TOS episodes are usually placed in production order to account for changes to sets, costumes and such.
How long did season 2 take in-universe?
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
Yep, that does happen most often.
I gave up trying to make sense of Discovery's Star Dates
They never made any sense to me
They never made any sense to me
If only TOS stardates made any sense too... I mean, there are various reasons why Trek would choose to use stardates (with the various founding members having lots of different timekeeping systems), but the 23rd century stardates have always been just plain too random for me, even if TOS made an effort to make them incremental. One could rationalize them as indices for a larger unit of time but they were basically just four random numbers and a fraction and that's it. The TNG era was better with its definite system, but I've always thought it would've been better if they just agreed on a calendar to use and stick with it.
I sincerely hope that Discovery gives up on using Stardates for Season 3 (given that TOS stardates are random numbers and TNG stardates will be in the mid-to-late 900 thousands) and they'll just find some alternative akin to "Day #" or have their computers default to Earth calendar dates like May 21, 3119.
I don't see why they didn't use Kelvin universe Stardates... except for the fact they'd have to nail down how long events actually took in-universe and that's probably exactly what they were trying to avoid.
It’s more likely they found that bit of TOS easier to preserve than others. Timespans would still be given in more than one episode.
Why would they? They're two separate productions from essentially separate production companies. They have Alex Kurtzman in common, but he was a junior member of the 5-man Kelvin creative team, so odds are the movies' "stardates" weren't his idea.
Because they're the only Stardates that make sense.
Because they're the only Stardates that make sense.
No, the Kelvin stardates make no sense at all, because there's nothing "star" about them. It makes no sense that a multispecies interstellar community would adopt a slightly reformatted Gregorian calendar from Earth and call it "stardates." That's blatant false advertising.
They tell the passage of time, unlike every other Stardate system ever. Thus, they're the best.
Not by any meaningful creative standard. Stardates are not meant to convey actual chronological information, since they are a fictional construct, and fiction is about creating impressions in the audience, not cataloguing specific facts and figures. What stardates are meant to do is to convey the impression of a futuristic timekeeping system that can function as an interstellar standard, as opposed to an Earth calendar dependent on a single planet's rotation and orbit and that of its moon. They're meant to feel like a futuristic dating scheme used by an interstellar civilization, while also conveying no specific date information so that storytellers can be flexible about the timing and ordering of episodes. In fiction, it is often better not to lock in too many specifics.
But for the purposes of those of us looking for specific dating information (like this thread), they are the best.
Which is an incredibly narrow definition on which to base such a blanket-sounding assertion. You should've said this the first time.
I thought it was implied by my thread about how long season two took that I would prefer a timekeeping system that was descipherable
Another form of technobabble, essentially?
Similar threads
