So… back during the Enterprise era? I ask because decades before the ‘09 Trek makes it back on the original universe.
But… it says “decades before the 2009 film.” Decades before the 2009 film places it back before the Narada incursion that was featured in the 2009 film, and back on the Prime timeline, would it not?Well, if Prime time travel events that should happened post Narada incursion don't happen, then the past of the Kelvin timeline would be different from the prime timeline. I suppose that's the difference between divergent timelines and a whole new universe. Basically you unzip the timelines so the divergent point is at the furthest back time travel event, not the incursion date.
But… it says “decades before the 2009 film.” Decades before the 2009 film places it back before the Narada incursion that was featured in the 2009 film, and back on the Prime timeline, would it not?
"Prime" is just jj trek/kurtzman jargon.But… it says “decades before the 2009 film.” Decades before the 2009 film places it back before the Narada incursion that was featured in the 2009 film, and back on the Prime timeline, would it not?
"Prime" is just jj trek/kurtzman jargon.
We have.
Star Trek canon 1966 - 2005.
Everything after 2005/Prime/Kelvin/Klutzman/Spores and mushrooms.
Okay. So that means the film would be set back in Star Trek canon, wouldn’t it?"Prime" is just jj trek/kurtzman jargon.
We have.
Star Trek canon 1966 - 2005.
Everything after 2005/Prime/Kelvin/Klutzman/Spores and mushrooms.
"Prime" is just jj trek/kurtzman jargon.
We have.
Star Trek canon 1966 - 2005.
Everything after 2005/Prime/Kelvin/Klutzman/Spores and mushrooms.
I know right. I mean, Voyager established that in the 29th Century, that the Federation uses time travel to insure temporal deviations from occurring (so, by that logic, the 2009 "Kelvin" timeline shouldn't exist because someone from the 29th would have gone back to correct it). But, as Abrams himself admitted, he's not a Star Trek fan, so he wouldn't know that bit of info. XDMeh, I enjoyed JJ Trek. And a "prequel" set in that universe, regardless of how time travely they want to try and be with the past caused by no time travel in the future, doesn't bug me, conceptually.
That said, I have little faith that it would be a fun movie. I'd say to just let star trek sit for a few years unmolested.
Enough room for original space travel stories that I see no need to shoehorn things into the ST universe at this point.
Enough room for original space travel stories that I see no need to shoehorn things into the ST universe at this point.
, Voyager established that in the 29th Century, that the Federation uses time travel to insure temporal deviations from occurring (so, by that logic, the 2009 "Kelvin" timeline shouldn't exist because someone from the 29th would have gone back to correct it