Not seeing the problem, myself. And I know both versions of Trek backwards.
But then, I don't have pathological anti-Abrams hatred blinding me.
JJTrek is a two movie chronology!
Do You Believe the Official Chronology?
- Thread starter ZapBrannigan
- Start date
JJTrek is a two movie chronology!
Its called a branching timeline. The split happens in 2233 at the birth of James T. Kirk. Pretty sure that was covered in the film it's self. You'd think a guy named "Timewalker" could wrap his brain around that. You don't need to "reconcile" them, because they are parallel. A Chronology would reference both timelines, because both are Star Trek.
Whatever happened to James Dixon?
This place was never the same after he disappeared...
http://stexpanded.wikia.com/wiki/Fandom_Star_Trek_Chronology
This place was never the same after he disappeared...
http://stexpanded.wikia.com/wiki/Fandom_Star_Trek_Chronology
It's not pathological. It's based on a well-founded opinion that his version of Star Trek is utter crap.
Not seeing the problem, myself. And I know both versions of Trek backwards.
But then, I don't have pathological anti-Abrams hatred blinding me.
Anybody attempting an updated Chronology book would find it difficult to reconcile both versions of Star Trek in the same book as THE definitive chronology.Its called a branching timeline. The split happens in 2233 at the birth of James T. Kirk. Pretty sure that was covered in the film it's self. You'd think a guy named "Timewalker" could wrap his brain around that. You don't need to "reconcile" them, because they are parallel. A Chronology would reference both timelines, because both are Star Trek.
And... you'd think that anybody who takes the trouble to bash me over my anti-Abrams opinions could bother to be observant enough to notice that I'M NOT A GUY. Think you can wrap your brain around that?
I forced myself to watch this piece of garbage that calls itself "Star Trek" and was not the slightest bit impressed. If Abrams wanted to make an outer space movie, why didn't he create something original instead of ripping off something that didn't need "re-imagining"?
As for my username, I'm also a Whovian, a fan of the old Voyagers! series, and I'm very fond of alternate history and time travel novels in general. But that doesn't mean I have to automatically like some lazily-imagined ripoff of Star Trek (damn, Leonard Nimoy really is a trooper for appearing in this movie - or else he needed the money...).
Why? Explain that. If its definitive it has to include every incarnation of Star Trek. That would include entries on all alternative timelines and parallel universes.Anybody attempting an updated Chronology book would find it difficult to reconcile both versions of Star Trek in the same book as THE definitive chronology.Its called a branching timeline. The split happens in 2233 at the birth of James T. Kirk. Pretty sure that was covered in the film it's self. You'd think a guy named "Timewalker" could wrap his brain around that. You don't need to "reconcile" them, because they are parallel. A Chronology would reference both timelines, because both are Star Trek.
Oh, please. It's IMPOSSIBLE to reconcile nuTrek and Original Trek chronology-wise.
And... you'd think that anybody who takes the trouble to bash me over my anti-Abrams opinions could bother to be observant enough to notice that I'M NOT A GUY. Think you can wrap your brain around that?
I didn't bash you at all. I've no recollection of you mentioning your gender or your opinions on Abrams previously. So neither one has bearing on what I posted. All I said was the new films are part of Star Trek and should be included in any definitive chronology. "Guy" is somewhat gender neutral anyway.
That's fine. Still not a good enough reason to not include it in a definitive chronology.
Didn't say you should. Just that with such a name you should understand the concept of things like alternate universes, branching timeline and the multi worlds interpretation and how that might be included in a definitive Star Trek chronology. That you're a fan of Doctor Who, alternate history and time travel only re-enforces that.
There are certain movies, individual episodes and one entire series I don't like. I would however include all of them in any chronology, no matter how much I might despise them, because they are Star Trek.
Last edited:
I was a little tough on the Okudas earlier in the thread, but all the same I would seriously still buy an updated copy of this. There's so much more new material that could be added since the last edition (1996?), including of course that Paramount has now pronounced the TAS as canon, or near enough to it.
I do still take whatever the Chronology actually says with a grain of salt, however. It's a great book, but not a definitive text IMO.
I do still take whatever the Chronology actually says with a grain of salt, however. It's a great book, but not a definitive text IMO.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
If you're talking about the one published in 1980, I think that one is terrific.
John Ford used it as a reference for his novels, and that's about as good as it can get IMO. Plus it has the refit as ENTERPRISE-class, so that puts it over the top, since I don't believe the Okuda version of all that (what he had put on screen in TUC ) in the slightest.
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.
Can't imagine why anybody would care to add the Abramsverse into this at all, since it has precious little to do with TREK. It doesn't seem to jive with TREK even before Kirk's birth, given what we see of the KELVIN, but I am no expert on it, since I found the movie so utterly sucky (one dvd viewing and most of one streaming viewing) I'm not likely to give it another view in this lifetime.
