He remembers that the Farpoint mission was seven years before, not necessarily the joke itself.
In The 23rd Century . . .
- Thread starter albion432
- Start date
I believe the line was to say that the Enterprise-B was the first Enterprise to not have a Captain Kirk on it in command the last 30 years, meaning, as far as the reporters were concerned, Kirk had been in command of USS Enterprise for the previous 30 years (both NCC-1701 and NCC-1701-A). Reporters are rather known to leave out facts for a good story. Like that Enterprise was under command of Captain Decker for 2 and half years, and that Captain Spock was in charge for some number of years, and that Kirk had left Starfleet (assumed ot be a few years before the Wrath of Khan).
Well, let's look at the musical evidence. The piece played by Trelane as we first meet him is a Scarlatti harpsichord sonata (Kirkpatrick number 159) written in the early 1700s, probably between 1710 and 1730. Later he plays another Scarlatti sonata from the same period while speaking with the crew. But the piece that he causes Uhura to play isn't originally harpsichord music; it's from the Strauss waltz "Rosen aus dem Süden" (1880).
This is charming as arranged for harpsichord, but Trelane couldn't have known any Strauss waltzes. If he had, he would have chosen to be dressed in the style of the late 1800s and would have used a piano; by 1880 harpsichords had been considered obsolete for more than a century.
Despite this discrepancy, the Strauss waltz was included. It was probably a matter of finding the most suitable music to accompany the dancers. (It's possible that some Baroque-era dance music was tried first and the actors couldn't dance as naturally to it as they could to a waltz.)
Of course, if "900 years" and "23rd century" were both somehow correct, Trelane would have been playing some Medieval-era instrument and his other accoutrements would be equally antique.
The series never established the real time, but besides the "In the 23rd Century" graphic in TWOK, Kirk tells Gillian in TVH that he's from what would be on her calendar the late 23rd century. So there is an on-screen reference to all the TOS stuff happening in the latter half of the 23rd century.
After that, it's all logical supposition.
When Data said in "The Neutral Zone" that it was 2364, that was the first mention of the exact Earth year in any Trek episode. Since it's a season one episode, it's fair to assume it's in the same year as "Encounter at Farpoint". In EF, it's said McCoy is 137. From that, one can subtract 137 from 2364 and come up with McCoy's birth year, 2227 (as given on Memory Alpha).
If one assumed McCoy in season one to be the same age as Kelley in 1966, McCoy was 46, and that would make the year of TOS season one 2273. But that isn't the conventional year given for the first season.
In "The Deadly Years", Kirk said he was 34. Assuming "The Deadly Years" was in the second year of the five year mission (second season, 1967 air date), if 2273 were correct, that would put Kirk's birthdate at 2240, though 2233 is what is conventionally accepted (and posted on Memory Alpha). That reference would put "The Deadly Years" in 2267, which is mostly what's accepted, and McCoy would be 40, not 46. So Kelley and Shatner were playing characters a little younger than they really were.
Whatever the inconsistencies and contradictions are, it still seems clear TOS is firmly rooted in the later half of the 23rd century, even though the guide for the writers put it roughly 200 years into the future.
After that, it's all logical supposition.
When Data said in "The Neutral Zone" that it was 2364, that was the first mention of the exact Earth year in any Trek episode. Since it's a season one episode, it's fair to assume it's in the same year as "Encounter at Farpoint". In EF, it's said McCoy is 137. From that, one can subtract 137 from 2364 and come up with McCoy's birth year, 2227 (as given on Memory Alpha).
If one assumed McCoy in season one to be the same age as Kelley in 1966, McCoy was 46, and that would make the year of TOS season one 2273. But that isn't the conventional year given for the first season.
In "The Deadly Years", Kirk said he was 34. Assuming "The Deadly Years" was in the second year of the five year mission (second season, 1967 air date), if 2273 were correct, that would put Kirk's birthdate at 2240, though 2233 is what is conventionally accepted (and posted on Memory Alpha). That reference would put "The Deadly Years" in 2267, which is mostly what's accepted, and McCoy would be 40, not 46. So Kelley and Shatner were playing characters a little younger than they really were.
Whatever the inconsistencies and contradictions are, it still seems clear TOS is firmly rooted in the later half of the 23rd century, even though the guide for the writers put it roughly 200 years into the future.
Okay, drawing from my comments from this earlier thread on the subject:
The original series premise was deliberately vague about the time frame, since it's hard to predict the rate of technological progress. The original series pitch document said "It could be 1995 or maybe even 2995." And "The Squire of Gothos" was based on the assumption that the show was set in the 28th century (900 years after the age of Napoleon and Alexander Hamilton). But "Tomorrow is Yesterday" and "Space Seed" both assumed the series was about 200 years in the future, and the second-season revision of the writers' bible (the April 17, 1967 edition that's the one generally available) specifies in the "Stardates" section that the date of the series is "actually about two hundred years from now." So that was pretty much locked in by the end of the first year.
