Then wouldn't that negate the violation, since you're in effect saying that Vulcan stardates are not Starfleet stardates?
Last edited:
Star Trek XI - Canon violation by canon violation
- Thread starter S'kai
- Start date
Then wouldn't that negate the violation, since you're in effect saying that Vulcan stardates are not Starfleet stardates?
It's hard to imagine the Anheuser-Busch corporation still existing in a moneyless/post-scarcity society.
Me neither - it was a great idea, and certainly would have driven the canonistas out of their skulls: Kirk born on Iowa, not in Iowa.
Y'know, it could be that the universal translators in our TV's have been updated, so they now render Stardates as something we can understand, rather than the random numbers they were in prior Star Treks....
Or, y'know, it's just the lamest complaint ever. Right up there with Chris Pine's eye colour, James R. Kirk and the time Picard said they were at warp 7 but the stars weren't moving.
Or, y'know, it's just the lamest complaint ever. Right up there with Chris Pine's eye colour, James R. Kirk and the time Picard said they were at warp 7 but the stars weren't moving.
[George Carlin] Sir, it's time to get on the plane.
Me neither - it was a great idea, and certainly would have driven the canonistas out of their skulls: Kirk born on Iowa, not in Iowa.
Fuck you lady, I'm getting in the plane[/George Carlin]
In Iowa would still work for being born onboard according to George Carlin
My only complaint is that fans of this movie cannot admit to themselves that it is a continuity violation. It doesn't make the movie any better or worse, but it is what it is.
My only complaint is that fans of this movie cannot admit to themselves that it is a continuity violation. It doesn't make the movie any better or worse, but it is what it is.
Did you read my last reply about this?
My only complaint is that fans of this movie cannot admit to themselves that it is a continuity violation. It doesn't make the movie any better or worse, but it is what it is.
Did you read my last reply about this?
But they do match up with Starfleet stardates in the new timeline. 2387-2258=129. Spock says he is from 129 years in the future. It's ludicrous to think that Vulcan stardates would match up precisely with the Gregorian calendar from Earth.
They fudged it to make it more easily understandable for general audiences but that doesn't mean it doesn't contradict what came before.
Why would an interstellar alliance change a system they had been using for at least 130 years, that seemed to work to one based off a calendar from a single member world?
Quite true, but that's not what you were basing your continuity violation on. You were stating that the Jellyfish's stardate system wasn't the same as in TOS, TNG, etc. If Vulcan doesn't use the Starfleet stardate system, but rather their own system, then whatever rationale (however ludicrous) that system is based on doesn't matter. It's not violating continuity because it's not a Starfleet dating system, as you yourself said.
How so? Anheuser-Busch makes beer. People like beer. Therefore, that corporation exists to make beer. (Replication is often inferior, and not everyone even owns a replicator anyway.)
Can you point to an episode where someone used a different stardate system?
My point about Vulcan, just because a military institution makes a change doesn't mean the civilian community would follow suit. And we won't even go into the fact that licensed materials in the Prime timeline continue to use the standard stardate system prior to and after the events of Star Trek 2009.
The Countdown comic gives the stardate of the Jellyfish's launch as being a few days after 64390.1.
NuTrek moving to earth years is a retcon. But, IMO, it's as minor and inconsequential as they come.
NuTrek moving to earth years is a retcon. But, IMO, it's as minor and inconsequential as they come.
The first time "stardate" was used in Trek (chronologically), it was by the Xindi in Enterprise. Although perhaps that is meant to be the same system adopted by the Federation by the time of TOS?
Also, not an episode, but FASA's RPG manuals used a "reference stardate" system, based on Earth years and months.
Me neither - it was a great idea, and certainly would have driven the canonistas out of their skulls: Kirk born on Iowa, not in Iowa.
When did canon say Kirk was born in Iowa?
KingDaniel said:
Those stars were also moving at warp 7 in the same direction, just to show off.
"I only work in Outerspace, I'm from Iowa" has been interpretted as "Born in Iowa"
Me neither - it was a great idea, and certainly would have driven the canonistas out of their skulls: Kirk born on Iowa, not in Iowa.
When did canon say Kirk was born in Iowa?
Is there no flexibility in your position on this issue?
I think it would have been fun to have called it Iowa. U.S.S. Iowa has a great pedigree--that is, assuming you exclude one of the more bizarre suicides in military history.
No, its not that reason at all because otherwise they would be using earth dating from the start in TOS.
In-universe (which is want counts unless there are good reasons to ignore it) that’s certainly a consideration when starting a political Federation.
Of course there’s something wrong with it. It shows a lack of understanding of and consideration for the material they are playing with. I couldn’t care less about whether it’s a canon violation or not. My concern is why it was done and whether it makes sense. But the truly silly thing is as I pointed out, I don't see the audience as better off (assuming they caught the point that dates with decimal points are still earth dates). All they need to know is 25 years and 129 years (whatever a year is, which they also don’t need to know).
Not all fans obviously. Only those who think Star Trek should still try to make some sort of sense despite the limited demands of fastfilm audiences. And I don't regard JJ Abrams is any sort of antichrist. It’s just that this forms part of his pattern of stripping down Star Trek to its minimum recognisable components.
Except that they all went stark raving mad and among other debaucherous acts decided to adopt an anachronistic dating system that presumably they once had good reasons to abandon. I could be wrong, but I think when the stardate system was changed previously, it was to improve it inline with IU requirements (see below).
Of course, but what is the in universe reason and why would they change (except to make it more comprehensible for them, not us)? The TNG change was a kind of more people than telephone numbers sort of thing (and possibly making it less random and more comprehensible IU), wasn't it?
That tends to suggest there must have been other reasons to change to the TOS system as well as the political ones, otherwise using stardates at that point makes no sense to me, particularly if they were just earthdates.
Well that would make practical sense for the game players. Not in universe obviously, but as a way to make the game easier, I would guess. On the other hand, the guys who made the change in STXI didn’t seem to realise it was unnecessary from an audience perspective, quite apart from being inexplicable IU.
If you were born on a ship in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean but otherwise grew up in Iowa, where would you say you were from? Being from somewhere could equally mean where you currently live of course, unless someone then presses you for where you were born.
Last edited:
I'd settle for Missouri.
UFO said:
You'd obviously say "I'm from Ocean".
If people can't grasp the evolutionary subtext, to hell with them.
Similar threads
- Locked
