Memory Alpha

Talk:Alternate reality

Back to page

42,245pages on
this wiki
Add New Page

Timeline repair?Edit

Is any reason given as to why Daniels or Captain Braxton didn't repair the timeline. The destruction of a major Federation world is too significant for them to ignore. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Icecreamdif (talk • contribs).

No, there's no mention of temporal agents like Daniels and Braxton in the film. We could speculate about their absence, but the model of time travel used in this film suggests that the previous timeline (in which Vulcan is not destroyed) continued to exist in parallel with the new one, so perhaps Daniels and Braxton and their ilk simply aren't bothered with what happens in a parallel universe. –Josiah Rowe 04:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

So how come every other time that time travel appears in Star Trek, the timeline changes, and the characters have to try to repair the timeline, but in the new movie, the new timeline exists parrallel to the original timeline?Icecreamdif 22:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

My answer would be because Spock Prime has adopted this timeline as a crucial one and acts directly to shape it (information to Scotty and advice for Kirk, etc). This is justified, in Spock Prime's eyes, I imagine, by the scope and scale of catastrophic events which the timeline invovles... destruction of the galaxy in the original timeline (who knows whether the remaining singulatiry from the supernova managed to stop that fate or not!), and the destruction of Romulus and Vulcan in their respective timelines. The New Timeline is 'momentous'. --Aqaraza 22:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll try not to get into speculation but I do want to answer the original question. Braxton et al only ever dealt with temporal incursions that started in their home timeframe (the events of Future's End and Relativity are both intiated by a transit from the 29th Century to the 24th). As for Daniels, the only way the temporal cold war makes sense is if the same things applies - i.e. it was started in the 31st Century and spread from there. Anyway, you may as well ask where they were in First Contact, or City on the Edge... etc. Although never explicit, it looks like characters only deal with events started in their own timeframe and that includes those from the future.
As for the second point regarding whether previous time travels were parallel or not, I've found that most (but not all) of the previous time travel stories make more sense when viewed with the parallel universe paradigm in mind (especially Yesterdays Ent. and Endgame). If you really need a reason to tell yourself, assume that some forms of time travel stay within universe, and some create a new one.LordJuss 11:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman have used the same alternate reality plot twist in their series Fringe. In Star Trek-terms we are talking about different quantum realities. So it appears that the "mysterious lightning storm black holes" are something similar to the quantum fissure encountered by Worf in "Parallels". Also it is very apparent in the films dialogue between the two Spocks at the end that no timeline repairing is necessary in this films case.
Spock (alt): "How did you persuade him to keep your secret?"
Spock (prime): "He inferred that universe ending paradoxes would ensue should he break his promise."
Spock (alt): "You lied?" other words: no temporal paradox would result if alt-Spock doesn't return from the future in the new timeline, as the old timeline was never changed, and prime-Spock will still return from the future in the 24th century from the prime universe.
--Pseudohuman 10:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

So basicly the Daniels and Braxton of this new timeline would only go back in time to fix things IF SOMEONE STOPPED Vulcan's fate (because the history books of the 31st cent. would show that was how it was to be) - sithlord

