RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 137,819
Posts: 5,326,605
Members: 24,550
Currently online: 776
Newest member: junkdata

TrekToday headlines

Latest Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Jul 10

Seven of Nine Bobble Head
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

Pegg The Prankster
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

More Trek Stars Join Unbelievable!!!!!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

Star Trek #35 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

New ThinkGeek Trek Apparel
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Star Trek Movie Prop Auction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Drexler: NX Engineering Room Construction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

New Trek Home Fashions
By: T'Bonz on Jul 4

Star Trek Pop-Ups Book Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 3


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek TV Series > Star Trek - Original Series

Star Trek - Original Series The one that started it all...

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 27 2013, 11:40 AM   #1
ZapBrannigan
Captain
 
ZapBrannigan's Avatar
 
Location: New York State
Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

There's a wonderful book out there, an over-sized paperback called THE STAR TREK CHRONOLOGY.

It's a detailed timeline that puts dates to TOS. "The Cage" is in 2253, WNM is 2265, the first season is 2266-67, and so on.

Paramount considers it canon. I accept it as such. Do you?
ZapBrannigan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 27 2013, 12:15 PM   #2
Lance
Fleet Captain
 
Lance's Avatar
 
Location: The Enterprise's Restroom
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

Not really. Its the closest we've got, and the Okudas obviously worked on the production at the time so they had a lot of cred. But a lot of the entries in the book have got the footnote "conjecture" attached to them. I tend to look at it as only being as valid as any other piece of Star Trek fiction. Certainly an interpretation of events, but not necessarily the right interpretation of events.

That having been said, it was an interesting read and an updated edition is long overdue.
Lance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 27 2013, 12:54 PM   #3
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

It wasn't canon - many dates and events conjectured in the chronology were changed when they eventually made it to screen. There's even a disclaimer to that effect at the start.

What had been made canon with regard to TOS' timeframe is...

The five-year mission ended in 2270 (VOY: "Q2")

Kirk was born in 2233 (STXI)

Kirk was 34 during "The Deady Years"

A deleted scene in STXI gives 2230 as Spock's birth year.

I think it all works out close enough to the Star Trek Chronology's conjectures. There's an updated version of the timeline in Voyages of Imagination, which includes all the films, episodes and novels up until about 2006. It includes the updated info from "Q2" and thusly moves The Motion Picture to 2273.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 27 2013, 01:30 PM   #4
Ensign_Redshirt
Commodore
 
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

ZapBrannigan wrote: View Post
Paramount considers it canon.
No, they don't.
Ensign_Redshirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 27 2013, 03:28 PM   #5
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

The book contains what I'd consider an ultimate flaw and still today it is totally beyond my understanding how that flaw could have been overlooked in the first place:

In Star Trek II - THE WRATH OF KHAN both Khan and Kirk state on different occasions that they have not seen each other for 15 years.

This information is clearly audible and if I recall correctly there is an extended or deleted scene that makes an additional reference to these "15 years" between "Space Seed" and the second film.

Khan was (and still feels) to be the king of Earth and since Kirk is also a Human I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever, that they were both referring to solar years and this was what director and scriptwriter wanted to convey to the audience.

Bob
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
Robert Comsol is online now   Reply With Quote
Old March 27 2013, 03:44 PM   #6
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

Space Seed and Wrath of Khan also contain clearly audible references to Khan's reign on Earth, in the 1990's, being two hundred years ago. Wrath of Khan itself begins with "In the 23rd century..."

I'd say the Chronology did a reasonable job, considering the schizophrenic nature of date references in TOS and the early movies. Sometimes occasional lines just have to be ignored - like the 700 year reference in "The Squire of Gothos"
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 27 2013, 03:49 PM   #7
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

King Daniel wrote: View Post
Space Seed and Wrath of Khan also contain clearly audible references to Khan's reign on Earth, in the 1990's, being two hundred years ago. Wrath of Khan itself begins with "In the 23rd century..."
I'd say there is a difference between a premise that changed between TOS and TMP in contrast to an established time difference between two events in the 23rd Century.

Bob
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
Robert Comsol is online now   Reply With Quote
Old March 27 2013, 04:02 PM   #8
DonIago
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Burlington, VT, USA
View DonIago's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to DonIago Send a message via AIM to DonIago Send a message via Yahoo to DonIago
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

I would love to see an updated version of this, though I realize how vastly improbable that is. The second edition with the color pictures was beautiful though.

