IS the okuda timeline canon?

[Hober Mallow]

Well if we accept that Space Seed occurs in 2267, and that TWoK takes place 15 years later as stated on-screen, which would be 2282, and that TMP takes place in 2273 (per VGR); that still gives us about nine years between TMP and TWoK to play with uniforms and additional 5-year missions, or whatever.

But Kirk's Romulan Ale is dated 2283, and Kirk and McCoy seem to imply that some years have passed since that date (although we could interpret McCoy's line as irony).

I remember a book of short Trek stories in the '80s coming up with an early 23rd century date (like 2212, or something like that) so as to allow Khan's line of "two hundred years ago" to make sense in a 23rd century setting, yet that requires ignoring the date on the bottle of Romulan ale.

 

[Praetor]

Short answer: no.

First and foremost, these books are based on materials created to aid the production team in maintaining continuity and consistency. They are secondly meant to make a buck and provide fan enjoyment which IMHO they do.

But they are most certainly not canon. I'd give them more credence than some books, simply because they were indeed members of the production team, but they're still not canon. If the screen conflicts with them, the screen wins.

 

[Lance]

^ I think it is much to the Okudas credit that they state multiple times within the books themselves that they are most definitely not canon. They do respect the viewing audience enough not to go trampling over the fans own interpretations of events, and they say quite explicitly that what they're offering is only their own personal take on the continuity. Even as members of the production team they don't try to "pull rank" and claim that what they say has any greater credence than anything else (even though they could have done, if they'd wanted).

Obviously the writing staff did often call up the Okudas to consult on continuity matters, and those calls sometimes meant that things which had previously appeared as conjecture within the Chronology were stated on screen as fact and were made canon. But even then, there were also many times when decisions were made despite what the Chronology says, rather than being true to the letter of the Okudas' conjecture. Which was a healthy attitude to take.

I like both books, I always did. But I don't hold them up as 'canon', nothing can be held in that high regard until it is established beyond reasonable doubt in a television episode or movie. And even then I can imagine there will be just as much contradictory evidence to make a case that it still isn't canon.

(Just throwing this out there: is there anyone else who tend to be selective about what parts of the Chronology they accept? Personally I do think what the Okudas say about TNG, DS9 and VOY has got credibility due to their both working on all of those shows. But on the other hand, everything involving TOS is questionable because, apart from the last couple movies, Okuda had no "inside knowledge" to pull from.)

 

[Robert Comsol]

Personally I do think what the Okudas say about TNG, DS9 and VOY has got credibility due to their both working on all of those shows. But on the other hand, everything involving TOS is questionable.

I absolutely concur, 15 years is 15 solar years.

Bob

 

[Praetor]

I think it is much to the Okudas credit that they state multiple times within the books themselves that they are most definitely not canon. They do respect the viewing audience enough not to go trampling over the fans own interpretations of events, and they say quite explicitly that what they're offering is only their own personal take on the continuity. Even as members of the production team they don't try to "pull rank" and claim that what they say has any greater credence than anything else (even though they could have done, if they'd wanted).

Obviously the writing staff did often call up the Okudas to consult on continuity matters, and those calls sometimes meant that things which had previously appeared as conjecture within the Chronology were stated on screen as fact and were made canon. But even then, there were also many times when decisions were made despite what the Chronology says, rather than being true to the letter of the Okudas' conjecture. Which was a healthy attitude to take.

I like both books, I always did. But I don't hold them up as 'canon', nothing can be held in that high regard until it is established beyond reasonable doubt in a television episode or movie. And even then I can imagine there will be just as much contradictory evidence to make a case that it still isn't canon.

Agreed. There are certain things not established on screen that I just ignore because I don't think it makes sense. They're fans like we are, they're just lucky enough to have worked on the show.

(Just throwing this out there: is there anyone else who tend to be selective about what parts of the Chronology they accept? Personally I do think what the Okudas say about TNG, DS9 and VOY has got credibility due to their both working on all of those shows. But on the other hand, everything involving TOS is questionable because, apart from the last couple movies, Okuda had no "inside knowledge" to pull from.)

Yes... in fact I started to mention something along these lines in my previous post. It kind of irks me, for similar reasons, that their assumption about the U.S.S. Antares and her registry has been (sorta) made canon by TOSR, among other things. But I digress.

 

[sariel2005]

So out of interest We know that there are some instances of the TOS dates being flawed any obvious problems with the TNG dating?

 

[Nerys Myk]

So out of interest We know that there are some instances of the TOS dates being flawed any obvious problems with the TNG dating?

Data graduating as part of the class of '78.

 

[The Old Mixer]

^Contradicted on the show itself, when they gave the first-ever definite current Earth year on Trek (2364 for the end of TNG's first season).

 

[Ben]

Data graduating as part of the class of '78.

Maybe the graduation was held on another planet with a different dating system!

 

[BillJ]

Data graduating as part of the class of '78.

Maybe the graduation was held on another planet with a different dating system!

If that had been the case, Data would've given a painfully detailed description.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Maybe Data had 77 classmates.

 

[Praetor]

Suddenly makes me want to see a 'shop of Data in the Monster Maroon uniforms. I bet if you squint hard enough in TSFS he's lurking in the background.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

Might be that DC Fontana thought the current year was 2302, because of David Gerrold's new stardate rule, where the 4 (somehow) stood for the 24th century. Stardates 40xxx would've been 2301, and Data would've graduated in 2278 = 24 years earlier, close to the established 19 years (since 2345).

 

[Mysterion]

^^^
Might be the case. They probably hadn't really nailed-down a lot of stuff that early on in the production of TNG. In any case, "class of '78" is the anomalous dating reference in comparison to the other on-screen dating references we get in TNG, and should just be discounted. Especially when we get one of the clearest date references later on that same season in The Neuteral Zone.

 

[Praetor]

Agreed.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Data graduating as part of the class of '78.

Maybe the graduation was held on another planet with a different dating system!

I suspect it's a FASA/Spaceflight Chronology date. They put TNG at the very start of the 24th century. Early TNG used images from FASA and the SFC in display graphics, so somebody must have been a fan.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

Yes, for the first season of TNG, FASA established a "reference stardate" which converts to 2303 under the old timeline, while the pilot writers may have been working with their own Spaceflight-based calculation. Still, I wonder if that timeline had something to do with Gerrold's stardate rule as well — perhaps that method was also influenced by the Spaceflight Chronology?

 

[Hober Mallow]

But on the other hand, everything involving TOS is questionable because, apart from the last couple movies, Okuda had no "inside knowledge" to pull from.)

I'm not even convinced that TOS took place in the 23rd Century. TMP retcon notwithstanding.

 

[Nerys Myk]

But on the other hand, everything involving TOS is questionable because, apart from the last couple movies, Okuda had no "inside knowledge" to pull from.)

I'm not even convinced that TOS took place in the 23rd Century. TMP retcon notwithstanding.

Neither was Kirk. He wasn't very good at math for some reason.

 

[jpv2000]

But on the other hand, everything involving TOS is questionable because, apart from the last couple movies, Okuda had no "inside knowledge" to pull from.)

I'm not even convinced that TOS took place in the 23rd Century. TMP retcon notwithstanding.

Neither was Kirk. He wasn't very good at math for some reason.

Very true.