Possibly, but I could see them, assuming they exist in this universe (other things seem to have changed even before Nero showed up), showing to stop Nero and save the USS Kelvin if not to save Vulcan directly. --Frank Columbo 04:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
As a film, the new Star Trek is excellent. However, it does not in any way continue or parallel the canon universe created by Gene Roddenberry and (later) Rick Berman. The reason is this: Nero from the Berman universe time travels back and sets a series of events in motion which cause the ultimate destruction of Roddenberry's universe. Because Vulcan is destroyed by Nero in the past, it is destroyed as well in the future. Thus the Captain Kirk that we all loved in the 1960s-1990s never existed because of the untimely death of George Kirk. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) at {{{2}}}.
Wrong. Parallel universes are common in star trek - see TNG: "Parallels". — Morder (talk) 22:45, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
I assumed that it was because the change in the timeline was due to a natural course of events. Nero/Spock` did not elect to travel in time, it was rather the inadvertent side-effect of a species working to ensure its survival. The "time-cops" typically fix messes when deliberate action is taken to travel in time AND upset the timeline (e.g. "Yesterday's Enterprise" Enterprise-C travelling though a naturally-occurring anomaly is a natural progression of events for the timeline--thus no time-cops) The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mstef (talk • contribs).
You all seem to be forgetting that in the whole hypothesis of multiple universes that (as Spock says in a cut line from the movie) "Everything that can happen does happen." Even if Braxton or Daniels or Q or whomever else "fixes" the prime timeline, that doesn't stop an alternate timeline where these parties didn't intervene from happening, it just creates a "prime" timeline where it was fixed, as well as an infinite number of other timelines for all other possibilities. Because there has been no canonical Trek material set in the prime timeline since the alternate timeline was created in the new film, we have no idea what did or didn't happen in the prime one. Maybe someone DID fix the timeline in that universe, even to the point that Spock Prime exists in both (having been restored in the Primeline but not in the Alt one). The possibilities of a multiverse mean that all this and more is possible. Just look at that episode of TNG with all the multiple Enterprises. Thanks to quantum mechanics, they could even create a new series in the Primeline where nothing in the movie (red matter, Romulus exploding, black hole, Nero, Spock traveling, etc) happened at all because some temporal agent "fixed" it. Heck, the fact that the ships and such are in the Alt-line are so different (gigantic, multiple warpcores, etc.) shows that this was already a different parallel universe to begin with. So it isn't even an alternate timeline so much as a parallel one that never intersected with the Primeline to begin with. There is a lot of possibility here. They could even (to demonstrate a left-field suggestion) eliminate "Enterprise" from the Primeline by saying it was the history of the Altline, not of the Primeline. At least, this is how I separate the two in my own Trekkie mind to preserve the Trek I grew up with, since I didn't care for the new movie, or the "timeline" it created. I wish they'd just have made a clean reboot and not acknowledged the Primeline at all. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) at {{{2}}}.


If Star Trek 11 was a "reboot" is it not conceivable we should not consider this an "alternate reality" as to not be confused with all the other episode-long temporal incursions and rather call it something else? "Reboot Universe"? "Star Trek 11 Universe"? "New (2009) Universe"? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) at {{{2}}}.

There's a discussion of what terminology to use to refer to the film's timeline here. –Josiah Rowe 04:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Alternate realityEdit

Isn't the page name a bit too generic? I mean I'm pretty sure the term has shown up in previous trek shows. And wasn't there a boxset of star trek episodes called "alternate realities" as well? 05:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

As I noted above, there's discussion of this here, especially here. –Josiah Rowe 05:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Could we please seperate the alternate universe/reality/timeline from the other trivia about Star Trek? When I read articles about the Kobayashi Maru, about Kirk or the Enterprise, I want to know the orginal Star Trek trivia, I don't want the alternate reality of the new reboot to overwrite stuff.

How about two Kobayashi Maru articles, two Kirk articles, and so forth?

Nothing at all has been rewritten, and no "original trivia" has been excised. --OuroborosCobra talk 21:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Red Matter Timeline / Red Matter UniverseEdit

My vote would be that, since the role of Red Matter was so pivotal in the creation of this timeline, a better codename would be the Red Matter Timeline / Universe. Without Red Matter, the cataclysm that would have ended the Classic / Prime Timeline could not have been avoided, and the events of the 2009 Star Trek would not have been possible.

The scope of events which Spock the Elder describes is catastrophic in scope: A potential destruction of the Milky Way Galaxy. The destruction of Romulus in the Classic Timeline, and the destruction of Vulcan in the proposed Red Matter Timeline, are both events of extreme impact, and are both shaped by the role of Red Matter.

--Aqaraza 00:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Red Matter incursion / Narada-Kelvin as CatalystEdit

It strikes me that there is a way to explain even the differences in the Enterprise's form factor and apparent technology through considering the massive impact the Narada incursion would have on the Classic Timeline. If a vessel of such extreme advancement were encountered, it would surely become a catalyst for an increased concern with R&D and advancement of technology, simply as a counter-response. Even the differences in look of the cast members could be explained by a 'butterfly effect' of the Narada's incursion and its massive impact. This is just a speculation / retcon at the moment, but something to ponder.

--Aqaraza 00:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Didn't want to nit-pick, good idea for a retcon, but do remember that the Nero incursion occurred AFTER the construction of the USS Kelvin, so the more "advanced" construction of the technologies on the Kelvin should not be an affect of the incursion.
Furthermore, Spock Prime obviously recognizes the alternate version of himself, Kirk and Scotty. Therefore, even according to your logic, these three actors should be identical to their prime reality counterparts.
But then again, this is all fiction anyways :) Ubcphysicsyangbo 08:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a bit of a silly sidenote, but fun. As to the Kelvin, its form factor is actually (to my eyes) somewhere between that of Archer's Enterprise and the new Enterprise. So, that makes the TOS Enterprise a sort of detour into simplified modernist lines and colors... A road not taken in the new timeline. And as to Spock's recognition of the characters... my theory is that he was not recognizing them primarily on a visual level, but on a psionic level.  :) Retcon is fun!

