Chronologies and Timelines

[Christopher]

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?!

For what it's worth, Harve Bennett has said that there was a 6-month shakedown cruise between IV & V, though that wouldn't account for the Okudas' timing. But yes, based on what's onscreen, it feels like the gap between IV & V is more on the order of weeks than months.

 

[Mysterion]

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?!

For what it's worth, Harve Bennett has said that there was a 6-month shakedown cruise between IV & V, though that wouldn't account for the Okudas' timing. But yes, based on what's onscreen, it feels like the gap between IV & V is more on the order of weeks than months.

Given the condition of Enterprise at the beginning of TFF, I agree with Christopher that it could not have been too long since the end of TVH. If it had been six months as Harve Bennett suggests, surely Scotty would have corrected things.

 

[TheAlmanac]

^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.

I couldn't find the thread on this site that you're talking about, but I always suspected that the Okudas' placement of ST III-V was an unspoken nod to the DC Comics storyline. They couldn't acknowledge it because it's not canon (and I presume they weren't supposed to be making such allowances), but by spreading out the dates without elaborating on why, the comics can fit in the gaps--much the same way that they conjectured a second FYM when, from a canon-purist POV, there's no evidence of that.

If you think of the DC stories as "having happened," the dating suddenly makes a lot more sense--with II and III on either end of 2285, the Excelsior stories covering 2285-2286, IV at the tail end of 2286, and V in early 2287.

 

[Jbarney]

If you think of the DC stories as "having happened," the dating suddenly makes a lot more sense--with II and III on either end of 2285, the Excelsior stories covering 2285-2286, IV at the tail end of 2286, and V in early 2287.

I'm not sure how much that works. The Chronology came out well after those movies. I'm sure Okuda was well aware of the line at the beginning of Star Trek IV where Kirk stated it was the 3rd month of their Vulcan exile.

Don't get me wrong, I would agree with any attempt to acknowledge those comic stories, but I'm not sure Okuda looked at the movie information that way. Those comic stories were awesome.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I'm not sure Okuda looked at the movie information that way.

Well, he didn't, and the premise of ignoring the licensed tie-ins is pretty clear up-front. But once the Chronology and Encyclopedia came out, the Pocket and DC writers were actually asked to defer to dates and spellings (even typos, as it turned out) in those books in an effort to get some consistency.

Hence some novelists reported ShiKahr being rendered "ShirKahr" in their final manuscripts. Etc.

 

[Broccoli]

Well, you could argue that the final 15 minutes of TVH was spaced out over several months. Who knows how long it was between the landing of the whales and the trial and then how long it was between the trial and the delivery of the ship. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a couple of months (at least between the landing of the whales and the trial).

 

[TheAlmanac]

If you think of the DC stories as "having happened," the dating suddenly makes a lot more sense--with II and III on either end of 2285, the Excelsior stories covering 2285-2286, IV at the tail end of 2286, and V in early 2287.

I'm not sure how much that works. The Chronology came out well after those movies. I'm sure Okuda was well aware of the line at the beginning of Star Trek IV where Kirk stated it was the 3rd month of their Vulcan exile.

Don't get me wrong, I would agree with any attempt to acknowledge those comic stories, but I'm not sure Okuda looked at the movie information that way. Those comic stories were awesome.

Of course, he was aware of that line--just as he was aware of the two main characters in TWOK mentioning "fifteen years" even though they never meet face-to-face or compare notes.

Since it sounds like you've read the stories in questions, you'll know that they depict the "Vulcan exile" as starting after the crew's stint on the Excelsior...

I'm not sure Okuda looked at the movie information that way.

Well, he didn't, and the premise of ignoring the licensed tie-ins is pretty clear up-front.

I don't know...

It always seemed to me like a lot of the chronological weirdness of the Okudachron could be explained by the Okudas "ignoring" the tie-ins in an official sense (i.e. in terms of the actual entries and preamble), but still constructing the dates in such a way as to allow for certain longstanding tie-in assumptions (e.g. the second FYM, the comics' depiction of what happened between movies) to remain standing, when they could've just as easily been hardcore canon purists and squished the dates closer together, leaving a lot of those previous titles out in the cold.