However, "Metamorphosis" said that Zefram Cochrane had died 150 years before at the age of 87, meaning he would've been born 237 years earlier. If the series were only 200 years after 1967, then he would've been born in 1930, which seems unlikely. So that kinda nudged the time frame forward somewhat, making it seem likely that it was in at least the early 23rd century.
The earliest explicit mention of the 23rd century that I'm aware of in anything Trek-related is in James Blish's "Space Seed" adaptation in Star Trek 2, published in February 1968. There's a reference there to the formal dinner being held "as a welcome for Commander Kahn [sic] to the twenty-third century." Although the story does reference Khan being suspended for 200 "or more" years after being frozen c. 1994. (Interestingly, this completely contradicts the timing in Blish's version of "Miri" in the previous volume. Instead of the duplicate Earth of the episode, he set it at an Earth colony said to have been settled 500 years earlier in the mid-2100s, putting the series in the 27th century.) The Making of Star Trek, published seven months later, also references the 23rd century. So evidently the producers had settled on a 23rd-century timeframe by the second season, though it was never made explicit onscreen.
Later on, the trailers for ST:TMP specified a date in the 23rd century, and Decker said that Voyager 6 -- which would've most likely had to be launched in the 1980s -- was launched "more than three hundred years ago," implying a date in the 2280s or later for the movie -- a decade or so later than we now assume. Then TWOK came along with the opening caption "In the 23rd Century...", and the date of 2283 was mentioned for the Romulan ale.
The original series premise was deliberately vague about the time frame, since it's hard to predict the rate of technological progress. The original series pitch document said "It could be 1995 or maybe even 2995." And "The Squire of Gothos" was based on the assumption that the show was set in the 28th century (900 years after the age of Napoleon and Alexander Hamilton). But "Tomorrow is Yesterday" and "Space Seed" both assumed the series was about 200 years in the future, and the second-season revision of the writers' bible (the April 17, 1967 edition that's the one generally available) specifies in the "Stardates" section that the date of the series is "actually about two hundred years from now." So that was pretty much locked in by the end of the first year.
However, "Metamorphosis" said that Zefram Cochrane had died 150 years before at the age of 87, meaning he would've been born 237 years earlier. If the series were only 200 years after 1967, then he would've been born in 1930, which seems unlikely. So that kinda nudged the time frame forward somewhat, making it seem likely that it was in at least the early 23rd century.
The earliest explicit mention of the 23rd century that I'm aware of in anything Trek-related is in James Blish's "Space Seed" adaptation in Star Trek 2, published in February 1968. There's a reference there to the formal dinner being held "as a welcome for Commander Kahn [sic] to the twenty-third century." Although the story does reference Khan being suspended for 200 "or more" years after being frozen c. 1994. (Interestingly, this completely contradicts the timing in Blish's version of "Miri" in the previous volume. Instead of the duplicate Earth of the episode, he set it at an Earth colony said to have been settled 500 years earlier in the mid-2100s, putting the series in the 27th century.) The Making of Star Trek, published seven months later, also references the 23rd century. So evidently the producers had settled on a 23rd-century timeframe by the second season, though it was never made explicit onscreen.
Later on, the trailers for ST:TMP specified a date in the 23rd century, and Decker said that Voyager 6 -- which would've most likely had to be launched in the 1980s -- was launched "more than three hundred years ago," implying a date in the 2280s or later for the movie -- a decade or so later than we now assume. Then TWOK came along with the opening caption "In the 23rd Century...", and the date of 2283 was mentioned for the Romulan ale.
Decker's Voyager 6 launch of more than three-hundred years ago would put it around 1900.
In the novel "The Final Frontier" by Diane Carey I stumbled over some irregularities regarding Kirk´s birthyear. A letter of Kirk´s father is from 2183 (at least I found that in a review) with Kirk being 10 years old at that time. It´s been a long time since I have read that novel, but when I did it struck me as odd.....
Quoting again from my comments in that earlier thread:
For a long time, there were two rival theories in fandom about Trek chronology. Some went with the TWOK evidence and assumed that TOS took place exactly 300 years in the future, in 2266-69. But others, notably the authors of the Star Trek Spaceflight Chronology, tried to reconcile the movies' "23rd century" with the first season's "about 200 years" references by setting TOS in the first decade of the century -- 2207-12 by the SFC's dating system. Which is hard to reconcile with the "Metamorphosis" evidence and the TWOK evidence. The 2283 date for the ale was often speculated to be a Romulan calendar date or a stardate. And the Cochrane issue never seemed to come up; I'm not sure the proponents of the early dating model were aware of the problem. At least, I was an early-dating adherent myself at the time, and I never realized it was an issue.
The first time we got a precise calendar year for any Trek episode or film was in TNG's "The Neutral Zone," which gave the current date as 2364. And that confirmed that the early-dating model was wrong, that TOS and the movies took place in the later part of the 23rd century -- leading to the Star Trek Chronology's codification of the "exactly 300 years later" dating for TOS.
