Star Trek II, III, IV movie Timeline question...

[DIrishB]

And again, position in the galaxy, warp speed being traveled, etc all affected the Stardates:

"They marked off sections on a pictorial depiction of the known universe and extrapolated how much earth time would elapse when traveling between given points, taking into account that the Enterprise's warp engines would be violating Einstein's theory that nothing could exceed the speed of light. They concluded that the 'time continuum' would therefore vary from place to place, and that earth time may actually be lost in travel. 'So the stardate on Earth would be one thing, but the stardate on Alpha Centauri would be different,' Peeples says. 'We thought this was hilarious, because everyone would say, "How come this date is before that date when this show is after that show?" The answer was because you were in a different sector of the universe."

-Joel Engel, explaining Stardates based on interview with Samuel Peeples, who wrote "Where No Man Has Gone Before" episode and brainstormed the Stardate system with Roddenberry.

There's no real rhyme or reason to it. They're completely random, and this quote, as well as quotes from Roddenberry himself who says same (that position in galaxy and warp speed affected the Stardates so they're not linear or in a progressive order).

From TOS series bible:

"Stardates are a mathematical formula which varies depending on location in the galaxy, velocity of travel, and other factors, can vary widely from episode to episode."

So, again, don't make mistake of taking Stardates as definitive markers of a chronology for the show.

The production order is the generally accepted chronology for that reason.

It's also why viewing the 1000 dates as first year, 5000 dates as fifth year is also likely an invalid assumption.

 

[BillJ]

No, but beyond TOS every other series have seasons that equate to one year or so passing in their timeline. I'd classify that as ample evidence.

I wouldn't. The spinoffs are twenty years after TOS. Thinking changes. Roddenberry himself is on record for stardates being gibberish during TOS.

 

[DIrishB]

Further, Tasha Yar dies on Stardate 41601.3 but is alive on the later Stardate of 41997.7, so there's no real rhyme or reason to TOS's Stardates, and even TNG and the other shows occasionally had them inexplicably out of order.

I wouldn't. The spinoffs are twenty years after TOS. Thinking changes. Roddenberry himself is on record for stardates being gibberish during TOS.

I know, just posted a bunch of examples of that. My point isn't that Stardates are valid, just the opposite. My point is that Stardates were completely random for most part on TOS.

I'm just saying that each season likely reflects a year of their timeline, and that's partially backed up by Sulu's comment of serving under Kirk for 2 years in Deadly Years as JohnnyQuest037 pointed out. It's generally accepted Where No Man Has Gone Before occurs in 2265, and the rest of Season 1 runs from 2266-2267.

Charlie X episode occurs on Thanksgiving, if we assume the general chronological viewing order that places Charlie X as episode 8 The Cage being Episode 1 set in 2254 and WNMHGB being Episode 2 set in 2265, with Corbomite Maneuver as Episode 3 set in 2266--and which lines up perfectly with McCoy's statement of spending 27 years as doctor in STVI-Undiscovered Country set in 2293.

5 year mission, 3 TOS seasons and 2 TAS seasons... seems pretty clear.

I know the Stardates in TOS are gibberish, I'm just saying the seasons generally equate to a year in the ST timeline. The exceptions are The Cage and Where No Man Has Gone Before, but from Corbomite Maneuver on that seems to be the case.

 

[Tomalak]

But there's no real reason to think we're seeing it in chronological order, and a lot of evidence that we're not. WNMHGB is clearly before The Man Trap, so there's little reason to view the bulk of seasons one and two as being in any order. Each individual episode can be moved around more or less freely. Why not? There's no reason to think Amok Time is in January and Assignment: Earth is December.

 

[BillJ]

Each individual episode can be moved around more or less freely. Why not? There's no reason to think Amok Time is in January and Assignment: Earth is December.

This. It was pretty much the way 60's TV was constructed.

 

[Tomalak]

Yeah. And I only mentioned season three separately because of Scotty's hair!

 

[BillJ]

5 year mission, 3 TOS seasons and 2 TAS seasons... seems pretty clear.

Roddenberry declared TAS non-canon, many moons ago.

 

[Timo]

The Stardate system in the reboot movies is based on year, a decimal, and then day of year. So it ranges from 2258.01 to 2258.365 for the year. 2233.04 means the alternate universe Kirk was born on January 4.

That may have been somebody's intent, but obviously it can't work that way.

What is the difference between 2258.01 and 2258.010, say? If there is none, then 2233.04 must be February 9th. But that can't work, because Kirk after being stranded on Delta Vega is uncertain about the second post-stop digit. How could he be off by more than a week?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Tomalak]

How long was he out for on that week-long voyage to Vulcan?

 

[KirkusOveractus]

Roddenberry declared TAS non-canon, many moons ago.

...but has been reinstated as canon not too long ago. He produced it, it has the original actors providing the voices, written by highly respected writers. Just because he was in a bad mood and struck it from his canon doesn't mean everyone else has to.