 

[Timo]

On the ST4 vs. ST5 issue, the final fifteen minutes of the former could indeed have been very, very long. For all we knew back then (or now, even), our heroes had been sitting on their hands while Starfleet built them a new ship from scratch! At the very least, there would be bureaucracy involved, and that does remain the one constant in the universe... Things like that don't happen overnight.

OTOH, the stardates might be considered relevant, too. ST2 through 5 have theirs back to back in the early 8000s: ST2 is 8130, ST4 is 8390 while ST5 has 8454. This would best work if the four movies indeed took place within a year (even if this year was split between, say, 2285 and 2286). One might even see "writer intent" in those dates. Which raises the question of whether such intent should count for anything in itself.

I cannot imagine any other reason for the 2287 date of ST5 beyond the silly "20 years sharp since first Romulan re-encounter" thing, and I do loathe the "20 years sharp" doctrine of assumptions. On the issue of the Valiant being lost 200 years sharp in the past of "Where No Man", the assumption is even explicitly false, because the ship went missing "over two centuries ago" by Kirk's words. Supposedly, she wasn't reported missing the very day she was launched, either...

However, does the Chronology have consequences in this respect? Has any date in any book been fixed in relation to the 2287 assumption of ST5? Or is it merely a headache for those who want to know the exact date of ST5 and then divide the books into those taking place before and after that date because they take place before and after that movie, respectively? Nudging ST5 back and forth shouldn't be that big a problem, I'd think...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Therin of Andor]

still constructing the dates in such a way as to allow for certain longstanding tie-in assumptions (e.g. the second FYM...)

Well, the Okudas do speculate there was a second 5YM, but this is probably more to acknowledge "Phase II". Numerous early Pocket novels assumed the second mission was between TOS and TMP, but later ones assumed post-TMP.

 

[Christopher]

It always seemed to me like a lot of the chronological weirdness of the Okudachron could be explained by the Okudas "ignoring" the tie-ins in an official sense (i.e. in terms of the actual entries and preamble), but still constructing the dates in such a way as to allow for certain longstanding tie-in assumptions (e.g. the second FYM, the comics' depiction of what happened between movies) to remain standing, when they could've just as easily been hardcore canon purists and squished the dates closer together, leaving a lot of those previous titles out in the cold.

But on the other hand, there's their insistence that TOS represented the last three years of the 5-year mission, which ruled out the animated series and the overwhelming majority of TOS novels and comics. Indeed, there seems to be no other reason for doing such a thing than specifically to preclude TAS and the novels. (Unless it's to be consistent with The Making of ST's claim that Kirk had been in command for four years as of the second season.) Fortunately, VGR contradicted the Okudachron and put the end of the 5YM in 2270 rather than '69, giving a year's leeway.

 

[ProwlAlpha]

I think the year difference between TVH and TFF is plausible especially if you see as a shakedown and certification trials. It would take a while to work out the bugs in the Ent-A, and if Scotty is fixing everything himself (or having to review everything done by subordinates) from the Captain's Log Recorder to the Warp Core, he wouldn't be done by TUC.

 

[Jbarney]

On the ST4 vs. ST5 issue, the final fifteen minutes of the former could indeed have been very, very long. For all we knew back then (or now, even), our heroes had been sitting on their hands while Starfleet built them a new ship from scratch! At the very least, there would be bureaucracy involved, and that does remain the one constant in the universe... Things like that don't happen overnight.

You know, you may have a point here, and I will have to check the novelization of Star Trek IV for some details, but the last scenes in that film really could have taken up some time. First, in order for Kirk to get command of another vessel, some time would have passed. He had just stolen the old Enterprise and been involved in another incident with the Klingons, so I don't think 3 months on Vulcan would have meant anything to Starfleet. They would have wanted his hide. Their attitude only changed, obviously, after he saved Earth....but its not like they could assign a new vessel to him ASAP....there must have been some time that elapsed.

Also, the issue of Taylor....its not like Starfleet would have said...ah, cool....somebody from Earth's past.....lets send her out to explore the galaxy. Seems like there would have been some effort to make sure she was ready to serve in space. Something that would not have taken place over a week or two.

 

[Christopher]

Also, the issue of Taylor....its not like Starfleet would have said...ah, cool....somebody from Earth's past.....lets send her out to explore the galaxy. Seems like there would have been some effort to make sure she was ready to serve in space. Something that would not have taken place over a week or two.

