You're welcome. Finally english class in school payed off.
Enterprise becoming a training ship?
- Thread starter GalaxyClass1701
- Start date
I've also heard that the German version of TOS also places the Eugenics Wars in the mid-21st century instead of the 1990s.
Interesting trivia (not canonical, I'm sure) but still really interesting. Wonder why they specified that, given that the other parts of the franchise assume and give figures that would place TOS back in the 2260s, as it is here in the States?
As I discussed above, the 2260s date wasn't locked down until the TNG era. At the time TOS aired on German TV, the date would've still been ambiguous, and "Tomorrow is Yesterday" and "Space Seed" both suggest something in the late 22nd century rather than mid-23rd.
Oh, I thought it was a more recent change.
Of course, on the other hand, there are also TOS episodes that suggest far different time spans (like "The Squire of Gothos" [TOS]), so it's an interesting question why the 200 years figure became the most popular (esp. since "Tomorrow is Yesterday" was a throwaway line and "Space Seed" is the only other time I can recall that date being used).
Well, the 23rd-century setting was referenced in The Making of Star Trek as well as Blish's "Space Seed" adaptation (even though it also includes the 200-years-from-the-1990s references from the episode, oddly enough). So it became widely accepted conventional wisdom in fandom even before it was established canonically in TWOK (and implied in TMP, with Voyager 6 being launched "over 300 years ago"). The SFC dating scheme, putting TOS in the first decade of the 23rd century, was an attempt to reconcile the two (since it's only 210 years or so after 1996 while still being in the 23rd century). Although people tended to overlook that it was tough to reconcile with "Metamorphosis" -- if Cochrane was lost 150 years earlier at the age of 85, then he was born 235 years earlier, and 235 years before 2207 would be 1972, which seems a little early. (Then again, "Space Seed" implied that sleeper ships were superseded by faster drives in 2018 -- only two years away now!)
Still, I wouldn't say it was "the most popular" scheme. Many fan reference works put TOS in the 2260s, including the 1980 Star Trek Maps -- the Introduction to Navigation booklet that accompanied the maps said that Cochrane invented warp drive in 2050, that the Romulan War and the "Archon class" were in the 2160s, and that the "time barrier" was broken in 2243. And all its references to TOS episodes place them in 2261-63. The fan-made Federation Reference Series, by TrekBBS member aridas sofia, also used this scheme, putting the Organian conflict in 2261 and the change to TMP uniforms in '66. The '77 Star Fleet Medical Reference Manual from Eileen Palestine, Geoffrey Mandel, and Doug Drexler puts the destruction of Ingraham B and the discovery of the Horta somewhere around 2260 in its rough medical timeline chart. Drexler and Mandel's 1980 Enterprise Officer's Manual puts Kirk's birth in 2229 (which would put "The Deadly Years" in 2263, a slight discrepancy), "Where No Man" just after 2260, and Kirk's promotion to admiral in 2265. (It puts the loss of the Valiant in 2071, by the way.) The '87 Ships of the Star Fleet Volume 1 puts ST:TMP in 2267... and ST III in 2287, which I guess is their attempt to reconcile with Morrow's "20 years old" line, but makes no sense otherwise.
Indeed, other than the Spaceflight Chronology, the only pre-TNG tech manual/reference-type works I can find that use the earlier dating scheme are the ones by Lora Johnson (known as Shane Johnson at the time -- she's recently transitioned). Both Johnson's 1985 Uniform Recognition Manual and the '87 Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise put the end of the 5-year mission in 2212 and TMP in 2217, oddly enough -- and even more oddly, the latter puts TVH in 2222, which doesn't add up at all.
So if anything, the general consensus of fan tech authors (including Drexler and Mandel) was apparently that TOS happened in 2261-63, give or take. The earlier dating scheme seemed to be used mainly by the SFC, Johnson (roughly), and the occasional novel like Final Frontier (which put Jim Kirk's 10th birthday in 2183, corresponding to a 2207 date for "The Deadly Years").
Wow, that's quite a list. Have to wonder why Paramount didn't mind the use of different timelines and settings, given that most franchises tend to like having synergy in areas like thatt.
If "most franchises" prefer that, I think it's a relatively recent development. It's more top-down these days, as the corporations try harder to maintain a uniform brand. But back then, there was generally a lighter hand. Like how novelizations were freer to take liberties with the plot and specifics, add or reinterpret scenes, etc.
Besides, like I said, the timeframe for ST wasn't canonically settled until 1988. Before then, there was nothing official to rule out either of these schemes. And they were both generated by fans and tie-in authors, so neither had any more authoritative standing than the other; how would they have chosen? Not to mention that, for all that it seems like a long list, these were still a minority of the tie-ins. Most novels and comics and reference books just used stardates.
Really, I feel that part of the fun of Trek fandom back then was that there were so many different interpretations being offered by different fans and novelists. The canon was much smaller, and there were much vaster areas of worldbuilding that were still open to question, blank slates that we could fill in with our imagination however we wanted. It made Trek fandom more of a democratic, grassroots sort of thing, inviting us to think for ourselves and make it our own, instead of just passively absorbing a dogma handed down from on high. It was like Mad Libs -- the best part was how everyone would fill in the blanks in their own unique and unexpected ways. It was IDIC in action. Oh, I'm sure there were heated arguments in fanzine letter columns or at conventions, but there was much less basis for anyone to claim that one interpretation was more objectively "right" than another. And I always enjoyed seeing such diversity of interpretations, which made it more interesting than if there had just been one monolithic "reality." It left me more free to pick and choose for myself and construct my own version of the universe, which was more creatively satisfying than just being told what to think.
