The ‘Abramsverse’ Is No More

For years, Star Trek fans, critics and detractors have struggled with what to call the rebooted Star Trek film franchise, which has so far included 2009’s Star Trek, 2013’s Star Trek Into Darkness, and this summer’s Star Trek Beyond. In recent years, most have settled on unofficially calling them the “JJ-Verse” or “Abramsverse”, of course, in recognition of the first two film’s director and the third’s producer J.J. Abrams.

Well, the time has come to retire those, as Paramount and CBS have officially settled on the “Kelvin Timeline”. A name that was revealed for the first time by Star Trek Online lead designer Al Rivera on Twitter.

The name “Kelvin Timeline” stems from the ship named Kelvin, that Nero traveled back in time to destroy, after emerging from the wormhole, in the 2009 film.

The ‘Abramsverse’ Is Dead, Long Live The Kelvin Timeline

While the events of the “prime” timeline, which includes the happenings on Star Trek: The Original Series, Star Trek: The Next Generation, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Star Trek: Voyager, Star Trek: Enterprise and the first ten feature films, haven’t been erased by the film franchise, it has however, taken a backseat. That may all change with next year’s launch of the new Star Trek television series that will debut on CBS (and then continue on CBS All Access) in January. Many fans, including myself, would love to see a return to the original timeline.

The new “Kelvin Timeline” will next be seen on screen in this summer’s STAR TREK BEYOND, directed by Justin Lin.

What are your thoughts on the “Kelvin Timeline” name? Tell us in the comments section below.

h/t iDigitalTimes

74 Comments Join the Conversation →


  • Robert Orrante

    I might be the only one who thinks the “Kelvin Timeline” was a GREAT idea. It frees ST from existing “future history” and allows ST to go in totally different directions.

    Also, think ahead say 50 years. By then there could actually be more than two timelines existing in ST.

    This is from a fan who watched TOS in it’s original broadcast in the 60’s.

    Just my opinion, now tell me why I’m wrong, lol.

    • Roger McCoy

      Agreed, though I’d love to see new stuff in both timelines.

      In any case I think fans get too hung up on Prime timeline=quality. Even if you hated the last two films (and I certainly didn’t), the timeline being used doesn’t determine what the quality of the story will be.

      • Robert Orrante

        I actually like the re-boot movies. Even though STIDarkness is wacky and too derivative, I still enjoy it as a loud, straight-up action sci-fi flick.

        And Yes, even if the new timeline allows them to go in new directions, they have not gone anywhere “new” in the last two movies. Hopefully Beyond will take us somewhere we haven’t been before.

        • Roger McCoy

          At the risk of drawing flame comments from pretty much every person who has posted on this thread other than you, I thought both of them were *awesome*, and I’m another life-long Trekker. (Though I grew up on in the early TNG years, but I’ve been watching TOS as long as I can remember too.) I didn’t even consider STID to be particularly derivative… Set aside 10 minutes of heavy-handed tribute (about 10% of the overall film) and it had practically nothing in common with Wrath of Khan other than super-broad strokes like “Khan’s in it” and “he takes over a ship”. I understand why some people disliked or even loathed it, and it definitely has some flaws, but I’ve watched it at least five times and thoroughly enjoyed it each time.

          • Botany Cameos

            Agreed, Roger! I love both but liked STID far more than 2009, because it’s so much more “classic Trek” in its mixture of morality play, criticism of modern society and entertaining fun all mixed in. 🙂

          • Roger McCoy

            Yeah. It’s ironic that one of the most common criticisms is that it was an action movie without anything deeper. It probably had more political commentary than any other Trek film outside of Voyage Home, Undiscovered Country, or maybe Insurrection.

    • I thought making a new timeline was a brilliant idea, which would allow them to tell NEW stories, but I didn’t like the way they did it. Blowing up Vulcan and killing Amanda were unnecessary and done solely for shock value.

      I liked the first reboot movie in spite of that, but then Into Darkness turned out to be a cheap rip-off of TWOK. They blew up Vulcan and STILL didn’t tell us a NEW story? WTF?

      • Botany Cameos

        STID isn’t a rip-off of TWOK. It has the same characters, and one homage/mirrored scene, but that’s where the similarities end.