For that matter I'd love an updated Encyclopedia, which is probably even more of a pipe dream.

Yes, I know the info's all out there on the internet, but in this case I think there's something to be said for being able to hold it in my hands and leaf through the pages.
__________________
--DonIago
It was the best of Trek, it was the worst of Trek...
"If I lean over, I leave myself open to wedgies, wet willies, or even the dreaded Rear Admiral!"
DonIago is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 27 2013, 04:12 PM   #9
SchwEnt
Fleet Captain
 
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

No. I prefer the earlier Star Trek Spaceflight Chronology.
It was a Paramount-licensed, first published accounting of the years between now and the 23rd century.

I prefer that book's account of historic events and the sequence in which they unfolded.

Some argue this book's timeline is shifted 50 years behind the official history, or similarly incompatible. Aside from that, I like that history of events rather than the Official Chronology. The actual years of events aren't as important to me as the depiction of which historic events happened in relation to each other
(e.g. Romulans encountered before Klingons, Star Fleet formed after UFP founding, and so on).

Last edited by SchwEnt; March 27 2013 at 10:25 PM.
SchwEnt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 27 2013, 05:17 PM   #10
ssosmcin
Rear Admiral
 
ssosmcin's Avatar
 
Location: ssosmcin
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

Nah, I don't like having specific dates pinned down that long after the fact. I like it nebulous.
__________________
"Tranya is people!"
ssosmcin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 27 2013, 05:25 PM   #11
Mysterion
Rear Admiral
 
Mysterion's Avatar
 
Location: SB-31, Daran V
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

I accept the Okudachron for the most part. I agree with the criticism of the TWoK error mentioned above, and there are some other data points that have been contradicted on-screen since it was published. I also would love to see an updated version published. Perhaps with an appendix detailing the timeline of the Abrams-Trek continuity included.
__________________
USS Galileo Galilei, NCC-8888
Prima Inter Pares
Mysterion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 27 2013, 07:03 PM   #12
Ronald Held
Rear Admiral
 
Location: On the USS Sovereign
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

Any chance that it could be updated officially?
Ronald Held is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 27 2013, 11:13 PM   #13
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

I have a copy of the published Chronology but, no, I don't consider accurate and official. In fact that's why I worked out my own chronology.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 27 2013, 11:24 PM   #14
Gojira
Commodore
 
Gojira's Avatar
 
Location: Stompin' on Tokyo
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

DonIago wrote: View Post
I would love to see an updated version of this, though I realize how vastly improbable that is. The second edition with the color pictures was beautiful though.

For that matter I'd love an updated Encyclopedia, which is probably even more of a pipe dream.

Yes, I know the info's all out there on the internet, but in this case I think there's something to be said for being able to hold it in my hands and leaf through the pages.
Those are my dreams too. But with all the information...and misinformation on the internet I won't hold my breath.
__________________
My Science Fiction-Fantasy movie review Blog: http://foleyfunfilmfacts.wordpress.com/
Gojira is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 28 2013, 02:03 AM   #15
Timewalker
Cat-lovin', Star Trekkin' Time Lady
 
Timewalker's Avatar
 
Location: In many different universes, simultaneously.
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

King Daniel wrote: View Post
Space Seed and Wrath of Khan also contain clearly audible references to Khan's reign on Earth, in the 1990's, being two hundred years ago. Wrath of Khan itself begins with "In the 23rd century..."

I'd say the Chronology did a reasonable job, considering the schizophrenic nature of date references in TOS and the early movies. Sometimes occasional lines just have to be ignored - like the 700 year reference in "The Squire of Gothos"
I just imagined that Trelane's planet was 700 light-years from Earth, and that's why he got screwed up time-wise. The anachronism I find most irritating in that episode is the Salt Vampire in the front hall.

Mysterion wrote: View Post
I accept the Okudachron for the most part. I agree with the criticism of the TWoK error mentioned above, and there are some other data points that have been contradicted on-screen since it was published. I also would love to see an updated version published. Perhaps with an appendix detailing the timeline of the Abrams-Trek continuity included.
The Abramsverse crap happened in a different universe, so why contaminate REAL Trek with it?
__________________
"Let's give it to Riker. He'll eat anything!"

For some great Original Series fanfic, check out the Valjiir Continuum!
Timewalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
book, chronology, dates, okuda, timeline

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:35 PM.

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