“Abramsverse.” “JJ Trek.” “NuTrek.”

Finally, after seven years, there’s no longer a need to make up a title for the alternate reality Star Trek film series, as CBS has finally put a name to this new universe: the Kelvin Timeline.

nero-kelvin
The USS Kelvin encounters Nero’s ship as it arrives in alternate 2233. (Star Trek)

First revealed this week in a Star Trek Online preview blog post for a Prime Reality / Alternate Reality crossover, the new name for the movie universe was confirmed by CBS Consumer Product’s Holly Amos that the need for such a label came about during the development of Mike and Denise Okuda’s upcoming Star Trek Encyclopedia relaunch.

kelvin-attacked
The final moments of the USS Kelvin. (Star Trek)

Based upon the starship destroyed at the divergence of the two universes in 2009’s Star Trek film, this label for the ongoing film series is certainly simpler than some of the unwieldy, unofficial monikers for the “reboot timeline” – it’s about time that a formal title is set for the Bad Robot productions.

  • About time.

  • Locutus

    Nice choice.

  • Cygnus-X1

    In the spirit of the infamous two-word review for Spinal Tap’s “Shark Sandwich” album, I offer:

    The Sh*t Timeline.

    • Coolgeek

      Because the prime timeline was completely perfect and had no s##t episodes right?

      Your just a hater.

      • Charlie Oakes

        Threshold was the greatest episode of anything ever. . . .

      • Jean Michel

        “Because the prime timeline was completely perfect and had no s##t episodes right?”

        Yeah, there were a couple. Not the majority though. As for the “Kelvin timeline” there have been two movies and both are s##t.

        “Your just a hater.”

        Oh right, the most universal argument ever.

        • Guest

          Judging by the director, the trailer, and the utter lack of buzz surrounding it, I’m pretty sure Beyond will be just as bad, if not worse than the Abrams films (my money’s on it being the worst yet).

          • TommyHawk

            You’re acting pretty desperate “Guest” & Jean Michel. You’re not stopping Nu Trek in any way, shape or form, no matter how hard you pound your computer keyboard. You have no power, no pull… nada. Don’t go away mad though… just go away. 🙂

          • Cygnus-X1

            Hopefully it will stop itself.

            There’s every reason to believe that STB is going to be a bad movie—from the truncated writing period, to the “Fast & Furious” director, to the substantially decreased budget, to the rushed production, to the cast and producers lowering expectations for the movie. Though, from your comments, I get the impression that you’ll find the movie satisfying regardless of how bad it is.

        • mswood666

          A couple, how about easily over a hundred, easily. Heck episodes that found to be below average is over two hundred, yes not a majority, but vastly larger then a few. A few is the number of bad TOS films, in my opinion o course,

      • Guest

        So anyone who doesn’t like the drivel that are the Abrams/Lin films because they’ve betrayed the essence of what Star Trek is all about, is a “hater” now? Don’t be such a child. He has a different opinion than you. Deal with it. The original timeline had bad episodes here and there. They even had bad movies here and there, but there was far more good than bad, and even the bad ones were still at their core, more or less Star Trek. The “Kelvin Timeline” is three bad films that are Star Trek in name only. Someone thinking it s**t is more than justified.

        • J.D.

          Exactly. Star Trek is supposed to be a morality tale. A story that inspires us to be better than who we are as humans. JJ-Trek had nothing of that. It was all flash and no substance.

          • mswood666

            The main humans of the JJ two films have shown to be very much in the type as in TOS. Were we see crew members act in what one would view a negative light, learn a message and then behave in a more positive manner, well except for the evil admiral (something that is very much a TOS cliche, well in TOS it would have been Commodore ). the list of human characters that behave in a negative manner in TOS is huge. The number of times one of the crew act in a negative manner in TOS is also rather large.

          • M33

            True!
            And it’s not as if TNG either was free from megalomaniacal Admirals, even in their movies!
            And they were supposed to be the “enlightened” era!
            There is really nothing un-Trek about the Kelvin Timeline. It has both the best and worst of all prior Trek in it.

          • Cygnus-X1

            No, just the worst.

            It is fundamentally un-Trek in that the focus of TOS was its messages/morals/meanings/themes. Whereas the focus of BR Trek is, as Simon Pegg put it, “action spectacle.” There is no thematic or character development in BR Trek. They’re just meaningless action movies, which is pretty much the antithesis of what Trek was meant to be from its beginning.

          • Cygnus-X1

            Wrong.

            We never see any characters in BR Trek learn anything meaningful. Sometimes the characters change their mindsets over the course of the movie—as Kirk in STID—but we’re never shown why or how they change. There’s no meaning associated with the change. It’s just paint-by-numbers storytelling—characters are supposed to have arcs in a good story, so let’s change the characters’ mindsets arbitrarily. It’s really shamelessly poor storytelling.

          • RickRussellTX

            Star Trek has never been antithetical to a good action story. Some of the lighter, action-heavy movies and episodes are very popular.

            We might rightly criticize Abrams for exploiting the action a little too heavily, but I think that with the tremendous task he had of building the universe around all new actors, he can be forgiven for a little populism.