        Otherwise, it’s like saying “the new movies are a rip-off of TOS because there’s a guy with pointy ears in it called Spock, like in the old stuff”.
        It’s a new timeline with the same characters, so some things will be the same, but seeing what changed is fascinating.

        • mthaslett

          Totally — except for the “fascinating” part which is really a personal opinion and one I can’t share. STID was so convoluted that to call it a rip-off of TWOK doesn’t cover how bone-headed the movie really is. Its failures definitely stem from trying to coat-tail off TWOK, (pretending the reveal of “Khan” should mean anything to this crew, re-doing the great sacrifice of a lead character– which led to the miserable “super-blood” idea). But the movie goes so far from anything seen in Star Trek before that it might be more rightly called a rip-off of MI:3 or some other millennial action movie. One thing it cannot be called is original.

        • organizizer

          RE…like saying “the new movies are a rip-off of TOS because there’s a guy with pointy ears in it called Spock, like in the old stuff”.

          YES. that is exactly the case. The JarJar-verse *IS* a ripoff -one deeply offensive to anyone who knew the old ‘verse well. It takes the names -Spock, Trek, Federation- while ignoring (even deliberately reversing) all but their shallowest characteristics.

          They are NOT the same characters. They just rip off their names. there’s a guy with pointy ears in it called Spock who wears a blue shirt – and there the similarity ends. Vulcans are telepathically linked to their fiances from the age of 7 years old. They do not casually date human chicks at starfleet academy. et cetera…

          in 3 movies, the JarJar-verse has managed to undermine or overturn nearly every single great episode and nearly every characteristic of its races and people. ..not because they needed to, but because they just didn’t give a rat’s wormhole.

      • organizizer

        theres are at least 2 better ways to tell NEW stories that *doesn’t* urinate on the graves of Roddenberry et al:

        1) Make up your own new names and mileu, and stop trying to hijack established names *that have established meanings* in order to make a buck off other people’s work!

        You want unfettered freedom to feed your creative ego? Cool – Go do the work to invent your own universe and build your own fanbase!
        (If you’re very talented and consistent, you may have something as big as Star Trek in only a few decades…)
        You want to make pile$ off an established fanbase? Cool – respect that fanbase and its values!

        But if you want all the advantages of an established reputation while paying none of the price? Go feed a tribble!

        Star Trek is not a get-rich-quick scheme. Stop treating it like one.

        2) set them in Star Trek’s FUTURE. There are already 2 generations. Why not a third? Why on (or off) Earth would you go back and try to re-write history when you can simply *move forward*…??

        ST has a well-developed timeline and history. If you’re going to set stories within ST -regardless of where in ST you set your stories- you’re going to have caconical events/history to deal with. You’re sitting on a gold mine. Quit whining.

    • Milo

      As a long time fan in my own right, I wasn’t aware that Star Trek needed to be “free” of existing future history. I fail to see what’s wrong with what we had before JJ-Trek.

      • Botany Cameos

        Then you clearly must not have watched any Trek since TOS.

        If you genuinely claim to think Trek was doing great as a franchise in the years before JJ came, you must be either lying to yourself, or have been living in a cave for years and not have seen how the franchise nearly died and had to be saved.

        • I would have rather had no new Star Trek than these movies, it’s not saving them when you destroy the core of what makes them great. Star Trek is suppose to be about exploration, philosophy and complex intellectual storytelling. The new movies just jump from one action sequence to another.

          • Carsten Posingies

            I like the new movies, just I don’t call it “Star Trek”. I love the
            cast, especially Zack Quinto, Zoe Zaldana, and late Anton Yelchin. Not
            to forget to remember always amazing Benedict Cumberbatch in STID.
            Imagine Zack and Ben reading a sales slip in their voices…
            “Cucumbers… two Dollars!” – “Bathroom tissue! Ninety Cents!” 😉

            Having
            JJ quit might… read it from my lips: MIGHT be a good thing. JJ is
            amazing at letting actors run, jump, fall, swear, but as a German, I’d
            say he is also good at blowing things up for exactly no reason. Movies
            he made tended to tell stories that are unfounded. In my humble opinion,
            he is like “let’s make a movie! what? fandom? okay, let’s give them
            something familiar!” Spock played by Nimoy, Khan, Han Solo played by
            Harrison Ford, Darth Vader, Luke Skywalker played by Luke… erm… Mark
            Hamill. “Perhaps we will spoil the franchise, but we will boost
            box-office results!”

