Star Trek II, III, IV movie Timeline question...

[Timo]

It's my preferred interpretation, too, but admittedly the other two Nexus fantasies Kirk has appear to be on the theme of "clinging on to a good thing I once had", rather than "choosing a good thing over what I really chose".

That is, there's no choice involved when Kirk splits the logs and fries the eggs, and no hint that Kirk in real life would have missed out on those things. And when he enters the stables, again there is no choosing - or, rather, there's the opportunity to propose to Antonia or whatever, but Kirk then omits Antonia from the scene altogether, instead enjoying the horse he once had!

Then again, perhaps the "good thing I once had" in the bringing breakfast to Antonia scene is an endless series of weekend romances that never jeopardize Kirk's career? Perhaps Kirk is totally off base with the idea that the Nexus is letting him choose?

OTOH, Picard's Nexus experience was 100% unreal. Since he had no verbal sparring partner, we don't know if he initially believed in it - if he did, then Kirk's "I once had this cabin, this dog, this romance and this horse" could all be fake memories, too, and his "this isn't real" an admission of not just dissatisfaction with the level of the simulation but of the fundamental nonexistence of all those nice things.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Phoenix219]

It's my preferred interpretation, too, but admittedly the other two Nexus fantasies Kirk has appear to be on the theme of "clinging on to a good thing I once had", rather than "choosing a good thing over what I really chose".

That is, there's no choice involved when Kirk splits the logs and fries the eggs, and no hint that Kirk in real life would have missed out on those things. And when he enters the stables, again there is no choosing - or, rather, there's the opportunity to propose to Antonia or whatever, but Kirk then omits Antonia from the scene altogether, instead enjoying the horse he once had!

Then again, perhaps the "good thing I once had" in the bringing breakfast to Antonia scene is an endless series of weekend romances that never jeopardize Kirk's career? Perhaps Kirk is totally off base with the idea that the Nexus is letting him choose?

OTOH, Picard's Nexus experience was 100% unreal. Since he had no verbal sparring partner, we don't know if he initially believed in it - if he did, then Kirk's "I once had this cabin, this dog, this romance and this horse" could all be fake memories, too, and his "this isn't real" an admission of not just dissatisfaction with the level of the simulation but of the fundamental nonexistence of all those nice things.

Timo Saloniemi

Nice. Now I can omit all of the implied information in those scenes as sheer fantasy, instead of omitting Generations because I despise it.

Leaving Kirk alive in the 24th century would have given *endless* creative possibilities.... or it could have been ignored completely. It was a blank slate, and they lost it.

 

[urbandefault]

Trying to pin everything down to a year or span of time is futile. "This" happened before "this" and after "that" is close enough for me.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Nice. Now I can omit all of the implied information in those scenes as sheer fantasy, instead of omitting Generations because I despise it.

Leaving Kirk alive in the 24th century would have given *endless* creative possibilities.... or it could have been ignored completely. It was a blank slate, and they lost it.

Tell that to Pocket Books, who along with William Shatner and Judy and Garfield Reeves-Stevens, span 9 books off the concept of Kirk's death being more of a power nap.

 

[BillJ]

Tell that to Pocket Books, who along with William Shatner and Judy and Garfield Reeves-Stevens, span 9 books off the concept of Kirk's death being more of a power nap.

But it isn't part of their primary continuity. Which really bothered me that one of the most important characters in the franchise was treated so shabbily. Should have just left him dead.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

OTOH, Picard's Nexus experience was 100% unreal. Since he had no verbal sparring partner, we don't know if he initially believed in it - if he did, then Kirk's "I once had this cabin, this dog, this romance and this horse" could all be fake memories, too, and his "this isn't real" an admission of not just dissatisfaction with the level of the simulation but of the fundamental nonexistence of all those nice things.

This is pretty much how I rationalize Antonia, too. Picard's Nexus fantasy wasn't real, so why should Kirk's be?

There's a quote from Citizen Kane that I think applies here:

Mr. Bernstein: A fellow will remember a lot of things you wouldn't think he'd remember. You take me. One day, back in 1896, I was crossing over to Jersey on the ferry, and as we pulled out, there was another ferry pulling in, and on it there was a girl waiting to get off. A white dress she had on. She was carrying a white parasol. I only saw her for one second. She didn't see me at all, but I'll bet a month hasn't gone by since that I haven't thought of that girl.

That's Antonia. She was just a woman that Kirk saw or met fleetingly, that got him to thinking about the "might-have-been"s in his life. That plays into the depression/mid-life crisis that we see at the beginning of TWOK ("My son. ...My life that could have been, ...and wasn't.").