          • Cygnus-X1

            “…a little too heavily”!?!

            The BR Trek movies are all action! Literally the entire second half of STID is action scenes. There is no character or thematic development in STID after the midpoint of the movie—the face-off between Marcus and Kirk in space—and precious little in the first half.

          • Rob Toohey

            No, there is. these new events set up something that Kirk and Spock can overcome. their very lives have been changed. We still can have a decent trek story, but it’s wrapped up in more flash now than it was before.

          • Charlie Oakes

            Go look at the trailers for The Wrath of Khan and First Contact and come back and tell me they’re all about the plot and not the action…

          • Cygnus-X1

            You won’t find me putting up much of a fight about the TNG movies, but the trailer for TWOK has worlds more substance than the STB trailer. The BR Trek movies aren’t even in the same league as TWOK.

        • Gene’s Vision

          Or it is possible that many Posters simply go out of their way to be nasty? For those who don’t like the new films there is soon to be an entire series that promises to richly deliver so many of the Utopian concepts so many seem to prize. Both the new series and the new movie timeline can coexist. Your description of “three bad films” that are more or less Star Trek suggest you have either already seen Beyond (if so offer a review!) or have already passed judgement on that which you have not seen. The box office returns as well as the audience ratings on sites such as Rotten Tomtoes and IMDB suggests that the general public genuinely enjoyed the previous two films. Like any mythology Star Trek is at it’s best when it appeals to the masses in contrast to the relatively small numbers of devotees. Chances are it would be best to be open minded regarding the possibilities for the future.

        • Ace Stephens

          So anyone who doesn’t like the drivel that are the Abrams/Lin films because they’ve betrayed the essence of what Star Trek is all about, is a “hater” now?

          I think the issue might be that some contextualize the reboot as “drivel” and having “betrayed the essence of what Star Trek is all about.” That sort of over-the-top rhetoric masquerading as discerning fan dissent is the sort of “childish” stuff that many resist even if they have major issues with “the Kelvin Timeline.”

          • RickRussellTX

            That is quite possibly the most Picard-worthy response I’ve ever seen.

          • Ace Stephens

            I’m not sure what you mean by “Picard-worthy.” Regardless, I don’t understand why, in response to the use of the term “haters,” one would use needlessly negative rhetoric in order to somehow stress either that they aren’t “haters” or somehow being such is fine. It only serves to make the other party’s point for them.

        • CoolGeek

          ” Three bad films ”

          Wow.So you have seen Beyond already? You must have because only a closed minded hater would say a movie is bad before he/she has already seen it.

          Then again you must just be a closed minded hater.

          • trekboi

            Um, if he didn’t like the first 2 I don’t see why the 3rd would be different- it looks like more of the same.

          • Charlie Oakes

            Different writers and director. Even has a different cinematographer.

            But whatever.

      • Jake Wolfe

        I think an adult, intellectual conversation would be of use here. Rather than call things we don’t like “the s-word”, we’ll analyze the claim that “JJverse” Trek is inferior. We’ll start with the numbers, then work our way up to the more intellectual part or the discussion.

        Rotten Tomatoes

        Kelvin Timeline (First Two)
        Star Trek ’09:
        95% Crit/91% Aud/93% Avg
        Star Trek Into Darkness:
        86% Crit/90% Aud/88% Avg
        Average: 90.5%

        Prime Universe (Last Two)
        Insurrection:
        55% Crit/45% Aud/50% Avg
        Nemesis:
        37% Crit/50% Aud/33.5% Avg
        Average: 41.75%

        Prime Universe (Best)
        First Contact:
        93% Crit/89% Aud/91% Avg
        Wrath of Khan:
        88% Crit/90% Aud/89% Avg
        Average: 90%

        Prime Universe (First Two)
        The Motion Picture:
        47% Crit/42% Aud/44.5% Avg
        Wrath of Khan:
        88% Crit/90% Aud/89% Avg
        Average: 66.75%

        Let’s be honest, our combined first two Kelvin films have fared better than either our combined first two or last two Prime films, and just as well as our two best Prime films combined (both of which took a lot of odd-numbered films to get to). Films are made for general audiences, and if a film resonates with them, they rate it high. Most Trek fans are with the general audiences on this subject. Only a very vocal, self-described “Trek purist” minority have an issue with the Kelvin films so far. And many legitimate Trek purists do love them.

        As far as the themes, the two best Prime films have very similar themes. Moby Dick-inspired revenge films about Human arrogance and refusal to give something up that needs to be given up. A character hurt by another. Khan also has some “growing old” themes as well, but aside from that, they’re not all that different.

        The first two Kelvin films have very different themes, even when comparing Into Darkness with Wrath of Khan. With ID, there is some revenge, yes, but there’s also a big family element, as well as an emphasis on stepping up to responsibilities and earning one’s place through discipline and sacrifice. These share a tiny bit with Khan, but are far more prominent in Into Darkness, where Kirk is much younger. In ’09, the heart was in growing up, honoring the past, and accepting destiny while making it one’s own.