            If somebody approached him like “Let’s do a
            cooking show along Star Trek!”, he’d rather let Ethan Phillips cook
            water reprising his Role than busying himself with a kind-of authentic
            Gagh recipe.

            Perhaps George Lucas should direct the next Star
            Trek Flic. Not because I am a fan of “Star Wars”, but because Lucas has
            always loved his characters.

    • Sanjay Merchant

      I think the basic idea of being able to start from a clean slate, rather than having to refer back to and be consistent with half a century’s worth content, was a good idea.

      I’m just not terribly thrilled with what they’ve been drawing on that clean slate. 😛

      • I would argue it’s better to keep that content and work hard to preserve the continuity instead of take the lazy way out and reboot.

        • Sanjay Merchant

          Honestly, I think both routes are viable. Can’t honestly say which is outright better. But to each their own.

      • organizizer

        “I think the basic idea of being able to start from a clean slate, rather than having to refer back to and be consistent with half a century’s worth content, was a good idea.”

        cool. then build your own. but don’t rip off the Star trek name.

    • peace

      There are already more than two time lines long before the reboot.

    • organizizer

      theres are at least 2 better ways to tell new stories & go in different directions that *doesn’t* urinate on the graves of Roddenberry et al:

      1) Make up your own new names and mileu, and stop trying to hijack established names *that have established meanings* in order to make a buck off other people’s work!

      You want unfettered freedom to feed your creative ego? Cool – Go do the work to invent your own universe and build your own fanbase!
      (If you’re very talented and consistent, you may have something as big as Star Trek in only a few decades…)
      You want to make pile$ off an established fanbase? Cool – respect that fanbase and its values!

      But if you want all the advantages of an established reputation while paying none of the price? Go feed a tribble!

      Star Trek is not a get-rich-quick scheme. Stop treating it like one.

      2) set them in Star Trek’s FUTURE. There are already 2 generations. Why not a third? Why on (or off) Earth would you go back and try to re-write history when you can simply *move forward*…??

      ST has a well-developed timeline and history. If you’re going to set stories within ST -regardless of where in ST you set your stories- you’re going to have caconical events/history to deal with. You’re sitting on a gold mine. Quit whining.

  • Roger McCoy

    Nice to have an official name for it. I’ve occasionally seen fans (i.e., Prime-only fans) criticize that the names “J.J.-verse” or “Arams-verse” were signs of Abrams’ ego… Despite the fact that both names are fan-coined and rarely if ever used by the people who work on the films. Maybe more consistent terminology will curb this a bit.

    Incidentally, Star Trek: Enterprise exists in both timelines since the divergence occurred a century later.

    • Jonathan

      The two universes are completely unrelated. Despite what they tried to do. It was obvious from the opening sequences of the first movie.

  • Black Knigth

    The only timeline I care about is the one with TNG-VOY-DS9 in it

  • Jay Aldridge

    Doesn’t matter what you call it I don’t like the new films they should’ve made a new film in the 24th or 25th century. No One Can Play the orginal crew but them.

  • ziplock9000

    Trust me, we have much more colourful names for it that wont change.

    • Botany Cameos

      Yes, just how the haters making hateful comments about any new Trek won’t change either, but luckily the whole rest of the world goes on enjoying Trek anyway. 😛

      • organizizer

        wrong again.
        Theres lots of new Trek I like. Just not the Jar-Jar-verse.

  • Arron Bubba Ratcliff

    Call it what you want these new Star Trek movies are nothing but pop corn action flicks.In to Darkness was nothing but a bad remake of wraith of khan.the trailers for Beyond make it look like Fast & Furious in space. So no thanks.

  • Jonathan

    This indicates that Nero traveling back in time changed things from the prime universe to the new “Kelvin Timeline”. But quite obviously, they were not the same in the first place. Meaning there is no affect on or relation to the prime universe at all.

    • Milo

      That’s what I’ve been saying the whole time! Even Nimoy wasn’t playing the REAL Spock, but rather an alternative universe version!

      • Mino

        No, Nimoy was most certainly playing PRIME Spock.

  • Soren Chartier

    I’ve always called it the Twilight-verse.

