# How much time passes between TMP and TWoK?

Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies I-X' started by Amasov, Mar 21, 2013.

Joined:
Jul 13, 2007
Location:
in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination

well, that can be explained away as a simple error of calculation, but the fifteen is pretty specific, and isn't it referenced a few times by a few different characters, or am I remembering it wrong?

Joined:
Nov 22, 2001
Location:
Saint Louis, Missouri, USA
Both Kirk and Khan referred to "Space Seed" taking place fifteen years ago.

Joined:
Aug 26, 2003
There are some rules of thumb for how specific a "specific" number is in practice. Say, "100" might well mean anything above 50 or below 150, whereas "10" might similarly be between 6 and 14 - but "120" would be more accurate than "100" and might fall between 115 and 125.

"Two centuries ago" is extremely vague, but no usual definition of it will cover the years from 1996 to 2268 as required by "Space Seed", or to 2284 or later as required by ST2. We need to fudge those in some other manner, such as saying that Khan personally only experienced 200-250 out of those 270 years (say, due to time dilation in his sublight spaceship), or that the characters using the "two centuries ago" expression had a reason to belittle the passage of time. Kirk would have that reason; Khan would probably want to exaggerate instead.

Now, "15 years" may appear much more precise than the above, but OTOH it is a figure typically quoted in describing the human experience, and as such is very sensitive to belittling or exaggerating. In practice, it can be seen as an euphemism for "over 10 years", going up to 20 years if need be. In mathematical practice, anything ending in 0 or 5 can be viewed as a rounded number in our decimal system, and anything between 13 and 17 years would be rounded as 15. Khan felt he had been abandoned for this length of time, so again he might wish to exaggerate; Kirk might want to absolve him of the above sin by belittling, or then put the thing farther past him by exaggerating. In practice, something like 17 or 18 is our best bet for what the characters meant by "fifteen".

Timo Saloniemi

Joined:
Nov 22, 2001
Location:
Saint Louis, Missouri, USA
If it only wasn't for that bottle of Romulan Ale dated 2283...

5. ### GojiraCommodoreCommodore

Joined:
Oct 15, 2008
Location:
Stompin' on Tokyo

I always felt that TWOK was a rebbot of the movie franchise and they wanted to ignore TMP. The rest of the original cast movies all flow from TWOK and since the events of TMP are never referenced it could easily be omitted from personal continuity.

I do like TMP though. But its style is so different from the rest of the original cast movies is another reason it could be ignored if one chooses.

6. ### golddragon71Lieutenant CommanderRed Shirt

Joined:
Mar 12, 2013
I never thought much of TMP originally as it seemed to me too long and rather boring (I mean, Really?!? not one slug fest in the whole picture?!?) However, in last couple of years it's grown on me and It's become one of my favorites.
All that not withstanding, I never considered ret-conning it out of existence because of WOK's superiority. (This is largely due to a couple of my favorite books mentioning the V'Ger Crisis specifically (Time for Yesterday and Strangers from the Sky Both of which occur partially within months prior to Wrath of Khan))

7. ### GojiraCommodoreCommodore

Joined:
Oct 15, 2008
Location:
Stompin' on Tokyo
It has become one of my favorites too. I really enjoy how the crew gets back together, Spock is treated like a god when he walks on the bridge. Very emotional. It doesmn't have a lot of action but it is a good story.

Joined:
Aug 17, 2001
Location:
Hollywood, CA
That probably has a lot to do with the fact that the majority of Part I and at least half of Part II cover material from the original novel. Nothing from the novel made it to Part III, they were just winging it by then.

9. ### Dick WhitmanCommodoreCommodore

Joined:
Sep 2, 2008
I think it also was due to the simplicity of marketing a sequel with a number. Not just posters and trailers but even theater marques. I have seen non numbered sequels still being listed that way on theaters' huge street signs to save space.

I think with years of coverage in the build up to release its different now. More people are familiar with unique titles again. But through the 80s it became the standard casual film goers where confused by anything else. I remember in the early spring of 1992 wearing a "Batman Returns" t shirt. So it was a few months before its release. The imagine of Batman was clearly of Michael Keaton. Yet I had a few friends ask me if was for "Batman II". Which surprised me because I thought that title made it obvious.