To be fair to "Squire of Gothos", even TOS's internal script-reviewing firm, De Forest Research, called out the "900 light years" line as incorrect and inconsistent with past references prior to production, it just slipped by. That was likely just a writer flub.
Well, I can see some advantages to that. I'm a Spider-Man fan and do like different pieces of that franchise, even when they don't mesh up all the way. In a few cases, I like the different parts of the specific retellings for different reasons.
But on the other hand, I do like the more unified franchise idea, since it allows for the same story to unfold over a larger canvas. While I don't consider myself anal (one of the joys of older Trek novels is seeing when they missed the mark on future canon and when they got close), the more coherent setup allows everything to feel like it belongs in the same universe as the main chunk of the franchise, instead of over various little different variations. They can be fun, but the main reason I pick up a tie-in book, say Star Trek, it's because I want to get a story in the main Star Trek universe, not necessarily an alt. Trek version where stuff is very different.
I probably take this approach, since I tend to be more of a Baker Street Irregular when it comes to these things, so that may tie into it. Variations are fine, but I think I prefer them when they're like Marvel comic worlds or franchises like TMNT; have different continuities rather than just a hodgepodge of conflicting ideas in the same bin.
^I don't see any reason to define it as an either-or choice. There's no reason you can't have both -- multiple interpretations of a universe that each have well-developed continuities to play around with. Like the Marvel Cinematic Universe vs. the comics' Marvel Universe. Or Sherlock Holmes canon vs. Elementary. Or Showa Godzilla vs. Heisei Godzilla.
^This!! For once Christopher and I agree on something!! The fun of earlier fandom was getting together with other fans and sharing new ideas and insights which may or may not have reshaped our own thinking. It was exciting to get a new or fresh perspective that either supported or challenged our own beliefs so that they became better in our own minds. Personally, I think nowadays that fandom has segregated itself into little sects that have to prove themselves as having the ONLY answer to a discrepancy and a conversation turns into heated mud-slinging instead of an engaging exchange of ideas. Some worship the Okuda chronology even though it speculates that all first season episodes must occur during the first year of Kirk's mission and all the 2nd season episodes must occur during the 2nd year of Kirk's mission and so. (My personal head canon has the first year episodes stretched out during the 1st two years of Kirk's mission. The 2nd & 3rd year episodes are intermingled during the 3rd, 4th & 5th year of Kirk's mission. The animateds are in the latter part of the 5th year of Kirk's mission.) Then there are those that swear that if it's not on film it doesn't count. But if you claim that Gary Mitchell was the first officer during "Where No Man has gone Before" and not Spock, then they take liberty and say Spock didn't mean "Second officer" when he identified himself during a log entry in "Dagger of the Mind," instead he MEANT to say "second-in-command." To each their own, but I don't find such conversations as interesting as they used to be.
Getting back on topic, I personally believe that their was another 5(?)-year mission after Star Trek: The Motion Picture with Kirk in command but Starfleet found another way to corral Kirk back into being an Admiral (this may explain his time with Antonia which was mentioned in Star Trek: Generations) and Spock took command of the Enterprise as a training vessel to keep the captain's seat warm until Kirk came to his senses again and found a way back to command (which finally happened in Star Trek IV.)
Well, sure, that's been standard since the Okuda Chronology -- and since VGR: "Q2" canonically established 2270 as the end of the 5YM. In the '80s, it was still possible to have different theories for when the 5-year mission took place (e.g. 2206-10, 2207-12, 2261-65), but we're in a different era now, when a lot more about Trek continuity is canonically locked in place. There's just no comparison.
Honestly, I think part of him becoming an Admiral again was the role he was offered for the second go. As Chief of Starfleet Operations, he would have been constantly regretting the fact that he was putting other people into danger without going into danger himself; that was always a huge thing with Kirk, that he wouldn't risk others without risking himself too. But Commandant of Starfleet Academy, helping to impart his knowledge and expertise to a new generation? If he wasn't commanding a ship, that's honestly maybe the best possible second option he could have in Starfleet, and I could see a post-TMP Kirk being interested in taking that with fewer regrets this time.
^There's also what I established in Mere Anarchy: The Darkness Drops Again: Kirk agreed to the re-promotion to admiral on the condition that he got the Enterprise as his personal flagship that he could occasionally take out for special missions, with Spock commanding it as a training vessel the rest of the time. TWOK fits pretty much into that paradigm, and it leaves room for novels set in that time frame.
Yeah, this is pretty much what Dayton's Elusive Salvation runs with, too -- that Kirk re-accepted his previous Chief of Starfleet Operations post in exchange for the occasional jaunt aboard "his" starship, with Captain Spock billeted as commander.
Speaking of which, Elusive Salvation also touches upon this issue, with Nogura managing to finagle Kirk out of "retirement" after his marriage to Antonia ends (although timeline-wise, this takes place a year or two earlier than in David George III's Crucible trilogy).
Yeah, I was wondering about that, since that book seems to be in 2283, but I had Kirk retired from 2282-4 in Darkness Drops Again. I don't think the timing quite matches up.
Didn't that Star Trek Online novel basically suggest that any mistakes like that could be chalked up to sloppy repair work to changes in the timeline (little details that didn't add up, but didn't affect the overall flow of history)?
Wasn't the Okuda mission duration 2264 to '69? "Q2" was tweaking an assumption of theirs, not accepting it.
In the first edition, yes. They changed it for the subsequent editions, and that was still before "Q2," IIRC.
Similar threads