Heck, it's because the Nexus was so damn inconsistent in GEN that I feel we have license to interpret it practically any way we want. Soran and Guinan were pulled out of the Nexus, and Guinan left an echo behind, but Soran didn't. Soran can't approach the Nexus in a ship since it would be destroyed, but Kirk was on a ship when he was pulled into it. Guinan's echo can't help Picard, but Kirk--the real Kirk--is still in there and can. Picard fantasizes about things that didn't happen, but Kirk is apparently remembering things that did. And then Picard and Kirk can leave the Nexus just because they've realized it isn't real... There's no consistency to the thing. It just does whatever the hell the writers feel like having it do depending upon the scene.

 

[DIrishB]

Because the Okudas were the folks working on the show, and their timeline was originally developed to make things a bit easier and more cohesive for the show's writers. And at this point, it's been used for so long that getting rid of it would cause more problems than it would solve.

My question wasn't wholly serious, more to illustrate the idea that canon is only what's shown onscreen, yet many fans utilizing the Okuda's chronology call that into question.

As to why certain fans like to use it, I guess they like using the "official" one, or else they just don't feel like doing their own.

I love doing timelines. I find it a fun logical exercise.

Well, don't forget that Romulan Ale was illegal and had to be smuggled across the border (but maybe Bones was able to get his hands on it because he was a doctor - "I only use it for medicinal purposes"). But basically, Romulan Ale was the 23rd century equivalent of Cuban cigars. I'm kind of doubting it was cheap.

Fair point, but for someone who traverses the galaxy in a space ship, visiting various planets, it's likely Romulan Ale isn't too difficult to find. It's been featured enough on the shows/films that it doesn't seem very rare.

Eh, I consider it a fun challenge (At least for TOS era-Trek. The dates are a lot more consolidated in the 24th century era). It gets me to look at Trek in a new way and see certain connections that I didn't before. For instance, could a young Christopher Pike have been involved at the Battle of Donatu V 23 years before "The Trouble With Tribbles"?

^This. It's just a fun exercise in logic.

But as the Okudas said, the ST timeline does hang together surprisingly well, considering how haphazardly it was developed in the beginning.

Except for a few things, namely the year STII-V occur in.

Trying to pin everything down to a year or span of time is futile. "This" happened before "this" and after "that" is close enough for me.

Not necessarily, as I'm trying to prove. I don't prescribe to such fatalistic outlooks.

 

[TalonCard]

Hey, Talon! Good to see you over here!

Good to see you too!

Never said anyone had to agree.
But if it's not shown onscreen, why take any of the Okuda's chronology at word? As far as I know none of TOS era (including the films) feature any onscreen dates.

As others have pointed out, the Okuda's timeline was created partially as a guide for writers working on the shows and movies--it's likely the reason why the post-80s dates are (generally speaking) more consistent than those from the 60s-80s. In general, it's better to start here than to start from scratch.

That said, though, the Okudas themselves state that many of their placements for events are approximate, and the episode orders are mostly based on a lot of assumptions about the average time over which each episode takes place. It's not a detailed account of what's happening when, so there's a lot of room to shift stuff around and create more detailed timelines. It's an important resource, but it's not carved in stone.

Question for discussion: Did the Okudas, 25 years ago when they first sold the Chronology to its publisher, fill a gap that some group of fans had been asking to be filled, with respect to timelines of the various series and movies that had been produced to date? Or was it their own impulse alone that led them to think such an effort - in combination with their insider status Trek-wise - would lead to a sale?

I think it appeals to a lot of fans, and it's certainly been useful over the years. I couldn't stop looking at it in bookstores, even though I was like ten the first time I found a copy. That said, it probably says something about Trek fans that there have been, for example, two editions of the Star Wars Essential Chronology since 1998, but Trek hasn't had an update since.

I include the Animated Series on my timeline. Roddenberry didn't consider it canon, but Paramount seem to have recanonized it from an official canon standpoint. I think TAS is important, as to me it serves as the final year and a half to two years of the five year mission. Plus, it acts as a direct sequel to some of TOS episodes. But the Animated Series fits into continuity nicely, it doesn't cause any problems as far as I know.

At this point, with all due respect, I don't think that what Roddenberry thought was canon shouldn't matter at all. He wasn't even alive for the majority of shows, episodes, and movies, and the franchise continues to grow.

The Animated Series seems to slide into and out of canon. It's been referenced in DS9, Enterprise, the Abrams Trek, and the Remastered versions of the original series, but it seems to be left up to the individual writers of Trek as to how much (if any) they really want to incorporate. I could be wrong, but it seems like it was in vogue to reference it a couple of years ago, but now, not so much. (I'm all for it, though; I think any serious Trek timeline is incomplete without it.)

