Chronologies and Timelines

[Allyn Gibson]

Since the Okudas' Chronology was written by staffers of the actual TV shows, it has long been the policy of Paramount Licensing (now CBS Consumer Products) that tie-in material is expected to conform to the Chronology's assertions unless they are contradicted by later canonical information.

What about the circumstance where earlier canonical information contradicts the Okudas' Chronology? The dates they give for the Genesis film trilogy are nonsense because they ignore the dialogue in Star Trek II that it's fifteen years since "Space Seed." Unless we're supposed to posit that Kirk and Khan met a few years after "Space Seed," but that doesn't make sense, either.

 

[Christopher]

^By now, there have been numerous novels and short stories whose timing has followed the Okudachron's placement of TWOK in 2285, so you should already have the answer to that question. Greg Cox partly rationalized it in To Reign in Hell by making 15 Ceti Alpha V years correspond to 18 Earth years, which explains why Khan used the figure but not why Kirk did. I figure Kirk just heard Khan use it and unconsciously followed his lead, forgetting what the exact year had been when he'd first encountered Khan. After all, how many of us can always remember the exact year when something happened in our lives? I can't remember in what year I got my history degree without checking my diploma.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Just because it's cemented by other books now doesn't mean it's right, Christopher. I would have liked some explanation from the authors as to why in this one instance, ignoring the film's dialogue was necessary. I'm sure it probably had to do with the placement of Star Trek V twenty years after "Balance of Terror" for the colonization of Nimbus III, but that's just speculation on my part.

I think we need more chronologies, not less. The Okudas' book may be the Baring-Gould of Star Trek, but there's room and need for the Ronald Knoxes of the world, too.

 

[Nerroth]

In "Future's End", Henry Starling discovers that the Voyager was launched (would be launched) in 2371, meaning that "Caretaker" had to take place in that year or later; in terms of stardate continuity with DS9 and TNG, it should probably have been 2370 instead. In "Homestead", Neelix says it's the 315th anniversary of First Contact, an event that took place in 2063, suggesting the year is 2378 rather than the more desirable 2377.

Wasn't the 2371 date also in season 1, as early as Eye of the Needle?

(Granted, it didn't say when in 2371 it was by the time of that episode...)

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

I'm sure it probably had to do with the placement of Star Trek V twenty years after "Balance of Terror" for the colonization of Nimbus III, but that's just speculation on my part.

I think it was actually due to the Okudas placing TWOK in 2285, to reconcile Kirk's comment about the Romulan Ale being from 2283 and McCoy's assertion that it takes a while to ferment. The only way to make the 2285 date work with the 15 years ago reference would have been to change the dates of the 5YM, which they apparently didn't wish to do.

 

[Christopher]

Just because it's cemented by other books now doesn't mean it's right, Christopher.

Who said it was? You asked a question about what Pocket's policy was about the Okuda dating of the movies. I answered that specific question as you asked it. I made no claim as to any sort of "rightness."

I would have liked some explanation from the authors as to why in this one instance, ignoring the film's dialogue was necessary. I'm sure it probably had to do with the placement of Star Trek V twenty years after "Balance of Terror" for the colonization of Nimbus III, but that's just speculation on my part.

The explanation is that Paramount/CBS licensing expects the authors to follow the precedent of the Okudachron. If you want a rationale, ask Mike and Denise Okuda, because it was their idea.

 

[Jbarney]

The Okuda chronology just doesn't work in a couple of areas...and the Star Trek II, III, and IV time period is one of those that just doesn't fit together as good as it could or should.

One of the biggest complaints for me is Kirk's birthday. Fans have always thought Kirk's birthday was the same date as Shatner's, and while Okuda adds the conjecture comment to this placement, it totally goes against their own placement of Star Trek II.

If Star Trek IV happens in 2286, Kirk's birthday is supposed to happen 3 months before that, meaning Kirk's birthday would be in October....which does not fit their own placement/conjecture.

It is also hard to believe Star Trek V happens so far after Star Trek IV based on the Okuda placements.

 

[Christopher]

^Yep. Personally, I disagree with the Okudas' placements of the first five movies and find them bewildering. Which is why my comments about Pocket's policy to follow the Okuda dating of ST II-V are not meant to be endorsement, merely description.

There was a thread in some other forum recently (the movies forum?) that offered some explanations I hadn't thought of before for the Okudas' movie dating choices, but I can't remember them now.