Hell, he even claimed Star Trek V wasn't canon! Sorry, bub. It's filmed and appeared on screen. It's canon.

 

[BillJ]

Sorry, bub. It's filmed and appeared on screen. It's canon.

I'm guessing Roddenberry used a different definition of canon.

 

[KirkusOveractus]

I'm guessing Roddenberry used a different definition of canon.

Canon to Roddenberry was whatever he liked and that was it, pretty much. He counted "Yesteryear" from TAS as canon, but nothing else from TAS. He excluded Star Trek V, and from time to time would even exclude scenes from canon.

 

[DIrishB]

But there's no real reason to think we're seeing it in chronological order, and a lot of evidence that we're not. WNMHGB is clearly before The Man Trap, so there's little reason to view the bulk of seasons one and two as being in any order. Each individual episode can be moved around more or less freely. Why not? There's no reason to think Amok Time is in January and Assignment: Earth is December.

Like I said, the generally accepted chronological order is that. There is no specifics to state as such, granted, hence why I say it's just generally accepted. Even Roddenberry confirmed the Stardates not matching airing order (in terms of linear progression) was due to production and airing order being different, and so the explanation that they vary based on speed traveling and position in galaxy was created.

Nor an I assuming the first episode of the year necessarily occurs in January, or the last in December. Only that a season generally covers a year.

Where No Man Has Gone Before is listed before The Man Trap on every chronology I've come across. If that's correctly placed--as it is, with WNMHGB as Episode 2 and TMT as Episode 6--why think the others are out of order, especially given the knowledge Stardates are largely random and don't linearly increase.

Roddenberry declared TAS non-canon, many moons ago.

Right, but Paramount seems to have recanonized it.

Paramount owns rights so they get final call, much like Disney owns rights to Star Wars and got final call on rebooting their Extended Universe.

Paramount's canon view, as far as I know, is now all of the TV episodes and films, but none of the spin off novels, comics, or video games count as canon.

That may have been somebody's intent, but obviously it can't work that way.

What is the difference between 2258.01 and 2258.010, say? If there is none, then 2233.04 must be February 9th. But that can't work, because Kirk after being stranded on Delta Vega is uncertain about the second post-stop digit. How could he be off by more than a week?

Timo Saloniemi

Because it wouldn't be listed as 2258.010, it'd be listed as 2258.10, which is obviously different than 2258.01. I think there's a base two digits after decimal until they get to the hundredth day of year and beyond, at which point it utilizes 3 digits after decimal to reflect day (2258.246 for example). That's how the spin off Kelvin universe comics do it anyway.

...but has been reinstated as canon not too long ago. He produced it, it has the original actors providing the voices, written by highly respected writers. Just because he was in a bad mood and struck it from his canon doesn't mean everyone else has to.

Hell, he even claimed Star Trek V wasn't canon! Sorry, bub. It's filmed and appeared on screen. It's canon.

Yep. Roddenberry's canon differs from Paramount's canon, and given Paramount own rights they get final call. I know that may bother purists, but it is the way it is.

Canon to Roddenberry was whatever he liked and that was it, pretty much. He counted "Yesteryear" from TAS as canon, but nothing else from TAS. He excluded Star Trek V, and from time to time would even exclude scenes from canon.

Exactly. Roddenberry's was a thoroughly confusing, selective approach regarding canon. Have to say I much prefer Paramount's simpler approach.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

The stardate system of the new movies may not be explicit, but it certainly is making lewd suggestions - and SD 2233.04 is a cat call if I ever heard one. However, whether that would suggest March is far from said. We know from the same movie that there's a SD 2258.42, debunking the idea that the two digits after the full stop would be dedicated to twelve months. And if they are dedicated to one-hundredths of a year instead, .04 ain't March 22. Unless we make assumptions about when during the Earth year the stardate year zeroes roll over. But then all bets are off.

I personally wouldn't choose to mix the TOS stardate system with the Kelvin stardate system. As they're obviously based on different assumptions, that way lies madness.

(no need to think he skipped anything between TMP and TUC)

Well, except for him apparently working at Starfleet Academy along with Kirk at the beginning of TWOK...

No, but beyond TOS every other series have seasons that equate to one year or so passing in their timeline. I'd classify that as ample evidence.

I personally don't let how TNG & other series did things dictate much about how I perceive TOS. I prefer to just operate on what the series itself told us. YMMV.

Further, are we to presume Stardates only began to be utilized the year before those 1000 dates?

No. But assuming that they "reset" every decade or so doesn't seem to be an unreasonable assumption, especially since TWOK's stardate of 8301.3 comes at least 10 years after TMP's stardate of 7410.2 and TUC's stardate of 9521.6 comes about 10 years after TWOK.

