RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,584
Posts: 5,423,887
Members: 24,809
Currently online: 562
Newest member: Super Scout

TrekToday headlines

Star Trek: Alien Domain Game Announced
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Red Shirt Diaries Episode Three
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Made Out Of Mudd Photonovel
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Takei Has Growth Removed
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Retro Review: Tears of the Prophets
By: Michelle on Sep 12

New Wizkids Attack Wing Ships
By: T'Bonz on Sep 12

Coto Drama Sold To Fox
By: T'Bonz on Sep 12

Braga Inks Deal
By: T'Bonz on Sep 12

Remastered Original Series Re-release
By: T'Bonz on Sep 11

UK Trek Ships Calendar Debuts
By: T'Bonz on Sep 10


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 Movies > Star Trek Movies I-X

Star Trek Movies I-X Discuss the first ten big screen outings in this forum!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 17 2013, 01:27 AM   #1
Galileo7
Fleet Captain
 
Galileo7's Avatar
 
Location: U.S.A.
V'Ger 6 + "more than three hundred years"

Decker states that V'Ger a.k.a. Voyager 6 was launched "more than three hundred years ago". Based upon the fact that the real Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 were both launched in 1977, Voyager 6 should have been launched after 1977. So, at the earliest we say 1978.

1978
+ 300+[but, remember it was more than 300 years ago]
= 2278+

So 2278 or later could be the setting for TMP.

I was just wondering what are your opinions on this line of dialogue.
Galileo7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17 2013, 02:28 AM   #2
Avro Arrow
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
Re: V'Ger 6 + "more than three hundred years"

Decker was good at starship command... not so good at history?

I think it's really just a case of they hadn't really nailed down the chronology of when Star Trek took place. TOS is littered with contradictory dating references.
Avro Arrow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17 2013, 02:28 AM   #3
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: V'Ger 6 + "more than three hundred years"

At the time, the timeframe of ST hadn't been locked down yet. Looking at it retroactively, it clearly doesn't fit what's now been established about the chronology, but it's easy enough to assume that Decker's memory of historical dates was imperfect and he misspoke.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17 2013, 04:28 AM   #4
Skywalker
Admiral
 
Skywalker's Avatar
 
Re: V'Ger 6 + "more than three hundred years"

It'd just be like someone living today mentioning offhand that Christopher Columbus discovered the Americas five hundred years ago. That doesn't mean he discovered them in 1513, it just means that the event took place around that amount of time ago.

I never did like how people take lines like "such-and-such happened two hundred years ago" and assume the characters always meant that was the exact amount of time that had passed.
Skywalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17 2013, 07:04 AM   #5
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: V'Ger 6 + "more than three hundred years"

Skywalker wrote: View Post
It'd just be like someone living today mentioning offhand that Christopher Columbus discovered the Americas five hundred years ago. That doesn't mean he discovered them in 1513, it just means that the event took place around that amount of time ago.
Exactly.
I never did like how people take lines like "such-and-such happened two hundred years ago" and assume the characters always meant that was the exact amount of time that had passed.
Same here. I think people will still talk figuratively and round off numbers at times in the future, especially when they want to be brief or just get to the point.
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17 2013, 02:49 PM   #6
Mario de Monti
Captain
 
Mario de Monti's Avatar
 
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Re: V'Ger 6 + "more than three hundred years"

I also think, that the "more than three hundred years" line shouldn´t be taken to literally.

What bothers me a lot more in this "revelation scene" is the explanation, that Voyager 6 supposedly entered a black hole. That would place a black hole in rather close proximity to our solar system, since it took Voyager 2 about 12 years to even reach Neptune and Voyager 6 must have reached the black hole within the ominous three hundred year time-span.

It gets even worse when you take a look at the section "Future of the Probe" at the bottom of this article in Wikipedia - Voyager 2 has power for less than 50 years of operation. That would necessitate the black hole to be in VERY close proximity

Mario
__________________
"Do you give me attitude, Spock?" - "I´m expressing multiple attitudes simultaneously, Sir. To which are you referring?"
Mario de Monti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17 2013, 03:01 PM   #7
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: V'Ger 6 + "more than three hundred years"

Skywalker wrote: View Post
I never did like how people take lines like "such-and-such happened two hundred years ago" and assume the characters always meant that was the exact amount of time that had passed.
Yeah, that really bugged me about the Okuda Chronology. Like how they put the Valiant's flight to the edge of the galaxy in 2065, just a few years after the first prototype warp flight, in order to put it exactly 200 years before the second pilot, rather than assuming it was rounded up from 170 years or something. Or the way they stretched out the third, fourth, and fifth movies to be a year apart, in direct contradiction to the internal evidence, apparently in order to justify Nimbus III being exactly 20 years old in TFF rather than rounding it down to 18 or thereabouts. (And yet they put TWOK 18 years after "Space Seed" instead of the explicitly stated 15.)
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17 2013, 09:14 PM   #8
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: V'Ger 6 + "more than three hundred years"

Mario de Monti wrote: View Post
I also think, that the "more than three hundred years" line shouldn´t be taken to literally.