 

[Mysterion]

Another good dating touchstone comes to mind: Sarek's age. IIRC, in Journey to Babel (TOS) his age is given as 102 point something. Later, he appears in the third season episode of TNG, Sarek, where his age is again given (202 and change, IIRC).

So, given the TNG first season dating of 2364 (The Neutral Zone), adding three years to get us to the fourth season of TNG where Sarek takes place we get a date of 2367. Subtracting about 100 years from that we get Journey to Babel (and TOS' second season) taking place in 2267.

And Sarek is thus born in 2165 or so.

 

[Dayton Ward]

^ Those two data points ("The Neutral Zone" and "Sarek/Journey to Babel") essentially form the entire foundation upon which the Star Trek Chronology (the book and the "timeline" itself) originally was built, at least in the "modern era." The rest is pretty much all conjecture extrapolating outward from there.

Scary, ain't it?

 

[SicOne]

At least it's a solid point of reference.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Keep in mind that "The Neutral Zone" was filmed from a first-draft script during the 1988 writers' strike. So the inclusion of the 2364 date probably didn't come about through careful consideration on the part of the writing staff.

Until then, the publicity materials had often stated the nebulous "78 years since the days of Kirk and Spock..." It sounds so definitive, but did they mean 78 years from the second pilot, the end of the 5YM, the destruction of the Enterprise in ST III, etc.? I remember at the time, it drove some fans crazy.

Another good dating touchstone comes to mind: Sarek's age. IIRC, in Journey to Babel (TOS) his age is given as 102 point something. Later, he appears in the third season episode of TNG, Sarek, where his age is again given (202 and change, IIRC).

But at the time of airing it didn't help. Because they could have meant Vulcan years.

Similarly, would bottlers of illegal Romulan ale use Federation dates on labels?

 

[JoeZhang]

It is also hard to believe Star Trek V happens so far after Star Trek IV based on the Okuda placements.

How long are we talking?

 

[Christopher]

It is also hard to believe Star Trek V happens so far after Star Trek IV based on the Okuda placements.

How long are we talking?

The Okudas place II & III in 2285, IV in 2286, and V in 2287. Now, as someone mentioned above, their placement of TFF was probably compelled by Nimbus III, which supposedly had been established jointly by the Federation, Klingons, and Romulans 20 years before the film. But as of "Balance of Terror" in late 2266, there was no contact between the UFP and the Romulans. So if you take the "20 years" reference as exact, the film has to come after 2286.

Of course, that's another of my beefs with the Okudachron -- the insistence on treating every round-number figure as an exact date. If something was said to happen 200 years before, the Chronology puts it exactly 200 years before, never 202 or 194 or anything. Which is particularly egregious with the Valiant in "Where No Man...," which by that scheme would've had to be launched only a couple of years after Cochrane's first warp flight, which is patently absurd. If nothing else, the Okudas should've abandoned exactness on that date, put it something like 180 years before the episode instead.

 

[William Leisner]

^ Well, in the case of the Valiant, they set that date in the first edition, before First Contact established a first warp flight date, and just never bothered retconning. The problem isn't that the Okudas used round numbers; it's that other people ignore the explanatory notes in the Chronology forward and chose to take those round number as Holy Writ.

 

[Christopher]

^Actually the first edition of the Chrono puts Cochrane's first flight in 2061, just two years before the date locked down in First Contact. Which still puts a 2065 date for the Valiant insanely close. Even an estimate of 200 years doesn't work there. (Yes, I checked. I still have the first edition of the Chrono as well as the second, since the first edition has some photos that aren't in the second.)

 

[Thrawn]

The Okudas place II & III in 2285, IV in 2286, and V in 2287.

What did they DO for a year? Sit around in the new ship and feel giggly while running into inoperative doors every time they left a room?!

 

[Mysterion]

Therin - I would personally assume terran calendar years unless specified as someting else in dialogue.

 

[Jbarney]

It is also hard to believe Star Trek V happens so far after Star Trek IV based on the Okuda placements.

How long are we talking?

Well, based on how far into 2286 Star Trek IV happpens there is supposed to be a year to 9 months between the two films....

 

[JD]

A year!? When I watched it I had assumed it was only days or weeks later. But TBH I never really paid any attention to when things took place in relation to each other until I started reading the books, and hanging out here.