I speculate that The NX-01 Enterprise, and the USS Kelvin designs may have been affected by 21st Century scientists exposure to 24th Century technology for a few days in Star Trek:First Contact. Joeloveland 16:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Sequel equals timeline repair?Edit

There is a sequel on the way, due to be released in 2011. Perhaps it is Kirk and crew going to the future or back in time using the ever so popular slingshot manuever to stop Nero from ever going A: Back in Time or B: Ever meeting George Kirk. How this happens is beyond me, but I am sure that it will be funny for him trying to not get noticed by George or having a Spock Prime, a Alternate Reality Spock meet young Spock. I wonder how they will handle this... The preceding unsigned comment was added by Royal(Sniper)Grunt (talk • contribs).

Not really the place for speculation. -- sulfur 20:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Sulfur's right, but to further squash this line of thinking: writer Roberto Orci has said, in reference to their use of time travel in the 2009 film, "Despite [time travel's] overuse, we thought 'let's use it one more time before we put it away, and then not use it again.' " This strongly suggests that the next film won't deal with time travel. –Josiah Rowe 22:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Destiny and Synchronicity as Timeline RepairEdit

Now here's an interesting exchange from an MTV interview today about some of the seemingly unlikely serendipities in the movie's events:

MTV: Out of the entire universe, how do Elder Spock and Kirk happen to get stranded on the same planet? Are we expected to believe it's just a coincidence?

Kurtzman: One of the things we're playing to is the theme of destiny ... the idea that it wasn't actually random chance. It seems like random chance if you run into Spock in that cave, but it wasn't. And in some way, the time stream is trying to mend itself.

MTV: And how about Scotty? Is it a coincidence that he happens to be on that moon as well?

Kurtzman: It goes back to the idea that the time stream is trying to mend itself. These characters are essentially destined to find each other in one way or another – and that fate is literally bringing them together.

--Aqaraza 04:26, 13 May 2009

As an atheist, this "fate" ideas isn't really correct. From a sci-fi perspective, it's more like, the new/altered timeline would be more stable if it fell closer to the original timeline. Rather than fate, I see as some sort of extra-dimensional energy that is trying to "mend" the altered timeline. Perhaps this would also mean that the Vulcan race will continue to thrive (in order to match up to the original timeline), and that Romulus must be "destroyed" or eradicated in some form (again, in order to match the original timeline). 21:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

New timeline better or worse?Edit

I think its better-The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vulcanclown (talk • contribs).

Create a forum, this is for discussing the article not opinions about the show. — Morder 22:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Even the Forum, as I understand it, is not meant for discussion about Trek in general or to discuss opinions, it's to ask specific questions.--31dot 22:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

possibly better, just saying the tech looks cooler than the original, then again that could have no significence with the alternate reality, it just means producrers have more money to spend than gene did back in the day,i dunno i think its better, but what will ultimatly sell me is if they do a parodox film of the next generation(Megahypernova 17:57, February 9, 2010 (UTC))

Time Travel vs parallel universe travelEdit

The problem is this movie mixes what up to now were two separate ideas in Star Trek: time travel and parallel universe travel. Parallels like Mirror, Mirror is an parallel universe travel story and NOT a time travel story. "City on the Edge or Forever," "Yesterday's Enterprise", "First Contact", "Past Tense", "The Visitor", "Time and Again", "Future's End", "Before and After", "Year of Hell", "Timeless", "Relativity", and "Endgame" all established that tampering with the past DOES change the present and does NOT create alternate realities.

In fact, this is shoved in the viewer's face and down their throat all the above episodes. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) at {{{2}}}.

And what does this have to do with the article? — Morder (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Really? How is it not obvious? He's saying that this cannot be an alternate reality because it has been established in Star Trek Cannon that time travel changes your universe, not another universe. "Parallels", "Mirror, Mirror", etc. discussed how alternalte realities occur through time, but time travel always takes you to a point within your own timeline and will wipe out / replace your timeline based on the things that you've done. That's why they always have to go back and fix things, rather than just say "oh well, plot a course back to our own reality". — The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) at {{{2}}}.


Evidence indicates that the alternate universe was changed even before these events with the Kelvin and Narada. In the alternate universe some Starfleet linguists confused the Romulan and Vulcan languages and Starfleet knew what the Romulans looked liked in 2233 long before Starfleet did in the Prime Universe. If the Romulan and Vulcan languages were as similar in the Prime Universe as they are in the alternate universe Starfleet would have connected the origin of the races sooner just as they did in the alternate universe.