        These films have made Star Trek relevant again, made it resonant again, and have brought their own themes to the table that add to Star Trek, as well as to the lives of the audience members. If one person’s definition of “s**t” includes all that, then it’s time to blow dust off the dictionary, and get back to enjoying the entertaining and intellectual pleasures in life.

        • CoolGeek

          Well done Jake.You just showed how pathetic the haters are.Thankfully they are in the minority and the vast majority of Trek fans ( As well as the general movie going public ) enjoy the Kelvin timeline films.

          • Clay

            The vast majority of the movie going public enjoyed the Transformers dumpster fires as well. That’s the company the Abrams Trek movies are in. Ah well, no point trying to reason with someone who only knows how to squawk “haters! haters! haters!” over and over.

        • Jake Wolfe

          I appreciate that, CoolGeek.

          I would like to note, though, that the discernable themes in each of the four films I discussed go much further than what I mentioned, to their great credit. The themes maketh the Trek.

        • Gene’s Vision

          Well played Sir!

        • Cygnus-X1

          I’m a bit surprised that some people didn’t appreciate the humor, regardless of whether they have good taste in movies or poor taste.

          But, it’s dumbfounding that people are still making this idiotic argument, that somehow the RottenTomatoes score implies Trek-validity or even a good movie of any genre.

          If you read critical reviews at RottenTomatoes fairly often, you’d know that the RT score is a measure of one thing and one thing only: the critics’ prediction that audiences with an interest in a certain type of movie will enjoy the movie being recommended ENOUGH that they won’t exit the theater with buyer’s remorse. In other words, a 100% RT score means that 100% of the critics believe that most people will rate the movie at least 3 out of 5 stars (using the Netflix scale) or at least a “C” (using an academic grading scale).

          So, not only is a movie’s RT score not indicative of a movie’s intrinsic value beyond the most superficial system of judging—i.e. sufficiently entertaining vs. not sufficiently entertaining—but, it’s absolutely no measure of the movie’s faithfulness to the spirit and values of TOS. If a movie is in the “action” genre, as Bad Robot Trek movies are, critics are rating that movie based on the standards and expectations of general action-movie audiences—standards which are infamously low. Does the movie have lots of action? CHECK. Does the movie have lots of explosions? CHECK. Exciting visuals? CHECK. Does the movie have some semblance of a story? CHECK. This action movie could get a high RT score.

          Further, if you bothered to read the actual reviews for STID, you saw that the vast majority of the recommendations for that movie were based on superficial attributes such as those that I just mentioned. Many critics who recommended STID criticized it as being un-Trek, nonsensical in its narrative and poor storytelling.

          Finally, if you really feel that ST09 or STID are better films than TWOK, there’s very little point in discussing Star Trek or even films generally with you. And, frankly, I’m not surprised that people who find the BR Trek movies satisfying would have less appreciation for TWOK. Trying to convince you otherwise is like trying to explain to a Justin Bieber fan why The Beatles, Miles Davis and Beethoven are richer, better quality music. There’s just no accounting for taste.

          • Jake Wolfe

            That’s not how RT works. Critics review and rate the films the same as users, essentially. Whether or not they liked the film. And the majority of critics liked both films quite a bit. There’s no guessing as to whether or not users will like the films. Critics rate the films based on their own feelings, nothing more or less.

            The fact remains that most people who have seen the newest two Trek films have liked them. You’re in the minority, you don’t like them, you spend time passionately attacking them on the Internet regardless, and you don’t like being called a hater. Well, that’s what happens when someone is in the minority and spends time attacking something on the Internet that everybody else likes and can identify meaningful and intellectually significant themes in. If you can’t identify those themes, thay’s your own intellectual failing, not ours, and not the film’s. Not every film can please everybody, and not everybody “gets” every film.

            I never said Khan was inferior to Kelvin Trek. I will say that I think First Contact did a better job with the revenge themes, though. Here’s the thing. A lot of people nowadays are neither entertained nor intellectually fed via Khan. It’s dated, and to some “boring”. That’s their loss. And if Star Trek Into Darkness can take some of those same themes and update the package in a way that makes those themes accessible to more people today than Khan 30 years later, then that’s a good thing.

            The problem is that there’s a kneejerk reaction to new Trek. It’s always existed, and you may not have liked the comment about all the times people didn’t like new Trek, but the fact is that you’re part of that continuing trend, because you, like all those prior to you, cannot accept new or old themes in new packages with new (for Trek) forms of storytelling. That’s your failing as an intellectual, to fail to appreciate themes, a different take on storytelling, hard-worked-on and fresh design work, and Trek that gets its themes across to people who didn’t previously care about Trek in any capacity.

            Each Trek incarnation has gotten its themes across differently, and to different people. But it’s ALL still valid, and if it means something to people who aren’t you, that’s not the films’ fault, or the fault of people who can actually grasp the themes. You just have to accept it, along with TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, and the TNG films. Because they’re all equal in the attempt. They all carry worthwhile themes, and all have their own fans who may or may not like other Trek. And if they bash other Trek that they don’t like, that others do lile them yeah, they’re going to get called a hater for bashing somehing they don’t understand, that someone else likes and finds meaningful to them.

            Really, the point is, for each of us who can’t accept what we don’t like or understand: get over yourself, you’re not the all-knowing judge of what makes good Trek. All any of us can judge is what we like, or what means something to us. And shame on us if we try to take that away from someone else. None of us is that important that our opinion on what makes bad Trek is above any other opinion. It’s all Trek. It all has valuable themes that mean something to people. And if the few, or the one, of us doesn’t like it, then we need to get over it and allow others to find things intellectually rewarding regardless of our own tastes. There is no bad taste, intellectually speaking. Not if we get something meaningful or resonant (TO US) from what we enjoy.

          • Cygnus-X1

            You’re wrong.

            And the reason that I know that you’re wrong is that I’ve read many critical reviews at RottenTomatoes.

      • Cygnus-X1

        Because the prime timeline was completely perfect and had no s##t episodes right?

        No.

        Because the BR Trek movies are literally the bottom of the barrel in terms of cinematic storytelling.

    • MJ

      My new name for the original timeline is the “Khan 1990’s Divergent Timeline,” since we know now that the original timeline has a severe historical error given the genetic superman did not have a huge war in the 1990’s and escape into the cosmos.

      • BotanyCameos

        MJ, do you mean because of the episode of Voyager where they go to the past and no war is happening? It’s the only instance in Trek that clashes with the canon we know of where the 90’s were torn by war. (It’s possible Voyager is in a separate timeline from the start…)
        Because in both TOS and Kelvin Timeline, the war happened.

        It’s likely that there’s countless universes/timelines, anyway (but that most of them are not usually aware of the others unless in cases where they cross paths like with the Kelvin Timeline). So there could be plenty in which it didn’t happen.

        • MJ

          That’s interesting….I need to go back and see that Voyager episode again.

          • M33

            Also, remember that Future’s End actually showed us an ALTERNATE 1990s. Starling acquired the timeship in the 60s and rewrote the future. He wasn’t suppose to exist. Once Voyager crew resolved the paradox, that “our 90s” timeline ceased to exist and the eugenics wars timeline would have been replaced.

          • Trekboi

            Fu*k so do I…

        • mswood666

          Actually the TOS timeline certainly changes after the events of Voyage Home, without time travel earth passed life forms would have been destroyed. So pretty much anything later then TOS that has some connection to Earth would not have happened. That impacts the vast majority off stories and character shown on TNG, DS9, and Voyager.

          One could also argue that Scotty given out the tech for transparent aluminum also changed the timeline off events after 1986, or for that matter the curing off the old lady by growing anew organ could have lead to numerous changes in the timeline, both of these events are quite different then how TOS had previously handled time travel in that they tried not to alter any events or leave knowledge or examples of changes in technology in the hands of humans of that age.

        • Trekboi

          There should be a seperate timeline created everytime They used time travel

      • Adam Hegarty

        That’s exactly what they want you to think….

        • Trekboi

          Brilliant. Made me laugh.

    • Shane

      It a better time line than what we ended up with when Enterprise was on the air!

      • Cygnus-X1

        Not even. The first two seasons of ENT are abysmal, but it got much better after that. But, more importantly, ENT was more faithful to the spirit and values of TOS. ENT was a lot more action-oriented than previous Trek series, but it still focused more on thematic and character development than BR Trek. In fact, the best character development in either of the BR Trek movies—Spock’s mini-arc in ST09—was directly lifted from T’Pol’s arc in Season 4 of ENT.

        • Shane

          Tell yourself that if you want but it’s the only new series that did’nt go 7 seasons due to poor ratings people were’nt impressed and were turning off. While I accept it was better in the last season due to Manny Cotos involvement the early seasons were just desperate and were contradicted events from later series. But each to his own if you enjoyed it great, I much prefered TNG and DS9 and the new movies reignited it all for me.

          • Cygnus-X1

            TNG and DS9 are better series than Enterprise. The new movies aren’t Star Trek.

            And I’m not “telling myself” anything. I’m making assertions that can be backed up with references to the content in question. That ENT was cancelled after 4 seasons had as much to do with “Trek fatigue” as it did with the quality of the show. As you admitted, the show got a lot better when Manny Coto came on board. Many people feel that the first two seasons of TNG aren’t that good, either. But, viewers stuck with that series because it was the first new Trek series in 20 years (TAS doesn’t count). Fast-forward to 20 years after TNG began, five Trek series running back-to-back, with two series running concurrently for 7 years, plus a mediocre-to-bad TNG movie every two years on top of it all, and by ENT viewers had grown tired. The proof is how popular ENT has become on Netflix. People like myself who tuned out after Season 2 of ENT were pleasantly surprised, upon viewing Seasons 3 and 4 on Netflix, to see how much better it got. But, it was too little, too late during the original run—Trek fatigue had set in.

