How much time passes between TMP and TWoK?

[JarodRussell]

gottacook is correct - some fans back in the early 80's believed that Wrath of Kahn completely ignored The Motion Picture.

Well, Nick Meyer certainly intentially ignored TMP.

He didn't when he reused the exterior shots of the ship and all of the interior sets. And when Kirk was still an Admiral.

Just because there is no reference to the "V'Ger incident" it didn't ignore the film.

So, TWOK was a reboot of TMP.

Why, because of the new uniforms?

It's not like the films don't fit together, because they do.

No, TMP was a reboot of "The Changeling", TWOK was a reboot of "Balance of Terror"

Bob

That's a remake or re-telling, not a reboot.

 

[Noddy]

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).

That's something else I've never fully understood. Why does the beginning of GEN have to take place in the same year as TUC? It would make more sense if it was a year or two later, as TUC ends with the Enterprise-A being decommisioned, and GEN begins with Enterprise-B ready to launch.

 

[C.E. Evans]

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).

That's something else I've never fully understood. Why does the beginning of GEN have to take place in the same year as TUC? It would make more sense if it was a year or two later, as TUC ends with the Enterprise-A being decommisioned, and GEN begins with Enterprise-B ready to launch.

Actually, I do think it makes perfect sense for the decommissioning of the Enterprise-A and the commissioning of the Enterprise-B to take place in the same year, especially from a Starfleet P.R. standpoint. I believe the Enterprise-B was in the final stages of her construction at the time of Star Trek VI and that it was planned long ago that she was going to replace the Enterprise-A.

 

[Hober Mallow]

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.

Nick Meyer's Trek is so different from Roddenberry's Trek, I don't even try to reconcile them. In Meyer's Trek, Starfleet is virtually all military, and David even refers to them as "the military" without, I think, any facetiousness or exaggeration. Also, I think Kirk's story works better if you disregard his character arc from TMP and consider TWOK Kirk an adaption, a retelling of the TMP arc. In both TMP and TWOK, Kirk has become an admiral but still longs to return to the big chair. For me, TWOK arc works better if Kirk hasn't been in the Captain's chair since TOS. The way the arc was played in TMP, I don't think that Kirk would have given up the command chair.

 

[WarpFactorZ]

The way the arc was played in TMP, I don't think that Kirk would have given up the command chair.

Perhaps, but the other way to look at it is Kirk was ultra career-driven and they gave him an offer he couldn't refuse. Maybe "You can be Admiral, and always have the option of taking the Enterprise back after the refit if you want." So, he got extra $$ for a few years, sat pretty at a desk job, and waited to take the reins of Starfleet's flagship again.

 

[Praetor]

I think it can still work, considering Kirk's somewhat tenuous relationship with the rules. "Other people get promoted and never get a ship again, but not me." OTOH, Commodore Decker had a ship, so it might not be as big a deal as we thought.

The crux of it might be that Kirk was so good that he ascended quickly to be head of Starfleet Operations, to the point where he was doing more good for Starfleet and the Federation there, and felt obligated, but tortured, about not commanding a starship.

Regarding TMP, we fairly well know it should take place no later than 2278. Are there any reasons to push it later than 2273, though? We use the "two and a half years" line to keep it close to the original series, which somewhat fits with the uniforms... but is there really any reason to? Especially when the movie was made in '78 and everyone is noticeably older?

 

[drt]

I'm OK with having a bigger gap between TMP and TWOK than TOS and TMP, even though it's only 3-4 years between the former, the cast looks much older and less fit in TWOK for some reason.

 

[BillJ]

Shouldn't it be about a decade between the two films?

Kirk is 34 in The Deadly Years. If we assume that is year two of the five-year mission, it means they finished up somewhere around the time he is 37. He hadn't logged a single star-hour in 2.5 years in TMP which would push him close to 40. In TWoK, it seems the intent is that he's celebrating his 50th birthday.

 

[Praetor]

Great point! If Kirk's turning 50 in TWOK (which makes perfect sense) and we know Kirk to be born in 2233 from ID... then TWOK must take place in 2283. In turn, that renders the discussion about the Romulan Ale a sarcastic one.

I'm not clear why that would make TMP 10 years earlier though?

 

[BillJ]

I'm not clear why that would make TMP 10 years earlier though?

I think I was pretty clear on my thoughts:

Shouldn't it be about a decade between the two films?

Kirk is 34 in The Deadly Years. If we assume that is year two of the five-year mission, it means they finished up somewhere around the time he is 37. He hadn't logged a single star-hour in 2.5 years in TMP which would push him close to 40. In TWoK, it seems the intent is that he's celebrating his 50th birthday.

 

[Leto_II]

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).

That's something else I've never fully understood. Why does the beginning of GEN have to take place in the same year as TUC? It would make more sense if it was a year or two later, as TUC ends with the Enterprise-A being decommisioned, and GEN begins with Enterprise-B ready to launch.

Yeah, most of the novels released around the time GEN hit theaters (and afterwards) used 2294 as the launch-date of the Enterprise-B (including the novel Federation, which came out about a full month or so prior to the movie), but later sources retconned this to 2293, the same year as TUC.

Not sure where the 2294-figure got started as a thing, since the first season of TNG is clearly established as occurring in 2364 (the episode, "The Neutral Zone," takes place near the very end of that year), with six more story-years taking places afterwards, with the 24th Century portions of Generations possessing stardates set one year further after THAT...i.e., in 2371.

There are quite a few stories set after the events of Star Trek VI, before the launch, involving the original crew (The Ashes of Eden, Sarek, Mind Meld, The Last Roundup, The Fearful Summons, Shadows on the Sun, et al), which now have to be squeezed into those months between the films.

Not a huge deal, as most stories tend to take place over a period of days or weeks at most, but these things still happen occasionally.