This is at least speculation, if not an outright nitpick. - Archduk3talk 23:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Archduk3 as I tried to explain elsewhere, when I wrote this I did not mean to nick pick only point out that the Abrams Universe may have changed before the appearance of Nero. --Frank Columbo 04:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

This comment was made before the posts on Morder's talk page. I haven't gotten around to doing anything about this because I've been distracted watching Wil Wheaton ham it up in season 7 of TNG. - Archduk3talk 04:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
LOL - Understood. It could have been worse. You may not have been able to pull your eyes from "Spock's Brain". --Frank Columbo 04:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

A fate worse then death if i ever heard one. - Archduk3talk 05:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed the following uncited speculation and inappropriate criticism:
Some argue that alternate reality is ruled by different laws of probability: Kirk has unusual tendency for hanging from a cliff or catwalk (twice in trailer, four times in the movie) and meeting old friends (Spock and Scotty) on uninhabited icy planets. Effect may be caused by writers lack of creativity.--31dot 22:04, November 11, 2009 (UTC)

Other elements Edit

There are loads of changes that diverge this timeline from the prime reality, not just the destruction of Vulcan. Ought not these be elaborated on more, but in particular in a side note could the Klingon's be mentioned. On screen they had 47 (?) ships destroyed and deleted content points to then capturing the Narada and perhaps, in the same manner as the article already comments - that the Kelvin crew had scans of the Narada which led to advances in starfleet technology (and probably with the Enterprise was launched much later) - they obtained technology from that ship themselves. Of course we cannot elaborate on it even if included in a side note but all these impacts on the timeline define the alternative reality. You have all the events that didn't happen as well and what impact they might have. 11:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Peer review Edit

I'm putting this up for peer review mainly to bring it up to snuff with MA standards. - Archduk3talk 15:25, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

Alternate reality - just an alternate timeline? Edit

I really think that we should just consider the alternate reality an alternate timeline and not a Parallel universe. There is nothing at all that suggests that the movie was set in another universe, just an altered timeline...but it's still the same universe. I have heard discussion that the prime reality could still exist...and if that's the case, it would have to be a parallel universe. But once again, there's no canon evidence that it is. Spock-Prime indicated that he was from the future...but he didn't say he was from another universe. I realize it's possible that he didn't know for sure but still it wasn't indicated in the film.

Bottom line, I say Spock is from the same universe as everyone else, just a different timeline. The only evidence that there is that he's from another timeline comes from Star Trek Online, in which the prime "universe" as it is referred to as, still exists in 2409. But that isn't canon. I don't see how it could be "another universe." It must be the same universe, but just an alternate timeline. Who's with me? That seems pretty obvious to me.

Although we could mention that it's not entirely certain as to whether it's an alternate timeline or a parallel universe.

--Kobyashi Maru 21:55, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

Well there are three things against calling the alternate reality an alternate timeline. First of all, before being teased by his classmates, young Spock is asked by the computer in the learning center on Vulcan: "What is the central assumption of quantum cosmology?" To which Spock replies: "Everything that can happen does happen in equal and parallel universes." This is barely audible in the film itself but is there and can propably be found in the script. It is in the novelization of Star Trek written by Alan Dean Foster. Secondly we have the conversation at the end between Spocks: "How did you persuade him to keep your secret?" to which prime-Spock replies: "He inferred that universe ending paradoxes would ensue should he break his promise." Spock: "You lied?" in other words: no temporal paradox would result if the new Spock doesn't return from the future in the "new timeline", as the old timeline was never changed, and prime-Spock still returns from the future in the 24th century from the "prime universe". Hence both universes coexist, so they are parallel universes. And we have the writers and producers intent to continue the quantum reality concept introduced in "Parallels". so I think you are correct it was not stated canonically that these are different quantum realities, but it doesnt seem correct to claim that the future from which prime-Spock came was now rewritten aka, an alternate timeline. As the concept of alternate timelines has been defined in Star Trek pretty clearly, and this isn't it. --Pseudohuman 22:31, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow, could you explain that? In what way has it been established that the definitions of what an alternate timeline is does not apply here?

Also I think I should point out that the whole Spock meeting Spock thing was just used as a means to get Kirk and younger Spock together so that they could learn to work together, and become friends. I don't see how it had anything to do with the alteration of the timeline. If Spock was to return to the would be the future of the alternate reality...unless it's a parallel universe....which wasn't exactly firmly established. Nor was it even indicated.

