives from the future. Abandon ship, set a collision coarse, BOOM!, the future is restored. As for the crew and later Ambassador Spock, they can just find an isolated planet and stay out of history's way.

Besides, the way Star Trek shows Time travel is that there are an infinite number of parralel universes anyway, so from spocks point of view, somewhere in some universe history is playing itself out exactly as it would have done without his or neros interference so it's illogical to try and change things when he can be of some use in the timeline he is currently in.

If that's the case, why was there urgency to restore the future in numerous episodes? TNG's "Yesterday's Enterprise" being a prime example.

[DigiFluid]

I differ there. Since 'altering history' is just causing a different event to happen where something else happened before, I see that as the creation of another new reality. The old timeline still exists as its own reality, but it's inaccessible by time travel because the traveler is now in a different reality from the one that they originated.

You are correct though in that ENT is the only part of the franchise which survived into the JJverse 'reboot' timeline.

[Snowman37]

What about TNG's "Timescape" where time rolled forward and backward with different results? Was Picard's runabout spontaneously hopping realities?

[DigiFluid]

In all honesty it's been so long since I watched any TNG that I can't even remember.

[SaberBlade]

Future Spock simply shrugs and leaves to help the surviving Vulcans colonize a new world. Er... what happened to restoring the future?

There is no money in restoring the future. They gave JJ Abrams a bigger budget than Insurrection and Nemesis combined (or Generations, First Contact and Insurrection, which I think sounds much more extreme) and let him retcon the entire Trek franchise (excluding ENT) because he was able to bring in more money with high definition lens flare light show. Now that they can make even more money with 3D, they'll want to keep repeating what he did in order to bring in all that extra money.

It's a flat out retcon. This whole alternate timeline with the original intact is writer fanwank with hopes not to upset the fans. Never in the history of Trek has altering the past created a second timeline with the original still in existence. The Borg were credited for helping to create the then current version of the Federation or been in ENT, Sela should never have been apart of the future, the Federation shouldn't have been erased from history a couple of times, Sisko shouldn't have had his face in the history books as Gabriel Bell, it's basic Trek time travel that there is 1 timeline and all edits alter it, may not be big alterations but still done to it.

[Snowman37]

There is no money in restoring the future. They gave JJ Abrams a bigger budget than Insurrection and Nemesis combined (or Generations, First Contact and Insurrection, which I think sounds much more extreme) and let him retcon the entire Trek franchise (excluding ENT) because he was able to bring in more money with high definition lens flare light show. Now that they can make even more money with 3D, they'll want to keep repeating what he did in order to bring in all that extra money.

I understand all of this, and I'm not saying the timeline should be restored. I actually like the idea of radically altered history, because it allows Star Trek to be new again. I just found future Spock to be out of character for not at least suggesting the restoration of his future. This evening, I watched Star Trek: The Motion Picture with my mom. That was a profound, life-changing event for Spock. You'd think he'd want to preserve those future events.

It's a flat out retcon. This whole alternate timeline with the original intact is writer fanwank with hopes not to upset the fans. Never in the history of Trek has altering the past created a second timeline with the original still in existence. The Borg were credited for helping to create the then current version of the Federation or been in ENT, Sela should never have been apart of the future, the Federation shouldn't have been erased from history a couple of times, Sisko shouldn't have had his face in the history books as Gabriel Bell, it's basic Trek time travel that there is 1 timeline and all edits alter it, may not be big alterations but still done to it.

Bingo. That's exactly how I feel. As far as the 2009 movie is concerned, the original series through Nemesis just poofed into oblivion with the exception of Ambassador Spock. It'd be like TNG's "Yesterday's Enterprise" ending without sending the Enteprrise-C back to restore the timeline. Oh, an even better example... imagine if Stargate: Continuum had ended without the original timeline being restored? I don't imagine that would have gone down well with the audience.

[4thDoctor]

That 2009 film wasn't Star Trek, I don't know what it was, but it sure wasn't Star Trek.

[jelgate]

That 2009 film wasn't Star Trek, I don't know what it was, but it sure wasn't Star Trek.

Sure it was. It was in the same setting and characters as Star Trek making it Star Trek

[jsonitsac]

Bingo. That's exactly how I feel. As far as the 2009 movie is concerned, the original series through Nemesis just poofed into oblivion with the exception of Ambassador Spock. It'd be like TNG's "Yesterday's Enterprise" ending without sending the Enteprrise-C back to restore the timeline. Oh, an even better example... imagine if Stargate: Continuum had ended without the original timeline being restored? I don't imagine that would have gone down well with the audience.

That's why I believe that the Abramsverse, every aspect of it, including the USS Kelvin, are all part of a totally separate universe to begin with. The Kelvin itself was from an alternate timeline, which explains the design inconsistencies. Even more central to m theory is that Nero himself was from an alternate future. After all, where are his head ridges like every other 24th century Romulan? ;-)

I believe this because that way I don't have to worry about the existence of the canon universe.

[Snowman37]

That's why I believe that the Abramsverse, every aspect of it, including the USS Kelvin, are all part of a totally separate universe to begin with.

Except that it isn't a totally separate universe. It's a continuation of Star Trek as we know it. Spock's ship and Nero's Narada are hurled back in time from the late 24th century to the early (Nero) and mid (Spock) 23rd century. History is screwed up by Nero, and a new future unfolds. Same universe, new future.

The Kelvin itself was from an alternate timeline, which explains the design inconsistencies. Even more central to m theory is that Nero himself was from an alternate future. After all, where are his head ridges like every other 24th century Romulan? ;-)

The movie is visually different, because J.J. Abrams didn't care about the spinoff shows. Abrams doesn't care about design inconsistencies, Klingon and Romulan foreheads, and so on... He just wanted to direct a Star Trek (Kirk and crew) movie. It was produced for the general movie-going audience without Trekkies in mind. Any inconsistencies should be dismissed as the 2009 movie is a soft reboot. The universe is changed with a time-travel story, but everything else such as the redesign of the Enterprise is a soft reboot to make Star Trek new again.

If you try to perfectly fit Star Trek 2009 with the 1966-2005 run, you're going to give yourself a big headache.

[SaberBlade]

Except that it isn't a totally separate universe. It's a continuation of Star Trek as we know it. Spock's ship and Nero's Narada are hurled back in time from the late 24th century to the early (Nero) and mid (Spock) 23rd century. History is screwed up by Nero, and a new future unfolds. Same universe, new future.


The movie is visually different, because J.J. Abrams didn't care about the spinoff shows. Abrams doesn't care about design inconsistencies, Klingon and Romulan foreheads, and so on... He just wanted to direct a Star Trek (Kirk and crew) movie. It was produced for the general movie-going audience without Trekkies in mind. Any inconsistencies should be dismissed as the 2009 movie is a soft reboot. The universe is changed with a time-travel story, but everything else such as the redesign of the Enterprise is a soft reboot to make Star Trek new again.

If you try to perfectly fit Star Trek 2009 with the 1966-2005 run, you're going to give yourself a big headache.

You do realise that everything you said just backs up the reason why the new movie series should be considered a separate universe. This movie is to Star Trek what Infinity is to Stargate (although this movie is enjoyable to watch for what it is).

[Snowman37]

You do realise that everything you said just backs up the reason why the new movie series should be considered a separate universe.

Should be by you, perhaps, but not by the studio. For me, any story line changes can be dismissed as the result of the 2009 movie's time-travel story. As for visual changes, such as the redesign of the Enterprise... It's fiction, not history. It was bound to be updated.