RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,771
Posts: 5,434,176
Members: 24,840
Currently online: 678
Newest member: Reece101

TrekToday headlines

Trek Comics Sneak Peek
By: T'Bonz on Sep 23

German Volkswagen Campaign Features Trek Actors
By: T'Bonz on Sep 23

Shatner And Nimoy In Trek 3?
By: T'Bonz on Sep 23

The Art of John Alvin Book Review
By: T'Bonz on Sep 23

Episode Four of The Red Shirt Diaries
By: T'Bonz on Sep 22

Star Trek: The Compendium Review
By: T'Bonz on Sep 22

Orci Drops Rangers Project
By: T'Bonz on Sep 22

Retro Review: Image in the Sand
By: Michelle on Sep 20

Star Trek: Shadows Of Tyranny Casting Call
By: T'Bonz on Sep 19

USS Vengeance And More Starship Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Sep 19


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 August 14 2013, 03:25 PM   #61
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: Could stardates make some sense?

Christopher wrote: View Post
So that kind of fan purism, that slavish devotion to the details of TOS and the kneejerk hostility toward anything that changes them, has nothing to do with creator intent;
Whatever. New stuff has come along that I was fine with, but heavan help it if someone doesn't kiss JJ's ass because they must be just a knee-jerk hater.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 14 2013, 04:05 PM   #62
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Could stardates make some sense?

There is a significant difference between "change" and "revisionism" 1984 style (i.e. change at the expense of original integrity and/or the original artist/s). But we had this discussion before.

Back to the topic, I had my reasons to put this thread in the TOS section because I only wanted to address the issue of stardates in Kirk's era. Unfortunately the Oberth Class has kept me busy, so I'll have to come back later.

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 August 14 2013, 04:57 PM   #63
Boris Skrbic
Commander
 
Re: Could stardates make some sense?

Did you even read 1984? I don't think it's responsible to make those kinds of comparisons. I don't see CBS sending out secret police to collect everyone's video discs, books or any other evidence that TOS ever existed, right down to constructing a language in which it is impossible to discuss TOS. The Abramsverse is just another offshoot of TOS, a parallel world with comparatively little merchandise. In a few years it may be replaced with another reboot or continuation, depending on whatever idea comes next.
Boris Skrbic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 14 2013, 05:12 PM   #64
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Could stardates make some sense?

I think we're drifting off-topic. I wasn't saying anything about the Abrams movies; I was just making a point about how what we see onscreen in any television series is not necessarily the creators' intent carved in stone, but is often just a compromise they had to settle for and would gladly change given the opportunity. Stardates in particular, to bring back the thread topic, were approached in a somewhat haphazard manner and has been handled differently by different Trek producers, so worrying too much about "creator intent" can be misleading if we're trying to make sense of them. If anything, the original intent behind stardates was that they be meaningless.
__________________
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 August 14 2013, 07:00 PM   #65
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: Could stardates make some sense?

Boris wrote: View Post
Did you even read 1984? I don't think it's responsible to make those kinds of comparisons. I don't see CBS sending out secret police to collect everyone's video discs, books or any other evidence that TOS ever existed, right down to constructing a language in which it is impossible to discuss TOS. The Abramsverse is just another offshoot of TOS, a parallel world with comparatively little merchandise. In a few years it may be replaced with another reboot or continuation, depending on whatever idea comes next.
You're being rather extreme. But Robert Consul's essential point is valid: the Abramsverse is revisionist by basically saying everything from the original continuity has been wiped away in favour of the new one. Indeed Abrams actually tried to negotiate with CBS for them to stop promoting TOS material and favour his new continuity. The deal fell through because why should CBS forego profiting from pre-existing work that still sells?

Of course, that only works if you recognize and accept the Abramsverse, which I (and others) don't. And as far as I'm concerned Abrams has nothing of worth to say about pre TOS continuity either.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 14 2013, 07:30 PM   #66
Boris Skrbic
Commander
 
Re: Could stardates make some sense?

Nope, the original reality is still there.

http://trekmovie.com/2008/12/11/bob-orci-explains-how-the-new-star-trek-movie-fits-with-trek-canon-and-real-science/ wrote:
Anthony: So what happens with the destruction of the Kelvin is the creation of an alternative timeline, but what happens to the prime timeline after Nero leaves it? Does it continue or does it wink out of existence once he goes back and creates this new timeline.

