Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

[trevanian]

EDIT ADDON: Man, I miss Dixon. I got a few warnings defending his views, and didn't mind those in the slightest. Guy really had a good line on the whole Enterprise-class thing as I recall.

It's been awhile, Trev! Good to see you still fighting the fight.

Yeah, Dixon- for all his faults- really defined what it meant to be a Trekkie. He was the "fan" in "fanatic" to be sure. And because his inversely iconoclastic views were from a different era of Star Trek fandom, his prowling a place like the TrekBBS was like letting a velociraptor loose in Time Square. It was never bound to end well. But hell, that chronology of his... Wow. Just... Wow.

James Dixon can be found on this forum here. Most of the members, if not all, are James Dixon.

That last bit makes me think of the quantum realities TNG ... am imagining Dixon as Riker shouting: The Dennis Baileys are EVERYWHERE!

(okay, I just saw the red band EVIL DEAD trailer and that grossed me out ALMOST as much as this thought.)

 

[Mysterion]

James Dixon can be found on this forum here. Most of the members, if not all, are James Dixon.

I think the person posting there as "Xon" is most definitely Dixon.

 

[Ronald Held]

Update the prime universe chronology. The jjverse may not last more than 3 movies and the mirror universe is likely to be of longer duration

 

[aridas sofia]

I wish I could agree with you, Mysterion. But unless he has had an "inner voice" transplant, Xon just doesn't ring JD to me.

I feel kinda responsible for the disappearance of the King of all Chronologies. I came down on him kinda hard when he stirred the pot at the old FRS forum a little too vigorously. The fact is, the voices of these people that so loved Star Trek that they could pick apart every little bit of minutiae and give it some sense of reason and order-- whether that be an Okuda or a James Dixon -- are not to be thrown away so carelessly. JJTrek has roots, and those roots extend back to stuff about which the folks that are buying tickets today often have no clue. We can believe that JJ's nebulous, action-packed blur, divorced from all Gene Roddenberry's talky bits, is what has made Trek big money. Maybe so. But there is some reason this reinvention was done with Trek and not something else like B5 or Buck Rogers. There is a heart that beats at the bottom of Trek that guys like Dixon understand and that those living off today's fat should ill ignore.

 

[Grant]

There's a wonderful book out there, an over-sized paperback called THE STAR TREK CHRONOLOGY.

It's a detailed timeline that puts dates to TOS. "The Cage" is in 2253, WNM is 2265, the first season is 2266-67, and so on.

Paramount considers it canon. I accept it as such. Do you?

With every fibre of my being.

 

[Mysterion]

I wish I could agree with you, Mysterion. But unless he has had an "inner voice" transplant, Xon just doesn't ring JD to me.

You may be right. However, check out this post:

I am just too much of a "purist" to enjoy their fixing-up of TOS. The series was state-of-the-art in the special effects department back in the 60's and survived for decades without anyone's intervention. The more I've watched of these "remastered" episodes the more I dislike them because of all the liberties taken. It's like George Lucas constantly changing scenes in the classic Star Wars trilogy for no freaking good reason. I want to marvel at the original decades afterwards. Some CGI splices cause serious contradictions in our Treknical nit-picking world. Hell, some are just plain un-needed flash which contradict the episode itself. For instance, the asteroid deflector beam fired from the obelisk in "The Paradise Syndrome" was stated as being a blue or green flame by Kirk's injun lover. With the redone effects, the beam being emitted is Red! We also see many ships we had never seen before, added in just to give the starscape more activity, things like a Daedalus class vessel despite it stated on-screen in "Power Play" that these ships were decommissioned around the turn of the 23rd century. Annoying crap like that. They also give us starship NCCs that contradict the classic Franz Joseph registry listings so that the holy Encyclopedia has more merit over Fandom.
At times entire ships are redesigned in CGI: the SS Aurora in "The Way to Eden" looks nothing like it did in the original. The "Doomsday Machine" itself is larger and different in approach. Klingon ships have burning impulse engines (in the Wrong location if you go by Michael McMaster's blueprints). The classic Enterprise has burning red impulse engines, suggesting they are functioning more like they did in ST-TMP which suggests an alteration in TOS technology itself. Had they been simple fusion engines, Matt Jefferies crew would have put a lamp back there, don't ya think? The Enterprise's phasers are also now constantly blue beams as though they are permanently incapable of changing the banks settings, and the more I see of the Enterprise the more CGI-ish, or Cartoony it apears to me. Never being against CGI, I always appreciated it when others were quick to point out how "fake" it looked at times, but having a long-standing love with the old Enterprise, everytime I see this thing in CGI the more I say it looks fake. The old physical model had what the CGI model didn't have: a real Physical existence. All this remaking and replacing of the classic models with computer clicks seems a great disservice to those original creators, in my opinion.

