15 year gap between TMP and TWOK

[Trek Survivor]

Is this 15 year gap I often hear spoken of actually confirmed/clarified in any ON-SCREEN Trek? I haven't seen TWOK in a while, but to my knowledge it never actually said...

Why do people (presumably mostly writers of novels, expanded fiction etc) insist on trying to shoehoren 15 years between them?

I am assuming that somewhere dates don't tie up... but most dates we get (certainly for TOS) are largerly conjectural.

Why can't it go:

TOS/TAS: 5 year mission
1.5 years later (I think they say 18 month refit) - TMP
Few years later (or, if you want Kirk to have another 5 year mission, 5 or 6) - TWOK

I'm sure I am missing something obvious but from ON-SCREEN (e.g. canon) sources, can somebody explain this whole 15 years thing...

 

[Sean Aaron]

I don't think any specific amount of time is stated to have elapsed between any of the films, so the answer is no. We don't even know for sure how much time elapsed between TOS and TMP or if the Enterprise completed its five-year mission before refit (though there may be a line of dialogue that states this).

I'm sure there are script references for the amount of time and then a desire to account for the apparent increased age of the crew.

 

[Frontier]

I believe the figures are 2 years between TOS and TMP, and 9 years between TMP and TWOK.

 

[Timo]

The figures are a minimum of 2.5 years between TOS and TMP (because that's how long Kirk had been desk-bound), and an approximate 15 years between TOS and TWoK (because Kirk and Khan's last encounter was repeatedly stated to have been that long ago).

Nothing further is established, and indeed the interval between the first two movies could be as short as a few weeks if we really want. However, there are indirect hints that this is not quite the case: the red uniforms are introduced to at least some ships in 2278 according to the TNG episode "Cause and Effect", so TMP probably (but not necessarily) takes place before that.

On the other hand, TMP mentions that the Voyager 6 probe was launched "over" three centuries before the movie. In the real world, that would mean having TMP take place no earlier than 2277, seven years after TOS. But in the Trek world, the fictional Voyager 6 might well have been launched earlier than the real launch dates of the real Voyagers 1 and 2...

Anyway, TMP was probably originally written with the idea that it would take place exactly three centuries after the premiere, much like TOS was (at that time) believed to have happened three centuries after the airdates. So, something like 2279 for TMP, and no earlier than 2284 for TWoK (as per the date on McCoy's gift bottle).

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Christopher]

The Star Trek Chronology posited a conjectural 2269 date for the end of the 5-year mission and a 2271 date for TMP, but that was superceded by Voyager: "Q2," which established that the 5-year mission ended in 2270 (allowing room for the animated series and assorted novels, fortunately). Since Kirk had been at a desk for two and a half years, that means TMP couldn't have been earlier than 2272 and was probably in 2273 (since some time might've passed between the end of the 5YM and Kirk's promotion). Memory Alpha and the Pocket novel continuity go with 2273 for TMP.

The Chronology places TWOK in 2285, which is odd because that's 18 years after "Space Seed" instead of 15 as stated in the film. I think their goal was to put TFF in 2287 to reconcile Nimbus III being 20 years old with "Balance of Terror" establishing a lack of Romulan contact prior to 2266. That doesn't really work with the dating established in the movies, though, since the span from TWOK to TVH is no more than four months and from TVH to TFF is seemingly not very long at all (though Harve Bennett has said there was a 6-month shakedown between the two).

So strictly speaking, TWOK should probably be 2282 (give or take, allowing for rounding). But the 2285 date, as problematical as it is, has been pretty universally accepted, and it's what the novels go with. I'm not sure if there are any canonical references backing it up, though.

So as things stand, the accepted interval between TMP and TWOK is 12 years, not 15 (or 14 as the Chronology had proposed).

 

[Trek Survivor]

Thanks for the quick answers, guys. Very informative.

 

[Uxi]

(though Harve Bennett has said there was a 6-month shakedown between the two).

Uh, 6 month shakedown and it was still that borked up? Poor Ent-A.

 

[RyanKCR]

Thinking about the time between TMP and TWOK one has to take in to consideration the fact that the Enterprise was rebuilt to be almost brand new and then changed to a training vessel. That fast? Although I thought that the Enterprise was not a training vessel but Starfleet finishes training students aboard the ship they will be serving under. But then I was about 11 or 12 when I saw that movie and believed it ever since.

 

[gottacook]

I maintain that the only reason for the stated 15 years in TWoK since Kirk and Khan last encountered each other was that the actors had in fact aged 15 years since "Space Seed" was filmed. Why take any of this seriously? I enjoyed the Chronology (the first edition is the only one I've read), but specific dates were almost entirely omitted from the actual filmed episodes and movies (in favor of star dates) for a reason: to avoid a problem that was easily avoidable. Even so, there was script-to-script variability in when the series was supposed to be taking place: "The Squire of Gothos" establishes that the baroque culture of Europe (what Trelaine thinks is the Earth people's present culture) was 900 years ago, and the harpsichord sonata he first plays was written by Scarlatti (1685-1759), placing the episode some time in the 2600s - whereas "Space Seed" and TWoK both refer to Khan's period in power as 200 years ago.