          • Shane

            Agreed next gen season 1 is quite unwatchable now season 2 i don’t mind so much it was getting there but I gave up on Enterprise after the 1st season and tried again a few years ago but i could’nt get into it like the others. As you stated Trek fatigue had set in and no matter what the new movies revitalized that and brought new fans in. The problem is if some fans think there going to get 80’s cinema Star Trek today for a 21st century audience it wont happen and it would seriously limit itself if they tried plus you only really have ST II, III, IV, VI that were the good ones and some people dismiss Part III.

          • Cygnus-X1

            Making a good Trek movie that’s true to the spirit and values of TOS does not have to be limiting. Rather, the BR Trek movies are limited by Paramount’s global-focus-group approach to Trek. Instead of valuing Trek for what it is—and there is no other franchise like it—Paramount is chasing the likes of “Guardians of the Galaxy,” “Transformers” and other comic-book movies. And then there’s Bad Robot, a production company limited by its own lack of creative talent. Scroll down the catalogue of Bad Robot movies and you will find them all mediocre, at best. And many of them very poor. No, the limitations are entirely due to Paramount and Bad Robot. If you want an example of a good, thought-provoking science fiction movie, with plenty of action and exciting visuals, look no further than INTERSTELLAR. Oh, and it also grossed twice as much as either ST09 or STID, and cost $30 million less than STID to produce. So, there’s your proof that if the values are in the right places, and the creative vision is there, a financially successful, good-quality, “cerebral” sci-fi movie for a 21st Century audience can be made. But, it requires a studio with vision and values to do it.

    • M33

      It amazes me that folks bash the new movies just as hard as they used to bash Enterprise, yet, now that Enterprise is included in the Prime universe, it is somehow far superior to the new movies?

      The truth is there are viewers who bash whatever the newest version is out there.

      They did it to TNG.
      They did it to DS9.
      They did it to Voyager.
      And they did it to Enterprise.
      This is really nothing new.
      TOS wasn’t perfect and certainly wasn’t consistent in even its own continuity.
      None of them were. They all had flaws; they were all different from the next.
      Some like and some don’t.
      But they are ALL officially STAR TREK.

      • RickRussellTX

        > They did it to TNG.

        It’s true. People hated the design of the new ship, they hated the characters, they hated the actors…

      • Cygnus-X1

        A total BS argument.

        You’re conflating anyone and everyone who has ever criticized any form of Star Trek in any regard and then falsely equating your conflation with the very pointed, substance-based criticism of the BR Trek movies at a fundamental level.

        You’re talking utter nonsense.

    • trekfan

      $h*t Timeline – that’s the unofficial name.

      • TommyHawk

        You’re getting desperate here. Cygnus-X1 and what’s left of the “haters” remind me of the guy who is still in the jungles of Vietnam fighting a war that was lost a loooong time ago.

        • Cygnus-X1

          We’ll see what happens after STB is released.

  • BotanyCameos

    It sounds great and makes sense, as the origin of the divergence! 😃👍

  • Brian Thorn

    “Abramsverse” is easier to say and leaves no doubt what you’re referring to.

    Kelvan Timeline? Is that about those aliens from Andromeda who turned everybody into little dodecahedrons?

    • MJ

      Nope. Those were the Kelvan’s, not Kelvin.

      It’s like principle versus principal. Nice try though.

      • Brian Thorn

        My point is who, other than devotees, is going to remember what the Kelvin was? Everybody will remember who JJ Abrams is though. “Kelvin Timeline? Is that like, a Metric Year or something?”

        • mswood666

          And who beyond devotees really gives a crap?

  • M33

    Sounds good to me. It is an alternate timeline.
    And given what we learned in “Parallels”, the so-called “prime” Spock could very well be a different alternate timeline Spock as well!
    Therefore the real Prime universe could theoretically unaffected by anything that happened in the Kelvin Timeline movies.

  • iMike

    Great name. I like it.

  • Snap

    Personally, I would have thought “Narada” would have been a better choice, considering it was the Narada itself which initiated the splinter timeline, but Kelvin is reasonable.

    • Cabo 5150

      My thoughts exactly, Snap. Narada Timeline makes more sense and actually sounds “cooler” IMHO.

    • Eric

      As Gowron said: “History is written by the victors!”

    • bytes

      Kelvin makes more sense. Narada is from Prime. Kelvin is from the alternate, name needed timeline. Kelvin is also a name that is personal to those who made this new timeline. It fits well.

      • Rob Toohey

        we can always assume that the Kelvin existed prior- but was never seen. pretty much like with the ideas or budget restrictions that were placed on TOS with starfleet only have 12 Connies in service…

      • mswood666

        Kelvin’s absolute part of the Prime Universe, time wouldn’t have changed until the Narada went back through time. Kelvin was already built, crewed and on mission’s thus it predates the temporal change.

      • mr joyce

        kelvin is from the prime actually

      • bytes

        Matter of opinion I suppose. Certainly arguable. What I do know, is whatever Spock went through does not appear to simply be time travel, but also an alternate reality. Everything is different looking in that “past”. To me as an observer, the Kelvin is clearly part of some other universe none of us recognize as prime. For example, the bridge used a literal window. Not even the NX-01 used a transparent window. Also, it’s been called the alternate reality for quite some time.

