New stardates
- Thread starter Zeppster
- Start date
Actually, it was his ship's computer. Which makes no sense, since it came from the future of a timeline that uses 5-digit, non-calendrical stardates.
I don't much like the idea of having them correspond to calendar years, regardless. It makes the Federation seem far too human-centric, and begs the question of why they're called "stardates" at all.
How would it make that easier to understand? Spock's flashback made the time-travel element explicit. But up until that scene with the ship's computer I didn't even realize the stardates now equaled years (nor would anyone even casually familiar with Star Trek), so far from conveying useful information, the change confused me and yanked me out of the story.
I thought it was obvious, and to me, it does make it easier, because I tend to speculate on these things a lot. So, you can speak for yourself (not meaning to be rude or anything). I thought the change was cool, and that now stardates finally make sense.
Well, of course I was speaking for myself. Who else?
But you didn't really answer my question about how using a never-before-seen version of stardates would be helpful to the audience, and "I thought it was obvious" doesn't really clarify anything.
If they're just earthdates, why not just call them that? The dates may make more sense now (once you realize how they're being used), but the terminology no longer does.
Ha ha! This proves that Spock Prime was not the Spock we knew from TOS and TNG! =P
I think it was pretty clear Spock was using the Earth date, even though he said stardate 2387. Don't forget.....he's adapting to a new timeline as well and has been in it long enough to know that the stardate system he is use to...never was embraced. So when he says it was stardate 2387 perhaps he is just speaking the language of the new universe. The five digits system was great for where he came from, but the new timeline (altered) for what ever reason, never started using them. The Stardate system in 2233 would have been accurate and real, but from that point on, because of the "new" events, there is a new system of time dating. The old system was never developed and Spock was just altering his thoughts and words to fit the new universe.
It's not only easier to understand; It makes sure there are no nerds who meticulously map the used stardates into a table for hours and hours on end, complaining when they don't match up since they're mostly made up anyway. 
Besides that, it's not as if we've always had the Gregorian date notation. It might simply be a case of someone, in this reality, deciding that the Gregorian stardate notation made more sense. Good for him!
Besides that, it's not as if we've always had the Gregorian date notation. It might simply be a case of someone, in this reality, deciding that the Gregorian stardate notation made more sense. Good for him!
I noticed the stardates conforming to Gregorian years right away.
Being the huge techonerd and detail-oriented obsessive-compulsive that I am, I was actually thinking of the stardate system on my way home from the Imax screening I saw on Thursday night. And I realized that if the numbers after the decimal are tenths and hundredths, then each tenth represents 36.5 days (roughly a month), and each hundredth represents 3.65 days (87.6 hours, a little awkward). So a third decimal (representing 8.76 hours, around the length of a single duty shift) is almost a requirement to get acurate dates in the system.
I did find it amusing that Kirk had some trouble with the date when making a log entry. That might explain why the stardates in TOS made no sense - Kirk was making them up as he went, and they never meant anything.
The computer keeps track of the date and time a log entry is made, anyway.
Being the huge techonerd and detail-oriented obsessive-compulsive that I am, I was actually thinking of the stardate system on my way home from the Imax screening I saw on Thursday night. And I realized that if the numbers after the decimal are tenths and hundredths, then each tenth represents 36.5 days (roughly a month), and each hundredth represents 3.65 days (87.6 hours, a little awkward). So a third decimal (representing 8.76 hours, around the length of a single duty shift) is almost a requirement to get acurate dates in the system.
I did find it amusing that Kirk had some trouble with the date when making a log entry. That might explain why the stardates in TOS made no sense - Kirk was making them up as he went, and they never meant anything.
The computer keeps track of the date and time a log entry is made, anyway.
Now that is one of the best explanations I have seen yet, about the strange old stardates!
A year, and one of 365 days in the year, makes sense to me, better than decimalising time for a randomised number lol.
I wonder if there is a precident for leap years, and this follows on nicely from Enteprise, where a full earth date was given in the Captain's Star Log.
I wonder if there is a precident for leap years, and this follows on nicely from Enteprise, where a full earth date was given in the Captain's Star Log.
Now that is one of the best explanations I have seen yet, about the strange old stardates!
Yeah, we all know that Kirk had a problem with names, so having a problem with dates, too, would fit in both continuities.
I think the stardates in TOS were also made to prevent people from guessing what year they were taking place. It wasn't till long after the show was canceled that it was revealed it was the 23rd century and on screen it wasn't till Star Trek 2. In the TOS episodes themselves it was referred to a different century several times. So if you tried to use TOS to canonize what century it was you would get confused.