What made you think she was going to serve in space? What she said in the movie was that she was going to serve on a ship. She never said a spaceship. The logical interpretation is that it was a seagoing ship from which she would study George and Gracie. After all, she's the only living expert on humpback whales -- she'd have to stay with George and Gracie. Presumably that was the primary reason she came to the future anyway. So I'll never understand why so many people assume that when she said she was going to a ship, she meant a spaceship.

 

[TheAlmanac]

^ 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?

FWIW, this isn't all that uncommon in genre-timeline contexts...

The Firefly Timeline, for example, is entirely conjectured and extrapolated around one date spoken aloud in the series--and that date doesn't even include a year!

Now, that's scary.

 

[Timo]

What made you think she was going to serve in space? What she said in the movie was that she was going to serve on a ship. She never said a spaceship. The logical interpretation is that it was a seagoing ship from which she would study George and Gracie. After all, she's the only living expert on humpback whales -- she'd have to stay with George and Gracie. Presumably that was the primary reason she came to the future anyway. So I'll never understand why so many people assume that when she said she was going to a ship, she meant a spaceship.

And Gillian, jumping out of joy at the prospect of a new assignment, certainly wouldn't be assuming she needed to specify "non-starship" when saying "ship". To her 20th century mind, a ship that goes to the stars is the one that needs a specifier - a "ship" or a "vessel" by default is seagoing.

OTOH, we are only assuming that the 23rd century needs an expert on humpback whales. George and Gracie had served their purpose already. Perhaps what had killed the whales originally was still there in the oceans, and the pair was unable to adjust - and was dead by the time of Gillian's comment already? She'd then probably be happy to travel to outer space...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[DaleC76]

It's interesting that the TVH novelization implies that she's going into space. In it, she says she's going aboard a science vessel "bound for Mer to recruit some divers to help the whales."

 

[Trent Roman]

What killed the whales originally was us--they were hunted to extinction. It would be damned sloppy to let the whales die again for whatever reason when there's a mean-tempered probe out there who likes to fry planets where whales it's expecting a call-back from fail to manifest. (Of course, there's still the problem of how to get a viable population from two individuals--some form of cloning?)

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[TheAlmanac]

It's interesting that the TVH novelization implies that she's going into space. In it, she says she's going aboard a science vessel "bound for Mer to recruit some divers to help the whales."

Well, I don't have a copy of the screenplay in front of me to look for authorial intent, but when Gillian says, "You're going to your ship, I'm going to mine," I took the "space" part for both as a given.

Motioning to her newly-minted accreditation and saying she'll "see [Kirk] around the galaxy" doesn't make much sense to me if she's just talking about doing her "three hundred years of catch-up learning" on a boat in the Pacific.

 

[Timo]

True.

Then again, the gist of Gillian's galactic statement to me seems to be "You're cute, but let's hope we never see again, and it's great that you have this profession that takes you away from Earth so often"...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Jbarney]

[/QUOTE] What made you think she was going to serve in space? What she said in the movie was that she was going to serve on a ship. She never said a spaceship. The logical interpretation is that it was a seagoing ship from which she would study George and Gracie. After all, she's the only living expert on humpback whales -- she'd have to stay with George and Gracie. Presumably that was the primary reason she came to the future anyway. So I'll never understand why so many people assume that when she said she was going to a ship, she meant a spaceship.[/QUOTE]

I see the point your making. I just always had the impression she were going into space, perhaps from her very own dialogue. Yes, she could be on a ship on Earth but if some months did take place at the end of Star Trek IV perhaps she is "assigned" to a vessel which does ocean research on many worlds, not just Earth.

I'm not speaking for others, but her moving to end the conversation with Kirk quickly and his grabbing her as though he's suprised she is leaving is some indication he doesn't know where she's going. If she were rushing to get to a ship that is leaving Earth orbit, that is just as likely as her rushing to be on a ship on Earth's oceans. She could beam to the ship on the ocean when she needed to, after all. She's only got one chance to catch a ship leaving Earth orbit.

She also says "I'll see you around the galaxy" which seems to indicate she knows she won't be on Earth all the time. Kirk inquires how he will find her, she responds "I'll find you". Well, she won't find him on Earth. His job is in space. This dialogue certainly can lead many fans to believe she will be spending some time in space.

I don't see much illogical about it.