  • Milo

    I’m not going to stop calling it “JJ-Trek.”

  • weerd1

    Tumblr users had consistently adopted “AOS” (Alternate Original Series) some time ago. This works though.

    • organizizer

      a terrible name, as its inaccurate. Its neither Original, nor a TV Series.

  • General Tso

    What about the Temporal Prime Directive? Where are the time cops from the 31st century?

    • Botany Cameos

      There’s no “restoring”, that’s the whole point: there’s two timelines side by side, both go on existing.

      People who hate new incarnations of Trek constantly pretend it obliterates the “Prime” timeline, when in truth it simply is a branch coming out of the same trunk. There’s nothing to restore, both timelines are parallel after that divergence point.

      • General Tso

        I think what you are describing is more of an alternate universe; i.e. a multiverse. If there is no need to restore events to their ‘original’ timeline, why all the temporal prime directive stuff, not interfering with historical events, time ships from the 27th century (remember Captain Braxton?) What was the ‘temporal cold war’ for if not the Trek philosophy that changing the past changes the present? (Anyways, I’m with Chief Miles O’Brien: “I hate temporal mechanics.”)

        BTW I like the new movies for what they are; good action movies.

      • organizizer

        that would’ve been convenient, if true. but its not.
        Among other things, JarJar-verse changed Vulcan physiological and social evolution that went back thousands of years before the Kelvin was built.

        In other words, even the flimsy Kelvin-Timeline excuse is not observed even by the people who invented it.

    • Marika Oniki

      I guess it kinda fits, that the Kelvans would be unable to understand the difference between Kelvin and Kelvan 😛

  • Nick Lysiak

    The reboot was awful if you follow the lore of the prime universe. Sizes are wrong, engineering doesn’t make sense, and everything is explosions and lasers. There’s no substance.

    • Botany Cameos

      You have just proved that you know nothing of Trek and never paid attention when watching old or new Trek, congratulations.

      • Axel Saggenstråhle

        Just…. stop. Jesus.

  • Melissa

    Man, that headline really got my hopes up! Only to be dashed too soon after. Sigh.

    • Botany Cameos

      I’m glad the trolling title of this article could at least crush the hopes of the hateful brats constantly being negative against any new incarnation of Trek. 🙂

      • organizizer

        the only constantly negative person here is you.

  • TallBoy6t6

    Star Trek: Enterprise is still in the “Kelvin Timeline” as well (see reference to Admiral Archer’s prized beagle)

    • Botany Cameos

      Yes, because the divergence occurred at the time of Kirk’s birth, so Enterprise still happened in both timelines.

  • LibsAreWrong

    JJ sucks and so does his damn timeline.

    • Botany Cameos

      Says a troll so consumed by nonsensical pursuits that his username is a pointless political statement, as if that had any usefulness in anything…

      • LibsAreWrong

        Says the JJ suck so star struck that he wants JJ’s penis in his/her mouth.

        • Ken

          Wish I could upvote this comment more than once

  • Sanjay Merchant

    Shouldn’t it be called the “Non-Kelvin” timeline, since the destruction of the Kelvin is the branching-off point?

  • Robert Orrante

    Don’t forget that the TOS episode, “Mirror, Mirror” shows ANOTHER timeline, so this is nothing “new” to ST. By the way, that episode is pretty awesome.

    And just to be sacrilegious, I’m going to say that “City On The Edge of Forever” is NOT the best TOS episode ever. The best TOS episode in my humble opinion is “The Doomsday Machine.” That episode is so awesome on so many levels, it’s ridiculous.

    • organizizer

      Doomsday Machine? nah… good ep: tight pacing; acting & effects were good not great; story was not bad but not super-deep or relevant.(nor unique. at least 4 or 5 TOS eps deal with machine-that-gets-away-from-builders theme) def top 20, but not top 10..

      my nomination for most under-rated TOS ep: Devil in the Dark.
      Despite some borderline-hokey acting and props that reflect the times & budget, I place it in the top 5 because it upended the B-E-M trope that had dominated sci fi up till that time … and challenged its parent – the strange/other-is-bad trope that had dominated American society up till that time.

  • Bill Ross

    I think it should be called the “Yelchin” timeline.

    • Robert Orrante

      Agree !