--Kobyashi Maru 23:10, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also, it was decided to go along with the writers' intentions to avoid basing information from the movie on one particular fanon interpretation of the film. Fans can interpret this particular scenario any number of ways; your interpretation of events, Kobyashi, is only one of dozens I have seen online. So, to avoid committing to one fanon (and thus non-canon) interpretation of the whole alternate timeline/parallel universe fiasco, we went with what the writers' intended it to be: an alternate reality which splintered off the prime reality and which does not impact the previously-existing reality. Hope that makes sense. If not, just keep in mind that Memory Alpha cannot adopt one fan's interpretation of the scenario. :) --From Andoria with Love 23:16, January 4, 2010 (UTC)
Also, if it was an alternate timeline, there would be a paradox. and it is stated in the film that there are no paradoxes in this case. --Pseudohuman 10:34, January 5, 2010 (UTC)
You all should be aware that, personal interpretation aside, there does not seem to be any clear difference between alternate timelines, universes or realities. See, for example, the article alternate timeline. It defines an alternate timeline as a "tangential space-time continuum" - and a Space-time continuum is defined as a whole "plane of existence" (which, to me, sounds pretty much like the description of a "reality"). Similarly, this article claims that an "alternate reality" is a "parallel universe".
Now, before you storm to those articles and change them according to your personal speculation about what the differences might be - please make sure that this really is the case, and quote your sources! -- Cid Highwind 11:47, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

Is There A Possibillity for a next gen parodox film? Edit

Ok first of all if anyone remembers generations you'd remember kirk came with picard through the nexus to save everyone in the gallaxy and on enterprise but will that play out the same way now that time has been alterd? im stumped. (Megahypernova 18:01, February 9, 2010 (UTC))

Propably not in the absolute exact same way in the alternate reality. Time was not altered however, only a new parallel universe timeline was created, according to the writers of Star Trek. So the original future was not "erased". --Pseudohuman 01:29, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

Big AR Paradox Edit

It takes from non-canon sources, but I think it's conceivable the Borg will never exist in this timeline. If you assume that...
1)V'Ger is the "father" of the Borg (I don't, but for the sake of argument I'll say it is)
2)The Narada is for all intents and purposes a Borg ship, as Countdown implies
3)Study of Narada technology is responsible for the more advanced state
...then it's possible that, when V'Ger descends on Earth in 2272, Starfleet will be able to neutralize it without anything like the Decker/Ilia absorption, preventing the Borg from being created in the past.--Ten-pint 01:48, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

How does it create a paradox? Remember that both timelines continue to exist. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:29, March 2, 2010 (UTC)
I guess it's not really a paradox, but it's certainly possible.

Events from the Alternate Reality Edit

We should remove this section. I'm not sure what it's trying to say, and the article itself already covers "events from the alternate reality" in the extensive "History" section.– Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 02:24, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

I think I am somewhat confused by that line, what is it saying? That the events in the alternate reality did, or did not happen as seen in the rest of the franchise? Isn't the point of it, is that things are now potentially different?--Terran Officer 02:47, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

I removed the note:

  • All included in Star Trek in the Star Trek Franchise, except a few.

Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 06:16, April 18, 2010 (UTC)


I just did a little cleanup on this article, mainly for clarity's sake, but I still think the "Alteration" section could use some work. -Angry Future Romulan 21:16, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Parallel Universe?Edit

Why is this considereed a parralel universe instead of an alternate timeline. A parrallel universe is like the mirror universe, or what happened to Worf in "Parallels". A parrallel universe is the theroy that for every decisison that you make in one universe, you make a different decision in another universe. It has nothing to do with time travel. The article says that this was created by a temporal incursison, so by definition this is a alternate timeline, like "The City on the Edge of Forever", or "Past Tense, Part I".Icecreamdif 01:33, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