Most chronologies accept the established airing order as the chronological order for TOS, more or less, which certainly don't match up to the Stardates. Plus how do we explain Chekov appearing in Season 2 episodes whose Stardates are earlier than Season 1 episodes?

I was never suggesting that TOS stardates be rearranged into numerical order. Again, that way lies madness.

No, but I'm sure a lot of canon info may not be expressly stated or shown in episodes. That doesn't necessarily make it any less canon of valid.

Actually, that's exactly what it means. If it's not in an episode or a movie, it isn't canon.

2233.04 means the alternate universe Kirk was born on January 4. That doesn't dispute the Prime Universe Kirk being born on March 22 by any means. It could easily be argued that Kelvin timeline Kirk was born a couple months premature, perhaps due to the stress induced from the space battle between the Narada and Kelvin, something that didn't happen in the Prime timeline thus Kirk was carried to the full nine months and born on March 22 instead of 2 and a half months premature (advanced medical technology of the time also would likely make premature births not a big deal in most cases).

This is more or less how I rationalize it. Kelvin universe Kirk was born slightly premature, since all available evidence indicates that Prime Universe Kirk was born on Earth, in Iowa. And if you put any stock into the gravestone we see in "Where No Man Has Gone Before," we even have a stardate for Prime Universe Kirk's birth (One that's in the 1000s).

 

[DIrishB]

No. But assuming that they "reset" every decade or so doesn't seem to be an unreasonable assumption, especially since TWOK's stardate of 8301.3 comes at least 10 years after TMP's stardate of 7410.2 and TUC's stardate of 9521.6 comes about 10 years after TWOK.

But what evidence shows they reset every decade or so?

Actually, that's exactly what it means. If it's not in an episode or a movie, it isn't canon.

That's actually not completely true. Details that may not be addressed or revealed within episodes or films can still be viewed as canon. A good example of that may be details revealed in say, a Marvel Comic Guidebook, revealing a minor character's middle name or some other less than important detail. It does happen. I always assumed that was case with making Kirk's birthday same as Shatner's. It's not addressed in the episodes or films (the only canon material) when his birthday is (in Prime timeline, Kelvin timeline makes it quite clear), but I thought it was generally agreed Kirk's birthday is March 22.

It's accepted as such on Memory Alpha and various other info sites.

Presumably Roddenberry chose Shatner's actual birthday to align with Kirk's during this:

"In March 1985, when the town was looking for a theme for its annual town festival, Steve Miller, a member of the Riverside City Council who had read The Making of Star Trek – a book that lists Kirk's year of birth as 2228 rather than 2233 as established in TOS: "The Deadly Years" – suggested to the council that Riverside should proclaim itself to be the future birthplace of Kirk. Miller's motion passed unanimously. The council later wrote to Roddenberry for his permission to be designated as the official birthplace of Kirk, and with Roddenberry's consent, the towndeveloped a tourist industry around the idea. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home then established on screen that Kirk was from Iowa."

Presumably Roddenberry determined Kirk's birthday was same as Shatner's, or agreed to it based on someone else's suggestion.

 

[DIrishB]

Heck, even offhand comments made by producers, writers, creators, show runners that aren't addressed within canon material can still reflect that info as canon as long as it's not later overridden or conflicts with anything. Canon, after all, has an inherently fluid nature.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

But what evidence shows they reset every decade or so?

As I said, it's not an unreasonable assumption. It's the simplest possible explanation for the available evidence.

That's actually not completely true. Details that may not be addressed or revealed within episodes or films can still be viewed as canon.

"Viewed as canon" is not the same thing as being canon.

 

[BillJ]

That's actually not completely true. Details that may not be addressed or revealed within episodes or films can still be viewed as canon. A good example of that may be details revealed in say, a Marvel Comic Guidebook, revealing a minor character's middle name or some other less than important detail

What happens is that something created in a non-canon medium becomes canon because it is used in a canon production. Like George and Winona Kirk in the Abrams films, come from the novels originally. They weren't canon until placed in a live action production.

 

[DIrishB]

As I said, it's not an unreasonable assumption. It's the simplest possible explanation for the available evidence.

Yet still an assumption and not definitive evidence.

"Viewed as canon" is not the same thing as being canon.

When it's viewed as canon by the powers that be, as my example stipulated, then yes, it is canon, at least until a later retcon.

What happens is that something created in a non-canon medium becomes canon because it is used in a canon production. Like George and Winona Kirk in the Abrams films, come from the novels originally. They weren't canon until placed in a live action production.

Yes, I know. But again, every source I can find acknowledges Kirk's birthday as March 22. And since Roddenberry agreed or deemed it as such, does that not make it canon? Especially since no other canon or non-canon source disputes it as far as I know?

 

[BillJ]

And since Roddenberry agreed or deemed it as such, does that not make it canon?

Nope. Not on screen, not canon. You can use it if you like, but no one has to agree with you.