Trek Books Set in TOS Movie Era?

[tomswift2002]

I remember when "Foul Deeds Will Rise" was announced how excited I was because it was a book that took place between TFF and TUC. There are very few novels that take place during those years...

There were a number of novels between TMP and TWOK.

I always loved movie era books though. I'd love to see more books between TFF and TUC because that seems to be a great untapped period of Star Trek history to me. I know the 5 year mission period is what sells though. And those are always good reads too. But I look at books also to fill in gaps in Star Trek history. Things that happened during eras we have not seen on TV and will probably never see on TV. One of the reasons I also always liked The Lost Era books and sagas, and the continuing Enterprise novels that are filling in some of the years after Enterprise and before Discovery. Not every book of course, but it's nice to have a few books here and there that fill in some of that unseen history.

When you think about, between The Counter Clock Incident (TAS) and Star Trek: The Motion Picture is 2.5 years (even though the actual refit only took 18 months, it was twice stated in TMP that Kirk had not logged a star hour and had been in his current role for 2.5 years). Then from the end of TMP to Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan in 2285 we have anywhere from 12.5 years (2272 earliest) to 8 years (2278, as per the uniforms seen in TNG's Cause and Effect). Star Trek III picks up within weeks, if not days of the close of Star Trek II, while Star Trek IV picks up 3 months after Star Trek III in 2286. Star Trek V takes place about a 9 months to a year later in 2287 (79 years before TNG's Season 3, thus suggesting that the Enterprise-A was undergoing an upgrade or refit for about a year, although why Scotty still didn't have all the doors working????). But then we have an even longer jump in time between Star Trek V and Star Trek VI of about 3-6 years, in which Sulu has been in command of the Excelsior for 3 years, so Star Trek VI takes place in 2290 or later (although McCoy's line about being Chief Medical Officer of the Enterprise for 27 years, if you go from 2265 would put it around 2292/2293), and of course Star Trek Generations prologue is set in 2293, 78 years before the 2371 TNG portion, plus the reporter.

So it kind of makes sense that there would be more stories between Star Trek The Motion Picture & Star Trek II The Wrath of Khan as there is nearly a decade of missions to tell, where as between V and VI we only have 3-6 years. And of course after Star Trek Generations prologue, we have a 70 year gap till Encounter at Farpoint.

 

[Damian]

When you think about, between The Counter Clock Incident (TAS) and Star Trek: The Motion Picture is 2.5 years (even though the actual refit only took 18 months, it was twice stated in TMP that Kirk had not logged a star hour and had been in his current role for 2.5 years). Then from the end of TMP to Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan in 2285 we have anywhere from 12.5 years (2272 earliest) to 8 years (2278, as per the uniforms seen in TNG's Cause and Effect). Star Trek III picks up within weeks, if not days of the close of Star Trek II, while Star Trek IV picks up 3 months after Star Trek III in 2286. Star Trek V takes place about a 9 months to a year later in 2287 (79 years before TNG's Season 3, thus suggesting that the Enterprise-A was undergoing an upgrade or refit for about a year, although why Scotty still didn't have all the doors working????). But then we have an even longer jump in time between Star Trek V and Star Trek VI of about 3-6 years, in which Sulu has been in command of the Excelsior for 3 years, so Star Trek VI takes place in 2290 or later (although McCoy's line about being Chief Medical Officer of the Enterprise for 27 years, if you go from 2265 would put it around 2292/2293), and of course Star Trek Generations prologue is set in 2293, 78 years before the 2371 TNG portion, plus the reporter.

So it kind of makes sense that there would be more stories between Star Trek The Motion Picture & Star Trek II The Wrath of Khan as there is nearly a decade of missions to tell, where as between V and VI we only have 3-6 years. And of course after Star Trek Generations prologue, we have a 70 year gap till Encounter at Farpoint.

Generally it's been assumed TMP took place around 2272 and TWOK around 2285.

