RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 137,853
Posts: 5,328,321
Members: 24,554
Currently online: 667
Newest member: Kastrol

TrekToday headlines

Cubify Star Trek 3DMe Mini Figurines
By: T'Bonz on Jul 11

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


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 > The Next Generation

The Next Generation All Good Things come to an end...but not here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 7 2013, 11:01 PM   #1
david_lexicon
Cadet
 
Chronometer

Today I watched the 2nd Episode of Season 1 of TNG. The date is 17/7/2315 (41209.2).

I also watched the movie Star Trek: The First Contact. The date is 17/3/2364 (50893.5).

I cannot understand.....39 years elapsed. Jean-Luc Pichard will be 65 years old in the movie.

Am I missing something?
david_lexicon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 7 2013, 11:07 PM   #2
T'Girl
Vice Admiral
 
T'Girl's Avatar
 
Re: Chronometer

Respectfully yes you are. When we first see Picard in Encounter at Farpoint he is in his late fifties, by First Contact he is in his late sixties.

According to Gene Roddenberry, in one of his university speeches from the mid-1970's, stardates aren't just a indication of time, but also a indication of your position in the galaxy (navigational position).

Very unreliable for telling time.

T'Girl is online now   Reply With Quote
Old April 7 2013, 11:08 PM   #3
Dac
Commodore
 
Dac's Avatar
 
Location: The Essex wastes...
View Dac's Twitter Profile Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Dac
Re: Chronometer

Stardates are mostly bullshit. The show "started" in 2364, with First Contact taking place in 2373. At least according to memory alpha, and I'd take their definition of things over the arbitrary stardate numbering.
Dac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 7 2013, 11:15 PM   #4
indolover
Fleet Captain
 
Re: Chronometer

Due to advanced medical technology in that setting, it's not implausible somebody of Picard's age could still serve capably.
indolover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 7 2013, 11:20 PM   #5
T'Girl
Vice Admiral
 
T'Girl's Avatar
 
Re: Chronometer

I like the idea someone here came up with recently, that Picard started behaving like "Johnny Action Figure" in the movies because he was going through a mid-life crisis.


T'Girl is online now   Reply With Quote
Old April 8 2013, 05:48 AM   #6
R. Star
Rear Admiral
 
R. Star's Avatar
 
Location: Shangri-La
Re: Chronometer

Well the TOS stardates were just random numbers they didn't even bother keeping in order... hence Roddenberry making an apology excuse for that one. In the TNG era, they're still ambiguous... but chronological. 1000 units represents one year pretty much without fail. 41xxx was season one... 4 for the 24th century, 1 for season 1. 42xxx for season 2 and so forth. When DS9 and Voyager came in, they just kept adding 1 each season and TNG's movies stayed consistent with that.

The smaller units... are wholly inconsistent save to say what order things happened in. Sometimes they'll go through a 100 units in a single episode with multiple log entries, sometimes it seems like it's over a month.
__________________
"I was never a Star Trek fan." J.J. Abrams
R. Star is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 8 2013, 09:02 AM   #7
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Chronometer

Today I watched the 2nd Episode of Season 1 of TNG. The date is 17/7/2315.
No, it isn't. Where did you get that from?

I also watched the movie Star Trek: The First Contact. The date is 17/3/2364.
No, it isn't. Where did you get that from?

On screen, we get a good correlation for that "41 is Season One" thing, plus we learn that one episode from that season takes place in 2364. We also get good evidence that the second digit out of the five increases by one per each season, and that each season is one year long. And that's basically all there is to modern stardates.

The TOS ones were originally sprinkled onto the scripts more or less on random, but the fun thing is, they make a great deal of sense if viewed through the "1000 stardates equals a year" glasses. Ordering the TOS episodes by stardate gives a more logical progression of drama than any competing scheme, and the TOS stardates appear to span five years, just like the opening speech suggests.

There are three major inconsistencies in using stardates as a timekeeping system:

1) The stardates for the first season of TNG were made rather random in the final script revisions, and cause confusion - chiefly, there are a couple of episodes with stardates higher than that of "Skin of Evil", still featuring Tasha Yar, even though Yar died in that episode.

2) The stardates for TAS make no observable sense; it seems even the TOS attempt at giving later episodes higher dates was completely dropped.

3) The TOS movie stardates at least increase in an orderly fashion as time goes by, but they can't be shoehorned to the "1000 SD = 1 year" model the way TOS can, mainly because they have their own internal references to the passage of time where TOS had none.

Apart from those three things, stardates are your friend, even when it comes to establishing the age of Jean-Luc Picard.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 10 2013, 09:07 PM   #8
Squiggy
LORD SHIT SUPREME
 
Squiggy's Avatar
 
Location: Not on your life, my Hindu friend.
View Squiggy's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to Squiggy
Re: Chronometer

Timo wrote: View Post
1) The stardates for the first season of TNG were made rather random in the final script revisions, and cause confusion - chiefly, there are a couple of episodes with stardates higher than that of "Skin of Evil", still featuring Tasha Yar, even though Yar died in that episode.
They aired out of production order.
__________________
ENOUGH OF THIS TURGID BASH WANKERY!
Squiggy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 11 2013, 05:37 PM   #9
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Chronometer

I don't think so.

The episodes "The Battle" (SD 41723), "The Big Goodbye" (SD 41997) and "Angel One" (SD 41636) were shown in production order, well before Tasha's death scene in "Skin of Evil", and all of them featured Tasha Yar but had stardates postdating her death.

The only remarkable out-of-production-order airing is the very late showing of "Haven", about seven slots later than production order would imply. But that one creates no continuity problems at either slot, and doesn't pose obstacles to the use of stardate order for early TNG.

You might be thinking of the fact that Tasha's death in "Skin of Evil" was in an episode produced before her final onscreen appearance in "Symbiosis". But when those two episodes were aired, death came later than life, just as it should. Moreover, "Symbiosis" had no stardates to complicate this reshuffling.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
dates chronometer

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 01:23 AM.

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