Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies I-X' started by Amasov, Mar 21, 2013.
That's pretty much it.
If he said "you've been captain of Enterprise for 20 years" instead of it's 20 years old, but that opens up other problems, but it would have been better with the facts.
I wonder if Starfleet wanted to preserve Enterpise in the museum before it got shot up any worse and that's why they wanted to keep it. Of course that's pure conjecture on my part.
Or pure speculation, like Mr Hengist might say.
Another way to look at / consider the matter:
TMP takes place near stardate 7410.2
TWOK takes place near stardate 8130.3
If the system is anything like it was in TNG/DS9/Voyager, wherein the first two numbers of the stardate denote the year, then there's roughly seven years between the two films.
I didn't read this entire thread, so forgive me if this was already mentioned. It's more likely the bottle has a stardate, and not an Earth date. So, SD-2283 would put it well into early TOS (I realize the stardates were screwed up then, but when are they not?).
So, the Roluman ale is probably aged at least 15-20 years, which would support McCoy's statement.
For an ale to age for even a full year would be exceptional today. Supposedly, the Romulan drink ferments for an exceptionally long time and for that reason is so intoxicating. But any Earthling reading a date off a bottle of ale today and seeing a year different from the current one would be justly disgusted, feeling that the bottle has been ruined. It wouldn't require a decade, just the simple fact of it not being the current year.
Sure, ale may be preserved for a long time once bottled, but the quality is not supposed to improve with time, except for special brands (or so the marketers of those brands try to claim). Then again, if the Romulan stuff has been fermented to have something like 15-20% alcohol content, its odds of surviving storage also go up significantly...
As for the stardates, if a TNG-style thousand-dates-equal-a-year system is assumed, then obviously we are missing a fifth digit that would denote decades. It would be easy to assume that ST2 takes place a decade or more probably two after TOS, meaning a movie SD 8130 comes 12 or 22 years after a TOS SD 6130.
OTOH, the stardate of ST:TMP, SD 7140, cannot be from the same decade as the stardates of TOS, because the interval between this and the highest TOS stardate (SD 5943.7 from "All Our Yesterdays") is less than the required 2500 units that Kirk has been holding a desk job. So it would seem that TMP takes place eleven years after "All Our Yesterdays"... Which is a very good fit, actually, allowing for the aging of the characters, for all the promotions, for all the technological changes and so forth - and for the fact that more than 300 years have passed since the launch of Voyager Six. Heck, TMP will then take place in 2279, which matches the "300 years after airdate" model that was in all probability highly influential in making the writers decide that it had been more than 300 years since the launch of the Voyager program that in reality got off the ground in 1977.
Taking the model to its conclusion would put ST2 in the very next year, though, or then eleven years in the future - and while 2290 is a possibility for ST2 in some respects (including the subsequent progression of movies, culminating in the solidly established 2293 for ST6), it makes it almost impossible to reconcile with the "15 years ago" or "20 years old" references in there.
Hmm, not really a fan of that idea at all, unfortunately. I think the simplest and likeliest explanation was that "2283" was the Earth year that ale was bottled. As Timo mentioned, even a single year would be enough aging time for a pretty potent ale. Two years would be probably be enough for even just a small sip to clear Kirk's sinuses.
This assumes that Romulan ale is really "ale" as we understand it. Maybe "ale" is just a catch name. Maybe it's not even alcohol.
Forget aging, that thing probably is past its expiration date.
I'm sorry to zombie this thread, but I thought it'd be better than starting a new one.
I've been thinking about this a lot lately. I do agree that:
Space Seed: 2267
...makes the most sense to me. If we put "Space Seed" 300 years ahead of the year of production, then that puts TWOK around 2282 if we stick straight to "fifteen years." With the bottle of Romulan ale, it has to be at least 2283, and even 2283 would make Kirk and McCoy's exchange mostly ironic. The 2285 year for TWOK has the virtue of allowing the ale a couple of extraordinary years to age, and makes Morrow's "20 years" line in TSFS make sense, too, in the context of "you started commanding the Enterprise 20 years ago," and jives with the apparent, original "40 years" line.
However, what do we know about the rest of the classic films? TSFS and TVH must take place in short order after TWOK, probably comprising the rest of 2285 and part of 2286. TSFS's opening Captain's long doesn't exactly make clear how much time had passed after TWOK, but long enough for the cadets to transfer off and the Grissom to head to Genesis, as well as for Valkris to go try to find data on Genesis. Then, Kirks' log in TVH explicitly tells us the crew had been in Vulcan exile for three months. I take this fairly literally, meaning it has been three months since they arrived on the planet during TSFS. TFF seems to take place a bit longer after TVH, but not by much, possibly placing it in late 2286 or early 2287.
For what it's worth, examining stardates, it appears about 100 stardate units passed between TWOK and TSFS, TSFS and TVH, and TVH and TFF. So maybe each movie was about three months apart?
Then we skip ahead to 2293 for TUC. But why 2293? What exactly, explicitly, makes it 2293? Sulu states he'd commanded Excelsior for three years, which, if TFF is in 2287, could make it as early as 2290. The stardates jump from 8454.1 in TFF to 9521.6 in TUC. That's a difference of 1067.5 units.
