The Trek BBS

The Trek BBS (http://www.trekbbs.com/index.php)
-   Star Trek Movies I-X (http://www.trekbbs.com/forumdisplay.php?f=42)
-   -   V'Ger 6 + "more than three hundred years" (http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=226147)

Galileo7 September 17 2013 01:27 AM

V'Ger 6 + "more than three hundred years"
 
Decker states that V'Ger a.k.a. Voyager 6 was launched "more than three hundred years ago". Based upon the fact that the real Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 were both launched in 1977, Voyager 6 should have been launched after 1977. So, at the earliest we say 1978.

1978
+ 300+[but, remember it was more than 300 years ago]
= 2278+

So 2278 or later could be the setting for TMP.

I was just wondering what are your opinions on this line of dialogue.:shrug:

Avro Arrow September 17 2013 02:28 AM

Re: V'Ger 6 + "more than three hundred years"
 
Decker was good at starship command... not so good at history? :shrug:

I think it's really just a case of they hadn't really nailed down the chronology of when Star Trek took place. TOS is littered with contradictory dating references.

Christopher September 17 2013 02:28 AM

Re: V'Ger 6 + "more than three hundred years"
 
At the time, the timeframe of ST hadn't been locked down yet. Looking at it retroactively, it clearly doesn't fit what's now been established about the chronology, but it's easy enough to assume that Decker's memory of historical dates was imperfect and he misspoke.

Skywalker September 17 2013 04:28 AM

Re: V'Ger 6 + "more than three hundred years"
 
It'd just be like someone living today mentioning offhand that Christopher Columbus discovered the Americas five hundred years ago. That doesn't mean he discovered them in 1513, it just means that the event took place around that amount of time ago.

I never did like how people take lines like "such-and-such happened two hundred years ago" and assume the characters always meant that was the exact amount of time that had passed.

C.E. Evans September 17 2013 07:04 AM

Re: V'Ger 6 + "more than three hundred years"
 
Quote:

Skywalker wrote: (Post 8656177)
It'd just be like someone living today mentioning offhand that Christopher Columbus discovered the Americas five hundred years ago. That doesn't mean he discovered them in 1513, it just means that the event took place around that amount of time ago.

Exactly.
Quote:

I never did like how people take lines like "such-and-such happened two hundred years ago" and assume the characters always meant that was the exact amount of time that had passed.
Same here. I think people will still talk figuratively and round off numbers at times in the future, especially when they want to be brief or just get to the point.

Mario de Monti September 17 2013 02:49 PM

Re: V'Ger 6 + "more than three hundred years"
 
I also think, that the "more than three hundred years" line shouldn´t be taken to literally.

What bothers me a lot more in this "revelation scene" is the explanation, that Voyager 6 supposedly entered a black hole. That would place a black hole in rather close proximity to our solar system, since it took Voyager 2 about 12 years to even reach Neptune and Voyager 6 must have reached the black hole within the ominous three hundred year time-span.

It gets even worse when you take a look at the section "Future of the Probe" at the bottom of this article in Wikipedia - Voyager 2 has power for less than 50 years of operation. That would necessitate the black hole to be in VERY close proximity :eek:

Mario

Christopher September 17 2013 03:01 PM

Re: V'Ger 6 + "more than three hundred years"
 
Quote:

Skywalker wrote: (Post 8656177)
I never did like how people take lines like "such-and-such happened two hundred years ago" and assume the characters always meant that was the exact amount of time that had passed.

Yeah, that really bugged me about the Okuda Chronology. Like how they put the Valiant's flight to the edge of the galaxy in 2065, just a few years after the first prototype warp flight, in order to put it exactly 200 years before the second pilot, rather than assuming it was rounded up from 170 years or something. Or the way they stretched out the third, fourth, and fifth movies to be a year apart, in direct contradiction to the internal evidence, apparently in order to justify Nimbus III being exactly 20 years old in TFF rather than rounding it down to 18 or thereabouts. (And yet they put TWOK 18 years after "Space Seed" instead of the explicitly stated 15.)

C.E. Evans September 17 2013 09:14 PM

Re: V'Ger 6 + "more than three hundred years"
 
Quote:

Mario de Monti wrote: (Post 8657362)
I also think, that the "more than three hundred years" line shouldn´t be taken to literally.

What bothers me a lot more in this "revelation scene" is the explanation, that Voyager 6 supposedly entered a black hole. That would place a black hole in rather close proximity to our solar system, since it took Voyager 2 about 12 years to even reach Neptune and Voyager 6 must have reached the black hole within the ominous three hundred year time-span.

Voyager-6 was equipped with an early impulse engine not too unlike those used on the DY-100 ships of that time. It was able to quickly overtake all five of the five previous Voyager probes prior to its disappearance.
:)

MacLeod September 17 2013 09:20 PM

Re: V'Ger 6 + "more than three hundred years"
 
Time esp. when dealing with decades, centuries is often round or down. So instead of saying an event occured 95 years ago we might say it occured a cenury ago.

