Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

[Nerys Myk]

Wasn't that one of the points of the show?

No, the only point to the show was to create an entertaining SciFi program every week. Some viewers found deeper meaning in it, which is great, but was far from being the point of the show (Unless you buy into the Roddenberry Hype).

Oh, I know its a TV designed to entertain. My posting history on the topic shows that. But one of its conceits is that its our future. Our history and present is Star Trek's past. That how things were treated in TOS and the spinoffs. As I said the writers did not set out to create and alternate history. It is however a mostly positive future.

The post you pulled that quote out of is a bit of a mess. Looks like I screwed the editing somehow. Lets try again:

Trek being about our future is a conceit I've never bought into.

Wasn't that one of the points of the show? Its supposed to be our future. Their few predictions for the "near future" are going to fall far from the mark, especially when reality catches up with them. No one writing for the show, from Roddenberry down to the guy contributing a one off plot set out to create an alternate history or future. I'm sure none of them thought people would be talking about Star Trek in 1996, much less 2013.That it is an alternate history/future is fannish rationalization that allows everything on screen to "fit". It's a bit like hording, they can't throw anything away.

 

[BillJ]

That it is an alternate history/future is fannish rationalization that allows everything on screen to "fit". It's a bit like hording, they can't throw anything away.

I don't think it's hoarding. I just tend to think that events like the Saturn V probe or the Eugenics Wars or the 1968 Nuclear Weapons platform give the universe its own distinct flavor.

 

[Nerys Myk]

That it is an alternate history/future is fannish rationalization that allows everything on screen to "fit". It's a bit like hording, they can't throw anything away.

I don't think it's hoarding. I just tend to think that events like the Saturn V probe or the Eugenics Wars or the 1968 Nuclear Weapons platform give the universe its own distinct flavor.

I guess. I'm of the school if is didn't happen in our past it didn't happen in Star Trek's past either. That's the approach the writers took most of the time. So I'm more than willing to shift the Eugenics War to the next Century.

 

[BillJ]

So I'm more than willing to shift the Eugenics War to the next Century.

I wouldn't be devastated if the Eugenics Wars were moved, especially in a hard-reboot of the franchise. But, I like that these details have survived various creative teams. I think it shows that the producers of Modern Trek had/have a lot more respect for TOS than many fans recognize.

 

[Nerys Myk]

So I'm more than willing to shift the Eugenics War to the next Century.

I wouldn't be devastated if the Eugenics Wars were moved, especially in a hard-reboot of the franchise. But, I like that these details have survived various creative teams. I think it shows that the producers of Modern Trek had/have a lot more respect for TOS than many fans recognize.

Most they've been ignored. Till Enterprise brought them up.

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

But why move the Eugenics Wars? They are perfectly fine in the 1990s, where they were explicitly said to take place. Sure, Roddenberry and Company didn't set out to make an Alternate History, but that doesn't mean that Trek can't become one. There is nothing about Trek that precludes it not being our future. I've heard this argument before that if Trek doesn't represent our actual future than all the "meaning" is lost, which is a load of garbage.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Trek is our future in the same way that most TV shows and films are set in our world - i.e. "pretty much but not quite"

 

[Nerys Myk]

But why move the Eugenics Wars? They are perfectly fine in the 1990s, where they were explicitly said to take place. Sure, Roddenberry and Company didn't set out to make an Alternate History, but that doesn't mean that Trek can't become one. There is nothing about Trek that precludes it not being our future. I've heard this argument before that if Trek doesn't represent our actual future than all the "meaning" is lost, which is a load of garbage.

For me Star Trek being an alternate reality takes something away from the appeal of the show. YMMV.

 

[Warped9]

For me Star Trek being an alternate reality takes something away from the appeal of the show. YMMV.

Mine definitely varies.

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

For me Star Trek being an alternate reality takes something away from the appeal of the show. YMMV.

Mine definitely varies.

Mine too. I'm totally not seeing what is taken away by Trek being an alternate reality from ours.

 

[newtontomato539]

The Chronology says:

Kirk was Captain of the Enterprise shortly before "Where No Man Has Gone Before". Then there was the "The Corbomite Maneuver". There was no five year mission before this.

This contradicts Dehner: "You've known Gary for years."

The Chronology says:

After the five year mission, Kirk became Admiral and the Enterprise spent 2 1/2 years being refitted. There was not another five year mission before TMP.

This contradicts TMP. Not one character says this. It has obviously been 11 years since "Turnabout Intruder" from the look of the actors.

The Chronology says:

TAS isn't canon.