If 100 units corresponds to about three months... then that's about 32 months, or just over two and a half years, which is a bit less than Sulu stated, unless he was rounding up.
I think the only other direct chronological reference to the events in TUC is from "Flashback" wherein I believe Tuvok calls them 80 years ago, based I'm sure on the Okudachron.
Something interesting I noticed in TSFS. When Kirk asks Scotty about his progress near the beginning, Scotty says "You'll be fully automated by the time we dock," which garners Kirk's barn door remark. It's never dawned on me until now exactly what Scotty was doing here: he wasn't still fixing battle damage, he was automating the ship to run without all the cadets that the Enteprise off-loaded between movies. It never occurred to me that when they steal the Enterprise later, they had already done a chunk of the work to do it at the beginning of the movie.
Cool. I never realized that either.
Isn't that odd?
To clarify, I don't mean that I think they were already planning to steal the ship. It's evident that transferring all the kids off left just a skeleton crew on the ship (maybe just the folks in the torpedo bay when Morrow boards?) and so they needed some computer help running her.
For a movie that is filled with nonsense & inconsistencies on the important stuff, they are pretty consistent and honest on this, up to a point. They tell you up front he has gotten the automation system going, and that he can finish refitting things or complete repairs to make her spaceworthy in two weeks. That all fits with Kirk's intent to go back out and his belief (in contrast to Morrow's) that the ship can hold up.
In all this, you've can extrapolate that Kirk fully intends to go back, otherwise why bother with all this rush&fix-it stuff?
But there's also one bit of delusional thinking on the part of Scotty & Kirk ... the 'didn't think you'd be taking us into battle' part. In this Morrow turns out to be the one with his head on straight. In the movie era it seems almost a given that if the ship is going anywhere, it is going into battle. I mean, even as a passenger on a training cruise it winds up in battle. It is the ENTERPRISE. It is gonna wind up in battle, even if it is just shooting an asteroid in a wormhole.
Then again, it is just as easy to ascribe the easy crippling of the Enterprise to Bennett's bad writing. I remember a Trek novelist (the one who wrote the ALL OUR YESTERDAYS sequel novels) bitching about why they didn't have a real pitched battle before the stuff shorts out, and it is a very valid criticism, especially since you'd want more sturm & drang to offset the increasing stupidity that follows, like beaming down to a distintegrating planet and THEN trying to negotiate your way off of it, instead of beaming to the BoP and taking it over directly.
In the corresponding TNG thread ("Okuda timeline Canon?") I posted this:
"I have little doubt that Khan, who still considers himself to be the "king" of Earth, counted his days in exile (child's play with the help of his superior intellect) in solar days and solar years.
Also, Chekov didn't protest his "15 years" statement. Just this second an image popped up in my mind with Mr. Okuda taking Chekov's place and saying "Incorrect. It was only 12 years".
Khan: "Make that two [Ceti Eeels] for this character!"
And, for what it's worth, assuming they had intended 1,000 digits to equal one solar year, the difference between Stardate 3.143.3 ("Space Seed") and 8130.4 (ST II) is 14.99 years."
The 1,000 digits theory also holds up pretty well for the time that elapsed between ST III and ST IV. After that things apparently moved "south" unless we could assume 11 years between ST II and ST VI (Stardate 9521.6)
Personally, I've never given much thought to the passage of time because TMP and TWOK are so fundamentally different from one another. I've often considered TWOK to be the TRUE first Star Trek film because the characters (with the exception of McCoy) felt so off to me and the movie was so cold in its portrayal.
Sometimes however I think it does little service to Trek to seek out one specific or definitive explanation, in this case, because the two films are so different.
Great point - perhaps Kirk thinks that he can convince the brass to let him return if only a small group goes? I've always struggled a bit with just why Kirk wants to go back. In the context of the film, it's always played a bit to me like somehow he knows Spock isn't dead... and I mean completely separate from the McCoy thing, before the Sarek conversation. And even after the Sarek conversation, just what's he going to do, anyway? We know from other sources that Vulcans have a place to put the katras of their dead, either memory walls or kir'sharas, YMMV.
But within the movie, again, it's not made explicitly clear what climbing the steps of Mt. Seleya, with a possessed McCoy and a dead Spock, is supposed to facilitate.
Agreed. If we ignore the writing, I wonder if there's a limit to just how much can be automated? Maybe certain functions simply require more than four people (I don't count McCoy) operating the ship?
Great points... and I wish I'd remembered that thread before I zombie'd this one.
Well, Nick Meyer certainly intentially ignored TMP.
^It's funny, but when I first saw TWOK and for a few years after, I was convinced that the scene in Spock's quarters had Kirk say, "I wouldn't presume after vger" instead of "I wouldn't presume to debate you" ... then again, when he says he needs warp speed later in the film, I STILL think it sounds like he say thirty minutes instead of three minutes.
My wife thinks my hearing is going, but I tell her it's always been this way.
So, TWOK was a reboot of TMP.
No, TMP was a reboot of "The Changeling", TWOK was a reboot of "Balance of Terror"
Separate names with a comma.