Nothing further is established, and indeed the interval between the first two movies could be as short as a few weeks if we really want.

Agreed, and I'd argue that the interval could even be zero, if the reboot of the series was intended to be absolute - and there's no reason to assume it wasn't, despite reuse of TMP footage in TWoK.

 

[RyanKCR]

It TWOK Kirk reads the bottle on Romulan ale that said 2283 but then again why would it have Earth years on it?

 

[UssGlenn]

I like the interpretation that 2283 is the stardate. There's no reason that the importers/smugglers wouldn't put an additional label on the bottle (not everyone reads Romulan). Of course if the importers/smugglers get the Ale is casks and bottle it themselves then there would be no reason for it to ever have Romulan writing.

 

[Mr Silver]

I think 2285 is a fair enough date for TWOK. Kirk's forgetfulness could be down to a many number of things, including stress from the battle.

 

[Christopher]

Even so, there was script-to-script variability in when the series was supposed to be taking place: "The Squire of Gothos" establishes that the baroque culture of Europe (what Trelaine thinks is the Earth people's present culture) was 900 years ago, and the harpsichord sonata he first plays was written by Scarlatti (1685-1759), placing the episode some time in the 2600s

Later than that. Trelane refers to the murder of Alexander Hamilton, which occurred in 1804, and mentions Napoleon, who became emperor that same year. There's also a bust of Napoleon in his dwelling that's consistent with the way Napoleon was rendered in the early 1800s. So that would put it in the early 2700s at least.

Nothing further is established, and indeed the interval between the first two movies could be as short as a few weeks if we really want.

Agreed, and I'd argue that the interval could even be zero, if the reboot of the series was intended to be absolute - and there's no reason to assume it wasn't, despite reuse of TMP footage in TWoK.

There's no way they could be that close together in time. TMP is supposed to be less than three years after the 5-year mission ended, meaning that the characters are supposed to be only slightly older than they were in TOS, despite the actors being a decade older. But TWOK focuses heavily on the fact that Kirk is aging and going through a midlife crisis.

And as I said in the other thread, if TWOK had been trying to pretend TMP never happened, then Spock would've still been denying his emotions like he did in TOS, rather than being serene and at peace with his emotions as an aftereffect of his epiphany within V'Ger. Just because they were trying to make the film stand on its own and work as a fresh start, that doesn't mean they were literally trying to erase TMP from continuity. Ideally every movie should work as a fresh start, since every movie is going to be someone's first.

 

[DonIago]

I don't see how TWOK can follow TMP too shortly since, as noted, by TWoK the Enterprise is a training vessel that, as evidenced in TSFS, is no longer state of the art, while in TMP it's the height of Federation technology.

 

[gottacook]

I don't see how TWOK can follow TMP too shortly since, as noted, by TWoK the Enterprise is a training vessel that, as evidenced in TSFS, is no longer state of the art, while in TMP it's the height of Federation technology.

Fair enough. But if TWoK is construed as a complete reboot starting at time zero, then there was no TMP refit and the ship seen in TWoK is the old (and by now outmoded) Enterprise of the TV series, simply spruced up for the cinema. (I know that this avoids explanation of the second turboshaft to the bridge among other design changes, but it's not as if the Enterprise didn't change and grow during the TV series, either.)

If TWOK had been trying to pretend TMP never happened, then Spock would've still been denying his emotions like he did in TOS, rather than being serene and at peace with his emotions as an aftereffect of his epiphany within V'Ger.

As I noted in a different thread, Spock did on at least one occasion (the "I will have a brandy" scene in "Requiem for Methuselah") explicitly come to terms with his emotions during the TV series. So the Spock seen in TWoK could have arisen directly from the Spock of the series, in my opinion.

(Nor was the Spock of TWoK universally considered as having reached a serene epiphany; Pauline Kael in The New Yorker wrote, for example, "...DeForest Kelley makes the prickly Bones more crisply funny than he used to be; his performance helps to compensate for the disappointment of Leonard Nimoy's ashen, dried-out Spock.")

 

[Christopher]

Fair enough. But if TWoK is construed as a complete reboot starting at time zero, then there was no TMP refit and the ship seen in TWoK is the old (and by now outmoded) Enterprise of the TV series, simply spruced up for the cinema. (I know that this avoids explanation of the second turboshaft to the bridge among other design changes, but it's not as if the Enterprise didn't change and grow during the TV series, either.)

That is a bizarrely counterfactual interpretation. I don't think anyone involved with TWOK has ever claimed that they intended their film to be some kind of deliberate erasure of TMP from history. Yes, there was some distancing from a film that was perceived to be critically disappointing (although TMP made considerably more money at the box office than TWOK did and, correcting for inflation, earned a higher worldwide gross than any other Trek film until 2009), but it's exaggerating to call that a "reboot." That's a modern fandom term and it's erroneous to expect that professional filmmakers three decades ago would've been thinking in terms of concepts that are faddish among fans today.

