2258?

[Frontier]

So... dunno if I'm just hearing what I think I hear, but, in the beginning, when Robau gives the "stardate" he happens to say 223304, right? Which is the year Kirk's born 2233 - and I guess the 04 might be April? (disregarding the controversy of those who insist it's 2231).

Later, Kirk gives a stardate. 2258something.

TOS took place in early-mid 2260s.

So chronologically, this taking place when they're all younger - 2258 would match up, right?

IE, the bulk of the film occurred in alt. timeline year 2258?

 

[cultcross]

I got the impression someone on the writing staff got a bit confused as to what a 'stardate' is to be honest - the result was a weird fusion of the 'random number' approach and just giving the Gregorian year.

 

[firefox390]

WOW! There goes the 5-yr mission.

 

[ParticleMan]

I think that sounds about right. Since the film "skipped over" Kirk's other assignments between the Academy and the Enterprise, I think that would account for the 6-7 years we are missing in the TOS timeline, assuming Kirk was captain of the Enterprise for about a year or two at the beginning of TOS.

And also, the dates would indicate that Kirk is 25 in the film, right? How old was Kirk supposed to be in the TOS timeline when he took command of the Enterprise? Not much older than that, right? Didn't he make captain before 30 originally, too?

 

[cooleddie74]

2233 is the year of Kirk's birth. 2258 would be when Kirk is a newly-minted officer or still a cadet. So Robau's stardate or calendar date in his log would seem to incorporate the Earth calendar year into the number.

 

[cooleddie74]

I think that sounds about right. Since the film "skipped over" Kirk's other assignments between the Academy and the Enterprise, I think that would account for the 6-7 years we are missing in the TOS timeline, assuming Kirk was captain of the Enterprise for about a year or two at the beginning of TOS.

And also, the dates would indicate that Kirk is 25 in the film, right? How old was Kirk supposed to be in the TOS timeline when he took command of the Enterprise? Not much older than that, right? Didn't he make captain before 30 originally, too?

Promoted in 2264(age 31). Assumed command of Enterprise for five year mission in 2265(age 32).

 

[cultcross]

WOW! There goes the 5-yr mission.

The concept isn't mentioned in the film -in fact, the closing speech uses the phrase 'ongoing mission' (or similar). That could easily be a Kelvin resulting change, imho - perhaps that was one ship too many that encountered the unknown after being alone for 5 years and went ka-boom. Perhaps they reworked their mission concepts after that.

 

[Ovation]

That's the beauty of the film, isn't it? That any and all missions can be re-worked?

 

[ParticleMan]

2233 is the year of Kirk's birth. 2258 would be when Kirk is a newly-minted officer or still a cadet. So Robau's stardate or calendar date in his log would seem to incorporate the Earth calendar year into the number.

I think you are right because Original Spock mentions coming from Stardate "2387" which would correspond to the calendar year that Countdown takes place and with the information from the Star Trek Online game.

 

[ParticleMan]

Whoops...double post...

 

[cooleddie74]

2233 is the year of Kirk's birth. 2258 would be when Kirk is a newly-minted officer or still a cadet. So Robau's stardate or calendar date in his log would seem to incorporate the Earth calendar year into the number.

I think you are right because Original Spock mentions coming from Stardate "2387" which would correspond to the calendar year that Countdown takes place and with the information from the Star Trek Online game.

As well as the stardate in the Countdown comics(63000-range),which would place those stories roughly seven years after NEMESIS which happened in 2379. Also, the earliest stardates on TOS were so low numerically speaking that I always assumed that during Pike's tenure on the Enterprise and earlier Starfleet and the Federation employed a different stardate and timekeeping method.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I got the impression someone on the writing staff got a bit confused as to what a 'stardate' is to be honest - the result was a weird fusion of the 'random number' approach and just giving the Gregorian year.

No, they were careful about this - they deliberately changed the format of stardates to reflect the Gregorian year in order to make the chronology of the film more easily understandable.

And yes, the events surrounding the launch of Enterprise are some years before the beginning of the five-year mission as seen in TOS. Kirk has just managed to become captain of the ship at an even earlier age than in the oldTrek time line.

 

[cooleddie74]

I got the impression someone on the writing staff got a bit confused as to what a 'stardate' is to be honest - the result was a weird fusion of the 'random number' approach and just giving the Gregorian year.

No, they were careful about this - they deliberately changed the format of stardates to reflect the Gregorian year in order to make the chronology of the film more easily understandable.

And yes, the events surrounding the launch of Enterprise are some years before the beginning of the five-year mission as seen in TOS. Kirk has just managed to become captain of the ship at an even earlier age than in the oldTrek time line.

The earliest TOS stardates were so low(1312 and even lower if you count "The Magicks of Megas-Tu" in TAS as semi/quasi-canon)that I always conjectured that the stardate system as we knew it wasn't imposed on Starfleet and the Federation until just before Kirk's five year mission got underway.