wasn't it more like oh ^*%&&% can I finish this episode on time and in budget before the next one is scheduled to start filiming?
Chekov timeline
- Thread starter erastus25
- Start date
I have to agree with Beaker here although I'm not dissin' contemporary Trek here.
For me, the way they didn't explain the stardate system and made the time setting vague lent an air of mystery or exoticness to TOS. No big deal, just an aspect to the whole experience of watching TOS back in the day. I remember when first watching it thinking "just WHEN is this in the future? And what does those stardate mean?"
Sometimes the mystery is more fun than the mundane nuts and bolts explanation.
Robert
For me, the way they didn't explain the stardate system and made the time setting vague lent an air of mystery or exoticness to TOS. No big deal, just an aspect to the whole experience of watching TOS back in the day. I remember when first watching it thinking "just WHEN is this in the future? And what does those stardate mean?"
Sometimes the mystery is more fun than the mundane nuts and bolts explanation.
Robert
For me, a large part of the fun is imagining the nuts-and-bolts that might be behind a "real" starship or Starfleet. Filling in those blanks helps me imagine an even richer universe than we see on the screen. On the other hand, I'm not one of those who feels that the people making the movies and TV shows are somehow obliged to conform to my theories.
Edit: I'm obviously not referring to hofner here.
People,
The irony of the stardate discussion here is that ultimately, I'm not really bothered too much by the inconsistency in TOS's version of stardates. I think TNG did a better job of having some rational structure behind the stardates.
Another point I'd like to make: As a show develops, writers try to create some internal consistency as time goes on. It makes sense that TPTB would try to clear up aspects of a fictional show's inner universe that seem confusing or contradictory, esp. one that's been around for more than 40 years with such a picayune fan base.
Red Ranger
The irony of the stardate discussion here is that ultimately, I'm not really bothered too much by the inconsistency in TOS's version of stardates. I think TNG did a better job of having some rational structure behind the stardates.
Another point I'd like to make: As a show develops, writers try to create some internal consistency as time goes on. It makes sense that TPTB would try to clear up aspects of a fictional show's inner universe that seem confusing or contradictory, esp. one that's been around for more than 40 years with such a picayune fan base.
Red Ranger
Actually, since Chekov says on-screen in a 2267 episode("Adonais?")that he's 22 years old at the time you can sort of conclude that he was a pretty recent Academy graduate, green and came aboard the Enterprise just before the Khan incident...probably on the lower decks.
Good catch! Certainly there's nothing explicit against Chekov being new in "Catspaw" even when there is nothing truly explicit for it in that episode.
If we go by the 1000 SD/yr theory, "What Are Little Girls Made Of" is the earliest episode where a 22-yr-old Chekov could plausibly be aboard. If he's to be there from the very beginning, we could say he enrolled in the Academy at 17 rather than 18 (since we know that this is perfectly possible in the 24th century at least).
Luckily the stardate overlap problem affects two episodes only: "Miri" and "Corbomite". And if we want to evoke two misquoted stardates for TOS (to work around these) and two for TNG (to sweep away the Yar problem), I don't think this yet counts as discrediting the entire stardate system.
Timo Saloniemi
If we go by the 1000 SD/yr theory, "What Are Little Girls Made Of" is the earliest episode where a 22-yr-old Chekov could plausibly be aboard. If he's to be there from the very beginning, we could say he enrolled in the Academy at 17 rather than 18 (since we know that this is perfectly possible in the 24th century at least).
Luckily the stardate overlap problem affects two episodes only: "Miri" and "Corbomite". And if we want to evoke two misquoted stardates for TOS (to work around these) and two for TNG (to sweep away the Yar problem), I don't think this yet counts as discrediting the entire stardate system.
Timo Saloniemi
Is timeline really that important.
To me the important thing is that Chekov was added to the bridge as a permanent fixture.
That combo of bridge members in TOS was really well done.
To me the important thing is that Chekov was added to the bridge as a permanent fixture.
That combo of bridge members in TOS was really well done.
But you don't have to evoke any misquoted stardates if you use production order.
