Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

[Shawnster]

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.

Just to make sure... we are not talking about The Bible right now?

No. The difference being most of humanity has been exposed to bias in understanding the data presented in the Bible.

Come to think of it, bias may likewise affect peoples acceptance of various Trek chronologies, too.

 

[BillJ]

But in order to do what he does so well, he had to dump most of what was Star Trek and start over.

I'm not trying to be combative here but I'm curious as to what exactly he dumped? The story is problematic, I've always admitted that and thought even prior to its release it would be but so was TMP's. Because it puts the action-adventure first doesn't mean it lacks heart or scope it just means the expectations of the audience has changed in the 35 years since TMP was released.

For me, for the first time in a long time Star Trek was simply fun. The characters weren't exactly spot-on but were close enough that I was comfortable with them.

And honestly, who here thinks that a movie like TMP would be a major hit in the current environment? J.J. Abrams didn't change Star Trek, audience expectations did.

 

[Warped9]

Yep. Anyone who thinks TMP represents what TOS is are the ones who must have been watch a different show.

I thought that was the main criticism of TMP... that it was remaking a mediocre episode:

"Where Nomad Had Gone Before"

Or was it "The Doomsday Machine" with Decker sacrificing himself to save the day?

The story was certainly Star Trek. The execution is where things got confused.

TOS tried to blend action and ideas. TMP was a "G" rated movie pitched to a "G" rated crowd that tried to be as cerebral as "2001". JJTrek is Star Wars in different costumes. TMP and JJTrek represent the extremes with TOS somewhere in the middle. The question is, just which "extreme" reflects the "heart" of Star Trek?

Star Trek began with "The Cage" and an idea to bring Jonathan Swift into the 1960s. Star Wars begins with an idea to remake "Flash Gordon". I think Star Trek starts cerebral and sugarcoats with action and adventure to make the message palatable. Star Wars is quite the opposite, beginning with action-adventure and down the road aspiring to remake John Frankenheimer in space.

Having said this, I admit that JJ Abrams is the right filmmaker for his time. He knows his audience. But in order to do what he does so well, he had to dump most of what was Star Trek and start over. I'm sure that in addition to being a credit to JJ Abrams instincts, that says something about the unmarketability of Star Trek as it was originally conceived.

Or not.

It has got to be a lot harder to wrap an idea-driven script with action than it is to just do action. I think that's why we keep seeing filmmakers go to that well. But for being such a "failure", TMP sure inspires fanatic defenders even to this day, 33 years after its release. A script developed for TV being rewritten as the camera rolled, a studio determined upon a release date, SFX being wholly reconceived late in the production... and it's box office still ranks in the top 50 "G" rated films of all time. And it rebirthed Star Trek for the big screen and TV. And yet, all of us would agree that it didn't do what Roddenberry was setting out to do, which almost certainly was to tell a story well. But as I said above, wrapping an idea with action and adventure is hard. Particularly when you forget the action and adventure.

But was it "Trek" at heart? Absolutely. It was trying to say something deep and meaningful about the human condition -- that Man and God as Creator and Creation are interchangeable. That makes it Star Trek at its heart, whether it was perfectly executed or not. More so than any of the other Star Trek movies. Definitely more so than the current efforts.

JJ's Trek does not forget the action and adventure and is immensely popular. But IMHO it will not inspire a fanatic, deep obsessive fan base unless this road is followed long enough to build its own universe and mythos like the Star Trek that preceded it and the Star Wars that inspires it. Why? Because at heart, it isn't Star Trek. That doesn't make it "bad". Believe me, as an investor, I don't believe it is "bad". But I will be surprised if it results in a new "Star Trek" franchise. There is no "there" there, to steal from Stein. No heart. No Roddenberry and Jefferies (or Lucas and McQuarrie, for that matter). Just stuff -- stuff floating on a big, dead pond of nothing.

This. And I emboldened one section for emphasis.

 

[aridas sofia]

But in order to do what he does so well, he had to dump most of what was Star Trek and start over.

I'm not trying to be combative here but I'm curious as to what exactly he dumped? The story is problematic, I've always admitted that and thought even prior to its release it would be but so was TMP's. Because it puts the action-adventure first doesn't mean it lacks heart or scope it just means the expectations of the audience has changed in the 35 years since TMP was released.

For me, for the first time in a long time Star Trek was simply fun. The characters weren't exactly spot-on but were close enough that I was comfortable with them.

And honestly, who here thinks that a movie like TMP would be a major hit in the current environment? J.J. Abrams didn't change Star Trek, audience expectations did.

In particular, I meant the Universe post Kirk's birth. That most notably includes what gave rise to Trek to begin with -- TOS. It includes all of Roddenberry's Trek. And to the extent that what gave rise to the phenomenon still beats at its heart, it dumped its heart. Does "heart" mean being aimlessly "cerebral"? Or does it mean mixing action with being focused on this thing Roddenberry kept calling "the human condition"? I think the latter, framed in the perspective of of a humanist fueled by early 1960s optimism.