        Another angle, is just like when the mirror universe NX-01 found a Constitution class starship. Not only was it from the future, but from a different reality. Spock did not simply travel to the past.

    • DemosCat

      I like the Narada timeline name. It is at least distinctive, and as you say, it’s the Narada that triggered the new reality, not the Kelvin.

      My first thought when I saw this: What’s the main time stream going to be called? The Fahrenheit timeline?

      • Dalek1963

        It would be celsius which is used on Earth by most countries as well as scientifically everywhere. By the time of the Federation even the Earth region of the current United States of America will have long switched over to C over F in common usage.

        • DemosCat

          True enough, by the 23rd century Fahrenheit will be a curiosity, rather like the old British money system of 12 pence to the shilling, a half crown being 2s/6d, etc.

          Kelvin is an absolute temperature scale used by scientists. My thought is, in the context of Star Trek, diversity with other species, and exploration, I’d have thought they’d be more likely to use Kelvin than Celsius.

      • Tuskin38

        Most people I know use the term ‘Prime Timeline’, Star Trek Online does as well.

      • Rob Toohey

        That would take into account if the narada has appeared somewhere else. what if the Narada had appeared in 2215 instead of 2233? we would have had a different movie, different timeles, etc.

    • mswood666

      Do they actually know the name of the ship, though?

      • Snap

        Well, it is a term created for the benefit of a new Star Trek Encyclopedia and I don’t take the “in universe” thing in the tweet to actually mean that the characters in the movies will be calling themselves the “Kelvin timeline.” There have only been two instances where they have blatantly acknowledged an alternate timeline, once in Star Trek 09 (in which Uhura just said “an alternate reality”) and again in Into Darkness with Quinto Spock asking Nimoy Spock for information on Khan.

        The only connection, in universe, which would link the Kelvin to such a label is Spock’s explanation of the focal point, though he clearly credits Nero for the divergence.

        Nero did, however, mention the Narada by name when he summoned Pike aboard for negotiations which, I believe, is the only time the Narada is mentioned in dialogue:

        “No, we’re not. Not yet. Spock, there’s something I would like you to see. Captain Pike, your transporter has been disabled. As you can see by the rest of your armada, you have no choice. You will man a shuttle, come aboard the Narada, for negotiations. That is all.”

        As the entire senior staff, with the exception of Scotty, witnessed the conversation, it is logical that any reports, especially from Spock, would refer to the ship by name.

        • Tuskin38

          Star Trek Online uses ‘Kelvin Timeline’ as the in-universe name, but it is used by someone who would know of alternate universes, so it makes sense.

        • Patrick_Gerard

          People in the Prime timeline (who have been aware of the Abramsverse in the comics and now in Star Trek Online) are calling it the Kelvin Timeline in-universe now to represent it as a timeline where the change that occurred was the destruction of the Kelvin.

          Calling it the Narada timeline leaves open the possibility that it was different before the Kelvin was destroyed, that James Kirk’s blue eyes or the 725 meter 1701 Enterprise were the result of something OTHER THAN the Kelvin’s destruction. CBS is quite adamant that, yes, the Enterprise is longer than 700 meters and, yes, all of the technological changes and personality changes were solely caused by the chain of events that began with the Kelvin’s destruction. Calling it the Kelvin timeline is doubling down on that.

          (And CBS also specified the Kelvin Timeline’s Enterprise’s scale relative to Prime ships at the same time for Star Trek Online, putting an arguments about it being smaller to bed, at least as long as the current consumer products folks at CBS have anything to say on the subject. And, yes, CBS has been a collaborator with Paramount and Bad Robot on details of the reboot franchise.)

          • Snap

            Ah, I see. I do not read the comics nor play Star Trek Online, which would explain why I have never encountered it “in universe,” by which I mean within the context of the TV series and the movies. Yes, I am of the mindset that there is a TV/film canon and a book canon which, while the book canon needs the TV/film canon, it is not canonical to what occurs on screen. If it did, then the Kahless clone we saw in TNG is not actually a clone of Kahless at all. Not to mention Data’s resurrection in the book canon is entirely irreconcilable with how it was portrayed in the comics.

            However, seeing as it was the Narada which brought about the Kelvin’s destruction and the Kelvin would not have been destroyed that day had the Narada not emerged then, the timeline most certainly would have been different. Without the Narada, Captain Robau would not have been killed by Nero and George Kirk would not have died covering the crew’s escape. There is no disputing that the Narada’s emergence in the past was the focal point for the splinter timeline, the Kelvin just got in the way.

            So while “Kelvin” isn’t a bad name, “Narada” would make more sense from an in-universe perspective as it was the Narada which put the events in motion.

          • Patrick_Gerard

            Maybe the rationale for Kelvin is that the Narada was from the Prime timeline. The Kelvin was the subject of first contact.

            Personally, I like Kelvin because all the heavy use of blue and superfluous lights make me think of refrigeration on an overclocked computer and Kelvin makes me think zero degrees Kelvin. In some ways, I guess I think of the Abrams universe as the “overclocked” universe because events happen faster but in a haphazard, less stable way like a dangerously overclocked computer. Things happen faster, in terms of action, in terms of technological development, and in terms of Kirk and crew winding up on the Enterprise early. So that makes it work for me in a purely illogical, intuitive way.

