RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,262
Posts: 5,349,417
Members: 24,614
Currently online: 527
Newest member: robyn

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: His Way
By: Michelle on Jul 26

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

Ships Of The Line Design Contest
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

Next Weekend: Shore Leave 36!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

True Trek History To Be Penned
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

Insight Editions Announces Three Trek Books For 2015
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

To Be Takei Review by Spencer Blohm
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Mulgrew: Playing Red
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Hallmark 2015 Trek Ornaments
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Funko Mini Spock
By: T'Bonz on Jul 23


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 May 14 2013, 03:51 PM   #196
1001001
Putting the F-U Back in FUN!
 
1001001's Avatar
 
Location: People's Gaypublic of Drugafornia
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

Hober Mallow wrote: View Post
I haven't seen the movie in a few years, but I don't believe the year is actually mentioned at any point in the film. It still seems to me a relevent view of our possible future. The most out-of-date aspect of the film probably isn't the year of the title, but the Cold War stuff with the Russians on that space station.
Which was even more prevalent in 2010.

Also, Pan Am was pretty big in 2001.

Whoops.

__________________
“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States...The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge'.” - Isaac Asimov
1001001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 14 2013, 06:01 PM   #197
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?

1001001 wrote: View Post
Hober Mallow wrote: View Post
I haven't seen the movie in a few years, but I don't believe the year is actually mentioned at any point in the film. It still seems to me a relevent view of our possible future. The most out-of-date aspect of the film probably isn't the year of the title, but the Cold War stuff with the Russians on that space station.
Which was even more prevalent in 2010.
Please don't mention that abomination.

Also, Pan Am was pretty big in 2001.

Whoops.

That's right, I forgot about that one.
__________________
"Beep... beep!" --Captain Pike
Hober Mallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 14 2013, 06:05 PM   #198
Greg Cox
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Oxford, PA
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

H. G. Wells was smart. He put the Morlocks and the Eloi in 802,701 or so.

We're not leaving that date in the dust anytime soon!
__________________
www.gregcox-author.com
Greg Cox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 14 2013, 06:19 PM   #199
EliyahuQeoni
Commodore
 
EliyahuQeoni's Avatar
 
Location: Redmond, Oregon, United States of America, North America, Earth, Sol System, Milky Way, Universe
View EliyahuQeoni's Twitter Profile
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

Sure, the original intent may have been to portray our possible future, but there is nothing in Trek that requires that it be our actual future.

Personally, I think its fun to create an alt-20th/21st century for Trek's past rather than just retconning things to fit reality, which is what Clarke did in later Space Odyssey books.

Hober Mallow wrote: View Post
Sure, but shouldn't any new Trek be about the possibilities of our own future? Otherwise, doesn't it just become escapist fantasy?
Star Trek has always been escapist fantasy. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
__________________
"Canon is only important to certain people because they have to cling to their knowledge of the minutiae. Open your mind! Be a Star Trek fan and open your mind and say, 'Where does Star Trek want to take me now'." - Leonard Nimoy
EliyahuQeoni is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 14 2013, 06:22 PM   #200
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

EliyahuQeoni wrote: View Post
Star Trek has always been escapist fantasy. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
__________________
"I had no idea you were so... formidable. " - Anan 7 to James T. Kirk, A Taste of Armageddon
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 14 2013, 06:40 PM   #201
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?

EliyahuQeoni wrote: View Post
Star Trek has always been escapist fantasy. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
No, Trek was not always escapist. It used to be about the possibilities of the future. Our future.

You're right that there's nothing wrong with entertaining escapist fantasy, but escapist fantasy takes you away to another world, whereas the best science fiction takes you deeper into what it means to be a human being in this world. And, in days past, Star Trek did just that. Not always well, mind you, but it at least tried. It doesn't have to have a moral or preach or predict anything, but it should use an SF setting to open us up to our own possibilities, to, as the myths of the past once did, pitch us out, not wrap us back in to where we've been all along.
__________________
"Beep... beep!" --Captain Pike
Hober Mallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 14 2013, 06:48 PM   #202
EliyahuQeoni
Commodore
 
EliyahuQeoni's Avatar
 
Location: Redmond, Oregon, United States of America, North America, Earth, Sol System, Milky Way, Universe
View EliyahuQeoni's Twitter Profile
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

Hober Mallow wrote: View Post
It doesn't have to have a moral or preach or predict anything, but it should use an SF setting to open us up to our own possibilities, to, as the myths of the past once did, pitch us out, not wrap us back in to where we've been all along.
And since when is an alternate history/parallel world not a SF setting?

And yes, many times Trek has made social commentary and had some deeper meaning to its stories, but at its heart it is escapist scifi/fantasy meant for entertainment. It isn't a philosophy. It isn't a way of life. Its a TV/Movie franchise.
__________________
"Canon is only important to certain people because they have to cling to their knowledge of the minutiae. Open your mind! Be a Star Trek fan and open your mind and say, 'Where does Star Trek want to take me now'." - Leonard Nimoy
EliyahuQeoni is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2013, 08:58 PM   #203
sariel2005
Lieutenant
 
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

Out of interest, with the placing of the TOS episodes, does anyone know how they decided on the time placements.

