Poll Do you consider Discovery to truly be in the Prime Timeline at this point?

[BillJ]

The problem is, Trek doesn’t entirely embrace the multiverse approach (each has a different quantum signature) and instead embraces a sort of unfolding approach. Sometimes you get bubbles...which makes sense from a conservation of energy way of thinking. Small bubbles (like the time loop the Bozeman gets stuck in, even smaller from the enterprise perspective) sometimes you get huge ones (city on the edge of forever, the universe as a result of the trial in all good things) where the universe might take eons to curve back onto its ‘natural’ path (or not all...in which case, it is essentially destroyed and replaced entirely. A popped bubble.) The rules of time travel, as presented in Trek, do not support skipping grooves and timelines as such...hence, Gabriel Bell ends up literally being Sisko, but it nudges the universe back on track. There’s a bubble where he didn’t look like sisko, but since the entirety of history is unaffected by the simple change (due to sisko playing the role) it just carries on as it was. That’s why the KT has to be a different universe (and is...because otherwise, future Shatner Kirk is present in its 20th century, S is future Janeway, both from incompatible futures. And Picard..and everyone tbh. There’s a lot of time travel. The enterprise that helps Gary seven save the Earth in the sixties doesn’t exist in kelvin Trek, so it would destroy itself and create a paradox. Picard can’t save first contact there, because he would die at verifiable three without Shatner Kirk. But that’s ok, as the Borg wouldn’t stop it, because it never happens, because Gary Seven fails so...everyone join in the O’brien Mantra now please....) being interfered with not by time travel, but by cross-universe travel. KT is a mess of damaged info from Prime, in exactly the same way the MU is by the time of DSC.
It’s easy. Every other Trek is Prime, because that’s the way it’s unfolded, in universe and production wise. Is DSC a bubble? Could be. The changes could be. Is ENT a bubble? Highly likely.

That made my head hurt.

 

[ITDUDE]

That made my head hurt.

Yeah. me too
Can we all collectively define what "Prime" is? People tend to think that everything on TV=Prime=Canon (except MU which is the one true MU). I think that Canon is not tied to any one universe. My theory calls for as many as 8 universes, each with it's own canon (separate but equally important). I don't have a problem saying that Kelvin movies are in Kelvin universe, STD is in Discoverse while TOS/TNG was in Prime. Each one is separated from each other and is not tied by the 50+ years of history. This is why Kelvin universe was created, to be able to tell new stories that don't overwrite old stories. Why can't we acknowledge that STD is yet in another universe and apply same logic there as well?

 

[XCV330]

Yeah. me too
Can we all collectively define what "Prime" is? People tend to think that everything on TV=Prime=Canon (except MU which is the one true MU). I think that Canon is not tied to any one universe. My theory calls for as many as 8 universes, each with it's own canon (separate but equally important). I don't have a problem saying that Kelvin movies are in Kelvin universe, STD is in Discoverse while TOS/TNG was in Prime. Each one is separated from each other and is not tied by the 50+ years of history. This is why Kelvin universe was created, to be able to tell new stories that don't overwrite old stories. Why can't we acknowledge that STD is yet in another universe and apply same logic there as well?

Because the show owners say so

 

[BillJ]

I really think the thing they need to do is to separate TOS from the rest of the continuity. That way, they can do whatever they want in the 23rd century, and not aggravate people who actually care about consistency.

 

[BillJ]

Because the show owners say so

Brannon Braga says Enterprise is a separate continuity and Roddenberry said TOS was a dramatization of events. How about each individual just decide how it all fits (or doesn't fit) together?

 

[fireproof78]

Why can't we acknowledge that STD is yet in another universe and apply same logic there as well?

Because I don't need to to enjoy it.

 

[ITDUDE]

Because I don't need to to enjoy it.

