RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,360
Posts: 5,355,713
Members: 24,626
Currently online: 485
Newest member: glmrkills

TrekToday headlines

Borg Cube Fridge
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29

Free Enterprise Kickstarter
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29

Siddig To Join Game Of Thrones
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29

Sci-Fried To Release New Album
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Star Trek/Planet of the Apes Crossover
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Star Trek into Darkness Soundtrack
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Horse 1, Shatner 0
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Drexler TV Alert
By: T'Bonz on Jul 26

Retro Review: His Way
By: Michelle on Jul 26

MicroWarriors Releases Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25


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 8 2013, 05:31 PM   #151
gottacook
Commander
 
Location: Maryland
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

Jeez. When I wrote above that Star Trek should have stuck to star dates and never alluded to the conventionally numbered year back on Earth, it didn't occur to me that this would be the result: a whole stack of posts giving proof that it makes no difference. Fans (many of them, perhaps) evidently like to think about sequence of events, whether they're given Earth years or star dates to chew on. You could all be Talmudic scholars (and surely a few of us would have been if we still lived in pre-industrial times).
gottacook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 8 2013, 06:42 PM   #152
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 never occurred to you that this would be the result? How long have you been here?
__________________
--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, 06:59 PM   #153
Gojira
Commodore
 
Gojira's Avatar
 
Location: Stompin' on Tokyo
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

I may be one of those rare fans who has zero interest in star dates.
__________________
My Science Fiction-Fantasy movie review Blog: http://foleyfunfilmfacts.wordpress.com/
Gojira is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 8 2013, 07:42 PM   #154
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

Mitchell's date of birth was "1087.7" (age 23)
Dehner's date of birth was "1089.5" (age 21)
1313.7 - 1277.1 = 36.6
Well, both bits plausibly equate the last two digits with years, but these don't agree with each other when it comes to the first two digits. That is, the latter clearly has them as being the same as the last two, that is, rolling over like centuries and millennia, yet Kirk and Mitchell obviously must be from the same century.

What are the odds of that being deliberate and done by one and the same person? Or it being deliberate and done by two people who had the exact same idea at the same time but never cross-checked? Lower than it being a complete coincidence, I'd wager. (This wholly apart from the behavior of the stardates punctuating the episode itself, establishing a rapid progression of the digits flanking the decimal point, within the at most days that the episode takes. A third guy doing unrelated creative work?)

Not that this should make the explanations offered any less plausible as in-universe rationalizations. It just looks as if this doesn't wash as a story of how the numbers were chosen in the real world.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old April 8 2013, 09:14 PM   #155
gottacook
Commander
 
Location: Maryland
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

Dear Admiral Don Iago: No need for ad hominem attacks, is there? I have been visiting for years, and hope to make admiral myself someday, but simply had never come across star date analysts of this level of dedication before.

However, I find this sort of thing quite amusing to witness, whether years or star dates are the focus of interest. Somewhere out there, I'm sure, is a fan who has tried to show that "15 years" couldn't possibly mean the same thing to Khan and to Kirk unless either (i) Khan and his gang cared about Earth-timekeeping and/or were given appropriate timepieces when they left the Enterprise, or (ii) Ceti Alpha V had a year the same length as Earth's (on average, perhaps, considering that the planet's orbit had shifted!).
gottacook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 8 2013, 09:18 PM   #156
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?

Um...as I intended to indicate by my use of a smiley, it was a teasing comment, not intended as an attack.

It's just been my experience that there's no issue in the world of Trek that one or more individuals here won't be willing to discuss in what others might consider excruciating detail.
__________________
--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, 11:06 PM   #157
gottacook
Commander
 
Location: Maryland
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

Don Iago: Sorry, I simply didn't register the smiley - I'm old-fashioned that way, I guess.
gottacook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 8 2013, 11:38 PM   #158
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?

S'all good!
__________________
--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 9 2013, 01:31 AM   #159
Harvey
Admiral
 
Harvey's Avatar
 
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.

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.
The original series did have a thought-ought star date system. The problem is that (a) episodes were frequently aired out of order and (b) writers regularly ignored the star date system set up by the show, and revisions suggested by de Forest Research to keep the numbers in line were not always followed.
__________________
"This begs explanation." - de Forest Research on Star Trek

My blog: Star Trek Fact Check.
Harvey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 9 2013, 10:48 AM   #160
Shaka Zulu
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Bulawayo Military Krral
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.
There is an expanded edition of this that covers DS9 and Voyager: Star Trek Chronology: The History Of The Future
Shaka Zulu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 9 2013, 12:04 PM   #161
Shaka Zulu
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Bulawayo Military Krral
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

Joker wrote: View Post
Cyberspace... The final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Butthurt.

Our 5 year mission: To bitch and whine about a movie we didn't like. To explore new ways of repeating the same old shit. To boldly imply that people who enjoyed it are of a lower intelligence than we are.

Just one more year left... then you can start the mission all over again with Star Trek Into Darkness.
THIS!!!!

My Name Is Legion wrote: View Post
Yep. It's done.

The "Prime universe" does not "still exist," because it never existed. There's nothing that either requires or prevents future producers from referencing it, but that would have been true no matter what these movies were like or what was established within them for fictional purposes.
And in much the same way as The New 52 eliminated the old DC Comics continuity for a new one, or the Marvel NOW! set up does the same for Marvel Comics.
Shaka Zulu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 9 2013, 03:57 PM   #162
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?

Shaka Zulu wrote: View Post
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.
There is an expanded edition of this that covers DS9 and Voyager: Star Trek Chronology: The History Of The Future
Yes...that's the updated one with the color pictures that I referred to in my post. If memory serves it doesn't cover the entirety of either DS9 or VOY, and certainly doesn't cover ENT.
__________________
--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 9 2013, 03:58 PM   #163
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: shore leave in La Baule, France
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

Here is just another anecdote on the stardate issue I feel worthwhile mentioning.

When German television bought 40 episodes of TOS and dubbed these into German, the introduction narrator said "In the year 2200" and the log entries where "Computer Log # 1 of the Starship Enterprise". Whether this was artistic license or the consideration of something previously unheard of, I don't know.

However, if we were to believe that stardate entries had been made on different logs this would yield a rather remarkable result:

stardate (0)3141.9 "Space Seed"

stardate (1)8130.3 "The Wrath of Khan"

If we were to assume that by TMP one solar year equals 1,000 stardate digits, the elapsed time between "Space Seed" and TWOK would amount to 14,988.4 stardate digits.

I'd say 14.99 years is definitely close to the 15 years mentioned by Kirk and Khan in TWOK.

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 17 2013, 01:55 PM   #164
Lenny Nurdbol
Lieutenant Commander
 
Location: New Jersey, with the Jersey Devil...
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

aridas sofia wrote: View Post
I wish I could agree with you, Mysterion. But unless he has had an "inner voice" transplant, Xon just doesn't ring JD to me.

I feel kinda responsible for the disappearance of the King of all Chronologies.
You're not responsible...
THEY are.
Lenny Nurdbol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 20 2013, 01:37 PM   #165
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?



?

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is online now   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 09:38 AM.

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