Skip to main content

In Star Trek (2009), Did the Original Timeline Survive?


Usually, in Star Trek, when there's a timeline change, the indication is that the original timeline is gone and replaced with the new one. In City on the Edge of Forever, Kirk makes a comment that if they don't get the timeline straight, that millions of people who never died before will die.


Much of the time travel in Trek created suspense by declaring a need to restore the original timeline.


It's already been discussed in other questions about how, in the new movie (simply titled Star Trek with no subtitle or series number) they were unable to restore the original timeline. While some of this is open to interpretation, it seemed like in this instance, for the first time, in Trek, there was an alternate timeline that was seen as an alternate possibility - no reference was made to it replacing the original timeline.


In this movie, was there any reference to the original timeline still existing? In this movie, was the original timeline still considered to be intact?




Answer



To say Star Trek is inconsistent with time travel would be a massive understatement. Each story involving it usually has its own rules which are established or inferred during that story. This is part of the nature of having a science-fiction dynasty where dozens of writers contributed to the canon.


That said, the writers of the film Star Trek sought to reboot the franchise while respecting the original canon we all enjoyed. As part of the reboot, they had Spock and Nero's actions create a new timeline that's similar, but crucially different from the original. This was meant to be irreversible, as to establish a new canon. In addition, they sought to do this in a manner that shows the original canon still exists.


The mechanism they used for this was Spock. By having the original Spock get hurled back in time into this alternate timeline, the writers show us that the stories we grew up on are still there, but they're inaccessible to this new Enterprise crew. Otherwise old Spock wouldn't be the Spock we knew from TOS and TNG, as his memories would have been presumably overwritten with the new historical events of the film. During the film, there's a scene on the bridge where they establish this in-universe:



Spock: Nero's very presence has altered the flow of history, beginning with the attack on the U.S.S. Kelvin, culminating in the events of today, thereby creating an entire new chain of incidents that cannot be anticipated by either party.


Uhura: An alternate reality.


Spock: Precisely.



In addition, the makers of the game Star Trek Online, which takes place in the original timeline, released this image which helps clarify where their game fits into the new status quo. Timeline of key Star Trek events



The 'Alternate Timeline' being the one of Star Trek (2009). This nicely lays out how the two timelines are related, and shows they both continue to exist.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

harry potter - Did Dolores Umbridge Have Any Association with Voldemort (or Death Eaters) before His Return?

I noticed that Dolores Umbridge was born during the first Wizarding War, so it's very likely she wasn't a Death Eater then (but she is pretty evil -- who knows?). After that Voldemort was not around in a way that could affect many people, and most wouldn't know he was planning to rise again. During that time, and up through Voldemort's return (in Goblet of Fire ), did Umbridge have any connection with the Death Eaters or with Voldemort? Was she doing what she did on her own, or was it because of an association with Voldemort or his allies? Answer Dolores Umbridge was definitely not a good person. However, as Sirius points out, "the world isn't split into good people and Death Eaters". Remember that he also says that he doesn't believe Umbridge to be a Death Eater, but that she's evil enough (or something like that). I think there are two strong reasons to believe that: Umbridge was proud to do everything according to the law, except when she trie...

What is the etymology of Doctor Who?

I recently decided to watch Doctor Who, and started viewing the 2005 version. I have the first two episodes from the first season, and I can't help but wonder what is the etymology of the name "Doctor Who"? And why does the protagonist call himself "the Doctor" (or is it "the doctor")? Answer In the very first episode of Doctor Who (way back in 1963), the Doctor has a granddaughter going by the name "Susan Foreman", and the junkyard where the TARDIS is has the sign "I.M. Foreman". Barbara, who becomes one of the Doctor's companions, calls him "Doctor Foreman" (probably assuming that is his name given his relationship to Susan), and Ian (another early companion) does the same in the second episode, to which the Doctor says: Eh? Doctor who? What's he talking about? "Foreman" is most likely selected as a convenient surname for Susan to use because it happened to be on display near where the TARDIS landed....

story identification - Animation: floating island, flying pests

At least 20 years ago I watched a short animated film which stuck in my mind. The whole thing was wordless, possibly European, and I'm pretty sure I didn't imagine it... It featured a flying island which was inhabited by some creatures who (in my memory) reminded me of the Moomins. The island was frequently bothered by large winged animals who swooped around, although I don't think they did any actual damage. At the end one of the moomin creatures suddenly gets a weird feeling, feels forced to climb to the top of the island and then plunges down a shaft right through the centre - only to emerge at the bottom as one of the flyers. Answer Skywhales from 1983. The story begins with a man warning the tribe of approaching skywhales. The drummers then warn everybody of the hunt as everyone get prepared to set "sail". Except one man is found in his home sleeping as the noise wake him up. He then gets ready and is about to take his weapon as he hesitates then decides ...