Well of course not! But we have this thread (plus the Enterprise thread, plus few others) that all it seems to show that many fans have different opinions of what they are seeing. Are most of them still enjoying it? Yeah, to varying degrees. But yet we are all here discussing and thinking and figuring out how it all fits together (or doesn't). If STD rated 10 out of 10 and everyone on here was continuously praising the show and genuinely enjoying it, we would still have the same exact threads discussing the same exact things.

 

[BillJ]

Well of course not! But we have this thread (plus the Enterprise thread, plus few others) that all it seems to show that many fans have different opinions of what they are seeing. Are most of them still enjoying it? Yeah, to varying degrees. But yet we are all here discussing and thinking and figuring out how it all fits together (or doesn't). If STD rated 10 out of 10 and everyone on here was continuously praising the show and genuinely enjoying it, we would still have the same exact threads discussing the same exact things.

Probably.

 

[fireproof78]

Well of course not! But we have this thread (plus the Enterprise thread, plus few others) that all it seems to show that many fans have different opinions of what they are seeing. Are most of them still enjoying it? Yeah, to varying degrees. But yet we are all here discussing and thinking and figuring out how it all fits together (or doesn't). If STD rated 10 out of 10 and everyone on here was continuously praising the show and genuinely enjoying it, we would still have the same exact threads discussing the same exact things.

It fits together some times and doesn't fit together other times.

 

[lawman]

As a matter of fact the four digit stardates that go up and down are also much for fun to put in a timeline and figure out how it all works, as opposed to the boring 24th century 1000 stardate units=one year approach. When you finally got all the months etc for the episodes down it's also a lotmore satisfying than use the stardate culculator in the 24th century...

Of course, the boring 24th-century stardates don't actually fit a "1000 units = 1 calendar year" pattern, either. Episodes from "Data's Day" (TNG) to "Second Sight" (DS9) to "11:59" and "Homestead" (VOY), among several others, stubbornly refuse to fit that pattern. TNG-era stardates are (mostly, not always) sequential, at least, but they definitely seem to flex a lot in terms of how much "actual time" they encompass.

(And yes, I've worked it out in detail, in my own Trek timeline. On a spreadsheet. But this isn't the time to go off on that tangent!...)

The rules of time travel, as presented in Trek, do not support skipping grooves and timelines as such...

There are no remotely consistent "rules of time travel, as presented in Trek." It operates very differently in different stories. The closest anyone has come to piecing together a rationally plausible system of rules that could reconcile all those stories is Christopher L. Bennett in his DTI novels, and he had to do a lot of nipping and tucking to achieve it. I don't agree 100% completely with his schema, but I admire and respect it. Of course, "it's not canon," but it's a better effort than I've seen anyone else pull off and IMHO it's the best available foundation for making sense of Trekian temporal mechanics.

Can we all collectively define what "Prime" is? People tend to think that everything on TV=Prime=Canon (except MU which is the one true MU). I think that Canon is not tied to any one universe.

If Prime is anything at all (beyond a marketing hook), it's the timeline from which Nero and Old!Spock originated and from which the Kelvin timeline spun off in ST09 — that's literally the film that coined the term, after all. What that means, of course, is that it postdates all the other time travel in Trek (including FC), and is therefore almost certainly not the same as the original Trek timeline(s) in which past episodes took place as viewed.

(Which, taken logically, means that if DSC is part of Prime, then we shouldn't expect it to match up perfectly with TOS or anything that came before! But that's obviously contrary to the expectation the producers have been trying to market to people.)

I really think the thing they need to do is to separate TOS from the rest of the continuity. That way, they can do whatever they want in the 23rd century, and not aggravate people who actually care about consistency.

Ag. No. I suspect that would aggravate me a lot. It pretty much fits the continuity prior to DSC — it would make more sense just to segregate that one. Why throw the baby out with the bathwater?

If STD rated 10 out of 10 and everyone on here was continuously praising the show and genuinely enjoying it, we would still have the same exact threads discussing the same exact things.

