The Trek BBS

The Trek BBS (http://www.trekbbs.com/index.php)
-   Star Trek - Original Series (http://www.trekbbs.com/forumdisplay.php?f=38)
-   -   Do You Believe the Official Chronology? (http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=207400)

ZapBrannigan March 27 2013 11:40 AM

Do You Believe the Official Chronology?
 
There's a wonderful book out there, an over-sized paperback called THE STAR TREK CHRONOLOGY.

It's a detailed timeline that puts dates to TOS. "The Cage" is in 2253, WNM is 2265, the first season is 2266-67, and so on.

Paramount considers it canon. I accept it as such. Do you?

Lance March 27 2013 12:15 PM

Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?
 
Not really. Its the closest we've got, and the Okudas obviously worked on the production at the time so they had a lot of cred. But a lot of the entries in the book have got the footnote "conjecture" attached to them. I tend to look at it as only being as valid as any other piece of Star Trek fiction. Certainly an interpretation of events, but not necessarily the right interpretation of events.

That having been said, it was an interesting read and an updated edition is long overdue. :)

King Daniel Into Darkness March 27 2013 12:54 PM

Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?
 
It wasn't canon - many dates and events conjectured in the chronology were changed when they eventually made it to screen. There's even a disclaimer to that effect at the start.

What had been made canon with regard to TOS' timeframe is...

The five-year mission ended in 2270 (VOY: "Q2")

Kirk was born in 2233 (STXI)

Kirk was 34 during "The Deady Years"

A deleted scene in STXI gives 2230 as Spock's birth year.

I think it all works out close enough to the Star Trek Chronology's conjectures. There's an updated version of the timeline in Voyages of Imagination, which includes all the films, episodes and novels up until about 2006. It includes the updated info from "Q2" and thusly moves The Motion Picture to 2273.

Ensign_Redshirt March 27 2013 01:30 PM

Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?
 
Quote:

ZapBrannigan wrote: (Post 7857949)
Paramount considers it canon.

No, they don't.

Robert Comsol March 27 2013 03:28 PM

Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?
 
The book contains what I'd consider an ultimate flaw and still today it is totally beyond my understanding how that flaw could have been overlooked in the first place:

In Star Trek II - THE WRATH OF KHAN both Khan and Kirk state on different occasions that they have not seen each other for 15 years.

This information is clearly audible and if I recall correctly there is an extended or deleted scene that makes an additional reference to these "15 years" between "Space Seed" and the second film.

Khan was (and still feels) to be the king of Earth and since Kirk is also a Human I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever, that they were both referring to solar years and this was what director and scriptwriter wanted to convey to the audience.

Bob

King Daniel Into Darkness March 27 2013 03:44 PM

Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?
 
Space Seed and Wrath of Khan also contain clearly audible references to Khan's reign on Earth, in the 1990's, being two hundred years ago. Wrath of Khan itself begins with "In the 23rd century..."

I'd say the Chronology did a reasonable job, considering the schizophrenic nature of date references in TOS and the early movies. Sometimes occasional lines just have to be ignored - like the 700 year reference in "The Squire of Gothos"

Robert Comsol March 27 2013 03:49 PM

Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?
 
Quote:

King Daniel wrote: (Post 7858513)
Space Seed and Wrath of Khan also contain clearly audible references to Khan's reign on Earth, in the 1990's, being two hundred years ago. Wrath of Khan itself begins with "In the 23rd century..."

I'd say there is a difference between a premise that changed between TOS and TMP in contrast to an established time difference between two events in the 23rd Century. ;)

Bob

DonIago March 27 2013 04:02 PM

Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?
 
I would love to see an updated version of this, though I realize how vastly improbable that is. The second edition with the color pictures was beautiful though.

For that matter I'd love an updated Encyclopedia, which is probably even more of a pipe dream.

Yes, I know the info's all out there on the internet, but in this case I think there's something to be said for being able to hold it in my hands and leaf through the pages.

SchwEnt March 27 2013 04:12 PM

Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?
 
No. I prefer the earlier Star Trek Spaceflight Chronology.
It was a Paramount-licensed, first published accounting of the years between now and the 23rd century.

I prefer that book's account of historic events and the sequence in which they unfolded.

Some argue this book's timeline is shifted 50 years behind the official history, or similarly incompatible. Aside from that, I like that history of events rather than the Official Chronology. The actual years of events aren't as important to me as the depiction of which historic events happened in relation to each other
(e.g. Romulans encountered before Klingons, Star Fleet formed after UFP founding, and so on).

ssosmcin March 27 2013 05:17 PM

Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?
 
Nah, I don't like having specific dates pinned down that long after the fact. I like it nebulous.

Mysterion March 27 2013 05:25 PM

Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?
 
I accept the Okudachron for the most part. I agree with the criticism of the TWoK error mentioned above, and there are some other data points that have been contradicted on-screen since it was published. I also would love to see an updated version published. Perhaps with an appendix detailing the timeline of the Abrams-Trek continuity included.

Ronald Held March 27 2013 07:03 PM

Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?
 
Any chance that it could be updated officially?

Warped9 March 27 2013 11:13 PM

Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?
 
I have a copy of the published Chronology but, no, I don't consider accurate and official. In fact that's why I worked out my own chronology.

Gojira March 27 2013 11:24 PM

Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?
 
Quote:

DonIago wrote: (Post 7858612)
I would love to see an updated version of this, though I realize how vastly improbable that is. The second edition with the color pictures was beautiful though.

For that matter I'd love an updated Encyclopedia, which is probably even more of a pipe dream.

Yes, I know the info's all out there on the internet, but in this case I think there's something to be said for being able to hold it in my hands and leaf through the pages.

Those are my dreams too. But with all the information...and misinformation on the internet I won't hold my breath.

Timewalker March 28 2013 02:03 AM

Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?
 
Quote:

King Daniel wrote: (Post 7858513)
Space Seed and Wrath of Khan also contain clearly audible references to Khan's reign on Earth, in the 1990's, being two hundred years ago. Wrath of Khan itself begins with "In the 23rd century..."

I'd say the Chronology did a reasonable job, considering the schizophrenic nature of date references in TOS and the early movies. Sometimes occasional lines just have to be ignored - like the 700 year reference in "The Squire of Gothos"

I just imagined that Trelane's planet was 700 light-years from Earth, and that's why he got screwed up time-wise. The anachronism I find most irritating in that episode is the Salt Vampire in the front hall.

Quote:

Mysterion wrote: (Post 7858885)
I accept the Okudachron for the most part. I agree with the criticism of the TWoK error mentioned above, and there are some other data points that have been contradicted on-screen since it was published. I also would love to see an updated version published. Perhaps with an appendix detailing the timeline of the Abrams-Trek continuity included.

The Abramsverse crap happened in a different universe, so why contaminate REAL Trek with it?


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:30 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.