I forgot "experience" between the "my" and "five years..."Almost, minus the "my".![]()

I forgot "experience" between the "my" and "five years..."Almost, minus the "my".![]()
Yes.Didn't it say "In the 23rd Century" at the beginning of Wrath Of Khan?
What's settled is that the movies were set in the 23rd Century based upon advertisements for TMP, but it's those dumb chronology books which has done the most damage in brainwashing hardcore fans. TOS was set in the 22nd Century.
Didn't it say "In the 23rd Century" at the beginning of Wrath Of Khan?
The TNG episode The Neutral Zone stated the actual year of 2364. Since TNG is a century after TOS that dates TOS to the 2260s.
Roddenberry was also fond of using the term "The 23rd Century" in his parts of TMoST. For some reason that time stuck in his head.Didn't it say "In the 23rd Century" at the beginning of Wrath Of Khan?
The TNG episode The Neutral Zone stated the actual year of 2364. Since TNG is a century after TOS that dates TOS to the 2260s.
Yeah, I doubt GR was thinking the Valiant was a 20th Century ship, launched the same time as WNMHGB was filmed.I don't think Okuda's Chronology book is dumb. I have the first edition. He had to reconcile some things that just wouldn't fit into 200 years. There was a lot of history and space achievements that needed more breathing room than that, like the S.S. Valiant reaching the edge of the galaxy 200 years prior to WNMHGB. And some dating is hard to deal with at all, like "The Squire of Gothos." But overall, adding 300 years to 1966 for TOS Year 1 solved the most problems and caused the least.
There's enough inconsistencies to allow fans the freedom to think what they want.What's settled is that the movies were set in the 23rd Century based upon advertisements for TMP, but it's those dumb chronology books which has done the most damage in brainwashing hardcore fans. TOS was set in the 22nd Century.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.