True dat! (Although they might not involve the exact same people making the exact same points.) Speaking for myself, no matter how much I enjoy something on other criteria (in terms of story, theme, acting, visuals, etc.), continuity glitches still bug the heck out of me. (And I'm definitely not just talking about Trek here.)

It fits together some times and doesn't fit together other times.

And if that doesn't bug the heck out of you, then more power to you I guess, but it just means you clearly have a far more laissez-faire attitude about your fiction than I've ever had.

 

[Lord Garth]

(And yes, I've worked it out in detail, in my own Trek timeline. On a spreadsheet. But this isn't the time to go off on that tangent!...)

So I'm not the only one who's done this.

Strictly speaking of TOS Stardates: I have a system where the stardates in TOS are 100 per month. So the five-year mission was roughly from Stardate 1300 to 7300. I disregard TAS Stardates since they're all over the place. Or I'll pretend they all start with a 6, to keep them after the third season.

On Stardate 7333 (in April 2270), I switch to TMP Stardates where I have it as 0.1 stardates make up a day. This continues up until Stardate 7800 (in July 2283), when I switch to TWOK-TUC Stardates where 200 stardates make up a year. That ends up putting TUC in early-2292 (with it being Stardate 9522), but if the five-year mission started in 2265, then McCoy's line about being the ship's surgeon for 27 years still works.

I'm not touching Disco Stardates with a 10-foot pole but I operate under the assumption that 23rd Century stardates are always four digits and that after 9999 they roll back to 0000.

My rationale for why they went from TOS to TMP to TWOK style stardates is because they realized stardates cycle through too fast with the system them had in TOS, so slowing them down would get more mileage (and more meaning) out of them. But TMP-style stardates were too slow, so they switched to TWOK-style as a compromise... before starting over and switching to five-digit stardates in 2323.

 

[lawman]

Stardates are quite literally the last canonical evidence I take into account when determining the chronological placement of something. I'll use them to resolve a conflict between other evidence, or in the complete absence of other evidence, but that's about it. It's hard to escape the awareness that IRL there was simply never any consistent intent behind them.

Interestingly enough, I have TUC starting in June 2292 myself, albeit for reasons (including McCoy's line) that have nothing to do with stardates...

 

[lawman]

(Also, you realize your system would include all of seven episodes in the entirety of the FYM's first year?...)

 

[Lord Garth]

(Also, you realize your system would include all of seven episodes in the entirety of the FYM's first year?...)

Yup. I have the first season spanning 2265-2267. Otherwise, under the Okuda System, you have one year that's sitting there with nothing on-screen between "Where No Man Has Gone Before" and "The Corbomite Manuever".

I also take into account the Gene Roddenberry theory about time dilation and locations in space to account for variances in pace and why stardates go up-and-down, so the system I have is more like a standard template where this is how it would proceed in one area of space rather than something hard-and-fast. I prepared against people hitting me with whataboutisms.

 

[fireproof78]

And if that doesn't bug the heck out of you, then more power to you I guess, but it just means you clearly have a far more laissez-faire attitude about your fiction than I've ever had.

Why does it mean that? It bothers me, yes, but not to the point that I'll have to reconcile it or decide it must be different. It exists, at once, as a mode of entertainment, a fictional universe and an inconsistent artistic medium all at once. It isn't laisse-faire to accept things as they are.

Do I have my own complicated head canon for things? You better believe it. Do I think it will change anyone's mind, including CBS', regarding DSC? Nope. So, I enjoy it.

 

[Jinn]

Of course, the boring 24th-century stardates don't actually fit a "1000 units = 1 calendar year" pattern, either. Episodes from "Data's Day" (TNG) to "Second Sight" (DS9) to "11:59" and "Homestead" (VOY), among several others, stubbornly refuse to fit that pattern. TNG-era stardates are (mostly, not always) sequential, at least, but they definitely seem to flex a lot in terms of how much "actual time" they encompass.