Did you like the new Stardate system?
So apparently, one of Abram's changes is altering the stardates to reflect the year in the Gregorian calendar...2233.04 for the year 2233, and perhaps 04 for April, or who knows? The Jellyfish's onboard computer states the ship was built in 2387 (as per countdown)...Kirk's first (and hilarious
) on screen log entry on Delta Vega: "Stardate 2258.42... four uh, whatever" ( as the bulk of the film takes place in 2258)
Anyways, was this a smart move? Do you think they should have left the Stardate system as something of a mystery, and perhaps have displayed the year on screen or something? I'm sort of a nitpicker for details, so I like knowing when things happen, but some people prefer mystery...certainly, the stardates in TOS have been an endless source of discussion...does this new system render the discussion moot? Any thoughts?
So apparently, one of Abram's changes is altering the stardates to reflect the year in the Gregorian calendar...2233.04 for the year 2233, and perhaps 04 for April, or who knows? The Jellyfish's onboard computer states the ship was built in 2387 (as per countdown)...Kirk's first (and hilarious
) on screen log entry on Delta Vega: "Stardate 2258.42... four uh, whatever" ( as the bulk of the film takes place in 2258)Anyways, was this a smart move? Do you think they should have left the Stardate system as something of a mystery, and perhaps have displayed the year on screen or something? I'm sort of a nitpicker for details, so I like knowing when things happen, but some people prefer mystery...certainly, the stardates in TOS have been an endless source of discussion...does this new system render the discussion moot? Any thoughts?
Re: Did you like the new Stardate system?
The TOS system and the TNG system never matched each other, nor did either one make much sense. The only way to reconcile the difference between the 2 was to just ignore the problem.
So, yes, I'm very happy that they're just going to use a system that can be used in any century. It's about time.
The TOS system and the TNG system never matched each other, nor did either one make much sense. The only way to reconcile the difference between the 2 was to just ignore the problem.
So, yes, I'm very happy that they're just going to use a system that can be used in any century. It's about time.
A
Amaris
Guest
Re: Did you like the new Stardate system?
I was fine with it. I figured it had been changed to make it possible for people to assimilate easier. It was simply a way for us to know time had passed, just as Gene had done.
Edit:
I agree with Small White Car also.
J.
So apparently, one of Abram's changes is altering the stardates to reflect the year in the Gregorian calendar...2233.04 for the year 2233, and perhaps 04 for April, or who knows? The Jellyfish's onboard computer states the ship was built in 2387 (as per countdown)...Kirk's first (and hilarious
Anyways, was this a smart move? Do you think they should have left the Stardate system as something of a mystery, and perhaps have displayed the year on screen or something? I'm sort of a nitpicker for details, so I like knowing when things happen, but some people prefer mystery...certainly, the stardates in TOS have been an endless source of discussion...does this new system render the discussion moot? Any thoughts?
I was fine with it. I figured it had been changed to make it possible for people to assimilate easier. It was simply a way for us to know time had passed, just as Gene had done.
Edit:
I agree with Small White Car also.
J.
Re: Did you like the new Stardate system?
This makes the chronology for the film easier to understand, and there's no downside to it. Interestingly, it arguably could pick up from or evolve from the practice during the days of the NX-01 (as someone noted, oddly enough the only series which would by story logic be unaltered here) of keeping ship's time based on the Gregorian calendar.
Stardates never have meant anything, in the sense of representing a self-consistent timekeeping system. So changing them (again) does Trek no harm at all.
This makes the chronology for the film easier to understand, and there's no downside to it. Interestingly, it arguably could pick up from or evolve from the practice during the days of the NX-01 (as someone noted, oddly enough the only series which would by story logic be unaltered here) of keeping ship's time based on the Gregorian calendar.
Stardates never have meant anything, in the sense of representing a self-consistent timekeeping system. So changing them (again) does Trek no harm at all.
Re: Did you like the new Stardate system?
Stardates never made any sense so I didn't have a problem with them making it reflect the Gregorian year. They should have done it in the first place.
That is, if they knew when the hell TOS was taking place when they invented Stardates. Which they didn't.
Stardates never made any sense so I didn't have a problem with them making it reflect the Gregorian year. They should have done it in the first place.
That is, if they knew when the hell TOS was taking place when they invented Stardates. Which they didn't.
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll