RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 135,781
Posts: 5,217,219
Members: 24,217
Currently online: 850
Newest member: davestar057

TrekToday headlines

Q Meets NuTrek Crew
By: T'Bonz on Apr 18

Pine In Talks For Drama
By: T'Bonz on Apr 18

New X-Men: Days of Future Past Trailer
By: T'Bonz on Apr 17

Nimoy to Receive Award
By: T'Bonz on Apr 17

Star Trek Special: Flesh and Stone Comic
By: T'Bonz on Apr 16

These Are The Voyages TOS Season Two Book Review
By: T'Bonz on Apr 16

Kirk’s Well Wishes To Kirk
By: T'Bonz on Apr 15

Quinto In New Starz Series
By: T'Bonz on Apr 15

Star Trek: Horizon Film
By: T'Bonz on Apr 14

Star Trek: Fleet Captains Game Expansion
By: T'Bonz on Apr 14


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 April 7 2013, 09:24 PM   #136
FalTorPan
Vice Admiral
 
FalTorPan's Avatar
 
Location: Out there... thataway.
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

Speaking to the actual topic of this thread, I consider the Star Trek Chronology to be one of the best -- if not the best -- attempt at providing a "historical" context to the various Trek productions.
__________________
Watch ASTRONUTS! Visit Trekplace! Check out my personal website!
FalTorPan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 8 2013, 02:32 AM   #137
gottacook
Commander
 
Location: Maryland
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

As a Star Trek fan of very long standing (since the first run of season 3, when I was 12), I have to say that the practice of never identifying the present Earth year should have been strictly maintained. That was one of the reasons for the Stardate system, wasn't it - to obscure the exact year back on Earth? (Giving the present date as a Stardate makes less obvious any variability between scripts concerning the number of years or centuries since our own time.)

With all respect for its creators, the published Star Trek Chronology is like the Jane Curtin fake Saturday Night Live ad in which she begins, "Hi. I'm beautiful but stupid."
gottacook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 8 2013, 03:24 AM   #138
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 was under the impression it was more to blur the passage of time between episodes than to blur how far in the future the series itself was.
__________________
--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 April 8 2013, 05:49 AM   #139
ZapBrannigan
Captain
 
ZapBrannigan's Avatar
 
Location: New York State
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

The stardate system should have been thought out and designed properly before they went on the air. In TOS it doesn't have any systematic sense it in, except that the numbers get higher as the series goes along.

Then in TNG, stardates started with the number 4 to reflect the 24th century, but the next digit marked the show's season number. So in spinoffs beyond year 10, the stardates begin with 5. Again, it doesn't make good sense.
ZapBrannigan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 8 2013, 07:22 AM   #140
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?

It's a tv show...some things, especially back when TOS premiered, were never intended to be deeply scrutinized.
__________________
--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 April 8 2013, 08:05 AM   #141
Hober Mallow
Commodore
 
Location: The planet Terminus, site of the Encyclopedia Foundation on the periphery of the galaxy
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

Timewalker wrote: View Post
I forced myself to watch this piece of garbage that calls itself "Star Trek" and was not the slightest bit impressed.
Same here. I completely and totally agree 100%.

If Abrams--
Oh... sorry. I thought you were talking about the Berman-era Trek "spinoffs." My mistake.
__________________
"Beep... beep!" --Captain Pike
Hober Mallow is online now   Reply With Quote
Old April 8 2013, 09:34 AM   #142
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

ZapBrannigan wrote: View Post
The stardate system should have been thought out and designed properly before they went on the air. In TOS it doesn't have any systematic sense it in, except that the numbers get higher as the series goes along.
I'd dare to say that by the time of TMP they tried to pin it down that 1,000 stardate digits equal one solar year (concluded from Kirk's TMP log entries). TAS notwithstanding (and subtracting idle time the Enterprise spent in spacedock) we'd have a 5 year mission that starts some while after stardate 1000 (1277.1? Kirk's tombstone) and ends around stardate 6000.