Bob: It continues. According to the most successful, most tested scientific theory ever, quantum mechanics, it continues.
It's supposed to be a universe like the ones Worf ended up in on his birthday. The original reality goes on (barring Romulus, of course), in parallel with JJ-verse. You can choose not to accept it, but then you're no longer discussing Star Trek (the franchise legally owned and legally controlled by Paramount/CBS), merely fan-fiction where the JJ-verse doesn't exist. So if you form any conclusions which are made unlikely by the parts of Star Trek you don't accept, I can dismiss your argument as being irrelevant to a discussion of Star Trek.
Boris Skrbic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 14 2013, 07:38 PM   #67
Darth Duck
Commodore
 
Darth Duck's Avatar
 
Location: The Maritimes
Re: Could stardates make some sense?

Warped9 wrote: View Post
Christopher wrote: View Post
So that kind of fan purism, that slavish devotion to the details of TOS and the kneejerk hostility toward anything that changes them, has nothing to do with creator intent;
Whatever. New stuff has come along that I was fine with, but heavan help it if someone doesn't kiss JJ's ass because they must be just a knee-jerk hater.
You are a knee-jerk hater. You can't let a comment about JJ Abrams Trek pass without some knee-jerk comment about how you hate it. That is the definition of knee-jerk hating. I don't like Voyager. I don't go out of my way to take pot-shots at every time it's mentioned, because I am not a knee-jerk hater.
Darth Duck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 14 2013, 08:31 PM   #68
sariel2005
Lieutenant
 
Re: Could stardates make some sense?

Somewhat back on topic: Pike could've easily used JJ stardates, since according to Orci, the prime and alternate realities are identical up to 2233.04. I know this is hard to reconcile with some onscreen evidence (the huge Kelvin etc.), but I see no issue specifically with stardates.
We can argue not though, IIRC Spock's leaving date from the original universe uses a Abramverse stardate not TNG one, which is differrent from what we know.
Personally I tend to think that there WAS divergence from the Enterprise era to the JJVerse caused by the events in Enterprise. After all a major change in the timeline is the Xindi attack on Earth, and Archer certainly gained tech and information from the future. As to whether that constitutes a change to the original timeline or a divergent one seems a bit, well ... wibbly Wobbly Timey wimey
sariel2005 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 14 2013, 08:52 PM   #69
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Could stardates make some sense?

sariel2005 wrote: View Post
We can argue not though, IIRC Spock's leaving date from the original universe uses a Abramverse stardate not TNG one, which is differrent from what we know.
I see that just as a difference in interpretation by different filmmakers, rather than a meaningful difference in-universe -- no more "real" than the difference between Fred Phillips's Tellarites and Michael Westmore's Tellarites, or between Kirstie Alley's Saavik and Robin Curtis's Saavik. Stardates are so inconsistent within any one series that one can't really read too much into the variations between different series' approaches to them.


Personally I tend to think that there WAS divergence from the Enterprise era to the JJVerse caused by the events in Enterprise. After all a major change in the timeline is the Xindi attack on Earth, and Archer certainly gained tech and information from the future. As to whether that constitutes a change to the original timeline or a divergent one seems a bit, well ... wibbly Wobbly Timey wimey
Whereas my belief is that ENT was always meant to show the beginnings of the Trek universe we know, and that's the approach I'm taking in my Rise of the Federation novels. Sure, things like the Suliban's destruction of the Paraagan colony and the Xindi attack on Earth may not have been part of the future Daniels came from, but we never actually got confirmation that he came from the same timeline as TOS/TAS/TNG/DS9/VGR -- just that he was from some future where a version of the Federation existed.
__________________
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 August 14 2013, 08:56 PM   #70
Boris Skrbic
Commander
 
Re: Could stardates make some sense?

Stardate 2387 would be an extremely weak argument. What is to stop the Jellyfish from connecting to the local timebase and switching the stardate system from TNG to JJ? A simple location-based service, just as my smartphone might change the time zone and begin showing the adjusted dates/times. It's not like AR technology would be totally alien to that of PR — most of the protocols are probably compatible.