But a lot of the novels that came out before TNG, including Final Frontier and The Final Reflection, were based on the SFC version of the chronology. That's why the dates in FF don't match modern assumptions.
Voyagers 1 and 2 were launched in 1977. For the sake of the Trek world, let's assume more than two Voyagers were built and Voyagers 3 and 4 were launched in 1978, and 5 and 6 were launched in 1979. Decker says Voyager 6 was launched more than 300 years in the past. Three hundred years exactly would be 2279. The mid-2270s is the conventional date for the Enterprise's encounter with V-Ger in most Trek timelines. So things actually seem about right there.
As far as Decker saying it was launched more than 300 years ago goes, let's just say he's a starship captain, not a historian. He's got more important things to memorize than dates.
And as I posted above, let's not forget in TVH Kirk says he's from the late 23rd century, which is as precise about time as any on-screen TOS-related episode or movie was (short of Abrams relating stardates to Earth dates in his movies). To me, what Kirk said in TVH pretty much settles the question. In 1986 it became canon that TOS was set in the late 23rd century (late-mid to late, going back to the first year of the five year mission).
As far as Decker saying it was launched more than 300 years ago goes, let's just say he's a starship captain, not a historian. He's got more important things to memorize than dates.
And as I posted above, let's not forget in TVH Kirk says he's from the late 23rd century, which is as precise about time as any on-screen TOS-related episode or movie was (short of Abrams relating stardates to Earth dates in his movies). To me, what Kirk said in TVH pretty much settles the question. In 1986 it became canon that TOS was set in the late 23rd century (late-mid to late, going back to the first year of the five year mission).
Last edited:
I only said it struck me when I read FF, which was a long time ago. I never checked out the different dating models and dismissed the divergence as being not especially relevant for me. I thought it was because it was one of the earlier TOS novels. And I liked FF, it was one of the best novels by Diane Carey.
In "Tomorrow Is Yesterday", the Air Force Colonel threatens to lock Kirk up for "two hundred years". Kirk replies "That should be just about right". That suggests that Kirk's time is in the 2160's.
In "The Savage Curtain", Scotty says that Abraham Lincoln died "three centuries ago". That again suggests that the original series time is in the 2160's.
In "The Savage Curtain", Scotty says that Abraham Lincoln died "three centuries ago". That again suggests that the original series time is in the 2160's.
He could have joked make it 300 instead...
Miri was 300 yrs old and implied the now accepted 300 year time frame
Yes, but there is no reason to believe that Miri's planet, despite being an Earth parellel, was on the same timeline as our Earth. They could have been a hundred years behind us.
BTW, SiddFinch, I guess you didn't make the Mets roster again this year, despite your Zen Buddhist fastball.
Just for the sake of ... well, I'm not sure what. But a 1978 launch window would be optimal for a Planetary Grand Tour that takes a probe to Jupiter and Saturn and then escapes the solar system altogether. 1979 would be optimal for a probe to go to Jupiter and then either Uranus or Neptune before escaping the solar system.
1977 was optimal for your choice of Jupiter-Saturn-Uranus-Neptune-Escape (Voyager 2's ultimate trajectory) or for Jupiter-Pluto-Escape.
Mind, there was some good Planetary Grand Tour available each year from 1975 to 1981. 1977 and 1978 let you get easily to pretty near any combination of the outer planets.
[Drawing Room]
(The place is stuffed full of things. A bust of Napoleon on a stand, a suit of armour, a globe, tapestry and swords and shields on the walls, an open fire, a harpsichord and a large mirror)
TRELANE: DeSalle, did you say? Un vrai Francais?
DESALLE: My ancestry is French, yes.
TRELANE: Ah, monsieur. Vive la gloire. Vive Napoleon. You know, I admire your Napoleon very much.
Napoleon. Would that be Napoleon Bonaparte? If so, then Trelane was looking at Earth between 1769 and 1821. 800 years later would be 2569 to 2621, the end of the 26th and beginning of 27th centuries.
^Also, Trelane knew of the death of Alexander Hamilton, which occurred in 1804.
I'm not convinced of that. People tend to assume he had Q-like powers, but really, the episode established that he needed technological assistance to do his tricks. He lost his power when Kirk destroyed the machine behind the mirror, and when Trelane came back, he explained that the machine was not the only "instrumentality" at his disposal. So he didn't have godlike magic, he had machinery. And that machinery didn't really do much that couldn't be done with a transporter, a holodeck, and a replicator. He couldn't even create fire with warmth or food with taste. And his observations of Earth were limited by the speed of light, which suggests even less advanced sensors than the Enterprise had.
The only really powerful thing Trelane was shown to do was moving Gothos, and given how limited his abilities were in other respects, I'm not convinced that wasn't just an illusion, perhaps a massive holographic projection.
I don't see how this can necessarily be true. They may not have been Q but the parents did have some pretty godlike powers. That Trelane needed tech to accomplish a lot of his goals and the fact that all he could really do was move the planet on his own play well into the idea that he is but a "child." He hasn't fully developed his powers at this point in his life.
Similar threads
