Spoilers Star Trek: Khan 1x01 - "Paradise"

[JD]

Oops, sorry.

 

[CaptChris42]

Only if you assume it's a Gregorian calendar date. Before TNG: "The Neutral Zone" locked down its calendar year as 2364, requiring TOS to be around a century earlier, many fans and a few professional novelists followed the Spaceflight Chronology dating scheme which put TOS in the first decade of the 23rd century (to reconcile with the "200 years" references in "Tomorrow is Yesterday" and "Space Seed"), so that TWOK would've been maybe 2222 or thereabouts. When TWOK came along with the 2283 date, many fans speculated that it was a Romulan calendar date or a stardate.




No, Kirk's log entry says "We are in the third month of our Vulcan exile," which means there are only 2-3 months between movies.

However long a Vulcan month is, I suppose.

I loosely fit TWOK from March to April 2285, TSFS a month or so later, and then TVH in August or September, say (which happns to also fit the implied chrono in "The Captain's Daughter" novel too)
Then a time jump into 2286 for the Enterprise-A launch.
Then six months to a year to reach TFF.

A lot of this also works fairly well with a rough 178.2 stardates a year for the span between TWOK and TUC, too, coincidentally.
Assuming the latter is right around the start of 2293.

 

[Christopher]

However long a Vulcan month is, I suppose.

The log entry was Kirk's, so it seems likely that he was using Earth months.

(And per the fan-created Vulcan calendar we used in the novels, a Vulcan month is only a bit over 3 weeks long, so the interval would be even shorter that way.)

 

[Zarm]

One wonders what a Vulcan month is based on, as Vulcan has no moon. (Just *extremely* close sister-planets whenever the first film in a new series wants it to...)

 

[Therin of Andor]

One wonders what a Vulcan month is based on, as Vulcan has no moon. (Just *extremely* close sister-planets whenever the first film in a new series wants it to...)

And "Yesteryear" (TAS):


City of ShiKahr, Vulcan, with T'Kuht in the sky. by Ian McLean, on Flickr

 

[Zarm]

And "Yesteryear" (TAS):

So it is! There's my nerd card revoked for the month... :-)

 

[MikeS]

What a shame they didn't make the Greg Cox novels canon — I loved reading those.

 

[Christopher]

What a shame they didn't make the Greg Cox novels canon — I loved reading those.

You can love reading a story whether it's canon or not, since canon is just another set of stories anyway. Heck, the cool thing about make-believe is that you can have more than one version of how something happened and enjoy all of them, rather than having to limit yourself to a single version.

 

[The Wormhole]

What a shame they didn't make the Greg Cox novels canon

I mean, the IDW comics didn't adhere to the Greg Cox novel either, so why should this have?

 

[Turtletrekker]

You can love reading a story whether it's canon or not, since canon is just another set of stories anyway. Heck, the cool thing about make-believe is that you can have more than one version of how something happened and enjoy all of them, rather than having to limit yourself to a single version.

And it's not as if Star Trek canon has ever been this hugely consistent thing anyway, going all the way back to the very first episodes.

 

[Zarm]

I suspect Mike S more meant 'I really loved those versions, so I'd love to have heard that story professionally dramatized, it would have been cool to hear a story I love adapted into another format like that.'

 

[Therin of Andor]

I'd love to have heard that story professionally dramatized, it would have been cool to hear a story I love adapted into another format like that.'

Two of Greg's Khan books are abridged audiobooks, though, just not full-cast dramas.

∗ "The Eugenics Wars: The Rise and Fall of Khan Noonien Singh, Volume 1" by Greg Cox, read by Anthony Stewart Head, 2001, 180 min. Abridged by George Truett.

∗ "The Eugenics Wars: The Rise and Fall of Khan Noonien Singh, Volume 2" by Greg Cox, read by Rene Auberjonois, 2002, 180 min. Abridged by George Truett.

 

[bdub76]

Indeed. And while this is seen as sexist to.modern viewers, it does strike me as very quintessential to Gene Roddenberry's conception of the future pre-TNG. It's the same 'rough and rugged qualities have been bred out of enlightened humanity, but maybe there are still some uses for them' mentality that we got in the TMP novelization. It was an idea that seemed to fascinate Roddenberry- in a way, he seemed to share Marla's views on the value of qualities of previous generations that were perhaps lost as a side-effect of 'progress'.

Now, the way that idea actually manifested with Marla, and the extent to which it was taken, may have been problematic. But it wasn't some one-off idea for a guest-star characterization for a single episode. It was an outgrowth and (perhaps inept) exploration of an idea baked into the very DNA of 60s & 70s Star Trek.

Got back from vacation, so I haven't heard the next two yet.

But I'd like a character to have an arc, where they change over the course of the story, not an instant change because it doesn't fit our modern lower fertility world.

So what exactly is her purpose then? I figured she'd make babies by the way we left her character off in Space Seed, and in return for her service, they'd let her record their history. She doesn't really have any useful skills for survival on the planet, and she's inferior to all of her peers physically for labor work. She's another mouth to feed and shelter with less potential for helping folks survive. Khan should get rid of her.