  • startrekker1701

    Didn’t notice the Kelvin reference in that photo from Into Darkness.

  • pittrek

    It could be better. But also it could be also much worse, so…

  • spooky

    So… its named after JJ’s grand dad. That’s nice… I hate it!

  • Guest

    There’s a good chance Beyond will be the last we see of the “Kelvin Timeline”. Personally, I’m more than OK with that. Now that there’s a new show coming, in the original timeline / universe, we can finally get back to some real Star Trek.

    • Gene’s Vision

      There’s a good chance Beyond will be the last we see of the “Kelvin Timeline” How’s that?

      • Cabo 5150

        Sadly, if Beyond underperforms, it may well be the final outing for this crew.

        The marketing has been more than a little weak IMHO, and I’m feeling this movie’s going to do less business that both Into Darkness and 2009. I really do hope I’m proved wrong though!

        It all comes down to exactly *how much* less business it does. I do think a third sequel is going to be very much a borderline decision for the studio.

        • Gene’s Vision

          I hear you. Less than a month left and virtually nothing in terms of any sort of marketing. But it hasn’t had alot of negative press so if it gets good word of mouth it may be enough to save the day. From what we’ve seen so far there may be a fair chance this will be the case.

          • TommyHawk

            So you mean the trailer, the TV Commercials playing, the magazine covers, the new Rhianna single, there’s “nothing in terms of marketing?”

          • Gene’s Vision

            I think I made that statement before the Rihanna song was released. And it would be nice to see some toys or reasonably priced props in the stores. But that won’t happen as CBS seems to only want to present Shatner as Kirk, Nimoy as Spock, etc.

          • There has been a LOT of marketing happening – multiple television ads running (including a few during the NBA finals and the Stanley Cup finals) a dozen posters, lots of print coverage rolling out in magazines over the last week or so, the Rihanna single dropping today, etc.

          • Guest

            All that marketing doesn’t seem to really be getting general audiences amped up for the film, unfortunately. There’s a good chance it will underperform, just like Into Darkness did. Let’s say it underperforms. That, coupled with the fact that there’s a new show in the works completely unrelated to the JJ films, the fact that most of the actor’s contracts were up after Beyond, which means renegotiations and resigning for sequels would have to happen with each of the actors (and they will all want more money, and we all know how frugal Paramount has been with regards to Trek, plus, some of the cast have moved on to other huge franchises) and finally, the untimely death of Anton Yelchin. All of that to me says one thing for the “Kelvin Timeline:”… “It’s dead, Jim.”

            Basically, this movie needs to perform significantly well to justify a sequel, and this summer, pretty much every movie not made by Disney has underperformed. To make matters worse, it’s all gonna come down to the opening weekend, because the second weekend, Jason Bourne opens and will cut into Trek’s profits considerably, and a week after that, Suicide Squad opens. Beyond would have to get really great reviews and word of mouth to stay afloat, and the opposite will have to be true of Bourne and SS not to sink it. The deck is stacked against Beyond, I’m afraid.

          • Gene’s Vision

            My bad on the TV commercials. I’m mostly a football guy so didn’t catch any of the Spring finals. And as I stated earlier the Rihanna single had not yet been released.

          • Charlie Oakes

            The only negative press is idiots saying Boycott Beyond because of Axanar ruining fan films.

      • Trekboi

        The bulk of the contracts were all for a trilogy & the films have been finacially dissapointing (yes they made a little more than Star Trek 1 & 4 with inflation) but they cost a lot more (TMP’s budget was inflated with all the 70’s Phase II costs)

    • Cabo 5150

      Riiiight… “Real” Star Trek eh.

  • Chris Cheshire

    That’s like asking what kind of curtains would you like on the Titanic.

  • Christopher Roberts

    Here’s hoping if there’s a 4th film, it’s about a mission to correct the Kelvin Timeline.

    • TommyHawk

      Nope. You lost.

      • Christopher Roberts

        I dunno about that. Lots of dramatic potential in placing Kirk in a position where he can change history.

    • Guest

      Good chance there won’t be a fourth film at this point. Unless Beyond does very well at the box office, which is pretty unlikely at this point, Paramount will likely cut their losses. They’ve got other big franchises to worry about, and CBS is about to put out a new Trek show anyway, which Paramount will more or less have nothing to do with since they don’t own the tv rights. Back when Trek was syndicated, and Paramount had UPN, it wasn’t a problem. There was synergy between the film and tv side. The left hand knew what the right was doing, and Rick Berman was running the show. Now it’s divided, and you’d have two competing Trek projects, which would likely confuse non-fans.

  • jackson roy kirk

    i guess this is going to make the film series cool now

  • The Chadwick

    One thing I would have liked in 2009 when the Narada came through was a similar visual change that happened to 1701D crew when the 1701C came through. To visually show that the timeline has changed. I don’t think it would have thrown the non fans off but added a visual element. Immediately the audience would say “whoa, why did everything just change” and that would have been explained during the alternate timeline dialogue. Granted the Narada leaving the original universe did not alter past history as much as the 1701C leaving the Narendra III battle culminating in years of war with the Klingons. Still, would have been cool to see a live change in the timeline.