We had a discussion on another thread about how long it was between TVH and TFF and I think we sort of figured about 9 months to probably no more than a year. We're not exactly sure what happened before the Enterprise returned to drydock. In TFF Kirk says he gave Scotty 3 weeks so it's probably reasonable to assume they tried out the new Enterprise for a few months before realizing she needed an overhaul.

TUC is usually placed in 2293, a few months before the Enterprise B scenes in Generations. So you have about 6 years between the two. The novel Forged in Fire had Sulu joining the Excelsior as first officer in 2289 and becoming captain in 2290 (while not canon, I never saw anything that disputed that sequence of events and Sulu mentions a 3 year mission I believe in the Beta Quadrant in 2293--at least I think it was 3 years).

Foul Deeds Will Rise took place in 2288 and still has Sulu on the Enterprise. Miasma was an e-novella which according to Memory Beta took place in 2291 by which time Sulu was gone (Saavik took his place at the time).

There are only a couple novels that take place on the Enterprise-A and I always thought a lot of stories could be told during that period. And it would still involve most of the original crew. However, I'm also a realist and know what sells, and that's the 5 year mission. I'd just love a novel here or there to take place during that period. That was one of the reasons I was so happy about Foul Deeds Will Rise (thank you Greg Cox ) . Even if it were a novel once ever other year or so that would be great.

I'll be curious to see where Pocketbooks goes with future books for all the series. With more shows in the works, I have a feeling they'll be more focused on tie-ins to the shows and 5 year mission books and I think movie-era and the relaunch books may start to get squeezed out.

 

[Christopher]

Generally it's been assumed TMP took place around 2272 and TWOK around 2285.

TMP is 2273 in the novel continuity.

 

[tomswift2002]

Generally it's been assumed TMP took place around 2272 and TWOK around 2285.

We had a discussion on another thread about how long it was between TVH and TFF and I think we sort of figured about 9 months to probably no more than a year. We're not exactly sure what happened before the Enterprise returned to drydock. In TFF Kirk says he gave Scotty 3 weeks so it's probably reasonable to assume they tried out the new Enterprise for a few months before realizing she needed an overhaul.

TUC is usually placed in 2293, a few months before the Enterprise B scenes in Generations. So you have about 6 years between the two. The novel Forged in Fire had Sulu joining the Excelsior as first officer in 2289 and becoming captain in 2290 (while not canon, I never saw anything that disputed that sequence of events and Sulu mentions a 3 year mission I believe in the Beta Quadrant in 2293--at least I think it was 3 years).

Foul Deeds Will Rise took place in 2288 and still has Sulu on the Enterprise. Miasma was an e-novella which according to Memory Beta took place in 2291 by which time Sulu was gone (Saavik took his place at the time).

There are only a couple novels that take place on the Enterprise-A and I always thought a lot of stories could be told during that period. And it would still involve most of the original crew. However, I'm also a realist and know what sells, and that's the 5 year mission. I'd just love a novel here or there to take place during that period. That was one of the reasons I was so happy about Foul Deeds Will Rise (thank you Greg Cox ) . Even if it were a novel once ever other year or so that would be great.

I'll be curious to see where Pocketbooks goes with future books for all the series. With more shows in the works, I have a feeling they'll be more focused on tie-ins to the shows and 5 year mission books and I think movie-era and the relaunch books may start to get squeezed out.

With IV we don’t know what month III ends in. Obviously it would be within the October to December 2285 timeframe in order for IV to start at January 1 2286 at the earliest.

 

[Christopher]

With IV we don’t know what month III ends in. Obviously it would be within the October to December 2285 timeframe in order for IV to start at January 1 2286 at the earliest.

Except III is only a few weeks at most after II, which is set on Kirk's birthday. The Chronology assumes Kirk's birthday is the same as Shatner's, March 22. So that puts TSFS in April, most likely. Which makes it all the more bizarre that the Chronology arbitrarily put TVH in 2286. But then, none of their movie datings make much sense. (I actually had the opportunity recently to ask Mike Okuda why he put the movies where he did, and he didn't even remember his reasons.)