Even the name Remastered is Misleading. Re-Plastered is closer to the mark, as It implies something new being places on something old.

Now the writing style is quite a bit more calmer than JD's stuff tended to be in the past, and the punctuation and capitalization are all of a much more normal style than he used typically. But, this reads to me like something from a Dixon who finally started using prozac. Still raging against the Okuda's of the world, but in a kinder gentler manner.

 

[aridas sofia]

Yeah... maybe. I can see what you mean. The lack of ellipsis, the word choice, all seem a little off. But you might be right. It just may be that he's getting older.

Anyhow, to stay on point, when it comes to subjects like this, his presence is missed. Because canon has a function to those who depend on continuity, not the rest of us. My 1960s-70s Trek is different from somebody elses 1980s-90s Trek is different from the JJTrek of today. It's all good. And it's all different and should not be smashed together in one weird homogenous mass.

 

[Myko]

There are pages out there suggesting James Dixon commited suicide, no idea if they are true.

 

[Warped9]

I don't agree with a lot of the Okuda chronology nor did I agree with a lot in the Spaceflight Chronology. So if they ever did issue an updated chronology with a nod to JJ's Trek I'd hardly be troubled by it now.

There really is no definitive chronology since the author's themselves essentially admitted as much. In a similar vein there is no definitive Trek technical reference manual either.

And candidly I have a lot more fun with the explanations fans come up with than what the "official" experts settle on.

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

EliyahuQeoni has a quote from Leonard Nimoy in his sig, which sums up the difference between your mindset and his:

Canon is only important to certain people because they have to cling to their knowledge of the minutiae. Open your mind! Be a Star Trek fan and open your mind and say, 'Where does Star Trek want to take me now'

That reads like typical Nimoy being the eternal cheerleader. .

The way I read it, is the idea that too many fans get so wrapped up in canon and what is "real" Star Trek and what isn't that they end up not enjoying certain forms of Trek just because they're not canonical or because they contradict something else. I mean, I enjoy nitpicking and retconning as much as the next geek, but above all Trek is supposed to be entertaining.

Yes, Checkov's age in Trek '09 doesn't mesh with his age in TOS. Can it be reconciled? Yes, because his birth is after Nero's incursion. But even if it couldn't, does that one line of dialogue ruin the entire film? No.

In TOS it is said that Vulcan has no moon. In TMP it has a moon. Yes, it can be "explained" but this discrepancy doesn't change the quality of the movie.

Just my thoughts,

 

[ZapBrannigan]

EliyahuQeoni has a quote from Leonard Nimoy in his sig, which sums up the difference between your mindset and his:

Canon is only important to certain people because they have to cling to their knowledge of the minutiae. Open your mind! Be a Star Trek fan and open your mind and say, 'Where does Star Trek want to take me now'

While filming TOS, Leonard Nimoy was notorious for defending the "integrity" of his character, fighting weekly to ensure that Spock's established traits, values, and history were never contradicted. But apparently his concern didn't extend much beyond his own part in the show.

 

[ZapBrannigan]

The fact is, the voices of these people that so loved Star Trek that they could pick apart every little bit of minutiae and give it some sense of reason and order-- whether that be an Okuda or a James Dixon -- are not to be thrown away so carelessly. JJTrek has roots, and those roots extend back to stuff about which the folks that are buying tickets today often have no clue. We can believe that JJ's nebulous, action-packed blur, divorced from all Gene Roddenberry's talky bits, is what has made Trek big money. Maybe so. But there is some reason this reinvention was done with Trek and not something else like B5 or Buck Rogers. There is a heart that beats at the bottom of Trek that guys like Dixon understand and that those living off today's fat should ill ignore.

Well said! JJ is a STAR WARS fan and that's what he stamped upon STAR TREK, altering its identity and style beyond recognition. I will still go see the new one, but with heavy misgivings.