It has, at least, almost always been available on home video, which is not always the case for other franchises with animated installments.

TC

 

[mb22]

I think it appeals to a lot of fans, and it's certainly been useful over the years. I couldn't stop looking at it in bookstores, even though I was like ten the first time I found a copy. That said, it probably says something about Trek fans that there have been, for example, two editions of the Star Wars Essential Chronology since 1998, but Trek hasn't had an update since.

https://www.amazon.com/Star-Trek-En...TF8&qid=1474300618&sr=1-1&keywords=okuda+trek

Still no animated in it Trek though.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

The Animated Series seems to slide into and out of canon. It's been referenced in DS9, Enterprise, the Abrams Trek, and the Remastered versions of the original series, but it seems to be left up to the individual writers of Trek as to how much (if any) they really want to incorporate. I could be wrong, but it seems like it was in vogue to reference it a couple of years ago, but now, not so much. (I'm all for it, though; I think any serious Trek timeline is incomplete without it.)

From what I understand, TAS being decanonized in the first place had more to do with Filmation going out of business than anything else. It just made sense to declare it off-limits while the rights were in flux.

 

[Timo]

Heck, it's because the Nexus was so damn inconsistent in GEN that I feel we have license to interpret it practically any way we want. Soran and Guinan were pulled out of the Nexus, and Guinan left an echo behind, but Soran didn't.

Umm, why should we think Soran didn't have an echo there?

Soran can't approach the Nexus in a ship since it would be destroyed, but Kirk was on a ship when he was pulled into it.

And Soran himself was on a ship (that wasn't even destroyed yet!) when he was pulled in.

It doesn't mean much, though, because we know Soran did try it once, 40 years after the prologue and before the movie, and failed. If he tried it in a ship and failed, he may quite justly have figured ships are less likely to work than planets. And he wouldn't wish to wait for 80 or 120 years trying out techniques that may work, not if he can play it safe at the next opportunity.

Planets do offer great advantages, mind you - Nexus appears to slow down from high warp to running pace near them.

Guinan's echo can't help Picard, but Kirk--the real Kirk--is still in there and can.

That would seem to flow from the concept of the echo...? Had the "real" Kirk "already" left and were Picard consulting just his echo, there would have been no fisticuffs between Kirk and Soran, supposedly.

Picard fantasizes about things that didn't happen, but Kirk is apparently remembering things that did.

Or then they didn't. That's where we can exercise our right to interpret. Although the characters do seem to fantasize about the things they desire. Not all people desire things that never existed!

And then Picard and Kirk can leave the Nexus just because they've realized it isn't real... There's no consistency to the thing.

How's that inconsistent? There's no case of somebody not being able to leave.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[mb22]

https://www.amazon.com/Star-Trek-En...TF8&qid=1474300618&sr=1-1&keywords=okuda+trek
Still no animated in it Trek though.

Oops, that's their Encyclopedia, not Chronology. Maybe if it sells well, they will update the latter as well.

 

[FormerLurker]

People still get aroused at the idea that the Romulan Ale is some cheap stuff that McCoy pawned off on Kirk. But as has been pointed out before, and I quote, "It's an ale!" Meaning it isn't some hard liquor. Rather, it's Romulan Budweiser. And like most beers, be they lager or ale, the fresher the better. So a 2283 year on it is then a good thing, as that means it hasn't gone stale yet.

 

[Lance]

Also, given The Animated Series has now apparently been reintegrated into Star Trek canon, I do think its time to revisit the Star Trek timeline in its entirety (especially TOS era) since Paramount seem to have re-canonized TAS (plus there are a few mentions/ties to it in DS9 if memory serves).

I know Roddenberry didn't consider TAS canon, but the powers that be following him seem to.

So, can we take everything in the Okuda timeline as definitive fact considering all these discrepancies?

I never considered anything in the Okuda timeline as definitive fact. Nothing qualifies as that unless its established on-screen, everything else is just hypothesis. The Okuda's are, basically, just doing what we all do: fans trying out different theories to make sense of the show. Just because they got it published doesn't make it "definitive". much of the chronology is based upon suppositions and the Okuda's own conjecture, not on anything established as fact on screen. They admit this themselves in the foreward of the book, imploring readers not to accept it as a canon source.... but, fans seem to have done so anyway.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

The Okuda's are, basically, just doing what we all do: fans trying out different theories to make sense of the show. Just because they got it published doesn't make it "definitive". much of the chronology is based upon suppositions and the Okuda's own conjecture, not on anything established as fact on screen. They admit this themselves in the foreward of the book, imploring readers not to accept it as a canon source.... but, fans seem to have done so anyway.