The TOS and TAS stardates are a frustrating and mixed bag at best. If you had to base "when" a Kirk-era story happens based solely on stardate, then the TAS animated story "The Magicks of Megas-Tu" would take place before the Gary Lockwood/Sally Kellerman live action pilot. Yet in "Megas-Tu" McCoy is aboard and they're all wearing regular series black-collar tunics and uniforms, meaning it happens AFTER the second pilot. Possibly as late as the last year or so of the five-year mission.
Or, since four-digit stardates are pretty uninformative in the long run if one assumes that a thousand dates comprise a year, "Magicks" happened on a different decade from TOS. 
That is, the four-digit dates of TOS are just truncated forms, much like a military log of today would have the year as 07 rather than 2007. In fact, the full date would have six or seven digits, but the writers generally assume that the readers know which decade, century or millennium is being discussed.
(No, the "different decades" thing doesn't completely hold water, because there isn't enough space between TOS and TMP for a whole spread of TAS episodes. Not even if we pick and choose, and only move the worst TAS offenders to the next decade while happily interjecting the others in between TOS episodes despite the off chance that the TAS episode might show a glimpse of that extra bridge door...
...OTOH, there's nothing wrong with thinking that M'Ress and Arex were aboard at the time of "Mudd's Women", and served bridge watches when Uhura and Chekov were off duty.)
Timo Saloniemi
That is, the four-digit dates of TOS are just truncated forms, much like a military log of today would have the year as 07 rather than 2007. In fact, the full date would have six or seven digits, but the writers generally assume that the readers know which decade, century or millennium is being discussed.
(No, the "different decades" thing doesn't completely hold water, because there isn't enough space between TOS and TMP for a whole spread of TAS episodes. Not even if we pick and choose, and only move the worst TAS offenders to the next decade while happily interjecting the others in between TOS episodes despite the off chance that the TAS episode might show a glimpse of that extra bridge door...
...OTOH, there's nothing wrong with thinking that M'Ress and Arex were aboard at the time of "Mudd's Women", and served bridge watches when Uhura and Chekov were off duty.)
Timo Saloniemi
I knew one guy on another messageboard who excused this by saying that the new uniforms in "Magicks" were in the testing phase, and it ended up that the material was itchy, so they sent them back to the drawing board (and were soon refined to be less irritating).
I can't really fault him for a little mania, since I'm a bit OCD with my timelining myself, but I think that method of explaining a non-sequitor was certainly...creative.
^
Creative excuse...but still an excuse.
"Magicks", like all other TAS episodes, is generally regarded as non-canon but almost universally assumed by those who do care and follow them to take place during or right after the regular live action series...and well after the two TOS pilots.
Creative excuse...but still an excuse.
"Magicks", like all other TAS episodes, is generally regarded as non-canon but almost universally assumed by those who do care and follow them to take place during or right after the regular live action series...and well after the two TOS pilots.
...By the 1000 SD/yr theory, "Magicks" could take place either before "No Man", or then ten years after it, during the putative second five-year mission. Which by current dating, and assuming that the 5000 range stardates on TOS S3 represented the final year of the first 5yr mission, 2269/70, would place it around 2276. Still time for it to happen before TMP, which could take place as late as 2278 (but should perhaps take place in 2281 if the theory is to be extended to movie stardates, despite another uniform conflict with TNG "Cause and Effect").
In comparison, by the theory that TOS stardates were counted from the moment a specific ship departed on a mission, and were specific to individual missions, "Magicks" could simply be the first adventure on the second 5yr run, at any year after 2270 when we know the first sortie to have ended but before 2276 when the second one must have been over to allow for TMP.
As regards the third classic cop-out, Kirk only says the stardate in "Magicks" once. And "Onetwofivefour point four" does sound pretty much the same as "(Se)ventwofivefour point four".
(Not that 7254.4 would be much better, of course, as it conflicts with TMP.)
Timo Saloniemi
In comparison, by the theory that TOS stardates were counted from the moment a specific ship departed on a mission, and were specific to individual missions, "Magicks" could simply be the first adventure on the second 5yr run, at any year after 2270 when we know the first sortie to have ended but before 2276 when the second one must have been over to allow for TMP.
As regards the third classic cop-out, Kirk only says the stardate in "Magicks" once. And "Onetwofivefour point four" does sound pretty much the same as "(Se)ventwofivefour point four".
(Not that 7254.4 would be much better, of course, as it conflicts with TMP.)
Timo Saloniemi
Similar threads
