Exactly. They were making it up as they went along--which is how it usually works.
Kelvin Timeline all but confirmed
- Thread starter captainkirk
- Start date
Exactly. They were making it up as they went along--which is how it usually works.
And they probably still wouldn't have done it if they couldn't have got Brock Peters 
That's kind of the point. An element of continuity was established, but later ignored.
Nope.
Nothing about any of that is in inherently dependent on what came before it.
TWOK works perfectly fine on its own. The film could exists just as it does had Space Seed never existed or someone can the film without ever having seen the episode. All the relevant backstory is presented in the film. Everything else is superfluous. There is zero carry-over--no plot lines, themes, or other important concepts.
The entire film could have been recast and Meyer could have said "It's a different, but similar, timeline." And nothing about it would have had to have been changed.
It's the same for any of the other films and series.
Who's counting encore, once again around the dance floor.
Space seed does exist. TWOK was written, conceived, cast an produced as a sequel. It is in continuity with it. This is a fact. I think even Khans glove may be from TOS.
Does it provide xposition? Can it be enjoyed in isolation? Yes and yes.
Continuity is not the same as being a serial.
And you are mistaken about plot lines, themes, important concepts. They are all carried over with Khan. The Céti Alpha six scenes are space seed condensed. He is found and steals a starship. His flaws and history with Kirk undo him.
By the Numbers:
- The U.S.S. Reliant's sensors SOMEHOW fail to discern that Ceti Alpha VI BLEW up (probably left a debris field too) and shifted the orbits of the other planets in the Ceti Alpha system (Why? Because without that mistake that causes Chekov and Co. to believe Ceti Alpha V is Ceti Alpha VI Kahn would never escape to trhreaten Kirl/move the plot along.)
- The character of Chekov was never in "Space Seed" (a first season TOS episode. Chekov was added in TOS second season. So there's no way Kahn "never forgot his face" because Kahn never SAW it.)
- EVERYONE of Kahn's augments is younger than him and blonde. Go back and look at the 73 that were released in "Space Seed" - they're a mix of ethnicity from around the Globe. Plus with Ceti Alpha VI exploding six months after they were left there...what - every female was somehow pregnant and they all gave birth to Blonde children and died?
- I acttually also have an issue that NO OTHER ENGINEER in the Engineering Room can "Get the MAINs back online." The "Mains"weren't blown offline unexpectedly - Scotty took them offline. Hell is ANY OTHER Star Trek show - all it would have taken was the press of a few buttons on a Console - but no, ONLY Spock (because the writers and Nimoy at the time wanted this) can wade into the Engineering Room and fix the "MAINs".
And still (and I also agree) this (with all the above flaws (continuity and otherwise) is hailed as the best (or in the top 3) Star Trek films made to date.
I think we can do that level of criticism and more to most other Trek films, if not all of them.
Or TNG:Which reminds me of Deep Space Nine, where in an early episode Sisko outright mentions that his father is dead, only to have him as a semi-regular guest character a few seasons later.
Also, he apparently has a sister we never see in the series.
In Season One - it was clearly stated BY Work himself - he was raised on a planet called Gault:
Yet by Season 4 in the TNG Episode "Family" - suddenly Worf was raised on Earth (remember everything here takes place in orbit of Earth and Worf's Parents are beamed up from Earth):
There's a ton of leeway there (as discussed around Sisko's lines earlier too. Nothing says they didn't relocate to earth after gãult.
VERY true - but, when people say they "hate" some portion of Trek (TV or Film); one of the common the cries is:I think we can do that level of criticism and more to most other Trek films, if not all of them.
"Because they ignored canon!..."
Yet, here is a film STII:TWoK that effectively ignores canon in many ways, but it's hailed as one of the best (and 'truest') Star Trek films made.
Aside from the backward step in tech across the board, I am not sure how TWOK ignores canon.
Plenty could, only Spock did. That was the whole point.
Oddly enough, if you watch TOS by stardate order, Chekov's first episode "Catspaw" actually comes before "Space Seed."
"Catspaw": stardate 3018.2
"Space Seed": stardate 3141.9
Of course, if you only go by broadcast order, "The Man Trap" was really the very first Trek episode and "Where No Man Has Gone Before" came later.
Khan's followers have morphed into Aryan youths, entirely different to what we see in "Space Seed"
Khan's wearing a broken Starfleet delta which is ostensibly Marla's, but is clearly a belt buckle from the new WoK uniforms and not from the classic series costumes.
Kirk has "never faced death" despite facing death in 78 previous episodes and one movie.
Starfleet is explicitly called "the military" and treated as such.
James Kirk was "never a boy scout" in Wrath of Khan, but a "stack of books with legs" in TOS' second pilot
...and likely dozens more I can't think of right now.
Are these deal-breakers? No way. But if the internet existed when Wrath of Khan came out, the meltdown would have been at least of par with that when Into Darkness was released. In fact, comments and complaints about WoK in fanzines from '82 very closely match complaints in 2013 about ID.
We seen zero evidence they were already part of the timeline, none. Not a drop. In fact the borg issues is a big problem. The Federation had never heard of them or anything like them. Yet they hit earth in ENT and the pre fedration earth fleet gets a ton of information on them.
Nothing shows these already happened.
But, as stardates were understood at the time, that still didn't yield any information about when Chekov boarded the Enterprise in relation to "Space Seed."