Because the makers of the shows and movies have used it as a resource. That pretty much makes it definitive by default.

 

[Kemaiku]

Not sure even the E-A of Beyond was built "from scratch". Some of the construction sequence might have happened before or during the adventure for all we know - but at the very least, the components might have existed long before the Enterprise-nil was lost.

At least 50-60% of the stardrive was already built during the movie, the saucer and nacelles were the only thing we saw built from scratch. Paris did say the ship was already under construction for some time before the Enterprise docked.

 

[Lance]

The Okuda's are, basically, just doing what we all do: fans trying out different theories to make sense of the show. Just because they got it published doesn't make it "definitive". much of the chronology is based upon suppositions and the Okuda's own conjecture, not on anything established as fact on screen. They admit this themselves in the foreward of the book, imploring readers not to accept it as a canon source.... but, fans seem to have done so anyway.

Because the makers of the shows and movies have used it as a resource. That pretty much makes it definitive by default.

... but only the parts that later made it to screen. That still leaves a lot of the Chronology as mere conjecture.

Fandom uses the Okuda's assumptions as a kind of 'baseline' for our discussions in the absence of anything more definitive, because we often need a "common ground", generally accepted version of events in the Trek universe which we can all agree on so that discussion can blossom. But that in itself makes the Chronology 'fanon' rather than 'canon'. A lot of what the fandom considers to be established canon (ie, things like characters birthdays, or the placement of important events) is often nothing more than conjecture on the part of the Okuda's to help fill a gap, something they themselves admit. But we willingly suspend our disbelief because, you know, we think it's important to have some grounding for that kind of thing in our dealings on it.

We've conditioned ourselves to accept the Chronology as definitive. But, analytically, it is not. Unless the substance of the Chronology's conjecture makes it to the screen (and there have been examples where the writers have ignored/overwritten stuff that the Okuda's theorized about, too) then it remains.... conjecture. Nothing more.

 

[gottacook]

As already mentioned: Even sticking to "anything established as fact on screen" (per Rear Adm. Lance above) leads to contradictions. My own view is, Don't try to make the pieces fit together; just enjoy the series and movies as they are, laugh at the silly goofs and don't worry about the other flaws, despite these being "facts on screen."

 

[JonnyQuest037]

My own view is, Don't try to make the pieces fit together; just enjoy the series and movies as they are, laugh at the silly goofs and don't worry about the other flaws, despite these being "facts on screen."

I like trying to make the pieces fit together. It's a fun challenge, and it gets me to look at the ST universe in a new way.

 

[soornge]

So, I'm doing a major re-watch of the entire Star Trek universe in chronological order: all episodes of every series (including The Animated Series) and all the films.

I've just finished Star Trek IV - The Voyage Home, and had a question about the placement of Star Trek II - The Wrath of Khan, Star Trek III - The Search for Spock, and Star Trek IV - The Voyage Home.

The official chronology placed STII and STIII in 2285, and STIV in 2286... but this makes little sense.

First, Star Trek II - The Wrath of Khan establishes its been 15 years since the episode Space Seed, which is definitively set in 2267. Normally one would assume STII-TWoK must occur in 2282, however McCoy gives Kirk a bottle of Romulan Ale, vintage 2283 for his birthday (which occurs on March 22). This means it must be at least 2283. Also, Kirk seems to not like the taste of the ale (he makes a face as if he's forcing it down). This makes me think Romulan Ale is best after its aged, and newer vintages can be unpalatable for humans.

Also, if we presume Space Seed occurs in the middle or towards end of 2267, STII's setting of March, 2283 is 15 years and change later, which gives validity to the scripted mentions of "15 years" passing between the episode and film.

Further, STIII-TSfS picks up almost immediately after STII, maybe a few weeks at most to allow for some minor repairs to the Enterprise (after the notable damage received in the space battle with Khan over the nebula) and enough time for David Marcus and Saavik to be assigned/join the science team investigating the Genesis Planet. Presumably that'd place STIII in April, 2283.

Star Trek IV - The Voyage Home is said to occur 3 months after STIII, so presumably in July, 2283, not 2286.

Maybe I'm wrong, but considering the official chronology has it occurring 18 years after Space Seed that doesn't really jive with the 15 years mentions in STII, and even if we presume they're rounding they'd likely be more apt to round up to 20 years instead of rounding down by 3 years to come to 15 years instead of 18.

Any thoughts on this? Am I overthinking it or overlooking something? Just wondering.

first problem
has is basing something on a date of a vi tage the vintage year has nothing to donwith anything if you drunk whine or whiskey u base the vintage and the peice based on the quality of the harvest for wine : some years have good grapes some dont : scot h is based in aging etc :