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 offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 8 2013, 12:53 PM   #143
ZapBrannigan
Captain
 
ZapBrannigan's Avatar
 
Location: New York State
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
I'd dare to say that by the time of TMP they tried to pin it down that 1,000 stardate digits equal one solar year (concluded from Kirk's TMP log entries). TAS notwithstanding (and subtracting idle time the Enterprise spent in spacedock) we'd have a 5 year mission that starts some while after stardate 1000 (1277.1? Kirk's tombstone) and ends around stardate 6000.

Bob
The tombstone dates are "C 1277.1 TO 1313.7"

Mitchell may have been insulting Kirk by calling him a one-year-old and getting his initial wrong.
ZapBrannigan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 8 2013, 01:43 PM   #144
bbailey861
Admiral
 
bbailey861's Avatar
 
Location: Kingston, ON
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

DonIago wrote: View Post
It's a tv show...some things, especially back when TOS premiered, were never intended to be deeply scrutinized.
Absolutely. In 1966, if you had told Gene Roddenberry that people would be arguing the minutia of Star Trek, like Stardates or warp drive, he would have thought you were crazy.
bbailey861 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 8 2013, 01:59 PM   #145
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

The tombstone dates are "C 1277.1 TO 1313.7" Mitchell may have been insulting Kirk by calling him a one-year-old and getting his initial wrong
Yeah. If we think 1000 SD = 1 yr, then those dates would mean that Kirk's birthday and day of death would fall on the same year (the fourth digit from the right) but naturally on a different decade (the missing fifth digit). This would mean that since he's 34 around SD 3478 ("The Deadly Years"), he'd be about 31-32 in SD 1313, and thus 21-22, 11-12 or 1-2 in SD 1277 - the "system" would not allow him to be born on SD 1277 or any of its decade variants.

On the other hand, like Robert Comsol implies, Mitchell could be saying that Kirk was Captain ("C") of the Enterprise for that length of time, which is perfectly okay. Really, what else could the letter "C" mean? It's not standard tombstone symbology, now is it? But it is something Mitchell might want to remind Kirk of ("See how you failed in your life's work and ambition?") plus something that would not require the decade digit.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old April 8 2013, 02:18 PM   #146
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

^^ "C" standing for "captaincy" is most likely, especially given the otherwise harsh contrast to the actual birth dates of Mitchell's and Dehner's onscreen medical records (old Federation calendar? Stardates apparently didn't exist, yet, in "The Cage"). Back in 1987 I did some deciphering of the birthdates on Mitchell's and Dehner's files but I'm not sure I still have my notes (didn't expect that by 2013 the issue would still be of interest and fans of ENT and GUT probably won't be interested).

Mitchell's date of birth was "1087.7" (age 23)
Dehner's date of birth was "1089.5" (age 21)

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

Last edited by Robert Comsol; April 8 2013 at 02:32 PM.
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 8 2013, 02:19 PM   #147
Joker
Vice Admiral
 
Joker's Avatar
 
Location: The North
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Joker
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

Timo wrote: View Post
Really, what else could the letter "C" mean?
"Cunt".

Mitchell didn't like Kirk, really.
__________________
My name is Pain. You belong to me.
Joker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 8 2013, 03:29 PM   #148
aridas sofia
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

1313.7 - 1277.1 = 36.6

Shatner was about 35 when the episode was shot. I'm sure they were just saying Kirk was 36 and a half years old.
aridas sofia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 8 2013, 04:22 PM   #149
Mysterion
Rear Admiral
 
Mysterion's Avatar
 
Location: SB-31, Daran V
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

aridas sofia wrote: View Post
1313.7 - 1277.1 = 36.6

Shatner was about 35 when the episode was shot. I'm sure they were just saying Kirk was 36 and a half years old.
I agree completely with this conclusion.

Trying to apply any consistent system or interpretation to stardates across any one series, much less the whole of Trek is probably not going to work.
__________________
USS Galileo Galilei, NCC-8888
Prima Inter Pares
Mysterion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 8 2013, 04:46 PM   #150
aridas sofia
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

Yes. And as for the "C"... it likely means "circa", a dating convention used in genealogy to denote an approximate date. I would guess they are saying the stardate approximates the Earth date.
aridas sofia 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 08:36 PM.

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