Big Daddy wrote:
I don't mean to burst anyone's bubble here, but weren't they just cranked out arbitrarily as a means of preventing viewers from being able to place episodes in any chronological order?
No, as Timo
stated they hold up pretty well with the production order if you don't look to hard.
The problem was the original broadcast order which was erratic. Apparently, viewers wanted Gene Roddenberry to explain the obvious discrepancies
(because of the chaotic broadcast order!) and Gene came up with an explanation (in The Making of Star Trek)
and explicitly stated, that he never wanted to bothered again with the issue.
Had the networks stuck with the original production order (which was eventually respected by TV stations in the 1970's but not by CBS and its video discs...
) I assume we might have gotten a different statement (which in my world is TMP where 0.114 digits = 60 minutes and 2.737 digits = 24 hours).
Big Daddy wrote:
Also, don't you find that rather helped with creating the (forgive the pun) timelessness of the series?
That was the whole idea of stardates. While TOS appeared to be vaguely set 200 years in the future, this premise got changed with TMP (300 years) and in ST II we were given an Earth year as a reference.
While I might have lived with calendar years, the obvious ignorance of the explicitly stated "15 years" time gap between "Space Seed" and ST II has corrupted the entire timeline from a TOS point of view.
I for one since prefer the exclusive use of stardates, so I don't have to argue with other fans whether a certain event in TOS should be placed in year 22XX minus or plus 3 years.