    • Justin Olson

      The visual change made sense in “Yesterday’s Enterprise” because the 1701-C left its own time (mid-24th century) and came through the rift while the audience’s POV was on the bridge of the 1701-D (in the late-24th century). Setting and costume had to change, so it made sense to add a cool visual effect instead of just using a simple dissolve.

      However, in Star Trek ’09, the Narada went in the opposite direction, from the future (late-24th century) to the past (mid-23rd century) and the audience’s POV was on the bridge of the Kelvin when this happened, so no trippy visual change is necessary. 🙂

    • Trekboi

      Cute but not thinking about this very hard are you?

    • Rob Toohey

      We were still in the prime timeline up until the moment Captain Robau was killed. after that moment- the timeline diverged, and Nero made the order to kill him and everyone aboard the Kevlin.

  • Tom Lytle

    Mike and Denise excellent idea going with the Kelvin timeline moniker!
    My primary problem with the rest of the discussions above is that regardless of where you fall on the original timeline to timeline discussion everyone always seems to forget the one thing that matters most…
    … were you entertained? Did you enjoy the time you spent watching the movie or program? If the answer is yes and you can for a moment suspended belief that any of this has any basis in reality, then this or any other Trek movie or program has value in served its purpose!
    As a true Trekker for 50 years. I can see and appreciate ALL that the Trek universe can offer in its infinite complexity, infinite diversity, infinite possibilities!
    I, for one, am just glad we had this in our lives at all, God bless you Gene, Majel, Leonard, Dee, Jimmy, Anton, you’re all sorely missed and appreciated for this universe you all created and we all love!

  • TrekRules

    Why not just the Nero Timeline since he caused it? Even the Kelvin is supposed to be from the Prime universe so naming it after that is kind of odd.

    • Rob Toohey

      The Kelvin being destroyed is what set the chain of events into action. If George Kirk survived- we would have had a different- but similar timeline.

  • James

    It’s not canon, until we hear it used on TV or in the movies.

  • trekfan

    Irrelevant Timeline

  • Tzadik

    YAY! Thanks for getting this out there, and getting to the bottom of this! It’s a cool story! 🙂

  • Dawn

    Not an official name. Online call it this, but non canon. Startrek.com calls it AR as well not kelvin

    • It’s being used as the name of the alternate reality in multiple, officially-licensed “Star Trek” reference books coming out this year, including “The Star Trek Book: Big Ideas Simply Explained” as well as the new “Star Trek Encyclopedia” coming this fall.

      As explained above, it’s CBS’s way of differentiating the “Abramsverse” from the “prime” Trek universe.

      • Dawn

        licensed. Since when is licensed stuff now considered canon?

  • James Ezell

    A turd by any other name is still a turd

  • Michael White

    Should be called the Retard Timeline. Seriously. I just read a b.s article that essentially restates what we all already know … the destruction of the Kelvin by the Narada IS the divergence point in history. So why is it that in every new movie, they give us MORE stuff that PREDATES the Kelvin’s destruction that has been rewritten with no explanation?
    Movie 1: Kelvin’s design. Warp physics. Spock’s personality (technically born after the event but no way should it influence his personality), chemistry (engine coolant swimming tubes), etc.
    Movie 2: Khan. Khan. Khan. Oh. And KHAN! Klingons. Yes, part of the Empire may have been unaffected by the augment virus, but not the homeworld, as all three heros, Kang, Kor, Koloth, were afflicted and all three undoubtedly had been to the capital for commendations and the like. Oh. And let’s not just forget that they made death curable with no logical explanation and then forgot it in…
    Movie 3: THE FUCKING USS FRANKLIN! This ship just spits in the face of ST: ENT. It’s like Failbrams and his crew of moronic misfits just decided “You know what. Fuck Enterprise. Let’s share that sentiment.” It predates the Kelvin by roughly 100 years. Except that Starfleet didn’t start attaching USS prefixes to ships until the founding of the Federation, which happened after the commissioning of NX-01. AND … NX-01 was the first WARP 5 SHIP. So how is it that NX-326 is the first WARP 4!?!?1?!?!?!?!

    So to all you WANNABE Trek fans out there who will try and defend Failbrams’ butchering of the franchise with [insert the most offensively retarded voice here] “It’s an alternate reality [insert most offensively retarded facial expression here]” … go shoot yourselves because your brainless repetition of a bullshit excuse coined by someone ADMITTEDLY NOT A FAN OF THE FUCKING FRANCHISE just reflects on your goddamn stupidity and you don’t even deserve to be considered a Trekkie.

  • kyle frazer

    It’s fantastic to see such a useful post. I think it could also be useful for everyone to know how and where to fill a form online. If you ever need to fill out a form, here is http://bit.ly/2cuWGbH a really useful tool. Very easy to navigate and use.

  • buck futz

    everyone here needs to get a life.