  • Sue Hutchings

    The new movies are in a similar and parallel, but different universe than T.O.S. The original Spock happened across the ‘line’ as he was pursued by Nero’s crew and ship. I like the new movies, but I refuse to try to ignore or alter T.O.S. in order to make everything fit. I can enjoy and cheer on the folks in the new movies, but then I’m going home to watch my DVDs of T.O.S.

    • Botany Cameos

      There’s nothing to ignore or modify. The Kelvin timeline is a branch coming out of the same trunk as TOS, but both timelines still exist, parallel to each other from that divergence point on.

      It’s not like they could make the TOS actors young again (and bring some of them back to life…) to make more TOS episodes with them young again, so I too frequently re-watch the old episodes, while also enjoying the new stuff.

      It’s the best way, for us to enjoy it all. 🙂

  • pryitawayfromme

    I like them all – personally i don’t blame them – The last version of star trek that hit primetime didn’t fair as well as the others … Media has changed – the demographics have changed – they needed to appeal to a newer audience. I would rather them try new things to renew interest in the Trek Universe .. rather than to try to keep beating a old retired horse around the track just for the sake of “lets have another trek series”. It doesn’t help keep the series going – if people get sick and tired of the same old thing.

    • Botany Cameos

      Exactly! Star Trek of all things must keep on with the times, if it was to remain stuck in ridiculous nostalgia and die off like the haters want it to, it would be such a waste.

      It’s delightful to see that Trek is still alive and well, with relevant quality incarnations of it coming out. I can only hope the new TV series will be as good as the movies.

      The haters can wallow in their bitter nit-picking and hatefulness all they want, but everybody else will go on enjoying Trek and it will keep getting more and more fans. 🙂

  • Andrew J Rondeau

    Meh… Still ticked off about Paramount and CBS pissing on the fandom.

  • Fargin Bastiges

    Paramount and CBS are in violation of my new Fan Guidelines, which says, “I will call the JJverse what I damn well please.”

  • hercules40

    I guess, I am one of very few trekkers who don’t like the “new” timeline. Yes, I watched the 2009 reboot, but have not seen the follow-up and I won’t see this summer’s new movie.

    Since, you wanted to reboot the franchise, you could have done it without changing the timeline. I personally would have been fine with new actors taking the iconic roles, as long as you stayed true to the originals…. And then, on top of that, you destroyed Vulcan. You lost me, right there.

    • Fargin Bastiges

      You are certainly not alone.

    • Ken

      Ditto, you are not alone in your dislike of the JarJarVerse

  • Jeff Miles

    I like the old and the new. While the reboots had many flaws, I definitely liked the concept of the impact of time travel. That said, I really think film directors should really hire someone from http://www.Howitshouldhaveended.com” to review the script first.

  • RANDY W FRICKE

    Timeline is OK, but Kelvin is irrelevant. Let’s face it, the adventures, exploits and demonstrations of loyalty and leadership revolve around James Tiberius Kirk. As important as all of the other peripheral characters are, the focus has always been on Captain Kirk. I’d say call it the “Tiberius Timeline.” Much better.

  • Instead of naming it they should be ending it, let’s return to the prime timeline and end this dumbed down reboot nonsense. I’m going to keep calling it the Abramsverse because CBS and Paramount don’t care about what Trekkies want, so why should I care about them.

  • Janice McGrew

    The new movies aren’t bad but they aren’t Trek either. Abrams used the names of the old characters but was completely unsuccessful in rebuilding the characters and the relationshipsides that have withstood the test of time. It was sheer arrogance to rewrite the timeline that has supported a plethora of tv series, movies and literally hundreds of books. I refuse to watch another of these travesties. Abrams should have used new names for the new characters he created (and should have had enough common sense to reality that no military organization would give control of its flagship to cadets. After all when the “real” Kirk took comm and of Enterprise crewed by cadets he was an Admiral and a legend.

  • peace

    The series Enterprise exist in both universes as predates the events in the movies. DS9 with little tweaks would pretty much be the same. As the Prophets said it was always the Sisko. TNG and Voyager would have the most difference in other series. Enterprise would have none.

  • Lau

    Will they make movies in the kelvin timeline’s TNG era ? want to see kelvin timeline’s TNG uniforms , and Picard , Voyager …. What would be different if Vulcan was destroyed in the 23rd centrey .