A lot of that stuff is as long gone as Roddenberry, which probably explains why it was dumped. But that doesn't mean that when you reinvent Star Trek for the current market you just glom off the endless action-adventure trend and ignore your "cerebral" heart. From the conception of the STXI setting to the execution of a story so fast paced that it never leaves a moment to consider a thing that is going on, it's a blur. And once the thing slows down enough to come into focus, or people get tired of the ride, they'll realize there's no "there" there.

 

[Mysterion]

This thread probably should not be about JJ. I think that he is not the one to have "revived" Trek, but if we are fortunate someone else may take over after the third movie.
It is the case that the Prime universe still exist. IMO that should he the focus of future movies and tv.

Kind of my fault.

I suggested that a new edition of the Chronology (if there were to be one) include an appendix detailing the timeline of the "Abrams-verse" version of Trek. Not trying to integrate or reconcile it with the Prime Trek timeline, just having in the back of the book for comparison. And then everyone freaked out just a bit. Guess i did not make my point in a clear enough manner.

So I am sorry to have de-railed the discussion in this thread. Really, I am.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Well, there's a lot of "get off my lawn" that goes on when TOS is discussed. This kind of thing takes care of itself, as the years roll by.

 

[Mysterion]

Well, there's a lot of "get off my lawn" that goes on when TOS is discussed. This kind of thing takes care of itself, as the years roll by.

Understood. I can get the same way when someone tries to tell me how superior TNG or VGR are to TOS.

 

[BillJ]

From the conception of the STXI setting to the execution of a story so fast paced that it never leaves a moment to consider a thing that is going on, it's a blur. And once the thing slows down enough to come into focus, or people get tired of the ride, they'll realize there's no "there" there.

I think this is more a product of having way too many things to accomplish in a two-hour format. I was (and still am) critical of them trying to cram too many elements into the first film though they may have worked under the "band-aid" assumption and figured it was better to do everything that needed to be done introduction wise in the first film.

Though I do have high-hopes that Into Darkness slows things down a touch and allows us to enjoy the ride more.

Like I've said before, never have I thought Star Trek 2009 was a perfect movie but I thought it was better than pretty much every TNG film outing and The Voyage Home/The Final Frontier. As a very casual Star Wars fan, I never really got a Wars vibe from the film. Yes they share common elements but lots of movies do and I think some allowed Abrams comment about making Trek more like Wars to color their judgement.

But at the end of the day, I have no problems with folks who dislike this film or any other element of the franchise. Where my problem comes is the petty name calling and throwing temper tantrums that some act like is a God-given right.

 

[Joker]

It's threads like these that really make me regret how little time I've spent in my life defending the integrity of a 60's TV show and its spin-off movie that a company used to make some money.

All those years spent doing other stuff... all wasted.

Damn. I feel so silly.

 

[aridas sofia]

Well, there's a lot of "get off my lawn" that goes on when TOS is discussed. This kind of thing takes care of itself, as the years roll by.

Which makes my statement that the new Star Trek is just stuff floating on a big, dead pond of nothing have an unintended (and uncomfortably personal) meaning.

 

[Joker]

All of Star Trek is just "stuff".

It's nice that some people consider it to be something more than that... but don't shit yourself when not everyone agrees.

 

[aridas sofia]

All of Star Trek is just "stuff".

It's nice that some people consider it to be something more than that... but don't shit yourself when not everyone agrees.

I assume you are replying to my post and that your advice is directed to me. Thanks. I will try to keep that in mind the next time I feel inclined to shit myself. However I am under no preconception that anything -- including life itself -- is anything more than just "stuff". Whether the stuff is floating on a big, dead pond of nothing, though... that's what's noteworthy.

 

[Nerys Myk]

JJ's Trek does not forget the action and adventure and is immensely popular. But IMHO it will not inspire a fanatic, deep obsessive fan base unless this road is followed long enough to build its own universe and mythos like the Star Trek that preceded it and the Star Wars that inspires it. Why? Because at heart, it isn't Star Trek. That doesn't make it "bad". Believe me, as an investor, I don't believe it is "bad". But I will be surprised if it results in a new "Star Trek" franchise. There is no "there" there, to steal from Stein. No heart. No Roddenberry and Jefferies (or Lucas and McQuarrie, for that matter). Just stuff -- stuff floating on a big, dead pond of nothing.

This. And I emboldened one section for emphasis.

Thing is "JJ-Trek" doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's not a new thing, its just the latest iteration, just as TMP, the other films, TNG and the other series were. They and TOS are the pond "JJ-Trek" floats on. So far this iteration is successful. When that success fades a new one will take its place, just as Nolan's Batman succeeded Schumachers. And what ever comes next will succeed Nolans.

You say at heart it isn't Star Trek. I would disagree. There's a lot of Trek's heart in there. Folks who dislike it focus on the "flash" and miss the subtance. Probably on purpose

Finally we're customers, not investors. ( unless you mean time.)