I know they chose production order for the episodes, but does anyone know what criteria they used to decide which year each story took place in ( why place " Conscience of the King" in 2266, for example.
sariel2005 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2013, 09:44 PM   #204
Duncan MacLeod
Fleet Captain
 
Duncan MacLeod's Avatar
 
Location: New England
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

Because it was filmed in 1966. Everything was moved forward exactly 300 years.
Duncan MacLeod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2013, 10:02 PM   #205
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

...Although by the time the book went to print, this "300 years in the future of the airdate) was already supported by onscreen evidence. The age of Sarek in "Sarek" had been set at 202 by following this very doctrine: the dating of that TNG episode was carved in stone already (it was 2366 because it was the third season and the first season had already been mentioned as having taken place in 2364) and going 100+300 years back would bring us right to the airdate of "Journey to Babel" where Sarek was 102 years old. Had the writers not been following this doctrine already, they would have been quite unlikely to choose 202 as Sarek's age...

The doctrine of airdate + 300 years for TOS dates long predated Okuda and the Chronology. It had been a fan favorite since before the first movie, and indeed even the movie appeared to follow that doctrine: aired in 1979, it referred to the Voyager VI launch as having taken place "over 300 years ago", while the Voyager program was started in 1977.

That's one case where the Okudas and Sternbach didn't follow the doctrine, though, as they moved the movie to a date eight years earlier, apparently because they felt that the time elapsed from Kirk's last clocked star hour must have been the exact time between the movie and TOS. Rather than, say, the exact time between the movie and Kirk's latest post-TOS adventure...

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2013, 10:23 PM   #206
sariel2005
Lieutenant
 
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

So they looked no further than production date, and added three hundred, fair enough makes sense from their perspective despite some anomalies.

Was interested in this point though
.
The age of Sarek in "Sarek" had been set at 202 by following this very doctrine: the dating of that TNG episode was carved in stone already (it was 2366 because it was the third season and the first season had already been mentioned as having taken place in 2364) and going 100+300 years back would bring us right to the airdate of "Journey to Babel" where Sarek was 102 years old. Had the writers not been following this doctrine already, they would have been quite unlikely to choose 202 as Sarek's age...
According to the official chronology Sarek occurs in 2366, fine but they place Journey to Babel in 2267 not 2266. a gap of 99 years.
sariel2005 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2013, 10:32 PM   #207
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

...Basically, what is happening here is that for TOS, they took the airdates as is, which means a season was split between two years. For TNG, they assumed that a season mentioning 2364 in a late episode would completely take place in 2364. Hence the erroneous application of a doctrine here.

Of course, we have many reasons to think that the TNG seasons would also be split between two Earth years: the very few Earth dates mentioned (such as that for First Contact, or the Hindu festival of lights) all systematically support a season that starts after the summer, not after Christmas.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2013, 10:36 PM   #208
bbailey861
Admiral
 
bbailey861's Avatar
 
Location: Kingston, ON
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

BillJ wrote: View Post
EliyahuQeoni wrote: View Post
Star Trek has always been escapist fantasy. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Yup, nothing wrong at all.
bbailey861 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2013, 10:56 PM   #209
sariel2005
Lieutenant
 
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

Of course, we have many reasons to think that the TNG seasons would also be split between two Earth years: the very few Earth dates mentioned (such as that for First Contact, or the Hindu festival of lights) all systematically support a season that starts after the summer, not after Christmas.
Thats interesting I had assumed that they sort of knew how it worked by the time of TNG and were just fudging with TOS.
But TNG is ambigous as well?
sariel2005 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 7 2013, 12:13 AM   #210
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?

EliyahuQeoni wrote: View Post
It isn't a philosophy. It isn't a way of life.
I must have missed the post in which someone argued Star Trek ever was or should be a "philosophy" or a "way of life."
sariel2005 wrote: View Post
Of course, we have many reasons to think that the TNG seasons would also be split between two Earth years: the very few Earth dates mentioned (such as that for First Contact, or the Hindu festival of lights) all systematically support a season that starts after the summer, not after Christmas.
Thats interesting I had assumed that they sort of knew how it worked by the time of TNG and were just fudging with TOS.
But TNG is ambigous as well?
If you factor in DS9, it's all kinds of confusion. When Ben Sisko takes command of DS9, it's stardate 46xxx (the sixth season of TNG). We are told three years have passed since Wolf 359, but if the second digit in a stardate represents a year, only a little over two years have passed (and indeed, only two TV seasons passed between TNG's "Best of Both Worlds Part 2" and DS9's "Emissary"). You could say, okay, they're just rounding up. Fine. But then right at the beginning of the next season of DS9, when just three TV seasons have passed (and the stardate has advanced from 44xxx to 47xxx) we're told that four years have passed since Wolf 359.

It bugged me back in the day. Now I couldn't care less.
__________________
"Beep... beep!" --Captain Pike
Hober Mallow 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 08:34 AM.

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