We went with producers intent on this one. --Pseudohuman 01:35, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
It was a parallel, identical universe that the time travelers arrived in and changed, not just an alternate timeline branched off of the main one.--31dot 01:39, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
Where was this stated in the movie? Based on what Spock was saying when they realized that Nero had time travelled, and based on real Spock's explanation of what happened when they went through the black hole, it seems like it is just an alternate timeline. If it is a parrallel universe than the article is still wrong, because it says that it was created by Nero's temporal incursion, but if it was a parallel, identical universe, than the temporal incursion affected it but didn't create it. It would be more similar to the Defiant from the prime universe 23rd century affecting the mirror universe 22nd century.Icecreamdif 03:06, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
Other that Uhura using the term "alternate reality", I don't think it was. As Pseudo said, it's producers/writers' intent. I'm not sure why this is being questioned now,(and not just here) with the movie having been out for almost a year and a half.--31dot 03:22, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
The difference between an alternate timeline and a parallel universe is subtle and debatable anyway, since the "rules" about parallel universes and alternate timelines changed depending on the narrative requirements of the episode or movie at hand. It's fairly pointless to try to come up with a hard-and-fast distinction between the two, since we don't have a clear enough understanding of the relevant "rules". After all, we're not Temporal Investigations. –Josiah Rowe 03:26, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
To tell you the truth, I'm a little surprised to hear someone describe the alternate reality as a parallel universe and not a branching timeline. I was always under the assumption that it branched off. Mainly because the producers have compared to the TNG episode "Parallels," which clearly describes branching universes (even Data's little diagram in that episode displayed branching timelines). I didn't even know there were people who thought that the alternate reality was never connected to the prime one. I don't remember ever hearing the producers say that it was completely separate. Unless I'm misinterpreting 31dot's statements. -Angry Future Romulan 03:52, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
Just to be clear - the timeline in the film is, in fact, branched off from the original (prime) timeline. Everything up to the point where the first singularity appeared was the same in both timelines. This is what the filmmakers intended so we went with that because it was better than going with fan-made assumptions. Based on this situation, I would think the new reality qualifies more as an alternate timeline than as a parallel universe, but I'm not an expert in such things. Also, just fyi, this was already discussed above. --From Andoria with Love 05:31, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
Nobody is suggesting the alt reality didn't branch off. It did. And we know that is the producers intent here. But the producers intent was to make it synonymous with quantum realities, but that is a bit too much i think for us to classify it as such, so we have classified it as one of the coexisting alternate timelines seen in star trek. A coexisting alternate timeline is by definition a type of parallel universe while it is also an alternate timeline at the same time. I just put the subsection on them into the parallel universes article, as i thought they fit there. As there is the whole writers intent going on that they are the same thing as quantum realities. I dont see a problem with moving the subsection to the aternate timeline article as it fits there just as much as in the other one, if someone really wants to, and sees it as a problem. --Pseudohuman 09:17, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought someone above suggested it didn't branch off, but I just misread the comment. --From Andoria with Love 09:23, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
We just dont know yet if the alternate reality literary shares it's past with the prime reality in the sense that, if alt-Kirk goes back in time, will he meet the prime-Kirk in for example 1969, or does alt-Kirk have a parallel past clean of post-TOS temporal incursions to work with. If he does meet prime-Kirk and kills him, does it affect the prime reality and so forth. That is something future writers have to fill us in with. There just isn't enough evidence yet to say what the case is this time around. If you ask me, we shouldnt speculate further than to say it is a coexisting alternate timeline. --Pseudohuman 11:39, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Well if future time travel episodes never happened in the past history would be very different even for the kelvin. without "Future's End" computers wouldn't be as advanced, in "Relativity" Seven of Nine implied that without Star Trek: First Contact wouldn't have happenen, transparent aluminum may not have been invented. There are a lot of examples in Star Trek of predestination paradoxes, so we can't assume that time travel in the other shows has been erased. The way I always understood the alternate reality was that it was an alternate timeline, but the original timeline still exists seperately. Similarly, there is an alternate timeline where the Bell Riots never happened, and an alternate timeline where Earth was destroyed in the 29th century. People from the prime timeline can't visit these other timelines, but they didn't cease to exist when history was "corrected".Icecreamdif 17:13, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

And you are certainly free to assume and speculate and rationalize it in any way you want. That simply is not what memory alpha articles and talk pages are for. We just state what is canonically known and leave it at that. --Pseudohuman 17:21, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

