View Single Post
Old August 15 2013, 01:18 PM   #78
sariel2005
Lieutenant
 
Re: Could stardates make some sense?

We can argue not though, IIRC Spock's leaving date from the original universe uses a Abramverse stardate not TNG one, which is differrent from what we know.
I see that just as a difference in interpretation by different filmmakers, rather than a meaningful difference in-universe -- no more "real" than the difference between Fred Phillips's Tellarites and Michael Westmore's Tellarites, or between Kirstie Alley's Saavik and Robin Curtis's Saavik. Stardates are so inconsistent within any one series that one can't really read too much into the variations between different series' approaches to them.
You make an excellent point, what we see on screen may well effectively be a recreation of events. certainly no one would assume that Saavik had an offscreen regeneration, and after all that allows for the abramverse Enterprise to be completely the same ship that the TOS one was just shown differently.
That said since this is a thread about stardates its worth considering the reasons for any differences.


Personally I tend to think that there WAS divergence from the Enterprise era to the JJVerse caused by the events in Enterprise. After all a major change in the timeline is the Xindi attack on Earth, and Archer certainly gained tech and information from the future. As to whether that constitutes a change to the original timeline or a divergent one seems a bit, well ... wibbly Wobbly Timey wimey
Whereas my belief is that ENT was always meant to show the beginnings of the Trek universe we know, and that's the approach I'm taking in my Rise of the Federation novels. Sure, things like the Suliban's destruction of the Paraagan colony and the Xindi attack on Earth may not have been part of the future Daniels came from, but we never actually got confirmation that he came from the same timeline as TOS/TAS/TNG/DS9/VGR -- just that he was from some future where a version of the Federation existed.
Don't get me wrong, I think that although it changed the timeliine that it still occured in Broadly the same manner, something time seems to attempt to do in the abramverse as well. BUT I think that it would have caused some changes in technology and outlook. With The Kelvin, the greater familiarity with the Romulans and the difference in Stardates reflecting that.
Of Course your interpretation is just as valid ( and the idea that Daniels came from a different future is pretty clever) and in writing the Birth of the Federation novels the assumtion it lead to the TOS universe is of course completely the correct one.


Stardate 2387 would be an extremely weak argument. What is to stop the Jellyfish from connecting to the local timebase and switching the stardate system from TNG to JJ? A simple location-based service, just as my smartphone might change the time zone and begin showing the adjusted dates/times. It's not like AR technology would be totally alien to that of PR — most of the protocols are probably compatible.

Also, the IDW timeline is using JJ stardates for PR dates (2364, 2369, 2409...), thus confirming rather officially (though probably not canonically) that the system can be applied to an era where it wasn't used at all. So if Spock-prime were to speak with Spock-alternate about his time, he might say he "defected" to Romulus on stardate 2368.
The IDW timeline using JJ stardates strengthens the argument though, if the events of ENT caused the change to the JJ stardates then its far more likely they would have been used consistently into the 24th century than used until the 2260s, abandoned then restarted in the late 24th.

Good point. Roddenberry himself explained the inconsistent stardates of TOS by saying they weren't an absolute time reference but changed depending on a starship's location and velocity -- because there's really no way to define an absolute objective time standard over interstellar distances. So presumably any stardate reference in a log entry would be relative to local time, and it stands to reason that a computer giving a stardate would automatically adjust the reference to whatever scheme was locally/currently in use.
Two thoughts on this point. The first is that although it makes a sort of sense we do see that Stardates are consistent despite location with Enterprise D resetting its clock with the correct stardate more than once. ( in fairness the use of this indicates that stardates DO tend to drift )

The other is that we also see inconsistent stardates for the same locations on occasion. For example the DS9 episode Dax has a latter stardate than most dated stories later in season one, and the station maintains its position.


Again, something I consider it best not to think about. One thing I don't like about the Abrams movies is their use of Earth years as "stardates." Why even call them stardates if they're just Gregorian years?
A fair point, extending the logic it baffles me why the 1000 units = 1 year idea seems to have been attached to a calender year, especially when on screen evidence ( Data's Day for example) seem to dispute this. FWIW , that said it explains why we never see our heroes celebrate christmas since bad stuff always happens in that period ( maybe ST happens in the same universe as Eastenders ).

The new format gives us more evidence to think about. If 2259.14 can be a stardate, why couldn't 2259-01-14?
Well just because the JJ stardates use the Gregorian year, doesn't mean that the number after the decimal point has to be a calendar date as well. It seems its not, its either the day of the year Or a decimal reflecting how far into the year it is. So it IS different from the standard calendar and is internally consistent.
sariel2005 is offline   Reply With Quote