Answer and let me know your opinion.
Stardate style in Star Trek: Discovery.
- Thread starter mattman8907
- Start date
I'd see your doctor about that...
Doctor who?
Oh please. Someone who knows what they're doing.
Probably flat-out stardates. No Gregorian calendar. Four digits if it's TOS Era. Five if it's TNG. Six digits if it takes place in 2423 or later (that's when they'd reach Stardate 100,000).
I would go with the star dates, that is iconic.
Something that makes logical sense, not random numbers meant to imply progression.
The Prime way, seeing as how it is a Prime-based series.
If it takes place in the 2160s, it would have to use either the "Enterprise" Earth dates, or convert them into four-digit years with decimals like the current movie series.
It couldn't use arbitrary TOS-style stardates, since it takes place a century earlier.
I mean, imagine: "Captain's Log, Stardate ... uh ... four."
It couldn't use arbitrary TOS-style stardates, since it takes place a century earlier.
I mean, imagine: "Captain's Log, Stardate ... uh ... four."
I'm sure you can tell good stories without ever mentioning regular dates or stardates.
I wouldn't mind if they just decided not to bother. Did nuBSG have dates?
I wouldn't mind if they just decided not to bother. Did nuBSG have dates?
I never thought of one having anything to do with the other. No stardates or any dates at all would be fine too. But I imagine they'll have something.
Knowing that Discovery takes place in the 2250s, I can't help but wonder if the creators will show the introduction of TOS-style stardates, or whether they will use Earth calendar dates like in Enterprise. Within a wider Federation context Earth-centric dates don't make much sense, but other that using two- or three-digit stardates I can't see how the TOS system can be used in earlier time periods.
It's pretty obvious that the TOS stardates have to roll over to zero once per decade: they covered about 5,000 stardates during the five-year mission, so 0000.0 to 9999.9 would take a decade. Just like in TNG.
It's just that TNG marks the decade with an extra digit; the TOS heroes may simply have dropped that digit because they knew very well which decade they were having their five-year mission on. (The TNG folks with their "ongoing" mission only drop the century digit, because they still very well know the century they live in!) STD could make this explicit, using four-digit stardates but mentioning what the fifth digit for their decade is supposed to be.
if STD is going to jump from era to era, it might well cover several stardate systems, with the heroes commenting on that. It's not as if one would make more or less sense than the other.
Timo Saloniemi
It's just that TNG marks the decade with an extra digit; the TOS heroes may simply have dropped that digit because they knew very well which decade they were having their five-year mission on. (The TNG folks with their "ongoing" mission only drop the century digit, because they still very well know the century they live in!) STD could make this explicit, using four-digit stardates but mentioning what the fifth digit for their decade is supposed to be.
if STD is going to jump from era to era, it might well cover several stardate systems, with the heroes commenting on that. It's not as if one would make more or less sense than the other.
Timo Saloniemi
I think they'll use the stardate system from the Kelvin Timeline. Mostly because I think one of the original reasons for putting stardates into TOS was because they were being ambiguous about when it was set. We only really knew the time period from WoK onwards.
I'd prefer they didn't for consistency's sake, but consistency is often out of the question when dealing with science fiction spanning many decades in real time anyway.
I'd prefer they didn't for consistency's sake, but consistency is often out of the question when dealing with science fiction spanning many decades in real time anyway.
I wouldn't be surprised if the answer were, none of the above. There is a reason so many different styles alterady exist, each new production needs or wants to have it's own identity. It's one of the reasons many things change across the different incarnations of Trek.
No respect for teh canon! lol
No respect for teh canon! lol
Maybe we could just get a "Captain's Log: Supplemental" to tease us, and never actually give us a date. 
I'd prefer they use the Kelvin timeline format, for simplicity's sake. TOS stardates were random numbers, and meaningless.
Similar threads
- Locked