 

[trevanian]

EliyahuQeoni has a quote from Leonard Nimoy in his sig, which sums up the difference between your mindset and his:

Canon is only important to certain people because they have to cling to their knowledge of the minutiae. Open your mind! Be a Star Trek fan and open your mind and say, 'Where does Star Trek want to take me now'

While filming TOS, Leonard Nimoy was notorious for defending the "integrity" of his character, fighting weekly to ensure that Spock's established traits, values, and history were never contradicted. But apparently his concern didn't extend much beyond his own part in the show.

Yeah, even Doohan said (before TMP came out) that Nimoy was concerned with his character but Shatner was concerned with THE SHOW.

 

[Landru47]

The fact is, the voices of these people that so loved Star Trek that they could pick apart every little bit of minutiae and give it some sense of reason and order-- whether that be an Okuda or a James Dixon -- are not to be thrown away so carelessly. JJTrek has roots, and those roots extend back to stuff about which the folks that are buying tickets today often have no clue. We can believe that JJ's nebulous, action-packed blur, divorced from all Gene Roddenberry's talky bits, is what has made Trek big money. Maybe so. But there is some reason this reinvention was done with Trek and not something else like B5 or Buck Rogers. There is a heart that beats at the bottom of Trek that guys like Dixon understand and that those living off today's fat should ill ignore.

Well said! JJ is a STAR WARS fan and that's what he stamped upon STAR TREK, altering its identity and style beyond recognition. I will still go see the new one, but with heavy misgivings.

Don't, all you're doing by paying to see the movie is giving them your support and encouraging them to produce more. I will never spend money on Abrams-verse.

 

[BillJ]

JJ is a STAR WARS fan and that's what he stamped upon STAR TREK, altering its identity and style beyond recognition.

Huh?

I haven't been around since the 60's, but I've been a fan of Trek since 1975. I love Star Trek: The Motion Picture and am lukewarm towards Star Trek 2009 but if you asked me which one was actually closer in spirit to TOS, I'd say it was the 2009 film. Hell, I've often joked the best TNG film was Star Trek: The Motion Picture.

So I have no idea where you're coming from when you say that "JJ is a STAR WARS fan and that's what he stamped upon STAR TREK, altering its identity and style beyond recognition".

 

[Nerys Myk]

Hell, I've often joked the best TNG film was Star Trek: The Motion Picture.

 

[Warped9]

The fact is, the voices of these people that so loved Star Trek that they could pick apart every little bit of minutiae and give it some sense of reason and order-- whether that be an Okuda or a James Dixon -- are not to be thrown away so carelessly. JJTrek has roots, and those roots extend back to stuff about which the folks that are buying tickets today often have no clue. We can believe that JJ's nebulous, action-packed blur, divorced from all Gene Roddenberry's talky bits, is what has made Trek big money. Maybe so. But there is some reason this reinvention was done with Trek and not something else like B5 or Buck Rogers. There is a heart that beats at the bottom of Trek that guys like Dixon understand and that those living off today's fat should ill ignore.

Well said! JJ is a STAR WARS fan and that's what he stamped upon STAR TREK, altering its identity and style beyond recognition. I will still go see the new one, but with heavy misgivings.

Don't, all you're doing by paying to see the movie is giving them your support and encouraging them to produce more. I will never spend money on Abrams-verse.

This.

And JJ has actually said he felt Trek should be more like Star Wars.

 

[BillJ]

And JJ has actually said he felt Trek should be more like Star Wars.

And he was right. A Trek feature film needed to be more like Star Wars in order to put butts into theater seats. But upping the action quotient doesn't make it Star Wars, it just makes it more palatable to a wider range of audiences.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

And JJ has actually said he felt Trek should be more like Star Wars.

And he was right. A Trek feature film needed to be more like Star Wars in order to put butts into theater seats. But upping the action quotient doesn't make it Star Wars, it just makes it more palatable to a wider range of audiences.

This could be read as saying you have to dumb down ST by adding the traits of the often story-challenged SW for an audience reared on style over substance.

 

[Warped9]

And JJ has actually said he felt Trek should be more like Star Wars.

And he was right. A Trek feature film needed to be more like Star Wars in order to put butts into theater seats. But upping the action quotient doesn't make it Star Wars, it just makes it more palatable to a wider range of audiences.

This could be read as saying you have to dumb down ST by adding the traits of the often story-challenged SW for an audience reared on style over substance.

Yup.