King Daniel Into Darkness September 17 2013 09:25 PM

Re: V'Ger 6 + "more than three hundred years"
 
He meant 300 Deltan years :p :p

Hober Mallow September 18 2013 01:43 AM

Re: V'Ger 6 + "more than three hundred years"
 
Quote:

Skywalker wrote: (Post 8656177)
I never did like how people take lines like "such-and-such happened two hundred years ago" and assume the characters always meant that was the exact amount of time that had passed.

You mean people like Michael Okuda? :)

EDIT: Oops, Christopher beat me to the punch. :)

Sran September 18 2013 02:03 AM

Re: V'Ger 6 + "more than three hundred years"
 
Quote:

Christopher wrote: (Post 8655670)
At the time, the timeframe of ST hadn't been locked down yet. Looking at it retroactively, it clearly doesn't fit what's now been established about the chronology, but it's easy enough to assume that Decker's memory of historical dates was imperfect and he misspoke.

Right. The first time Star Trek is actually stated to take place in the twenty third century is in TWOK.

--Sran

The Old Mixer September 18 2013 02:28 AM

Re: V'Ger 6 + "more than three hundred years"
 
Quote:

Christopher wrote: (Post 8657389)
Yeah, that really bugged me about the Okuda Chronology. Like how they put the Valiant's flight to the edge of the galaxy in 2065, just a few years after the first prototype warp flight, in order to put it exactly 200 years before the second pilot, rather than assuming it was rounded up from 170 years or something. Or the way they stretched out the third, fourth, and fifth movies to be a year apart, in direct contradiction to the internal evidence, apparently in order to justify Nimbus III being exactly 20 years old in TFF rather than rounding it down to 18 or thereabouts. (And yet they put TWOK 18 years after "Space Seed" instead of the explicitly stated 15.)

To be fair, they were trying not to speculate too much beyond what was stated onscreen, so if somebody said 200 years onscreen, that's where they put it. The Okudas would be the first ones to consider it a placeholder date to be contradicted onscreen at the whim of the episode writers.

Regarding the timeframe chosen for the films, I was always under the impression that they were trying to stay true to the offscreen sources that specified the first season of TNG as taking place 78 years after the time of Kirk's crew. 2364 (TNG Season 1, the first current Earth calendar date ever specified in Trek) - 78 = 2286, the year that the most recent installment of the TOS movie series took place (STIV). Putting TWOK and TSFS a year earlier wasn't much of a stretch, as the three films spanned over three months and there might have been a New Year in there. Putting STV in 2287 on top of that was a stretch, though.

What was too cutesy was putting TOS exactly 300 years after the TV seasons aired. They should have taken a hint from TNG, which didn't take place exactly 400 years in the future of its broadcast. Nudge the TOS dates up by two or three years and there's no discrepancy with the 15 years specified in TWOK.

Christopher September 18 2013 02:55 AM

Re: V'Ger 6 + "more than three hundred years"
 
Quote:

The Old Mixer wrote: (Post 8660119)
To be fair, they were trying not to speculate too much beyond what was stated onscreen, so if somebody said 200 years onscreen, that's where they put it. The Okudas would be the first ones to consider it a placeholder date to be contradicted onscreen at the whim of the episode writers.

But the problem is that the way they handled the dates was misleading if that was their intent. Assigning an exact date gave readers the impression that that was meant to be the date -- not to mention that we Pocket novelists were required to use the Okudachron dates even when they didn't make sense, unless they'd been overtly contradicted by later screen canon.

Instead of putting the Valiant launch in 2065, for example, maybe they should've just put it in a "Late 21st Century" section without being specific about the year. It would've been hard to fit it into the chronology format, true, but it would've been more truthful.

It just goes to illustrate the difference between precision and accuracy. Accuracy is how correct an answer is; precision is how narrowly it's pinned down. If you assert a degree of precision beyond the actual data, such as pinning down a specific year when all you have is an approximate range, that's actually a less accurate answer, because it doesn't correctly represent the margin of error.


Quote:

Putting TWOK and TSFS a year earlier wasn't much of a stretch, as the three films spanned over three months and there might have been a New Year in there.
Except that in the 2233 entry, they said Kirk's birthday was March 22, the same as Shatner's. Which would put TWOK in late March, so there's no way TVH could've been the following year.

The Old Mixer September 18 2013 03:45 AM

Re: V'Ger 6 + "more than three hundred years"
 
Quote:

Christopher wrote: (Post 8660260)
But the problem is that the way they handled the dates was misleading if that was their intent. Assigning an exact date gave readers the impression that that was meant to be the date

Then the readers didn't read too closely, because the book had disclaimers.

Quote:

Instead of putting the Valiant launch in 2065, for example, maybe they should've just put it in a "Late 21st Century" section without being specific about the year. It would've been hard to fit it into the chronology format, true, but it would've been more truthful.
"ca." would have worked in a case like that, but where to draw the line? They could put "ca." in front of nearly every date in the book.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:54 AM.

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