^ Actually we have no idea when Kirk first took command of the Enterprise in the original timeline.
I thought that once they used the 2283 date on the romulan ale in ST2 that it more or less set his first 5 year mission as 2265-69 as Khan was marooned 15 years earlier
Okay sorry to get off the topic of the new Trek
and spoilers, but this comment just reminded me of a point of contention I have with the whole "official" Star Trek Chronology...
There were never any dates given in TOS..Roddenberry supposedly left this up in the air at first, stating that the show could be anywhere from 300 to 800 years in the future...in fact, when Kirk and Co. travel back to the 1960s, and Kirk is threatened with being locked up for "200 years", he muses "Yeah, that's about right", which would place the show in the 2160s...
That aside, the show's chronology was eventually retconned to have occured from 2266 onwards, TNG taking place in the 24th century, and so forth...now here's my
People often say that The Motion Picture
must've taken place in the early 2270s, because of Deckers comment that Kirk hadn't logged a single star hour(whatever that is) in such and such number of years..therefore, if the Enterprise's 5 year mission began in 2266 and ended in 2271, TMP
must take place in the early 2270s, say 2271 or 72 or 73....
My problem is that this lacks imagination...if Trek
debuted in 1966 and took place in 2266, then why can't TMP take place in 2279, and the missing years in between are simply that...missing!
They weren't depicted on screen, but Kirk had further adventures, got promoted to Admiral, got bored pushing papers, and then V'Ger comes along in '79...
To me at least, it would make more sense, because it would explain why the uniforms look so different, why the characters have obviously aged more than a few years, etc, etc.
That's my two cents...I know what Okuda's Chronology
says, but I strongly disagree...