Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

[ZapBrannigan]

There's a wonderful book out there, an over-sized paperback called THE STAR TREK CHRONOLOGY.

It's a detailed timeline that puts dates to TOS. "The Cage" is in 2253, WNM is 2265, the first season is 2266-67, and so on.

Paramount considers it canon. I accept it as such. Do you?

 

[Lance]

Not really. Its the closest we've got, and the Okudas obviously worked on the production at the time so they had a lot of cred. But a lot of the entries in the book have got the footnote "conjecture" attached to them. I tend to look at it as only being as valid as any other piece of Star Trek fiction. Certainly an interpretation of events, but not necessarily the right interpretation of events.

That having been said, it was an interesting read and an updated edition is long overdue.

 

[F. King Daniel]

It wasn't canon - many dates and events conjectured in the chronology were changed when they eventually made it to screen. There's even a disclaimer to that effect at the start.

What had been made canon with regard to TOS' timeframe is...

The five-year mission ended in 2270 (VOY: "Q2")

Kirk was born in 2233 (STXI)

Kirk was 34 during "The Deady Years"

A deleted scene in STXI gives 2230 as Spock's birth year.

I think it all works out close enough to the Star Trek Chronology's conjectures. There's an updated version of the timeline in Voyages of Imagination, which includes all the films, episodes and novels up until about 2006. It includes the updated info from "Q2" and thusly moves The Motion Picture to 2273.

 

[Ensign_Redshirt]

Paramount considers it canon.

No, they don't.

 

[Robert Comsol]

The book contains what I'd consider an ultimate flaw and still today it is totally beyond my understanding how that flaw could have been overlooked in the first place:

In Star Trek II - THE WRATH OF KHAN both Khan and Kirk state on different occasions that they have not seen each other for 15 years.

This information is clearly audible and if I recall correctly there is an extended or deleted scene that makes an additional reference to these "15 years" between "Space Seed" and the second film.

Khan was (and still feels) to be the king of Earth and since Kirk is also a Human I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever, that they were both referring to solar years and this was what director and scriptwriter wanted to convey to the audience.

Bob

 

[F. King Daniel]

Space Seed and Wrath of Khan also contain clearly audible references to Khan's reign on Earth, in the 1990's, being two hundred years ago. Wrath of Khan itself begins with "In the 23rd century..."

I'd say the Chronology did a reasonable job, considering the schizophrenic nature of date references in TOS and the early movies. Sometimes occasional lines just have to be ignored - like the 700 year reference in "The Squire of Gothos"

 

[Robert Comsol]

Space Seed and Wrath of Khan also contain clearly audible references to Khan's reign on Earth, in the 1990's, being two hundred years ago. Wrath of Khan itself begins with "In the 23rd century..."

I'd say there is a difference between a premise that changed between TOS and TMP in contrast to an established time difference between two events in the 23rd Century.

Bob

 

[DonIago]

I would love to see an updated version of this, though I realize how vastly improbable that is. The second edition with the color pictures was beautiful though.

For that matter I'd love an updated Encyclopedia, which is probably even more of a pipe dream.

Yes, I know the info's all out there on the internet, but in this case I think there's something to be said for being able to hold it in my hands and leaf through the pages.

 

[SchwEnt]

No. I prefer the earlier Star Trek Spaceflight Chronology.
It was a Paramount-licensed, first published accounting of the years between now and the 23rd century.

I prefer that book's account of historic events and the sequence in which they unfolded.

Some argue this book's timeline is shifted 50 years behind the official history, or similarly incompatible. Aside from that, I like that history of events rather than the Official Chronology. The actual years of events aren't as important to me as the depiction of which historic events happened in relation to each other
(e.g. Romulans encountered before Klingons, Star Fleet formed after UFP founding, and so on).

 

[Ssosmcin]

Nah, I don't like having specific dates pinned down that long after the fact. I like it nebulous.

 

[Mysterion]

I accept the Okudachron for the most part. I agree with the criticism of the TWoK error mentioned above, and there are some other data points that have been contradicted on-screen since it was published. I also would love to see an updated version published. Perhaps with an appendix detailing the timeline of the Abrams-Trek continuity included.

 

[Ronald Held]

Any chance that it could be updated officially?

 

[Warped9]

I have a copy of the published Chronology but, no, I don't consider accurate and official. In fact that's why I worked out my own chronology.

 

[Gojira]

I would love to see an updated version of this, though I realize how vastly improbable that is. The second edition with the color pictures was beautiful though.

For that matter I'd love an updated Encyclopedia, which is probably even more of a pipe dream.

Yes, I know the info's all out there on the internet, but in this case I think there's something to be said for being able to hold it in my hands and leaf through the pages.

Those are my dreams too. But with all the information...and misinformation on the internet I won't hold my breath.

 

[Timewalker]

Space Seed and Wrath of Khan also contain clearly audible references to Khan's reign on Earth, in the 1990's, being two hundred years ago. Wrath of Khan itself begins with "In the 23rd century..."

I'd say the Chronology did a reasonable job, considering the schizophrenic nature of date references in TOS and the early movies. Sometimes occasional lines just have to be ignored - like the 700 year reference in "The Squire of Gothos"

I just imagined that Trelane's planet was 700 light-years from Earth, and that's why he got screwed up time-wise. The anachronism I find most irritating in that episode is the Salt Vampire in the front hall.

I accept the Okudachron for the most part. I agree with the criticism of the TWoK error mentioned above, and there are some other data points that have been contradicted on-screen since it was published. I also would love to see an updated version published. Perhaps with an appendix detailing the timeline of the Abrams-Trek continuity included.

The Abramsverse crap happened in a different universe, so why contaminate REAL Trek with it?

 

[Warped9]

The Abramsverse crap happened in a different universe, so why contaminate REAL Trek with it?

Exactly.

 

[Nerys Myk]

The Abramsverse crap happened in a different universe, so why contaminate REAL Trek with it?

Exactly.

Because none of it is any more or less real than the other and its part of Star Trek. Star Trek isn't a timeline or universe, its a collection of films and TV shows.

 

[Timewalker]

The Abramsverse crap happened in a different universe, so why contaminate REAL Trek with it?

Exactly.

Because none of it is any more or less real than the other and its part of Star Trek. Star Trek isn't a timeline or universe, its a collection of films and TV shows.

Oh, please. It's IMPOSSIBLE to reconcile nuTrek and Original Trek chronology-wise.

 

[RAMA]

It's quire a monumental piece of work. I liked the FASA timeline from the 80s but obviously that's out of date anyway since it was based on the Spaceflight Chronology (Prob my fav Trek book ever along with The Making of ST(60s), World of ST, and the first Art of ST book. I do accept the new Chronology but if I were to give people relatively new to Trek a primer, I'd show them the brand new Visual Dictionary.

RAMA

 

[F. King Daniel]

Exactly.

Because none of it is any more or less real than the other and its part of Star Trek. Star Trek isn't a timeline or universe, its a collection of films and TV shows.

Oh, please. It's IMPOSSIBLE to reconcile nuTrek and Original Trek chronology-wise.

Not seeing the problem, myself. And I know both versions of Trek backwards.

But then, I don't have pathological anti-Abrams hatred blinding me.