Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

Discussion in 'Star Trek - The Original & Animated Series' started by ZapBrannigan, Mar 27, 2013.

  1. Shawnster

    Shawnster Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2008
    Location:
    Clinton, OH
    No. The difference being most of humanity has been exposed to bias in understanding the data presented in the Bible.

    Come to think of it, bias may likewise affect peoples acceptance of various Trek chronologies, too. :rommie:
     
  2. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    Per Ardua
    I'm not trying to be combative here but I'm curious as to what exactly he dumped? The story is problematic, I've always admitted that and thought even prior to its release it would be but so was TMP's. Because it puts the action-adventure first doesn't mean it lacks heart or scope it just means the expectations of the audience has changed in the 35 years since TMP was released.

    For me, for the first time in a long time Star Trek was simply fun. The characters weren't exactly spot-on but were close enough that I was comfortable with them.

    And honestly, who here thinks that a movie like TMP would be a major hit in the current environment? J.J. Abrams didn't change Star Trek, audience expectations did.
     
  3. Warped9

    Warped9 Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2003
    Location:
    Brockville, Ontario, Canada
    This. And I emboldened one section for emphasis.
     
  4. aridas sofia

    aridas sofia Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    May 3, 2002
    In particular, I meant the Universe post Kirk's birth. That most notably includes what gave rise to Trek to begin with -- TOS. It includes all of Roddenberry's Trek. And to the extent that what gave rise to the phenomenon still beats at its heart, it dumped its heart. Does "heart" mean being aimlessly "cerebral"? Or does it mean mixing action with being focused on this thing Roddenberry kept calling "the human condition"? I think the latter, framed in the perspective of of a humanist fueled by early 1960s optimism.

    A lot of that stuff is as long gone as Roddenberry, which probably explains why it was dumped. But that doesn't mean that when you reinvent Star Trek for the current market you just glom off the endless action-adventure trend and ignore your "cerebral" heart. From the conception of the STXI setting to the execution of a story so fast paced that it never leaves a moment to consider a thing that is going on, it's a blur. And once the thing slows down enough to come into focus, or people get tired of the ride, they'll realize there's no "there" there.
     
  5. Mysterion

    Mysterion Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2001
    Location:
    SB-31, Daran V
    Kind of my fault.

    I suggested that a new edition of the Chronology (if there were to be one) include an appendix detailing the timeline of the "Abrams-verse" version of Trek. Not trying to integrate or reconcile it with the Prime Trek timeline, just having in the back of the book for comparison. And then everyone freaked out just a bit. Guess i did not make my point in a clear enough manner.

    So I am sorry to have de-railed the discussion in this thread. Really, I am.
     
  6. Admiral Buzzkill

    Admiral Buzzkill Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    Well, there's a lot of "get off my lawn" that goes on when TOS is discussed. This kind of thing takes care of itself, as the years roll by. ;)
     
  7. Mysterion

    Mysterion Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2001
    Location:
    SB-31, Daran V
    Understood. I can get the same way when someone tries to tell me how superior TNG or VGR are to TOS. :)
     
  8. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    Per Ardua
    I think this is more a product of having way too many things to accomplish in a two-hour format. I was (and still am) critical of them trying to cram too many elements into the first film though they may have worked under the "band-aid" assumption and figured it was better to do everything that needed to be done introduction wise in the first film.

    Though I do have high-hopes that Into Darkness slows things down a touch and allows us to enjoy the ride more.

    Like I've said before, never have I thought Star Trek 2009 was a perfect movie but I thought it was better than pretty much every TNG film outing and The Voyage Home/The Final Frontier. As a very casual Star Wars fan, I never really got a Wars vibe from the film. Yes they share common elements but lots of movies do and I think some allowed Abrams comment about making Trek more like Wars to color their judgement.

    But at the end of the day, I have no problems with folks who dislike this film or any other element of the franchise. Where my problem comes is the petty name calling and throwing temper tantrums that some act like is a God-given right. :shrug:
     
  9. Joker

    Joker Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2005
    Location:
    The North
    It's threads like these that really make me regret how little time I've spent in my life defending the integrity of a 60's TV show and its spin-off movie that a company used to make some money.

    All those years spent doing other stuff... all wasted.

    Damn. I feel so silly.
     