If TWOK had been trying to pretend TMP never happened, then Spock would've still been denying his emotions like he did in TOS, rather than being serene and at peace with his emotions as an aftereffect of his epiphany within V'Ger.

As I noted in a different thread, Spock did on at least one occasion (the "I will have a brandy" scene in "Requiem for Methuselah") explicitly come to terms with his emotions during the TV series. So the Spock seen in TWoK could have arisen directly from the Spock of the series, in my opinion.

The occasional indulgence is not even remotely the same thing as completely coming to terms with his emotions. You're taking isolated examples out of the broader context. Yes, the Spock of TOS occasionally softened slightly (and as I responded to you in that thread, Spock was rather out of character in "Requiem" due to the generally shoddy quality control of the third season), but he was also frequently contemptuous and scornful of others' emotions (as I also pointed out to you at the time, citing his extremely condescending dismissal of Scotty's intuition in "That Which Survives"), he says in "All Our Yesterdays" that it's "impossible" for him to be getting emotional because he's a Vulcan (talk about extreme denial), and so forth.

And it's bizarrely anti-dramatic to be more satisfied with the occasional lapse in his characterization in TOS as sufficient explanation for his deep emotional serenity in TWOK when you've got a far more engaging story in TMP of Spock achieving a profound, life-changing epiphany. Seriously, is TMP really that bad? Sure, it's got some weak points, but are those sufficient justification to try to completely deny the important role it plays in Trek history?

 

[gottacook]

Criminy. Earlier I wrote "But if TWoK is construed as a complete reboot starting at time zero, ..." I hate to have gotten into a discussion about (as the former president said) "what the meaning of is is," but when I wrote "is construed" I didn't mean "construed as a reboot at the time"; I know that film producers 30 years ago didn't think in those terms.

I meant "retrospectively considered as a reboot," which makes no more or no less sense than does trying to fit every filmed Star Trek production into a timeline where all events are in fact serialized, even though 99% of the continuity is never revealed to us (and even though there are occasional continuity conflicts that we are shown).

Naturally many fans are inclined to favor the total-serialization way of thinking, hence the two (three?) editions of the Star Trek Chronology, as well as Vonda McIntyre's occasional references to elements of TMP in her TWoK novelization. But if fans can retrospectively place one sort of pattern on filmed Trek, does that make other sorts of retrospective views illegitimate or "conterfactual"?

If the producers and writers of TWoK had wanted to explicitly indicate that X number of years had passed since TMP, that would have been easy to do; they didn't (although they were explicit about the number of years since Khan and Kirk had met before). The initial prints in May 1982 had no "II," as we all know. Kirk starts at a desk job in both stories. There are all kinds of reasons to think that (in modern terms) a reboot was the idea, albeit one with the same cast as the first attempt.

The producers of TWoK, it seems to me, clearly made the correct choice to avoid being an explicit sequel to TMP. I mean, would any of us be here if not for the success of TWoK?

(I'll concede your point about Spock - but I would also argue that Spock's personal growth between TMP and TWoK could have been primarily Nimoy's own doing, and may not represent any effort by the writers/producers/director of TWoK to indicate the lasting effect of the TMP events on Spock.)

 

[DonIago]

They they don't do anything to dissuade the potential validity of your theory does not mean that they in fact meant to encourage belief in your theory.

Now, if there's any quotes or references from people involved with the making of TWoK to suggest that they were trying to sweep TMP under the carpet, that would be something else.

It's an interesting theory, and you're welcome to subscribe to it if you would like, I just don't see it as being very well supported by the existing evidence that I'm aware of.

 

[Christopher]

I've already conceded that there was clearly an attempt to distance TWOK from TMP and let it stand on its own. But as I said, calling it a "reboot" in the modern sense is an exaggeration, too all-or-nothing an interpretation. At most, they were trying to be ambiguous, to make something that could be taken either as a continuation or a new start, depending on the preference of the viewer.

According to The Making of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan by Allan Asherman (Pocket, 1982), pp. 37-38, Jack B. Sowards's original outline for the film specifically referenced TMP in explaining how things had changed in the intervening years, and in stating that "Kirk had also begun to question himself and, as Spock had in Star Trek: The Motion Picture, was looking for a meaning in his life." After Spock dies early in the outline, "Kirk also got a private playback of Spock's Personal Log, which contained an admission that Spock had decided, immediately before his death, to catch up on his previously disavowed emotions. The log was especially significant due to its reason for Spock's decision: his exposure to the massive mind of 'V'ger.'" So the story was originally conceived as having direct continuity with elements of TMP.

Although a footnote points out that later drafts removed all references to TMP. But that doesn't mean they wanted to erase it from existence, just that they wanted the new film to stand on its own, which is just good filmmaking sense as a general principle. Or, since they were new people coming in, they just wanted to make it their own, make a fresh start. Not as a "continuity reboot," but simply to assert their artistic independence.

 

[Captain Mike]

I always thought that the reason for the age gap was to get the characters up to playing their respective ages?...