Also, the IDW timeline is using JJ stardates for PR dates (2364, 2369, 2409...), thus confirming rather officially (though probably not canonically) that the system can be applied to an era where it wasn't used at all. So if Spock-prime were to speak with Spock-alternate about his time, he might say he "defected" to Romulus on stardate 2368.
Boris Skrbic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 14 2013, 09:01 PM   #71
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Could stardates make some sense?

Boris wrote: View Post
Stardate 2387 would be an extremely weak argument, though. What is to stop the Jellyfish from connecting to the local timebase and switching the stardate system from TNG to JJ? A simple location-based service, just as my smartphone might change the time zone and begin showing the adjusted dates/times.
Good point. Roddenberry himself explained the inconsistent stardates of TOS by saying they weren't an absolute time reference but changed depending on a starship's location and velocity -- because there's really no way to define an absolute objective time standard over interstellar distances. So presumably any stardate reference in a log entry would be relative to local time, and it stands to reason that a computer giving a stardate would automatically adjust the reference to whatever scheme was locally/currently in use.


Also, the IDW timeline is using JJ stardates for PR dates (2364, 2369, 2409...), thus confirming rather officially (though probably not canonically) that the system can be applied to an era where it wasn't used at all. So if Spock-prime were to speak with Spock-alternate about his time, he might say he 'defected' to Romulus on stardate 2368.
Again, something I consider it best not to think about. One thing I don't like about the Abrams movies is their use of Earth years as "stardates." Why even call them stardates if they're just Gregorian years? Wasn't the whole idea behind stardates to be a more universal, non-Earth-centric calendar? So, again, I see that as just artistic license. It's how Abrams chooses to have the characters give the dates for the benefit of his audience, but that doesn't necessarily represent what they're "actually" saying in-universe.
__________________
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 August 14 2013, 09:06 PM   #72
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Could stardates make some sense?

IMO the stardate (non)issue in the new films can be explained thusly - the universal translators in our TVs that allow us to understand 23rd century English have been updated to decode meaningless Trek stardates into something me can easily understand.
__________________
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 August 14 2013, 09:19 PM   #73
Boris Skrbic
Commander
 
Re: Could stardates make some sense?

The new format gives us more evidence to think about. If 2259.14 can be a stardate, why couldn't 2259-01-14? Or for that matter, 1234 Vulcan Years? Given the variety of formats we've observed over the years, it's probably not the unit or the traditional counting method that earns it the prefix star-, but perhaps something about the way it is calculated, just as the various technobabble quotes seem to imply.

The unseen Xindi stardate from ENT is probably expressed in totally different units, based not on the 24-hour day (at least ideally, within an episode) of the stardates from TOS and TNG. And since Archer was able to use calendar dates for log entries, was that possible because they were actually stardates?
Boris Skrbic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 14 2013, 10:20 PM   #74
Hober Mallow
Commodore
 
Location: The planet Terminus, site of the Encyclopedia Foundation on the periphery of the galaxy
Re: Could stardates make some sense?

Boris wrote: View Post
Thanks, I'd appreciate it.

Somewhat back on topic: Pike could've easily used JJ stardates, since according to Orci, the prime and alternate realities are identical up to 2233.04. I know this is hard to reconcile with some onscreen evidence (the huge Kelvin etc.), but I see no issue specifically with stardates.
I've found a very easy way to reconcile it -- simply ignore it.
__________________
"Beep... beep!" --Captain Pike
Hober Mallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 14 2013, 10:43 PM   #75
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Could stardates make some sense?

Boris wrote: View Post
Did you even read 1984? I don't think it's responsible to make those kinds of comparisons.
Yes, in high school and watched the excellent 1984 film adaptation with John Hurt and the Richard Burton. Sorry, if I wasn't precise, my reference to 1984 was meant in a broader sense against "rewriting history" or canon "at the expense of great people" that gave us Star Trek in the first place.

It had nothing to do whatsoever with Abramsverse, which I do not consider a revision but some kind of alternate universe that has no effect on my "old" Star Trek viewing experience.
As a matter of fact my technological knowledge about the Abramsverse is Zero and therefore my ignorance makes me definitely incompetent to participate in any corresponding debate (and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing ).

But please bear in mind that this is meant to be a TOS thread and I would really appreciate it if we could keep it this way.

Bob

@ Warped9

Robert "Consul"? Is that a promotion or do you regard me as a Romulan wreaking havoc on conjecturally established Star Trek "facts"?
__________________
"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
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 11:01 PM.

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