  10. aridas sofia

    aridas sofia Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    May 3, 2002
    Which makes my statement that the new Star Trek is just stuff floating on a big, dead pond of nothing have an unintended (and uncomfortably personal) meaning.
     
  11. Joker

    Joker Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2005
    Location:
    The North
    All of Star Trek is just "stuff".

    It's nice that some people consider it to be something more than that... but don't shit yourself when not everyone agrees.
     
  12. aridas sofia

    aridas sofia Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    May 3, 2002
    I assume you are replying to my post and that your advice is directed to me. Thanks. I will try to keep that in mind the next time I feel inclined to shit myself. However I am under no preconception that anything -- including life itself -- is anything more than just "stuff". Whether the stuff is floating on a big, dead pond of nothing, though... that's what's noteworthy.
     
  13. Nerys Myk

    Nerys Myk The Real Me Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2001
    Location:
    Down in the tube station at midnight
     
  14. aridas sofia

    aridas sofia Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    May 3, 2002
    Investor as in a shareholder in Viacom.

    That doesn't make any sense. Why would anyone want to dislike it? Why wouldn't they see this substance they are looking for if it is there?

    Look, I don't think the majority of people that criticized the last movie as lacking in some way really expected something indistinguishable from TOS. I certainly didn't. But there is a "different" that feels "right" and one that doesn't. Many have said that in the end what we are talking about is "personal taste", and I'm willing to admit that is probably true. The popularity of something is determined by the cumulative "personal tastes" of the viewing public, and in this way nuTrek is inarguably a success.

    But is there a differnt way to determine the "heart" of Star Trek? Something not measured in dollars? The essence of it without which it ceases to be itself? I have taken a stab at that by saying it is this thing Roddenberry started out to do -- Jonathan Swift in the 1960s, humanism as seen through the lens of 1960s optimism, commenting on the "human condition". I am sure there are other equally valid descriptions, and I know JJ Abrams did try to include some of this in his movie. I happen to think what he included was largely superficial and that at its heart ST XI was a story about revenge. Revenge of Nero. Revenge of Spock. Revenge of Kirk. That most certainly is about the human condition, but it also largely focuses on the negative and holds up as heroes people that are really not all that different from the villain. Once again -- that is a valid point to make, but in my opinion it isn't consistent with what has heretofore characterized Star Trek.
     
  15. Nerys Myk

    Nerys Myk The Real Me Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2001
    Location:
    Down in the tube station at midnight
    Ahso. One doesn't usually encounter a literal investor around these parts.

    Come on. You're an oldtimer like me. You've seen how fans have reacted to any new version of Trek. Some will dig in their heels and stick to that to their last breath, in spite of evidence to the contrary.

    Very true, I just happen to be one who thought "Finally my Star Trek is back. TOS is back".

    I think Roddenberry was overfond of citing parallels that never quite lined up, be it Wagon Train or Swift. Especially once he stopped being a TV producer and became a guru/entrepreneur.

    Never thought about ST09 being about revenge. I can see how someone might think that, now. For me it was about finding one's purpose. Their first and best destiny, to paraphrase a certain Vulcan.
     
  16. FalTorPan

    FalTorPan Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2000
    Location:
    Out there... thataway.
    Speaking to the actual topic of this thread, I consider the Star Trek Chronology to be one of the best -- if not the best -- attempt at providing a "historical" context to the various Trek productions.
     
  17. gottacook

    gottacook Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Location:
    Maryland
    As a Star Trek fan of very long standing (since the first run of season 3, when I was 12), I have to say that the practice of never identifying the present Earth year should have been strictly maintained. That was one of the reasons for the Stardate system, wasn't it - to obscure the exact year back on Earth? (Giving the present date as a Stardate makes less obvious any variability between scripts concerning the number of years or centuries since our own time.)

    With all respect for its creators, the published Star Trek Chronology is like the Jane Curtin fake Saturday Night Live ad in which she begins, "Hi. I'm beautiful but stupid."
     
  18. DonIago

    DonIago Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2001
    Location:
    Burlington, VT, USA
    I was under the impression it was more to blur the passage of time between episodes than to blur how far in the future the series itself was.
     
  19. ZapBrannigan

    ZapBrannigan Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Location:
    New York State
    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.
     
  20. DonIago

    DonIago Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2001
    Location:
    Burlington, VT, USA
    It's a tv show...some things, especially back when TOS premiered, were never intended to be deeply scrutinized.