 

[Damian]

With IV we don’t know what month III ends in. Obviously it would be within the October to December 2285 timeframe in order for IV to start at January 1 2286 at the earliest.

Yeah. On the thread about how long TFF was after TVH we were trying to figure out when some of those movies take place. There are a few hints in the movies like Kirk saying they were on Vulcan for 3 months in TVH. It was an interesting thread and I think we figured out that TFF had to be at least several months after TVH. Which makes sense in a way because I don't think they would return to Earth right away. I'm sure Scotty spent some time trying to see if he could fix things on his own and they probably only returned when they had no other choice.

Maybe someone can write a novel that takes place between TVH and TFF that depicts the reason why they had to bring the Enterprise home for further, um, refinements--it doesn't have to necessarily be the main plot but maybe just a plot point. I also suppose it could be referenced in a novel that takes place after TFF, sort of like....remember that time we had to take the Enterprise home sort of thing.

 

[Damian]

TMP is 2273 in the novel continuity.

Oh, ok. For some reason I was thinking 2272. But that would still work with the 2 1/2 year statement if the 5 year mission ended later in 2270.

 

[tomswift2002]

Except III is only a few weeks at most after II, which is set on Kirk's birthday. The Chronology assumes Kirk's birthday is the same as Shatner's, March 22. So that puts TSFS in April, most likely. Which makes it all the more bizarre that the Chronology arbitrarily put TVH in 2286. But then, none of their movie datings make much sense. (I actually had the opportunity recently to ask Mike Okuda why he put the movies where he did, and he didn't even remember his reasons.)

I think it was because in IV Gillian makes a comment on the end about having 300 years of catch-up learning to do, and 300 years from 1986 would be 2286.

As for V, I always figured that it was only weeks after IV, since from Scotty's description, it sounded like something major occurred or a number of systems failed and the ship had to return home for drydock repairs, just after we saw the E-A warping away in IV, and that's why Scotty said "I think this ship was put together by monkeys"

 

[Christopher]

Maybe someone can write a novel that takes place between TVH and TFF that depicts the reason why they had to bring the Enterprise home for further, um, refinements--it doesn't have to necessarily be the main plot but maybe just a plot point. I also suppose it could be referenced in a novel that takes place after TFF, sort of like....remember that time we had to take the Enterprise home sort of thing.

Harve Bennett's intention was that the ship was on a shakedown cruise for something like 6 months. Naturally, when a shakedown ends, you'd bring the ship back into port to assess the results of the test run and make any necessary refinements and fixes that the shakedown revealed the need for. (Basically a shakedown cruise is a beta test for a ship.) I'm thinking maybe the ship worked well enough during the shakedown, but once they tried to make the fixes and upgrades back at port, that's when things went wrong.

I think it was because in IV Gillian makes a comment on the end about having 300 years of catch-up learning to do, and 300 years from 1986 would be 2286.

Well, that would be a dumb reason, because it makes no sense to assume that has to be exact rather than approximate. Even if she'd been brought ahead 284 or 331 years, say, she'd still probably round it to 300, because most people aren't Spock.

Also, TVH never explicitly states what year its 20th-century portions take place in. The only such references were in the advertising and promotion. In the film itself, it's obviously the late '80s, but the exact year is never stated.

 

[Damian]

Also, TVH never explicitly states what year its 20th-century portions take place in. The only such references were in the advertising and promotion. In the film itself, it's obviously the late '80s, but the exact year is never stated.

I can't remember where I saw it, but around the time the movie came out I thought I heard someone say the 20th century portion actually took place in 1987. I wish I could remember where...maybe the novel? Or it may have been an article I read.

Granted that's apocryphal but I seem to remember something about that. And it makes sense in a weird sort of way that they'd want those portions slightly in the future since at the time the movie was released the events hadn't happened yet.

I remember a similar sort of reason for why Escape from the Planet of the Apes was slightly in the then future of 1973, so it could be interpreted those events 'could happen', since it wasn't actually the then present, just a very near future.

