Chekov timeline
- Thread starter erastus25
- Start date
One can only hope...
As for the stardate discussion - I'm a firm believer that if you apply them to one series you have to apply them to all series. That being the case, Tasha Yar's death does not fit into stardate order and that, to me, would seem to be the most grievous inconsistency of them all thereby making stardate order unreliable.
Damn, I thought this thread was going to be an exhaustive, step-by-step look at Chekov's life, which would include such gems as:
Stardate 8130.4: large chunk of Chekov's brain pulled out through his ear by egress of Ceti Eel, resulting in severe mental retardation and regression to cognitive level of a 10-year-old. Senior crew's close friendship with Chekov resulted in them never mentioning this either to him or Starfleet Command, allowing him to continue his career as a bridge officer.
Stardate 8130.4: large chunk of Chekov's brain pulled out through his ear by egress of Ceti Eel, resulting in severe mental retardation and regression to cognitive level of a 10-year-old. Senior crew's close friendship with Chekov resulted in them never mentioning this either to him or Starfleet Command, allowing him to continue his career as a bridge officer.
The Okuda timelines tend to have Chekov coming aboard the NCC-1701 as a newly-graduated ensign at the beginning of 2267...mere weeks or a couple of months prior to "Space Seed," and he was assigned to the lower decks of the ship based on non-canonical novel material I've read and tend to agree with. Starting later that year and on-screen with "Catspaw," he got a cushy bridge posting.
People,
When I first saw TWOK, I remember being a bit bugged by the inconsistency of Khan recognizing Chekov and vice versa, but that was a long time ago. I now accept that it's possible Chekov was on Enterprise but serving on the lower decks.
There are a number of TOS precedents. First, Lt. Riley had served in the lower decks/engineering as stated in dialogue in "The Conscience of the King." Also, Lt. Bailey from "The Corbomite Maneuver" had been promoted to serve as a bridge officer from another department, as Kirk and McCoy indicate when they're talking about his performance. And Lt. Stiles from "Balance of Terror" had done a stint in phaser control earlier in his career before he became a bridge officer.
So as a newly minted ensign, maybe Chekov did a rotation in either engineering or security. If he was in security, he might have met Khan right before the dinner scene, perhaps even sent to escort Khan to the dinner, and perhaps he and Khan made a little small talk. That's how I like to imagine their meeting in my own personal canon.
Red Ranger
When I first saw TWOK, I remember being a bit bugged by the inconsistency of Khan recognizing Chekov and vice versa, but that was a long time ago. I now accept that it's possible Chekov was on Enterprise but serving on the lower decks.
There are a number of TOS precedents. First, Lt. Riley had served in the lower decks/engineering as stated in dialogue in "The Conscience of the King." Also, Lt. Bailey from "The Corbomite Maneuver" had been promoted to serve as a bridge officer from another department, as Kirk and McCoy indicate when they're talking about his performance. And Lt. Stiles from "Balance of Terror" had done a stint in phaser control earlier in his career before he became a bridge officer.
So as a newly minted ensign, maybe Chekov did a rotation in either engineering or security. If he was in security, he might have met Khan right before the dinner scene, perhaps even sent to escort Khan to the dinner, and perhaps he and Khan made a little small talk. That's how I like to imagine their meeting in my own personal canon.
Red Ranger
Amen, Ceridwen Troy. Amen!
Do you have something to say?
I think the word "adversarial" could be substituted for "condescending", too...
Not necessarily in the same format, though. But yeah, I like to think that TOS and TNG stardates are essentially the same, too.
However, TAS is the only one where the writers never made any effort to stay chronological with the stardates. In all the other shows and the movie series, there was at least a token effort to that effect, and the few exceptions actually work to the favor of continuity in TOS. Too bad they work against continuity during TNG's first season...
In addition to Yar's death, there's not much wrong with having TNG S1 in stardate order, though. And it might be noted that the penultimate/ultimate script (as found on TrekCore) actually has the nearly problem-free SD 41801.3 for Yar's last episode, rather than the problematic aired 41601.3.
Furthermore, "Skin of Evil" only has that single reference to a stardate during the entire episode. We could easily assume Picard misspoke there, like we must when Riker later on uses a four-digit stardate in the middle of an episode that began with a routine five-digit one. Assume that a similar one-off mistake with a single digit happened in "The Big Goodbye", and all is good and consistent in the world again.
So I'm still go for total stardate order for all things save TAS...
