Wow. I'd actually consider adding that to my personal canon, versus the official version.[LINK REMOVED]
There should still be a live link there.
The link has been removed as it's illegal. Thanks, The Management
Last edited by a moderator:
Wow. I'd actually consider adding that to my personal canon, versus the official version.[LINK REMOVED]
There should still be a live link there.
I'd rather all of the TOS era have TUC aesthetics personally.how amazing would it be to see the STC crew replicate TWOK, line for line, with TOS aesthetics throughout?!?!
Wow. I'd actually consider adding that to my personal canon, versus the official version.
I'd rather all of the TOS era have TUC aesthetics personally.
Ignoring TMP would be done at our own peril, because referring back to things that don't really need any referring back happens in Star Trek a lot. We haven't gotten a TMP reference yet, but we have references to the most obscure things in every spinoff including the most recent movies.
So the only argument remaining to be had is whether ST2:TWoK was intended to be patricide or not (regardless of the fact that it failed to be that). Well, it was marketed as ST2:TWoK, right from the moment they decided not to call it The Revenge of Khan...
Timo Saloniemi

Here's my chronology:
2265-2270: TOS-TAS (Five Year Mission)
2274: TMP
2282: TWOK-TVH
2288: TFF
2291: TUC
A four year jump between TAS and TMP accounts for the different uniforms, Kirk being "out of touch" and such. A nine year leap between TMP and TWOK accounts for the further changed uniforms, Kirk and co. being obviously much older than in TOS-TMP, and any other discrepancies. TMP Kirk is a middle aged man in the galaxy and wanting one last shot at the action before he goes back to desk duty. The WOK is him realizing desk duty isn't for him.
So how does a 6 year gap work for TFF, when its still coming off its shakedown cruise started at the end of TVH? I personally always pencil in a 3RD 5YM for the "A" between TFF and TUC, to be honest.
2265-2270: TOS-TAS (Five Year Mission)
2274: TMP
2282: TWOK-TOV
2283: TFF
2291: TUC
2270: Five Year Mission ends. Kirk promoted immediately after in recognition of his talents and achievements and logs a few Star Hours training Cadets as Admiral from 2270 to late 2271 or 2272, but settles into desk duty. TMP takes place in 2274, four years after the Five Year Mission, and two and a half years after his last Star Hour. Two and a half years is enough time for him to grow bored with desk duty.
After the events of TMP, the crew goes on a second Five Year Mission from 2274-2279. The Powers That Be don't really like the rogue that Kirk is when in the command chair, reactivate him as Admiral, and send him back to desk duty.
If you notice, any chance the Federation gets (even in II-VI), they're always looking for an opportunity to take him out of command, and finally in VI, decommission him. Let's be honest here. Kirk disobeys orders, doesn't play by the rules, is an incendiary figure with regard to the Klingons (his mere existence harms peace efforts). They would want him on desk duty as much as possible - away from possible encounters with Klingons, and thus as far from potentially causing headaches for the big guys as possible.
First off "Kirk is a maverick" is right along the lines of "a port in every girl" - It might be the rep the character has, but it is demonstrably not true.If you notice, any chance the Federation gets (even in II-VI), they're always looking for an opportunity to take him out of command, and finally in VI, decommission him. Let's be honest here. Kirk disobeys orders, doesn't play by the rules, is an incendiary figure with regard to the Klingons (his mere existence harms peace efforts). They would want him on desk duty as much as possible - away from possible encounters with Klingons, and thus as far from potentially causing headaches for the big guys as possible.

Yep.V starts immediately where IV leaves off, with Scotty grumbling "lets see what she's got, the Captain said..." and everyone on leave following the events of II, III and IV.
First off "Kirk is a maverick" is right along the lines of "a port in every girl" - It might be the rep the character has, but it is demonstrably not true.
Second, Kirk tried to NOT take command in TWOK, first from Starfleet and then from Spock. Starfleet insists (as does Spock). TSFS is another issue, but even after III and IV he is awarded command (as "punishment", HA!) as Phoenix219 has pointed out.
Finally, the Klingons weren't going to roll over and play nice if onlly the Federation would sideline the infamous Jimmy Kirk. I assume Starfleet knows this. (CinC "Bill" isn't shown to be part of the conspiracy, is he?) However, I'm sure there are Federation civilians that would make just that claim.
And I like your timeline. I've decided I don't give a hang about what "year" things happen in, but the relative dates mostly line up with my findings, with a wiggle of a year or two in some places.
BTW, I'm listening to the score of TMP while I write this. That's reason enough right there to not ignore TMP.![]()

In IV, they give him his rank AND his ship back, in fact, going way out of their way to congratulate him and put him where he will best utilize his talents. V starts immediately where IV leaves off, with Scotty grumbling "lets see what she's got, the Captain said..." and everyone on leave following the events of II, III and IV. all 4 movies encompass maybe a year.
Exactly. That's why Kirk disobeying orders in "Amok Time" is so extraordinary, because it's the exception, not the rule. A soldier who constantly disobeys orders will not go far in any military organization, much less make Captain.First off "Kirk is a maverick" is right along the lines of "a port in every girl" - It might be the rep the character has, but it is demonstrably not true.
Only if we assume that the fourth Trek movie (that is, the third in this particular series) lasts for less than a year.
But there's nothing to timewise tie the launching of the E-A with what happened in the first nine-tenths of the movie. For all we know, the heroes had to wait for their new ship for six full years.
Well, yes, "Should TMP be ignored?" is an obvious leading question.I feel like asking "should (such and such film) be ignored" is just a way to impose your will on others.
I think the producers of TWOK were acting like TMP didn't exist.I feel like asking "should (such and such film) be ignored" is just a way to impose your will on others. If you want to "ignore" a film because it wasn't to your fancy, that's fine, but making a grand debate that THE very first film of the series should be ignored is pretty absurd. TMP is probably one of the closest films to the original series in terms of scope and the sense of the unknown. If not for TMP's success, there would be no following films.
People call WOK a "reboot" but WOK was Star Trek II. It didn't pretend in name that the first film didn't exist, nor did the following sequels.
I don't like Generations, but I wouldn't pretend it doesn't exist. I don't like The Force Awakens, but it exists.
Ignoring a film or kicking it out of canon because you didn't like it just strikes me as childish, and just trying to shove your views on others.
This is getting tiresome. Have you actually read this thread?Why was Kirk an admiral again obviously in a job he didn't want? In TMP he grabbed back the captaincy and in the next movie he'd lost it again.
As we know, there are many problems with trying to squeeze TMP into the canon. It works as a follow-up to TOS, but really only if you allow for more than just 2 years between the two. As a "prequel" to TWOK and the remaining movies, however, it introduces even more problems (elapsed time, slow rank progression, complete reboot of uniforms, etc...). If you assume that TMP never occurred and there's about a 12ish year gap between the end of the 5 year mission and TWOK, it smoothes over many of the bumps.
Would it not be simpler to just pretend that TMP never occurred, and ex-communicate it from Trekdom? What are the pros and cons? Discuss!
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.