Which doesn't make sense, because Roddenberry also excluded a lot of the movies. Also because Star Trek has been the responsibility of a lot of people other than Roddenberry.
The Star Trek Encyclopedia getting first update since 1999!
- Thread starter ScottDS
- Start date
Which doesn't make sense, because Roddenberry also excluded a lot of the movies. Also because Star Trek has been the responsibility of a lot of people other than Roddenberry.
I agree. Using that dubious reasoning anything produced after his death should be excluded too!
)
I agree, they are similar to many members of different religions. Cherry picking the stuff they like and ignoring what they don't. I am thinking of how they included parts of Spock's backstory in "Yesteryear" but ignoring the actual plot. That is breaking their own rules of what is canon.
At the very least, they could have included TAS with a little "+" or something next to the entries, as with the recent movies.
That's why the new series should continue ENT's efforts to canonize TAS details.
Yeah, but they didn't make a concerted effort before ENT, I believe.
I have a feeling that maybe the real reason that TAS wasn't included is because it would have been a lot of work to add it in addition to ENT, the new movies, and the other Trek seasons they hadn't covered before. It probably would have required a fair amount of revision to the TOS entries, too.
How far does this book go for the Kelvin timeline films? Does it include articles on Star Trek Beyond? Or does it stop with Star Trek Into Darkness?
Has there been any word on an update to the Star Trek Chronology or is some form of it included in this new edition of the encyclopedia?
Has there been any word on an update to the Star Trek Chronology or is some form of it included in this new edition of the encyclopedia?
I would absolutely love a new Chronology. But only if they put enough effort into it to fix something so basic as the date of TMP.
Just some quick observations:
1. There's a pic of the CGI of the Kobayashi Maru from ST '09. Its registry number is ECS-1022. (ECS registries are for Earth Cargo ships from ENT.)
2. Neither the Centaur nor the Kelvin have class names in their entries or on the ship list.
3. The U.S.S. Archer from NEM is listed as an Excelsior class ship in the ship listings.
4. The Biko is still erroneously listed as an Olympic class ship even though it's an Oberth on screen.
5. The U.S.S. Copernicus from STIV still has the erroneous registry of NCC-623 instead of 640.
6. The ECS Fortunate's registry is ECS-2801, higher than the more advanced Kobayashi Maru.
7. There's a runabout I've never heard of called the Ganda.
8. The second Grissom, NCC-42857, is still listed as an Oberth for some reason (the first Encyclopedia listed it as an Excelsior).
9. There's an S.S. Kogin, NAR-24016, and S.S. Manoa, NAR-28474, that I've never heard of.
10. The Vengeance from STID is given the class name Dreadnought.
11. There's an S.S. Wisconsin, NAR-50732.
12. There's a side view of the Enterprise-J, but annoyingly, no top view. I'm assuming we'll see that when the Ent-J Eaglemoss model comes out.
13. Not only is the Titan given the NCC-80102 registry (from the novels), it's also shown using the art from one of the novels. I believe this is the first time info from non-canon novels was used in the Encyclopedia (Okuda does mention this, though.)
The book's ok. I'm glad I didn't pay more than $88 for it, though. For an updated edition, they could have done a little more research. There was no attempt like in the past to come up with conjectural names, registries, and classes for any new ships since the last Encyclopedia came out, which was annoying.
1. There's a pic of the CGI of the Kobayashi Maru from ST '09. Its registry number is ECS-1022. (ECS registries are for Earth Cargo ships from ENT.)
2. Neither the Centaur nor the Kelvin have class names in their entries or on the ship list.
3. The U.S.S. Archer from NEM is listed as an Excelsior class ship in the ship listings.
4. The Biko is still erroneously listed as an Olympic class ship even though it's an Oberth on screen.
5. The U.S.S. Copernicus from STIV still has the erroneous registry of NCC-623 instead of 640.
6. The ECS Fortunate's registry is ECS-2801, higher than the more advanced Kobayashi Maru.
7. There's a runabout I've never heard of called the Ganda.
8. The second Grissom, NCC-42857, is still listed as an Oberth for some reason (the first Encyclopedia listed it as an Excelsior).
9. There's an S.S. Kogin, NAR-24016, and S.S. Manoa, NAR-28474, that I've never heard of.
10. The Vengeance from STID is given the class name Dreadnought.
11. There's an S.S. Wisconsin, NAR-50732.
12. There's a side view of the Enterprise-J, but annoyingly, no top view. I'm assuming we'll see that when the Ent-J Eaglemoss model comes out.
13. Not only is the Titan given the NCC-80102 registry (from the novels), it's also shown using the art from one of the novels. I believe this is the first time info from non-canon novels was used in the Encyclopedia (Okuda does mention this, though.)
The book's ok. I'm glad I didn't pay more than $88 for it, though. For an updated edition, they could have done a little more research. There was no attempt like in the past to come up with conjectural names, registries, and classes for any new ships since the last Encyclopedia came out, which was annoying.
Last edited:
Anybody have any new timeline info?
@Dukhat: Is it possible that the "USS Ganda" was actually supposed to be the USS Gander, and the Okudas just misheard the name? Or is there a separate entry for the Gander? Because otherwise I can't find any reference to that one anywhere either.
Also, does it look like any of the older entries were revised any beyond adding new information? I know people were curious about that. You mentioned a lot of old errors that weren't fixed, but have you found any old errors that were?
Also, does it look like any of the older entries were revised any beyond adding new information? I know people were curious about that. You mentioned a lot of old errors that weren't fixed, but have you found any old errors that were?
Wow RE the USS Titan. Just makes it more annoying that they're not incorporating Animated Trek. Curious if the ECS registries are pulled out of thin air or not. I know the Kobayashi Maru had an NCC registry in John Eaves' concept art.
What's the quote on the Kelvin's plaque (Mike told me on FB the commissioning date was 2225.5)?
What's the quote on the Kelvin's plaque (Mike told me on FB the commissioning date was 2225.5)?
Last edited:
Agree.
The registry is mentioned in the entry for the ship and shown on the CGI model.
"All Glory Comes From Daring to Begin." The commissioning date is indeed 2225.5, which in NuUniverse dates, means the ship was commissioned in 2225. The registry on the plaque is still wrong.
The entry is for "Ganda." It goes on to say that "Ganda" was actually what was labeled on the model, but Ezri said "Gander" in dialogue, which is a river in Canada. They said it could go either way.
Last edited:
They were already adding either 185 or 87 hours, depending on if Beyond is included, so I don't see where 11 hours worth of TAS would really have been that much more work.
Similar threads