 

[Damian]

Well, that would be a dumb reason, because it makes no sense to assume that has to be exact rather than approximate. Even if she'd been brought ahead 284 or 331 years, say, she'd still probably round it to 300, because most people aren't Spock.

True, I wonder though if that was what Okuda was going by? I'd hate to think that he'd take a comment that literally (or maybe it was a reason among many why he placed TVH in 2286 though I agree that seems a bit late unless they revise Kirk's birthday to later in 2285--but I guess Star Trek (2009) would negate that now since it gave a birth date--unless he was born prematurely in the Abramsverse from when he was born in the prime timeline.....or maybe I'm just overthinking it )

 

[Stevil2001]

It seems likely Kirk was born slightly early in Star Trek 2009, but it doesn't seem to be a premature birth per se, so if we buy the goofy reboot stardate system, then Kirk was probably born in January in the Prime timeline as well. In my opinion, Star Trek II through V all occur in same year.

It's worth noting the pre-"Q2" accepted date for The Motion Picture was 2271, thanks to Okuda.

 

[tomswift2002]

Harve Bennett's intention was that the ship was on a shakedown cruise for something like 6 months. Naturally, when a shakedown ends, you'd bring the ship back into port to assess the results of the test run and make any necessary refinements and fixes that the shakedown revealed the need for. (Basically a shakedown cruise is a beta test for a ship.) I'm thinking maybe the ship worked well enough during the shakedown, but once they tried to make the fixes and upgrades back at port, that's when things went wrong.

Of course, from what was said in Generations, a shake down cruise might be just a "run around the block" where the ship is out for a few hours or a day to test all the systems, and then returns for tweaking. But in the case of the E-A, maybe they had engine failure or some other major failure that forced them to limp or be towed back

 

[Damian]

Of course, from what was said in Generations, a shake down cruise might be just a "run around the block" where the ship is out for a few hours or a day to test all the systems, and then returns for tweaking. But in the case of the E-A, maybe they had engine failure or some other major failure that forced them to limp or be towed back

But was that really an actual 'shakedown' cruise. It was my impression that was just a photo-op for the press, and not really intended to be anything more.

 

[Christopher]

It's worth noting the pre-"Q2" accepted date for The Motion Picture was 2271, thanks to Okuda.

That was a sketchy estimate even at the time. First off, it seemed like an attempt to preclude the animated series from being counted, since it required the 5YM to end just after season 3. It also required season 3 to end less than halfway through 2269 in order for 2.5 years later to still be in 2271, and that never seemed credible to me. I never "accepted" that estimate for TMP any more than I accepted the book's estimates for the later movies.

 

[DrCorby]

I think it was because in IV Gillian makes a comment on the end about having 300 years of catch-up learning to do, and 300 years from 1986 would be 2286.

Well, that would be a dumb reason, because it makes no sense to assume that has to be exact rather than approximate. Even if she'd been brought ahead 284 or 331 years, say, she'd still probably round it to 300, because most people aren't Spock.

True, I wonder though if that was what Okuda was going by? I'd hate to think that he'd take a comment that literally (or maybe it was a reason among many why he placed TVH in 2286 though I agree that seems a bit late unless they revise Kirk's birthday to later in 2285--but I guess Star Trek (2009) would negate that now since it gave a birth date--unless he was born prematurely in the Abramsverse from when he was born in the prime timeline.....or maybe I'm just overthinking it )

But isn't that exactly what the Okudas did throughout their Chronology? Take approximate elapsed year estimates from show/movie dialogue and make them exact dates? I don't have my Chronology handy to check, but didn't they explicitly state that as the policy they followed in the Forward or elsewhere? Or did I just extrapolate from examples throughout the book? It's been a while since I've spent time reading through it, but I remember being irritated with the Okudas for being so literal, even when it made no logical sense. To pick an example at random, isn't that the reason for TNG starting in 2366, Picard's mission being exactly 100 years after Kirk's? I thought a lot of the Okudas' date choices were pedantic and unimaginative. I laud Mike & Debbie for years of phenomenal work on Star Trek, but feel that the Chronology had some serious flaws. (Or maybe they just wanted to avoid the inevitable arguments if they chose dates not explicitly stated...)