But it was never canonically stated that it was a parrallel universe. It was implied that it was an alternate timeline, but if so many people won't believe, the article shouldn't state one way or the other, since it was never stated exactly what it was.Icecreamdif 17:28, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Currently the article states it is a coexisting alternate timeline. --Pseudohuman 17:42, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
If you have a look around this site, you will notice that, currently, we think that Parallel universes are also called alternate universes, some of which are other dimensions while others are separate quantum realities. In turn, Quantum reality is a description for a set of alternate timelines, which in turn is the same as a Space-time continuum, which is an all-purpose term for all kinds of universes, dimensions and realities - I believe that these individual articles are, in fact, mostly true to what we have been told in the episodes, and that these terms are basically interchangeable and as such pretty meaningless. So, if you want to consider the Nero-timeline a "parallel universe" or "alternate timeline" instead of an "alternate reality", that's apparently perfectly valid. You will have a hard time convincing the community of the problems with either of these titles, though, because "Alternate reality" is by now considered an established naming convention by some, and as such there will be aversion to changing it. -- Cid Highwind 22:11, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that this Kelvin timeline as CBS calls it is a parallel universe that Nero altered. My reasoning is that in order for the divergence in the timeline idea to work, then the singularity that Nero and Spock went through would have had two different effects. Nero was sent back in time along the Prime timeline, and created a divergence. That same singularity would have sent Spock back in time, and also jumped him over to this new divergent timeline. That's two significantly different actions caused by the same singularity. If we consider instead that this singularity created a connection between the Prime universe and this parallel universe, then Spock and Nero would be both thrown into the same parallel universe, but their different entry times and vectors would have placed them within two different points within the same parallel universe, which seems more consistent. This would also align with Simon Pegg's assertion that events in this universe before Nero's arrival can be different than the Prime universe. In order to change past events, Nero's arrival would have had to have created both a time ripple and an anti-time ripple. That just seems to be a little too complex of an explanation. -- 20:59, October 28, 2016 (UTC)

The Banner Edit

The banner at the top suggests that this article only contains information about the alternate reality, but there's a whole section detailing events from the prime reality. Shouldn't the banner be changed to the "Multiple Realities" one? - Mitchz95 23:32, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

The prime reality events are mentioned within the context of creating the alternate reality. The multiple realities banner is for articles where disparate events from the two realities are mentioned. --31dot 23:56, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

"Abramsverse" Edit

"Fans often refer to it as the "Abramsverse" or "JJverse", after director J.J. Abrams."

This note has been added to the article twice now, and twice removed. I think it's a valid note, though I don't really know if there's a good place to put it. Thoughts? - Mitchz95 (talk) 19:35, September 17, 2012 (UTC)

The problem is everyone will nickname it however they want to. I recall "N(ew)u(niverse)Trek" and "nuKirk" thrown around a lot, and in apocrypha we mention the board game using that term. It's nice fans honour JJ like that but I don't think it needs to be said. --Alientraveller (talk) 20:05, September 17, 2012 (UTC)
It would be OK to note if it was something more than "fans often refer to", such as being discussed by Abrams or other Trek staff, or even something else citeable. The way it is worded above, no. 31dot (talk) 21:53, September 17, 2012 (UTC)
Given how widely used abramsverse has become under fans, news sites, and even people like Doug Drexler, it would be pretty dumb if we couldn't find some way to get a version of that statement in the article. Maybe someone could find an instance of for example Orci using the term during one of his many interactions with fans on sites like trekmovie. Or, alternatively, would it do if examples could be provided of the term being used in (professional) news stories? -- Capricorn (talk) 09:11, December 24, 2012 (UTC)
If you have a citable link when Doug or Orci used it, please add it to the same bgnote where we have the "board game - New Universe" info. I think even professional news stories at least alone are a bit irrelevant in this case. But I think it might be okay to note it like this that "The term "abramsverse", originally invented by fans, has become a term also used by such members of the the production staff as X. (cites here)" --Pseudohuman (talk) 09:27, December 24, 2012 (UTC)
As for Doug, he even has an abramsverse tag on his blog. But actually seeing as how he's not really got anything to do with the new movie, I don't think that's relevant. -- Capricorn (talk) 11:24, December 24, 2012 (UTC)


The Enterprise NX-01, and the other ships seen as models on Adm. Marcus' desk, should probably also be included in the starships list, marked as being pre-Narada. 20:30, May 27, 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if they count, since the ships themselves never actually existed in the new timeline. - Mitchz95 (talk) 20:43, May 27, 2013 (UTC)


Removed this segment since it is speculation.

In spite of this premise, it may be noted that, since time travel to earlier centuries was prevalent in the prime universe, Nero's incursion may have had more subtle ramifications throughout history. It is reasonable to assume that incidents such as the Federation's first contact with the Guardian of Forever, the rescue of the humpback whales, the Devidian encounter in the late 1800s, and various other instances of temporal adventuring would unfold differently (or not at all) due to the Nerada's impact. This may serve as a possible explanation for further incongruities in the setting of the new universe. (TOS: "The City on the Edge of Forever";Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home;TNG: "Time's Arrow", "Time's Arrow, Part II")

--Pseudohuman (talk) 06:26, June 21, 2013 (UTC)

Template suggestionEdit

Instead of always saying "In 2259 of the alternate reality", how about a template like so?