Timo Saloniemi
Not necessarily in the same format, though. But yeah, I like to think that TOS and TNG stardates are essentially the same, too.
However, TAS is the only one where the writers never made any effort to stay chronological with the stardates. In all the other shows and the movie series, there was at least a token effort to that effect, and the few exceptions actually work to the favor of continuity in TOS. Too bad they work against continuity during TNG's first season...
In addition to Yar's death, there's not much wrong with having TNG S1 in stardate order, though. And it might be noted that the penultimate/ultimate script (as found on TrekCore) actually has the nearly problem-free SD 41801.3 for Yar's last episode, rather than the problematic aired 41601.3.
Furthermore, "Skin of Evil" only has that single reference to a stardate during the entire episode. We could easily assume Picard misspoke there, like we must when Riker later on uses a four-digit stardate in the middle of an episode that began with a routine five-digit one. Assume that a similar one-off mistake with a single digit happened in "The Big Goodbye", and all is good and consistent in the world again.
So I'm still go for total stardate order for all things save TAS...
Timo Saloniemi
I'm a little bit against attributing errors in stardates to mistakes by the characters simply because there's nothing to help us determine what's a mistake and what's not! Plus, from that perspective there are so many "mistakes" that starfleet wouldn't be able to trust the log entries. It seems like they would do something about it.
On the other hand - I do see your point that saying, just once, that Picard screwed would be a big help in fixing all of this.
And here I thought you could read between the lines. Guess I overestimated your abilities.
Let me spell it out for you. I'm agreeing with Ceridwen Troy about your incessant need to post one-line criticisms of anything that doesn't meet your narrow view. If you don't like the topic, why do you feel the need to post obnoxious, antagonistic replies?
How's that? Clear enough for you, counselor?
Red Ranger
No, I'm just tired of your passive-aggressive cheerleading. About time you actually spoke for yourself. Ceridwen's response to me was reasonable; you on the other hand were just being a jackass.
The fact is the stardates were deliberately created so people wouldn't focus on the unimportant things. There is no system to them. You can look at my morning shit and tell me you can tell the future from it, but it doesn't make it so, and it doesn't make my bm worthy of in-depth analysis.
It's not a question of liking or not liking the topic. and it's certainly not an issue of "my view." It's a FACT. AND there was nothing antagonistic about my post. You, on the other hand, appear incapable of discussing the matter civilly.
And I (and others) are just tired of you, period. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You're the king of passive-aggressive, and at other times, progressive-aggressive, on this BBS. So amen to anyone who calls you out for being uncivil. Don't like it? Don't be such a jackass in the future and you won't get responses like mine and Ceridwen's. Civlity goes both ways, counselor. Frankly, your view of civility doesn't agree with a lot of other folks' here. Look at how Timo calmly discusses his disagreements with other posters. Try to model yourself after his approach and you won't get slammed. -- RR
OK guys. Knock the crap off. Both of you. It's just a TV show made to sell laundry soap or whatever. Fighting over 40 year old details is just retarded anyhow. Do you really think that the writers were sitting there going, "Well gee, in 40 years, someone is going to argue over this detail. Better make sure things are consistent and document it!"
It's Friday. Finish work, log off and go have a drink.
It's Friday. Finish work, log off and go have a drink.
Erastus25,
Thanks for your support. It had to be said, after all! I happen to like discussing minutiae.
Red Ranger
Can I have some of your Romulan ale if I log off? 
And actually, I wasn't really fighting over the details, just the attitude of a particular poster. -- RR
And actually, I wasn't really fighting over the details, just the attitude of a particular poster. -- RRI like it too! It's kind of fun. Although, I think the reason we end up with these conflicts is the changing nature of the show over time. Back in 1967 the stardates were completely irrelevant, as Beaker noted. But, as fans like ourselves began to discuss them the creators did begin to pay a ton of attention to such details. So, really, the conflict lies in the fact that some fans prefer to take the viewpoint originally intended whereas others take the revised view. Ultimately, that makes these conflicts are unresolvable (I realize that is an obvious observation, but I think it needed to be said)!
The only way to resolve all of this would be to take a complete postmodern viewpoint and claim that the viewer and not the "author" determines the meaning of what is viewed. The problem with that viewpoint is that it may itself conflict with the original Star Trek vision. I hope some of that made some kind of sense...
As you wish. I'll let the record speak for itself.
Similar threads