 

[Christopher]

But isn't that exactly what the Okudas did throughout their Chronology? Take approximate elapsed year estimates from show/movie dialogue and make them exact dates?

As a rule, yes, but they made an odd exception by putting TWOK 18 years after "Space Seed" instead of 15. So it would be weird if the reason they made that exception was because they were unwilling to make an exception for the "300 years" reference in TVH. Especially because TVH never actually specified it was in 1986!!

Isn't that the reason for TNG starting in 2366, Picard's mission being exactly 100 years after Kirk's?

No; there are several things wrong with that sentence. "The Neutral Zone" canonically established in dialogue that TNG's first season was in 2364, not '66, and that was years before the Chronology came out. And nobody ever said TNG was exactly 100 years after TOS. The publicity for TNG said it was set 78 years after TOS, implicitly after the movies at the time -- so that might be the Okudas' actual reason for putting TVH in 2286, because it was the most recent movie when TNG came out and they subtracted 78 from 2364.

 

[Damian]

But isn't that exactly what the Okudas did throughout their Chronology? Take approximate elapsed year estimates from show/movie dialogue and make them exact dates? I don't have my Chronology handy to check, but didn't they explicitly state that as the policy they followed in the Forward or elsewhere? Or did I just extrapolate from examples throughout the book? It's been a while since I've spent time reading through it, but I remember being irritated with the Okudas for being so literal, even when it made no logical sense. To pick an example at random, isn't that the reason for TNG starting in 2366, Picard's mission being exactly 100 years after Kirk's? I thought a lot of the Okudas' date choices were pedantic and unimaginative. I laud Mike & Debbie for years of phenomenal work on Star Trek, but feel that the Chronology had some serious flaws. (Or maybe they just wanted to avoid the inevitable arguments if they chose dates not explicitly stated...)

Isn't that where we were finally able to lay out a more solid timeframe for when Star Trek takes place though (that being TNG episode "Neutral Zone" where a year was finally given (which was actually 2364). We were told TNG was 78 years after TVH (that was on promotional material so technically it's not canon, though it seems to be accepted nowadays and there's nothing to contradict that).

Come to think of it maybe that's how Okuda timed out TVH, because 2286 is exactly 78 years before "The Neutral Zone"

 

[Damian]

so that might be the Okudas' actual reason for putting TVH in 2286, because it was the most recent movie when TNG came out and they subtracted 78 from 2364.

Ha-ha. Great minds ...though I freely admit you're a lot smarter than I am.

I did have to double check the year for "The Neutral Zone" on Memory-Alpha before posting. 2366 didn't sound right but I had to make sure.

 

[DrCorby]

But isn't that exactly what the Okudas did throughout their Chronology? Take approximate elapsed year estimates from show/movie dialogue and make them exact dates?

As a rule, yes, but they made an odd exception by putting TWOK 18 years after "Space Seed" instead of 15. So it would be weird if the reason they made that exception was because they were unwilling to make an exception for the "300 years" reference in TVH. Especially because TVH never actually specified it was in 1986!!

That's one of the things that annoyed me; it also seemed (to me) to be a rule that was inconsistently applied.

isn't that the reason for TNG starting in 2366, Picard's mission being exactly 100 years after Kirk's?

No; there are several things wrong with that sentence. "The Neutral Zone" canonically established in dialogue that TNG's first season was in 2364, not '66, and that was years before the Chronology came out. And nobody ever said TNG was exactly 100 years after TOS. The publicity for TNG said it was set 78 years after TOS, implicitly after the movies at the time -- so that might be the Okudas' actual reason for putting TVH in 2286, because it was the most recent movie when TNG came out and they subtracted 78 from 2364.

Apparently, my memory latched onto the general idea of "TNG is 100 years after TOS" and made it fact. Thank you and @Damian for correcting me on the date of TNG's first season.