What bothers me a lot more in this "revelation scene" is the explanation, that Voyager 6 supposedly entered a black hole. That would place a black hole in rather close proximity to our solar system, since it took Voyager 2 about 12 years to even reach Neptune and Voyager 6 must have reached the black hole within the ominous three hundred year time-span.
Voyager-6 was equipped with an early impulse engine not too unlike those used on the DY-100 ships of that time. It was able to quickly overtake all five of the five previous Voyager probes prior to its disappearance.
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17 2013, 09:20 PM   #9
MacLeod
Admiral
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: V'Ger 6 + "more than three hundred years"

Time esp. when dealing with decades, centuries is often round or down. So instead of saying an event occured 95 years ago we might say it occured a cenury ago.
__________________
On the continent of wild endeavour in the mountains of solace and solitude there stood the citadel of the time lords, the oldest and most mighty race in the universe looking down on the galaxies below sworn never to interfere only to watch.
MacLeod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17 2013, 09:25 PM   #10
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: V'Ger 6 + "more than three hundred years"

He meant 300 Deltan years
__________________
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 September 18 2013, 01:43 AM   #11
Hober Mallow
Commodore
 
Location: The planet Terminus, site of the Encyclopedia Foundation on the periphery of the galaxy
Re: V'Ger 6 + "more than three hundred years"

Skywalker wrote: View Post
I never did like how people take lines like "such-and-such happened two hundred years ago" and assume the characters always meant that was the exact amount of time that had passed.
You mean people like Michael Okuda?

EDIT: Oops, Christopher beat me to the punch.
__________________
"Beep... beep!" --Captain Pike
Hober Mallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18 2013, 02:03 AM   #12
Sran
Fleet Captain
 
Sran's Avatar
 
Location: The Captain's Table
Re: V'Ger 6 + "more than three hundred years"

Christopher wrote: View Post
At the time, the timeframe of ST hadn't been locked down yet. Looking at it retroactively, it clearly doesn't fit what's now been established about the chronology, but it's easy enough to assume that Decker's memory of historical dates was imperfect and he misspoke.
Right. The first time Star Trek is actually stated to take place in the twenty third century is in TWOK.

--Sran
__________________
"Many things seem clever to an imbecile." --Captain Thelin th'Valrass, USS Enterprise-- "The Chimes at Midnight"
Sran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18 2013, 02:28 AM   #13
The Old Mixer
Vice Admiral
 
The Old Mixer's Avatar
 
Location: Connecticut
Re: V'Ger 6 + "more than three hundred years"

Christopher wrote: View Post
Yeah, that really bugged me about the Okuda Chronology. Like how they put the Valiant's flight to the edge of the galaxy in 2065, just a few years after the first prototype warp flight, in order to put it exactly 200 years before the second pilot, rather than assuming it was rounded up from 170 years or something. Or the way they stretched out the third, fourth, and fifth movies to be a year apart, in direct contradiction to the internal evidence, apparently in order to justify Nimbus III being exactly 20 years old in TFF rather than rounding it down to 18 or thereabouts. (And yet they put TWOK 18 years after "Space Seed" instead of the explicitly stated 15.)
To be fair, they were trying not to speculate too much beyond what was stated onscreen, so if somebody said 200 years onscreen, that's where they put it. The Okudas would be the first ones to consider it a placeholder date to be contradicted onscreen at the whim of the episode writers.

Regarding the timeframe chosen for the films, I was always under the impression that they were trying to stay true to the offscreen sources that specified the first season of TNG as taking place 78 years after the time of Kirk's crew. 2364 (TNG Season 1, the first current Earth calendar date ever specified in Trek) - 78 = 2286, the year that the most recent installment of the TOS movie series took place (STIV). Putting TWOK and TSFS a year earlier wasn't much of a stretch, as the three films spanned over three months and there might have been a New Year in there. Putting STV in 2287 on top of that was a stretch, though.

What was too cutesy was putting TOS exactly 300 years after the TV seasons aired. They should have taken a hint from TNG, which didn't take place exactly 400 years in the future of its broadcast. Nudge the TOS dates up by two or three years and there's no discrepancy with the 15 years specified in TWOK.
The Old Mixer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18 2013, 02:55 AM   #14
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: V'Ger 6 + "more than three hundred years"

The Old Mixer wrote: View Post
To be fair, they were trying not to speculate too much beyond what was stated onscreen, so if somebody said 200 years onscreen, that's where they put it. The Okudas would be the first ones to consider it a placeholder date to be contradicted onscreen at the whim of the episode writers.
But the problem is that the way they handled the dates was misleading if that was their intent. Assigning an exact date gave readers the impression that that was meant to be the date -- not to mention that we Pocket novelists were required to use the Okudachron dates even when they didn't make sense, unless they'd been overtly contradicted by later screen canon.

Instead of putting the Valiant launch in 2065, for example, maybe they should've just put it in a "Late 21st Century" section without being specific about the year. It would've been hard to fit it into the chronology format, true, but it would've been more truthful.

It just goes to illustrate the difference between precision and accuracy. Accuracy is how correct an answer is; precision is how narrowly it's pinned down. If you assert a degree of precision beyond the actual data, such as pinning down a specific year when all you have is an approximate range, that's actually a less accurate answer, because it doesn't correctly represent the margin of error.


Putting TWOK and TSFS a year earlier wasn't much of a stretch, as the three films spanned over three months and there might have been a New Year in there.
Except that in the 2233 entry, they said Kirk's birthday was March 22, the same as Shatner's. Which would put TWOK in late March, so there's no way TVH could've been the following year.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18 2013, 03:45 AM   #15
The Old Mixer
Vice Admiral
 
The Old Mixer's Avatar
 
Location: Connecticut
Re: V'Ger 6 + "more than three hundred years"

Christopher wrote: View Post
But the problem is that the way they handled the dates was misleading if that was their intent. Assigning an exact date gave readers the impression that that was meant to be the date
Then the readers didn't read too closely, because the book had disclaimers.

Instead of putting the Valiant launch in 2065, for example, maybe they should've just put it in a "Late 21st Century" section without being specific about the year. It would've been hard to fit it into the chronology format, true, but it would've been more truthful.
"ca." would have worked in a case like that, but where to draw the line? They could put "ca." in front of nearly every date in the book.
The Old Mixer is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

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 05:05 PM.

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