View Single Post
Old May 3 2013, 09:58 AM   #171
Location: Dunfermline
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

Hello everyone,

I'd like to add to the requests for an updated edition of the Okudas' "Star Trek Chronology". In particular, I'd be really interested to see how they tackle the later parts of "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" and "Star Trek: Voyager". There are a lot of internal continuity references in those shows, and it would be interesting to know if there's any "inside dope" from the production offices as to how that was worked out, and whether it was done "ad hoc" based on the production schedule, or worked out "in universe"? I'd also be interested to see how the movies are dealt with, since 2271 is now very obviously too early for Star Trek I, and I agree with sariel2005, Star Trek II to V all happen within one year based on the internal references, although I think that 2285 seems to be the least unlikely option for the year in question, although the whole thing is very much a matter of opinion, not facts.

On the topic of contentious views, I'd like to see the animated series included this time, possibly with some "screencaps" faked up to make the stories blend in with the "live action" material.

Including absolutely everything might be more than a bit overwhelming: the "Doctor Who" unofficial chronology "Ahistory" is incredibly comprehensive, and the most recent edition is 700+ big pages with fairly small print. I seriously doubt that I'll have the stamina to read the next edition from cover to cover, and the cost might put me off altogether, something that a publisher would worry about. The current arrangement of a separate but compatible novels chronology (the most recent one was part of "Star Trek: Voyages of Imagination") works alright for me, but that doesn't really address the "yes it's officially part of the timeline" games and tie-in publications for the new films. Would they be included in the "alternate timeline"?

Unfortunately, I doubt it'll happen, although a revised edition of the closest thing to an "official" chronology seems to me a good way of getting something of interest to "Star Trek" fans in general, not just one particular sub-group (unless it's the "chronologically-minded" sub-group, of course).

Although it's incomplete, the last edition is still worth picking up if you don't have it. It's a nice reference book just as it is, and since it's officially licensed and produced by authors who worked in the "Star Trek" production offices, the dates it gives are as official as any are ever likely to be. I'm fairly sure the "Star Trek Chronology" was used to date events in the later "Star Trek" shows, and it certainly is the framework for the chronology of the Pocket Books novels produced after it was published. Having had a go at a timeline myself, it's very difficult to move very far from this work without contradicting dates established in the shows themselves.

Finally, there is a kind of "supplement" to the "Star Trek Chronology". The "Starship Creator" computer game (also by Mike Okuda) includes an extensive set of "service records" for a lot of major and minor characters, giving dates of birth and suchlike. I think the last edition of the James Dixon "Fandom" chronology incorporated a lot of that information.

Best wishes,

__________________ : A stardate-based timeline!
jimcat is offline   Reply With Quote