Joined:
May 12, 2004
Location:
Oxford, PA
"Jaws 2" is another early example of a numbered sequel, although they went with an Arabic numeral.

It's worth remembering that, before franchise films became big "tentpole" blockbusters, there was a bit of stigma attached to sequels, which were generally seen as B-movie fare. I suspect that the "Part II" thing was at least partially an attempt to make a much-hyped sequel sound classier and more "respectable" than, say, "Bride of the Son of the Godfather" or "The Return of Jaws."

11. ### Dick WhitmanCommodoreCommodore

Joined:
Sep 2, 2008
Thats a good point. I am thinking of horror films like "Son of Dracula", were its really Dracula himself and there is no reference to a son at all. Similar to the Zorro serials "Son of Zorro" is really about a very distant descendant. The strangest one is "Zorro's Black Whip" the word Zorro is never mentioned at all! Its about a masked woman called "The Black Whip".

Sometimes back than sequels are what we would now call spinoffs at best. Or were using the name as a marketing hook. So the trend started with the Godfather of using numbers was to show it was direct continuation.

12. ### MarsdenCommodoreCommodore

Joined:
Feb 23, 2013
Location:
Will be Celebrating Spocktoberfest this year!
If it's on your iPad, why do you need a bathroom break?

That always confused me! WoK is the first time it's established on film that it is the 23rd century although I don't know where the "exactly" 300 years from now came in, it was assumed that Star Trek was from 2265 to 2268 and Wok was released in 1983 so 2283 is the current year! So the bottle is dated current year and "it needs time to age" ? Huh? Is that an ironic statement or am I just confused about how time works. Did they forget the "23rd century" is the 2200s, maybe and it was meant to be about 100 years old?

Joined:
Nov 22, 2001
Location:
Saint Louis, Missouri, USA
TWOK was actually released in 1982, but the idea that TWOK was set "exactly" 300 years from now was just something fans came up with.

Sure, TOS has been retconned by many as taking place between 2266 and 2269--to match up with its 1966-1969 airdate on NBC--but it's not official. The only thing that is official is VOY's placement of Kirk's 5-year mission between 2265 and 2270. That gives a few years of wriggle room for the subsequent placement of TWOK (one of the points of this thread).

14. ### MarsdenCommodoreCommodore

Joined:
Feb 23, 2013
Location:
Will be Celebrating Spocktoberfest this year!
I see. And I didn't think that "exactly" was absolute, but then how old is the ale? We don't really know, do we?

I also heard TNG is 85 years later, is that "official"? As if it could be, parsing years is kind of silly.

Joined:
Nov 22, 2001
Location:
Saint Louis, Missouri, USA
Nope. That bottle could be a couple of years old for all we know.
I've heard TNG taking place 78, 85, to 100 years later. It depends on what "later" is.

For what it's worth, Star Trek: Generations established that 78 years transpired between the maiden voyage of the Enterprise-B (2293) and the final voyage of the Enterprise-D (2371).

Joined:
Jun 30, 2004
Location:
New Therin Park, Andor (via Australia)
The script synopsis in "Starlog"'s movie special says "40 years". The line was changed at the last minute.

Joined:
Jun 30, 2004
Location:
New Therin Park, Andor (via Australia)
I saw a great review one time that said they were saving the "II" for the eleventh movie.

Joined:
May 9, 2012
Location:
The Enterprise's Restroom
Really? What a shame that was changed! Any idea why? I suppose they might have been worried that the broader audience would have been confused by it, whereas 20 years pretty much comfortably encompasses only what we got to see on screen in TOS and the previous movies.

One of the things which I always loved about Roddenberry's original pitch was that even in the sixties he always saw the Enterprise as having been a ship with an unseen history. He had never intended for it to be a 'new' starship even at the start.

19. ### arch101CommodoreCommodore

Joined:
May 3, 1999
Location:
10 miles west of the Universal Hub
It used to be very difficult for me to get non-fans to take Trek movies seriously as people used to equate excessive numbering of sequels to bad money-grabs like Rocky or Police Academy. Was sure glad they finally stopped with the TNG films.

20. ### Jerikka DawnCommanderRed Shirt

Joined:
Jul 1, 2004
I see what you did there