 

[aridas sofia]

Investor as in a shareholder in Viacom.

Folks who dislike it focus on the "flash" and miss the subtance. Probably on purpose

That doesn't make any sense. Why would anyone want to dislike it? Why wouldn't they see this substance they are looking for if it is there?

Look, I don't think the majority of people that criticized the last movie as lacking in some way really expected something indistinguishable from TOS. I certainly didn't. But there is a "different" that feels "right" and one that doesn't. Many have said that in the end what we are talking about is "personal taste", and I'm willing to admit that is probably true. The popularity of something is determined by the cumulative "personal tastes" of the viewing public, and in this way nuTrek is inarguably a success.

But is there a differnt way to determine the "heart" of Star Trek? Something not measured in dollars? The essence of it without which it ceases to be itself? I have taken a stab at that by saying it is this thing Roddenberry started out to do -- Jonathan Swift in the 1960s, humanism as seen through the lens of 1960s optimism, commenting on the "human condition". I am sure there are other equally valid descriptions, and I know JJ Abrams did try to include some of this in his movie. I happen to think what he included was largely superficial and that at its heart ST XI was a story about revenge. Revenge of Nero. Revenge of Spock. Revenge of Kirk. That most certainly is about the human condition, but it also largely focuses on the negative and holds up as heroes people that are really not all that different from the villain. Once again -- that is a valid point to make, but in my opinion it isn't consistent with what has heretofore characterized Star Trek.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Investor as in a shareholder in Viacom.

Ahso. One doesn't usually encounter a literal investor around these parts.

Folks who dislike it focus on the "flash" and miss the subtance. Probably on purpose

That doesn't make any sense. Why would anyone want to dislike it? Why wouldn't they see this substance they are looking for if it is there?

Come on. You're an oldtimer like me. You've seen how fans have reacted to any new version of Trek. Some will dig in their heels and stick to that to their last breath, in spite of evidence to the contrary.

Look, I don't think the majority of people that criticized the last movie as lacking in some way really expected something indistinguishable from TOS. I certainly didn't. But there is a "different" that feels "right" and one that doesn't. Many have said that in the end what we are talking about is "personal taste", and I'm willing to admit that is probably true. The popularity of something is determined by the cumulative "personal tastes" of the viewing public, and in this way nuTrek is inarguably a success.

Very true, I just happen to be one who thought "Finally my Star Trek is back. TOS is back".

But is there a differnt way to determine the "heart" of Star Trek? Something not measured in dollars? The essence of it without which it ceases to be itself? I have taken a stab at that by saying it is this thing Roddenberry started out to do -- Jonathan Swift in the 1960s, humanism as seen through the lens of 1960s optimism, commenting on the "human condition". I am sure there are other equally valid descriptions, and I know JJ Abrams did try to include some of this in his movie. I happen to think what he included was largely superficial and that at its heart ST XI was a story about revenge. Revenge of Nero. Revenge of Spock. Revenge of Kirk. That most certainly is about the human condition, but it also largely focuses on the negative and holds up as heroes people that are really not all that different from the villain. Once again -- that is a valid point to make, but in my opinion it isn't consistent with what has heretofore characterized Star Trek.

I think Roddenberry was overfond of citing parallels that never quite lined up, be it Wagon Train or Swift. Especially once he stopped being a TV producer and became a guru/entrepreneur.

Never thought about ST09 being about revenge. I can see how someone might think that, now. For me it was about finding one's purpose. Their first and best destiny, to paraphrase a certain Vulcan.

 

[FalTorPan]

Speaking to the actual topic of this thread, I consider the Star Trek Chronology to be one of the best -- if not the best -- attempt at providing a "historical" context to the various Trek productions.

 

[gottacook]

As a Star Trek fan of very long standing (since the first run of season 3, when I was 12), I have to say that the practice of never identifying the present Earth year should have been strictly maintained. That was one of the reasons for the Stardate system, wasn't it - to obscure the exact year back on Earth? (Giving the present date as a Stardate makes less obvious any variability between scripts concerning the number of years or centuries since our own time.)

With all respect for its creators, the published Star Trek Chronology is like the Jane Curtin fake Saturday Night Live ad in which she begins, "Hi. I'm beautiful but stupid."

 

[DonIago]

I was under the impression it was more to blur the passage of time between episodes than to blur how far in the future the series itself was.

 

[ZapBrannigan]

The stardate system should have been thought out and designed properly before they went on the air. In TOS it doesn't have any systematic sense it in, except that the numbers get higher as the series goes along.

Then in TNG, stardates started with the number 4 to reflect the 24th century, but the next digit marked the show's season number. So in spinoffs beyond year 10, the stardates begin with 5. Again, it doesn't make good sense.

 

[DonIago]

It's a tv show...some things, especially back when TOS premiered, were never intended to be deeply scrutinized.