ARYR (alternate reality year) 2259, aka {{aryr|2259}}? --LauraCC (talk) 18:53, June 2, 2016 (UTC)

Alternate reality nameEdit

Abramsverse gets official name: (DUSK (talk) 22:30, June 27, 2016 (UTC))

See Forum:Alternate reality "official" name. -- sulfur (talk) 01:28, June 28, 2016 (UTC)

Timelines Edit

I think it is time to allow the 'Kelvin' Timeline to stand on its on and stop this futile effort at reconciling it with the Prime Universe. If you study the three films of the 'Kelvin Timeline' closely, you will realize that there is no way those films line up with the prime realities past. For example in Beyond The Xindi War is mentioned. It is very possible in the New reality that the Federation went to war with the Xindi. That is okay. How do we know Edison has a counterpart in the prime universe? We make a lot of assumptions because we don't want the Kelvin Universe to breathe on its own without life support from the Prime Universe. Pegg said it beautifully.. 'the Kelvin universe can evolve and change in ways that don’t necessarily have to follow the Prime Universe at any point in history, before or after the events of Star Trek ‘09', January 10, 2017 (UTC)

Removed speculations Edit

I've removed the claims that the USS Enterprise-A was "completed at Starbase Yorktown and assigned to the surviving Enterprise crew to continue their five-year mission." This is entirely speculative. As the background of the time-lapse montage at the end of Star Trek Beyond crossfades from Yorktown to space, who's to say the ship wasn't completed in space?! And it certainly can't be assumed that the ship was assigned to the surviving Enterprise crew; not only is there insufficient evidence to state that, the IDW comics have the Enterprise senior officers instead assigned to a variety of other ships, showing even more how there's no proof to say that the Enterprise crew were reassigned to the Enterprise-A. --Defiant (talk) 15:11, February 13, 2017 (UTC)

That's interesting, because we also have a bunch of articles on main characters that end with a claim that they went on to serve on the Ent-A. -- Capricorn (talk) 17:10, February 13, 2017 (UTC)

All speculative. --Defiant (talk) 17:30, February 13, 2017 (UTC)

Not with the way the movie ended it. It was clearly supposed to be inferred that they went on the Enterprise-A together.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 19:06, February 13, 2017 (UTC)
I see the point Defiant is making but I also agree that the intent of the film was that the bridge crew was serving on the A. That's given the "these are the voyages...." voiceover, the actual last lines of the film, and the fact that we see the ship at all. It's pretty clear to me that the ship was finished at the base, as well. Maybe there's a better way to write it, but I think the intent is clear. 31dot (talk) 19:59, February 13, 2017 (UTC)

I'm not just making a "point". I honestly don't believe it was the filmakers' intention to imply that the Enterprise crew transferred to the Ent-A, and I don't agree that the movie does imply that. I do strongly believe, however, that the ship was implied to have been launched before it was completed, hence the background change. Of course, stating either way would be speculative, so the best thing to do now would probably be to leave it as is. --Defiant (talk) 20:13, February 13, 2017 (UTC)

To me, it makes perfect sense that they'd use the "these are the voyages..." speech, given that it's obviously and recognizably a Trek motif, and the film was purposely released for the franchise's 50th anniversary, so to mark the occasion with those words makes total sense. It's obviously important that the next Enterprise is shown, as that's symbolically marking the continuation of Star Trek, but to say outrightly that it was boarded by the same crew is, simply put, a step too far, speculatively. --Defiant (talk) 20:19, February 13, 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the transition from the base to outer space was meant to suggest anything about how it was constructed, simply the transition from construction to an active ship. It was likely done for the benefit of the audience(much like the end of "These Are the Voyages...")31dot (talk) 20:55, February 13, 2017 (UTC)

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, then. --Defiant (talk) 20:59, February 13, 2017 (UTC)

Until you see them serving on the E-A, it could be just the crew imagining (that is, looking ahead to) the ship's progressive construction and launch. We don't know the circumstances of the fourth AR film, whether the ship will be launched ahead of schedule due to mitigating circumstances, when the main character crew will re-assemble more permanently (no matter what the comics say, they could wind up together on Kirk's temporary command for a few weeks, and then be reassigned elsewhere for a six month stint before the E-A launches. There's no guarantee Kirk will get captaincy of the E-A right away; the E-A might be taking him to his new assignment and he wins the job from AR Decker or somebody else. --LauraCC (talk) 20:05, February 14, 2017 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.