Yes it is.

 

[Nerys Myk]

For me Star Trek being an alternate reality takes something away from the appeal of the show. YMMV.

Mine definitely varies.

Mine too. I'm totally not seeing what is taken away by Trek being an alternate reality from ours.

Part of it is about what the "authors" intended and what they put on the screen. They always presented Star Trek as having the same past as what ever the present was. (be it Tomorrow Is Yesterday, The Voyage Home, Future's End or Carpenter St). The alternate reality explanation is just to fannish for my taste.

 

[BillJ]

Kirk and Michell knew each other at the Academy. So Dehner's line isn't incorrect and neither is the assumption Kirk took command of the Enterprise shortly before Where No Man...

 

[Warped9]

Mine definitely varies.

Mine too. I'm totally not seeing what is taken away by Trek being an alternate reality from ours.

Part of it is about what the "authors" intended and what they put on the screen. They always presented Star Trek as having the same past as what ever the present was. (be it Tomorrow Is Yesterday, The Voyage Home, Future's End or Carpenter St). The alternate reality explanation is just to fannish for my taste.

As some are fond of saying around here, "it's all fiction." And so I have no problem with that. Besides which the original creators' intent is now moot since history in the late 20th century did not unfold as they had speculated. That certainly doesn't ruin the series for me.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Isn't Spock who the "You've known Gary for years" line is directed at?

KELSO: Well, it didn't make any sense that he'd know, but naturally, I checked out the circuit anyway. I don't know how, but he was right. This point is burned out exactly the way he described it.
DEHNER: Sorry I'm late. I became so interested in observing Gary, Mister Mitchell.
SPOCK: Our subject is not Gary Mitchell. Our concern is, rather, what he is mutating into.
DEHNER: I know those from your planet aren't suppose to have feelings like we do, Mister Spock, but to talk that way about a man you've worked next to for years is worse than
KIRK: That's enough, Doctor.
DEHNER: I don't think so. I understand you least of all. Gary told me that you've been friends since he joined the service, that you asked for him aboard your first command.

From this we know Spock and Mitchell have worked together for a while and Kirk has known Mitchell since he joined Starfleet.

So either Spock and Mitchell served together on a ship before the Enterprise or they've been on the Enterprise together for over a year ( or two). Which might mean Kirk was the CO of the Enterprise for a year or two prior to WNMHGB.

The Chronology is often too "on the nose" when it comes to dates.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Mine too. I'm totally not seeing what is taken away by Trek being an alternate reality from ours.

Part of it is about what the "authors" intended and what they put on the screen. They always presented Star Trek as having the same past as what ever the present was. (be it Tomorrow Is Yesterday, The Voyage Home, Future's End or Carpenter St). The alternate reality explanation is just to fannish for my taste.

As some are fond of saying around here, "it's all fiction." And so I have no problem with that. Besides which the original creators' intent is now moot since history in the late 20th century did not unfold as they had speculated. That certainly doesn't ruin the series for me.

Which why their "speculations" are ignored once they become outdated.

The Speculation is "bathwater", while Star Trek is the "baby". I say dump the bathwater once it's "dirty".

 

[Warped9]

No. The creators' intent remains intact if I accept it as is: their imagining the late 20th century evolving as they referenced onscreen regardless of how our history actually played out. I don't have to throw out anything other than all the things later Trek did to knowingly contradict what had been referenced on TOS.

In that I'm quite happy with the mileage I'm getting.

 

[Nerys Myk]

No. The creators' intent remains intact if I accept it as is: their imagining the late 20th century evolving as they referenced onscreen regardless of how our history actually played out. I don't have to throw out anything other than all the things later Trek did to knowingly contradict what had been referenced on TOS.

In that I'm quite happy with the mileage I'm getting.

By "intent" I mean the the show in general, not the details of each episode. As I've said before, they saw Star Trek as our future not an alternate reality and would probably be more than happy to ignore their "predictions" if Star Trek (TOS if we must) had lasted into the late 20th Century.

 

[Warped9]

No. The creators' intent remains intact if I accept it as is: their imagining the late 20th century evolving as they referenced onscreen regardless of how our history actually played out. I don't have to throw out anything other than all the things later Trek did to knowingly contradict what had been referenced on TOS.

In that I'm quite happy with the mileage I'm getting.

By "intent" I mean the the show in general, not the details of each episode. As I've said before, they saw Star Trek as our future not an alternate reality and would probably be more than happy to ignore their "predictions" if Star Trek (TOS if we must) had lasted into the late 20th Century.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I can agree to that.