From http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Stardate:
The Star Trek Guide
The following instructions to writers were copied from the series bible Star Trek Guide; they are quoted at Star Trek Fact Check. [5] The original date of composition and the author are unclear, but the sample stardates are consistent with the range from the second pilot.
What is called a "percentage point" is actually the tenths digit. While the daily rate of increase wasn't always adhered to within episodes, the initial four digits weren't selected quite as randomly as described here. An overall increase with time can be observed in the above table of stardates, from 1312.4 in the second pilot to 5928.5 in the final episode of the series. The Animated Series and the movies continued the general trend, despite a number of variations in the rate of change.
The Making of Star Trek
Although much of the information from the Star Trek Guide was used in Stephen E. Whitfield's book The Making of Star Trek (conceived in May 1967 and published in September 1968), the above specifics of selecting stardate numbers weren't included. However, the author did interview Gene Roddenberry on the subject, who provided a more elaborate rationalization for stardate behavior:
The following instructions to writers were copied from the series bible Star Trek Guide; they are quoted at Star Trek Fact Check. [5] The original date of composition and the author are unclear, but the sample stardates are consistent with the range from the second pilot.
We invented "Stardate" to avoid continually mentioning Star Trek's century (actually, about two hundred years from now), and getting into arguments about whether this or that would have developed by then. Pick any combination of four numbers plus a percentage point, use it as your story's stardate. For example, 1313.5 is twelve o'clock noon of one day and 1314.5 would be noon of the next day. Each percentage point (sic) is roughly equivalent to one-tenth of one day. The progression of stardates in your script should remain constant but don't worry about whether or not there is a progression from other scripts. Stardates are a mathematical formula which varies depending on location in the galaxy, velocity of travel, and other factors, can vary widely from episode to episode.
What is called a "percentage point" is actually the tenths digit. While the daily rate of increase wasn't always adhered to within episodes, the initial four digits weren't selected quite as randomly as described here. An overall increase with time can be observed in the above table of stardates, from 1312.4 in the second pilot to 5928.5 in the final episode of the series. The Animated Series and the movies continued the general trend, despite a number of variations in the rate of change.
The Making of Star Trek
Although much of the information from the Star Trek Guide was used in Stephen E. Whitfield's book The Making of Star Trek (conceived in May 1967 and published in September 1968), the above specifics of selecting stardate numbers weren't included. However, the author did interview Gene Roddenberry on the subject, who provided a more elaborate rationalization for stardate behavior:
In the beginning, I invented the term "star date" simply to keep from tying ourselves down to 2265 A.D., or should it be 2312 A.D.? I wanted us well into the future but without arguing approximately which century this or that would have been invented or superseded. When we began making episodes, we would use a star date such as 2317 one week, and then a week later when we made the next episode we would move the star date up to 2942, and so on. Unfortunately, however, the episodes are not aired in the same order in which we filmed them. So we began to get complaints from the viewers, asking, "How come one week the star date is 2891, the next week it's 2337, and then the week after it's 3414?"
In answering these questions, I came up with the statement that "this time system adjusts for shifts in relative time which occur due to the vessel's speed and space warp capability. It has little relationship to Earth's time as we know it. One hour aboard the U.S.S. Enterprise at different times may equal as little as three Earth hours. The star dates specified in the log entry must be computed against the speed of the vessel, the space warp, and its position within our galaxy, in order to give a meaningful reading." Therefore star date would be one thing at one point in the galaxy and something else again at another point in the galaxy.
I'm not quite sure what I meant by that explanation, but a lot of people have indicated it makes sense. If so, I've been lucky again, and I'd just as soon forget the whole thing before I'm asked any further questions about it.
In answering these questions, I came up with the statement that "this time system adjusts for shifts in relative time which occur due to the vessel's speed and space warp capability. It has little relationship to Earth's time as we know it. One hour aboard the U.S.S. Enterprise at different times may equal as little as three Earth hours. The star dates specified in the log entry must be computed against the speed of the vessel, the space warp, and its position within our galaxy, in order to give a meaningful reading." Therefore star date would be one thing at one point in the galaxy and something else again at another point in the galaxy.
I'm not quite sure what I meant by that explanation, but a lot of people have indicated it makes sense. If so, I've been lucky again, and I'd just as soon forget the whole thing before I'm asked any further questions about it.
Hard to argue with some of those xD my feeling on the Starfleet as military, and the silly necklace are a matter of record xD
A lot of the rest is easily filled in mind you. I certainly think the 'faced death' is more of a 'faced certain death with no hope of escape' but then Kirk was awfully close to that in TMP.
That is a problem with ENT not FC. I believe the earlier post was more implying that there was a bootstrap paradox at play regarding the influence of the enterprises tech on what becomes the enterprise tech.
Chekhov actually served under Pike, we just never saw him....many years later, his great nth grandson, Harry Kim, would follow in his proud footsteps of rapid promotion. This is also why he bumped back down after the whole Reliant thing.
One can rationalize away, but that doesn't change the fact the writers ignored continuity in favor of the stories they wanted to tell.
Kirk, in his pre TWOK life had to deal with the death of his best friend, various other friends, lovers, one child, his brother and sister in law. Spock death is on par with those. So for Kirk to say "No, not like this. " forgets a lot of what happened in TOS.
Similar threads