 

[C.E. Evans]

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).

That's something else I've never fully understood. Why does the beginning of GEN have to take place in the same year as TUC? It would make more sense if it was a year or two later, as TUC ends with the Enterprise-A being decommisioned, and GEN begins with Enterprise-B ready to launch.

Yeah, most of the novels released around the time GEN hit theaters (and afterwards) used 2294 as the launch-date of the Enterprise-B (including the novel Federation, which came out about a full month or so prior to the movie), but later sources retconned this to 2293, the same year as TUC.

Not sure where the 2294-figure got started as a thing, since the first season of TNG is clearly established as occurring in 2364 (the episode, "The Neutral Zone," takes place near the very end of that year), with six more story-years taking places afterwards, with the 24th Century portions of Generations possessing stardates set one year further after THAT...i.e., in 2371.

And if we take Data's statement in Generations that the Nexus sweeps through our Galaxy every 39 years, then the Enterprise-B encountered the Nexus in 2293 (it fits the "78 years later" when we see the TNG gang nicely).

 

[Praetor]

I'm not clear why that would make TMP 10 years earlier though?

I think I was pretty clear on my thoughts:

Shouldn't it be about a decade between the two films?

Kirk is 34 in The Deadly Years. If we assume that is year two of the five-year mission, it means they finished up somewhere around the time he is 37. He hadn't logged a single star-hour in 2.5 years in TMP which would push him close to 40. In TWoK, it seems the intent is that he's celebrating his 50th birthday.

Well, not really. Perhaps my question was unclearly stated.

All we know is that Kirk was 34 in "The Deadly Years," and TWOK is probably Kirk's 50th birthday. Beyond the fact that the 2.5 years of no space travel took place somewhere between the two, I would think we actually have no idea where TMP would fall.

 

[WarpFactorZ]

It probably makes more sense to have TUC occur in 2291, going with the usual 300 year shift from the production date. That way, the E-B launch is two years after, which allows the E-A to have a "final" voyage (and downtime between ships). Given the dates above, we'd have:

Space Seed - 2267/8 (15ish years before TWOK)
TMP - 2273
TWOK/TSFS/TVH - 2283-84
TFF - 2284
E-A crew disbands - 2285ish
Sulu gets Excelsior - 2288
TUC - 2291
GEN - 2293

 

[C.E. Evans]

It probably makes more sense to have TUC occur in 2291, going with the usual 300 year shift from the production date.

Then that shifts McCoy's arrival on the Enterprise as CMO two years earlier to 2264, which means he originally served on the ship under Pike (McCoy said in Star Trek VI he had been the Enterprise's CMO for 27 years, and VOY established Kirk's 5-year mission as taking place between 2265-2270).

 

[WarpFactorZ]

It probably makes more sense to have TUC occur in 2291, going with the usual 300 year shift from the production date.

Then that shifts McCoy's arrival on the Enterprise as CMO two years earlier to 2264, which means he originally served on the ship under Pike (McCoy said in Star Trek VI he had been the Enterprise's CMO for 27 years, and VOY established Kirk's 5-year mission as taking place between 2265-2270).

What's to say he didn't serve under Pike for a little while? Or perhaps the Enterprise was in drydock for a 2-year refit between Pike and Kirk (2263-2265). So, McCoy came on board mid-way through the process.

 

[C.E. Evans]

It probably makes more sense to have TUC occur in 2291, going with the usual 300 year shift from the production date.

Then that shifts McCoy's arrival on the Enterprise as CMO two years earlier to 2264, which means he originally served on the ship under Pike (McCoy said in Star Trek VI he had been the Enterprise's CMO for 27 years, and VOY established Kirk's 5-year mission as taking place between 2265-2270).

What's to say he didn't serve under Pike for a little while?

"The Menagerie." Kirk said only Spock had served previously with Pike and McCoy didn't correct him.

Or perhaps the Enterprise was in drydock for a 2-year refit between Pike and Kirk (2263-2265). So, McCoy came on board mid-way through the process.

It seems way easier to just place McCoy's arrival in 2266 after Doctor Piper's tenure as CMO than to retcon "The Menagerie."

 

[WarpFactorZ]

It seems way easier to just place McCoy's arrival in 2266 after Doctor Piper's tenure as CMO than to retcon "The Menagerie."

If Crusher were asked how long she had served as CMO on the E-D, would she care to count the year (season 2) she was "on sabbatical"? Perhaps McCoy took a leave of absence and Piper was his replacement during that time.

 

[C.E. Evans]

It seems way easier to just place McCoy's arrival in 2266 after Doctor Piper's tenure as CMO than to retcon "The Menagerie."

If Crusher were asked how long she had served as CMO on the E-D, would she care to count the year (season 2) she was "on sabbatical"? Perhaps McCoy took a leave of absence and Piper was his replacement during that time.

Only if you really personally want to place Star Trek VI in 2291, otherwise it's easily a straightforward case that McCoy succeeded Piper as Enterprise CMO in 2266 and served in that capacity for 27 years before moving on in 2293.

 

[WarpFactorZ]

It seems way easier to just place McCoy's arrival in 2266 after Doctor Piper's tenure as CMO than to retcon "The Menagerie."

If Crusher were asked how long she had served as CMO on the E-D, would she care to count the year (season 2) she was "on sabbatical"? Perhaps McCoy took a leave of absence and Piper was his replacement during that time.

Only if you really personally want to place Star Trek VI in 2291, otherwise it's easily a straightforward case that McCoy succeeded Piper as Enterprise CMO in 2266 and served in that capacity for 27 years before moving on in 2293.

"Personally"? Is there an official record of when McCoy signed aboard? If not, then *every* timeline is "personal" to someone who wants it to be that way.