Last edited:
At the time of its publication, then-Paramount Licensing and later Viacom Licensing (now CBS Consumer Products), were telling the editors of the Star Trek tie-in books, novels and RPGs to consider the dates in the Chronology as canonical for them, to start keeping things consistent. But the writers for the varis ST TV series and movies were not constrained by the Chronology and can (and did) make many changes to the Okudas' "conjectures".
It's a great book, but not a definitive text IMO.
It was never intended to be. Neither was the Goldsteins' version.
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.
Not at all. At the end of the Prime-chonology Romulus is destroyed by a supernova, and Nero and Spock fall into the black hole.
Next chapter: Alternate Reality. Beginning 2233 and documenting events from the new movies and notable divergences from the old timeline.
Fan sites like Memory Alpha have shown that an encyclopedia could incorporate both without trouble, merely noting which entries are unique to the new version of history.
I've wanted to see a new take on the original Star Trek since 1989. I loved how it turned out and can't wait for the next one. And I still love The Original Series as much as ever. Each to their own.
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'
James Dixon can be found on this forum here. Most of the members, if not all, are James Dixon.
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.
There's a nice way around this.
Early in SS, Kirk mistook Khan's DY spaceship for a much later version. Even through he was corrected by Spock, he continued to think of the ship as be from the era that constructed DY500s'. Kirk would often place his own perceptions ahead of Spock's (sometimes rightly).
When Khan asked Kirk "how long," Kirk told him about two centuries. Again based on Kirk earlier misconception of when Khan's ship was from.
Fifteen years later, Khan was still operating off the (mistaken) notion that he was about two centuries in the future. We have no idea just how quickly Marla was killed and from where else would Khan have learn of the correct date?
There's a nice way around this.
Early in SS, Kirk mistook Khan's DY spaceship for a much later version. Even through he was corrected by Spock, he continued to think of the ship as be from the era that constructed DY500s'. Kirk would often place his own perceptions ahead of Spock's (sometimes rightly).
When Khan asked Kirk "how long," Kirk told him about two centuries. Again based on Kirk earlier misconception of when Khan's ship was from.
Fifteen years later, Khan was still operating off the (mistaken) notion that he was about two centuries in the future. We have no idea just how quickly Marla was killed and from where else would Khan have learn of the correct date?
That is frickin' genius, and I buy it completely.
I'm a 300-years-from-NBC-broadcast guy and I like the cut of your jib!
Regarding the Abramsverse, which I do not buy into, has anybody mentioned Chekov?
In TOS Season 2, Kirk was 34 years old (Deadly Years) and Chekov was 22 (Who Mourns).
Then in the ST-XI, they're much closer in age. It can't be the same Chekov.
In TOS Season 2, Kirk was 34 years old (Deadly Years) and Chekov was 22 (Who Mourns).
Then in the ST-XI, they're much closer in age. It can't be the same Chekov.
Fifteen years later, Khan was still operating off the (mistaken) notion that he was about two centuries in the future. We have no idea just how quickly Marla was killed and from where else would Khan have learn of the correct date?
I like your theory, unfortunately Khan could have picked up the date from the Enterprise's computer banks which he was given access to while in sickbay.
That happened long after the tinelines diverged in 2233, so even if Mama and Papa Chekov had a son earlier, it would not conflict with anything that happened in The Original Series.
Or perhaps Chekov-Prime told Kirk a little fib in "Who Mourns for Adonais", for reasons only he can fathom. He was an odd duck.
It's not pathological. It's based on a well-founded opinion that his version of Star Trek is utter crap.
Oh, please. It's IMPOSSIBLE to reconcile nuTrek and Original Trek chronology-wise.
Not seeing the problem, myself. And I know both versions of Trek backwards.
But then, I don't have pathological anti-Abrams hatred blinding me.
.
This is extremely debatable, firstly while it's your opinion and that's fine, the evidence would suggest it was both critically and commercially well received..in fact, that statistics show it was the MOST well received of any of the movies. Therefore the statement including "well-founded" is actually completely wrong. Simply saying "opinion" would have been correct.
RAMA
That reads like typical Nimoy being the eternal cheerleader.
He should be reminded that in recent history, opening the mind led to exposure to BS like Voyager, Enterprise, and the Berman TNG movies--none worth the effort in front of cameras, and went a long way in destroying the appeal of the franchise.
No TV or film franchise in history was immune to garbage entries.
Geez, folks! All I suggested was includinag an appendix to cover the Abrams version of the continuity. Seperate from the main body of the chronology. Easy enough to ignore if you have no interest and/or are rpone to spasm over the mere thought of such a thing.
Besides, it's not like a new edition of the Chronology is likely to be published anytime soon.
Besides, it's not like a new edition of the Chronology is likely to be published anytime soon.
Similar threads