Yeah, that's sadly true. I haven't really done that much 24th century timeline stuff (the late 2260s are rather captivating) outside of the relaunch novels. I'm looking forward to trying to place the stardate-less DS9 between all the stardated episodes from TNG and VGR!

(And yes, I've worked it out in detail, in my own Trek timeline. On a spreadsheet. But this isn't the time to go off on that tangent!...)

I've got tons of spreadsheets from various failed attempts until I decided to hijack the German Memory Beta and just use it for my timeline The reference feature is also extremely helpful for annotations, as opposed to an extremely long cell in a spreadsheet.

So I'm not the only one who's done this.

Oh, you'd be surprised...

Strictly speaking of TOS Stardates: I have a system where the stardates in TOS are 100 per month. So the five-year mission was roughly from Stardate 1300 to 7300.

That's an interesting approach. While I take stardates serious in a purely sequential manner the actual time that passes between for example 10 stardate units can be completely different from stardate 3210-3220 to stardate 3310-3320.

I disregard TAS Stardates since they're all over the place. Or I'll pretend they all start with a 6, to keep them after the third season.

Have you read about the TAS novelizations? They have all consistens stardates in the 5xxx range and what I've done is just elevate the 5 to a 6 (except for "The Time Trap"; I needed that in 2268 for Vanguard reasons).

I'm not touching Disco Stardates with a 10-foot pole

THIS!

Stardates are quite literally the last canonical evidence I take into account when determining the chronological placement of something. I'll use them to resolve a conflict between other evidence, or in the complete absence of other evidence, but that's about it.

I use stardates as a sort of "baseline" for my timeline; I start with a list of everything in stardate order and than check what doesn't fit and move that accordingly. Like, I had Double, Double in 2268 based on the stardate and when I started reading the novel it quickly became apparant that it takes place months after "What Are Little Girls Made of?".

I'm currently looking at this weird problem where the stardate order is Cloak, "For the World is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky" and "The Tholian Web", with Cloak being a prequel to "For the World is Hollow and I have Touched the Sky" but referencing "The Tholian Web" as having happened weeks in the past. So I'll either ignore the reference in favor of the stardates or I'll ignore the stardates from Cloak and the following ungodly long titled episode, or I'll have to ignore the stardates from "The Tholian Web" and from the SCE Interphase novellas because they have log entries from the Defiant before "The Tholian Web" and they would fall before "The Tholian Web" and that other episode... Well, I'll decide that later

My problem is that I would kind of have to rely on the Voyages of Imagination timeline (which is a great timeline!) if I didn't rely on stardates and since that's a secondary source and stardates are actual in-universe material I prefer those. Not that I don't use Voyages of Imagination in case there's a conflict somewhere, but I start with the in-universe stuff.

It's hard to escape the awareness that IRL there was simply never any consistent intent behind them.

Oh, yeah, I'm good at ignoring IRL stufff

 

[Lord Garth]

Who needs IRL, anyway?

Have you read about the TAS novelizations? They have all consistens stardates in the 5xxx range and what I've done is just elevate the 5 to a 6 (except for "The Time Trap"; I needed that in 2268 for Vanguard reasons).

I haven't, but I heard a long time ago that they used this approach, so that's where I got the idea from.

 

[Jinn]

Who needs IRL, anyway?

I have long been working on a way to transfer my consciousness into this BBS; it's the only way i can ever catch up to cooleddie's post count.

 

[Discofan]

I have long been working on a way to transfer my consciousness into this BBS; it's the only way i can ever catch up to cooleddie's post count.

Post counts are overrated. The million bucks you get when you reach super-duper-ultra-fleet admiral level is a pure legend.

 

[cooleddie74]

I have long been working on a way to transfer my consciousness into this BBS; it's the only way i can ever catch up to cooleddie's post count.

You fool.

You glorious, beautiful and deluded fool.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies