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

[JonnyQuest037]

How specific is the reference to Nimbus III? Are they actually celebrating an anniversary, or or are they just speaking in general terms ?

Nothing that requires it to be exactly 20 years.

CAITHLIN: Twenty years ago, our three governments agreed to develop this planet together. A new age was born.
TALBOT: Our new age died a quick death. And the settlers we conned into coming here, they were the dregs of the galaxy. They immediately took to fighting amongst themselves. We forbade them weapons, but they soon began to fashion their own.
CAITHLIN: Right! Then it appears I've arrived just in time.

 

[Tomalak]

So it's the same as "fifteen years" - there's a bit of leeway up or down.
Khan was always fluid with dates anyway. He tells Chekov and Terrell that he left Earth "200 years ago". Such things are trivial concerns to a superior man like him.

 

[DIrishB]

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

Never said anyone had to agree.

But if it's not shown onscreen, why take any of the Okuda's chronology at word? As far as I know none of TOS era (including the films) feature any onscreen dates.

Yes, and...? I never said it was anything but my personal assumption.


Not unless he's in charge of a show or movie and puts it in there, no. That's how canon works.

Canon is what's presented onscreen that the tie-in creators have to conform to. That's it. Something that a creator says in an interview is great for learning what the creator intent was, and it can be great in the absence of any real canon to go by, but until it's onscreen, it doesn't officially count.

Again, then why is Okuda's timeline utilized then? None of its TOS era dates were ever presented onscreen.

The only way for Kirk and Khan's reference to 15 years and the 2283 date on the Romulan Ale to be consistent with each other is if we decide that Space Seed took place in 2268, and that's a pretty big revision.

On my timeline, I assume Space Seed occurs sometime in 2267, likely later portion of year. If we take Kirk's birthday as being March 22, that'd place TWoK in March, 2283. So, it leaves a span of 15 years and a few months, more or less. Thus the fifteen year comment makes perfect sense, with a bit of rounding down by a few months (something most people would do, round off to the closest whole year in such an instance).

Thus, Space Seed can occur in 2267 and TWoK in 2283 without messing anything else up in terms of the fifteen year span, and it also fits perfectly with the 2283 year for Romulan ale. I too view it as either a gag gift or McCoy being cheap. Lol.

I do think it's more likely Khan and Kirk weren't rounding down or up to a large degree regarding Khan's time spent on Ceti Alpha. As mentioned, Khan's obsession over Kirk's stranding them there, leading to the death of his wife (this makes me think he wasn't rounding up or down much, his wife's death is something he'd be exact about, and that occurred only 6 months after they were left on the planet) makes me think they're using somewhat accurate dating, as in it being 15 years or slightly more, but less than a full 16 years. That lines up perfectly with Space Seed occurring in 2267 (presumably late or middle of the year) and TWoK occurring in March, 2283 (to line up with Kirk's birthday and put it 15 years and some months after Space Seed). This makes both the 15 years comments and Romulan Ale being vintage 2283 like up perfectly.

I don't think any specific conclusions have been made about the Wrath of Khan date, but the thing that irks me about the 2285 date is the "fifteen year" reference to Space Seed that both Kirk and Khan make, independently of one another. That both of them would give the same date, with Khan being smart enough to do the math in his head and Kirk not having particularly thought about it in over a decade, seems to indicate that it's pretty on the mark, with wiggle room of no more than a year. (To account for it maybe being closer to 15 and some months or 14 and some months.) Whether that means Space Seed needs to be moved up or Khan moved back, I don't know. It's probably both depending on how you want to interpret the 2283 reference.

IIRC, the problem was Generations, wasn't it? Some reference to Kirk's time away with Antonia (nine years before 2293?) led the Okudas to fiddle around with the film timeline, forgetting or ignoring the Khan dates. I don't have the first edition of the Chronology to check. So any attempt to move Khan back from the 2285 date would need to square with that as well. (I think it can be done; I just don't remember the relevant info.)



YMMV (especially on nitpicky things like this) but keeping the episodes in production order provides consistency on some minor issues, such as cosmetic changes to the sets and things like uniform colors and rank usage becoming more consistent as the seasons go on.

That said, I definitely agree that there's no need to assume that each season covers a year of time, even for the later shows. I know the writers and the Okudas generally assume that it does, and I'm sure that's more or less accurate on average. But I'd rather get a more accurate sense of time passing during specific years by noting the references to days and weeks, etc., in the episodes themselves. Maybe TOS season 1 can't take place in less than a year and a half, Enterprise time, while all of the animated series could take place in as little as five months, for example.

TC

Hey, Talon! Good to see you over here!

 

[BillJ]

But if it's not shown onscreen, why take any of the Okuda's chronology at word? As far as I know none of TOS era (including the films) feature any onscreen dates.

Well, I don't. Because they were building it off of canon material, doesn't always make their suppositions right. Because even canon material is contradictory sometimes. TOS had the adventures taking place anywhere from 200 ("Tomorrow is Yesterday") to 900 years ("The Squire of Gothos") in the future. TMP places Trek in the 23rd century with V'ger being a 20th century probe and it being launched more than 300 years prior. Though one could make an argument for TOS also taking place in the early-24th century with that dialogue. Advertising for the movie places it in the 23rd century. Conflicts continue on, with Data's "Class of '78" ("Encounter at Farpoint") and his later "2364" line from "The Neutral Zone".

Star Trek is a collection of many writers, with many visions spread out over decades. Trying to make sense of the timeline just isn't worth the time, in my opinion.

 

[UssGlenn]

As was stated earlier Antonia is the real problem here. Nine years before 2293 he returned to Starfleet, that's 2284, If we assume the Enterprise B launched early in the year, we can push that to mid 2283. He met Antonia 11 years earlier in 2282. It's likely he was still in Starfleet at that point and Antonia was the catalyst for him to leave. So there is a 3 month gap of April to June 2283 we have to close.

 

[Timo]

This is only an issue if we think Kirk left Starfleet. The Antonia dialogue does not establish that such a thing would have happened.

Kirk only speaks of returning to Starfleet, not of having been absent. Basically, he could be saying that no, he's not not going to return at the end of the weekend, regardless of anything he might have said at a tender moment the previous night.

It won't help if we juggle the dates to "close a gap" anyway, because clearly Kirk has not been absent from Starfleet for any appreciable length of time prior to ST2:TWoK. He's fossilized at his desk, not freshened by an invigorating leave of absence nor by any recent twist of fate, positive or negative.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Phoenix219]

Any chance Antonia had him take a leave of absence between TFF and TUC?

I hate Generations, and tend to ignore that movie whenever possible. ;p

 

[UssGlenn]

This is only an issue if we think Kirk left Starfleet. The Antonia dialogue does not establish that such a thing would have happened.
Kirk only speaks of returning to Starfleet, not of having been absent. Basically, he could be saying that no, he's not not going to return at the end of the weekend, regardless of anything he might have said at a tender moment the previous night.

That's quite a stretch and clearly in contradiction to the plain intent of the writer. Remember, Kirk owns house and a dog in this period of time, and the house isn't in San Francisco. I suppose he could beam back and forth, but it's much more likely he didn't have a job that required him to be in San Francisco every day. We know that he has an apartment in TWOK, if he was already commuting from the Mountains why would he get the apartment?

It won't help if we juggle the dates to "close a gap" anyway, because clearly Kirk has not been absent from Starfleet for any appreciable length of time prior to ST2:TWoK. He's fossilized at his desk, not freshened by an invigorating leave of absence nor by any recent twist of fate, positive or negative.

There is no evidence his rustiness is due solely to desk duty. For all we know part of his malaise could be from regretting his decision to break up with Antonia, since his return to Starfleet hasn't lived up to his expectations.

Any chance Antonia had him take a leave of absence between TFF and TUC?

unlikely, It would have to happen right after TFF and he's just gotten a shiny new Enterprise to play with.

 

[Timo]

If there was a leave, it was over in 2284 - the 2371 minus 78 years minus nine years thing in ST:GEN is pretty unambiguous as timeline hijinks go. IMHO, it's not worth the hassle, as Kirk isn't the sort to leave Starfleet, for a woman or for anything else.

Remember, Kirk owns house and a dog in this period of time, and the house isn't in San Francisco.

It's a cabin. As in, the second house everybody has in a society where money is no issue (heck, everybody has one around here despite money very much being an issue). No doubt Kirk also has a yacht, a shuttle, and some real estate on Proxima Centauri. And quite possiby an ancient red 'Vette, too.

For all we know part of his malaise could be from regretting his decision to break up with Antonia, since his return to Starfleet hasn't lived up to his expectations.

But then Antonia would be the thing McCoy would bring up in the birthday-like-a-funeral dialogue...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[gottacook]

Star Trek is a collection of many writers, with many visions spread out over decades. Trying to make sense of the timeline just isn't worth the time, in my opinion.

So glad I'm not alone out there.

Question for discussion: Did the Okudas, 25 years ago when they first sold the Chronology to its publisher, fill a gap that some group of fans had been asking to be filled, with respect to timelines of the various series and movies that had been produced to date? Or was it their own impulse alone that led them to think such an effort - in combination with their insider status Trek-wise - would lead to a sale? (And if there was indeed some sort of demand among fans, how was it made known? At conventions, by U.S. mail, carrier pigeon, or what?)

To take it a step further: Is there some natural impulse in humans to make events fit into a chronology?

Related question: In the early 1950s, whose idea was it - the author or the publisher - to put month-and-year dates at the top of all the stories in Ray Bradbury's The Martian Chronicles? (At least one of those stories, "Mars Is Heaven!," when originally published separately, had a specific date: One character says "This being 1960, yes sir" to Captain Black. This was edited out for the story's appearance in Chronicles as "The Third Expedition" because it didn't conform to the new dating scheme.)

 

[Phoenix219]

Maybe there IS more time between STIV's court proceedings and STV, and Antonia was part of Kirk's vacation while the "A" was getting prepared (or even, before the court proceedings, when he thought he might really be booted out) - his being busted down to Captain and given the "A" may have been why he left her, OR, what he was doing immediately prior his vacation at Yellowstone.

 

[Phoenix219]

So glad I'm not alone out there.

Question for discussion: Did the Okudas, 25 years ago when they first sold the Chronology to its publisher, fill a gap that some group of fans had been asking to be filled, with respect to timelines of the various series and movies that had been produced to date? Or was it their own impulse alone that led them to think such an effort - in combination with their insider status Trek-wise - would lead to a sale? (And if there was indeed some sort of demand among fans, how was it made known? At conventions, by U.S. mail, carrier pigeon, or what?)

To take it a step further: Is there some natural impulse in humans to make events fit into a chronology?

Related question: In the early 1950s, whose idea was it - the author or the publisher - to put month-and-year dates at the top of all the stories in Ray Bradbury's The Martian Chronicles? (At least one of those stories, when originally published separately, had a specific date: One character says "This being 1960, yes sir" to Captain Black. This was edited out for the story's appearance in Chronicles as "The Third Expedition" because it didn't conform to the new dating scheme.)

I remember reading some type of fanzine collected books in the 80s, probably in *elementary* school, with page after page analyzing and playing with years and dates for timeline creation. This type of nitpicking has been apparently part of the Trek DNA since the 70s lol.

 

[mb22]

Question for discussion: Did the Okudas, 25 years ago when they first sold the Chronology to its publisher, fill a gap that some group of fans had been asking to be filled, with respect to timelines of the various series and movies that had been produced to date? Or was it their own impulse alone that led them to think such an effort - in combination with their insider status Trek-wise - would lead to a sale? (And if there was indeed some sort of demand among fans, how was it made known? At conventions, by U.S. mail, carrier pigeon, or what?)
and in fan-produced timelines.

There was already this book, as well as here.

 

[Jason M. Brooks]

So, I'm doing a major re-watch of the entire Star Trek universe in chronological order: all episodes of every series (including The Animated Series) and all the films.

Is it safe to add The Animated Series in your chronological order? I had heard that it was never accepted as official cannon so could that throw off your timeline? I've never watched the animated series myself.

 

[DIrishB]

Is it safe to add The Animated Series in your chronological order? I had heard that it was never accepted as official cannon so could that throw off your timeline? I've never watched the animated series myself.

I include the Animated Series on my timeline. Roddenberry didn't consider it canon, but Paramount seem to have recanonized it from an official canon standpoint. I think TAS is important, as to me it serves as the final year and a half to two years of the five year mission. Plus, it acts as a direct sequel to some of TOS episodes. But the Animated Series fits into continuity nicely, it doesn't cause any problems as far as I know.

To take it a step further: Is there some natural impulse in humans to make events fit into a chronology?

I think it helps sell the idea the overall meta story was well planned out, or give it an element of realism merely from those chronological placements/ordering.

It's probably just a subconscious element of obsessive compulsive disorder.

 

[gottacook]

There was already this book, as well as here.

I have to admit, I hadn't heard about those before. (I see one of them was published by Pocket Books, the publisher of the Okudas' later Chronology.) But I have simply never felt the need to make Star Trek events fit into any particular Earth-based calendar, any more than the show's original creators and producers did. Indeed, they had several reasons not to do so, as has been explained all the way back in The Making of Star Trek in 1968.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

Again, then why is Okuda's timeline utilized then? None of its TOS era dates were ever presented onscreen.

Because the Okudas were the folks working on the show, and their timeline was originally developed to make things a bit easier and more cohesive for the show's writers. And at this point, it's been used for so long that getting rid of it would cause more problems than it would solve.

As to why certain fans like to use it, I guess they like using the "official" one, or else they just don't feel like doing their own.

I too view it as either a gag gift or McCoy being cheap. Lol.

Well, don't forget that Romulan Ale was illegal and had to be smuggled across the border (but maybe Bones was able to get his hands on it because he was a doctor - "I only use it for medicinal purposes"). But basically, Romulan Ale was the 23rd century equivalent of Cuban cigars. I'm kind of doubting it was cheap.

Star Trek is a collection of many writers, with many visions spread out over decades. Trying to make sense of the timeline just isn't worth the time, in my opinion.

Eh, I consider it a fun challenge (At least for TOS era-Trek. The dates are a lot more consolidated in the 24th century era). It gets me to look at Trek in a new way and see certain connections that I didn't before. For instance, could a young Christopher Pike have been involved at the Battle of Donatu V 23 years before "The Trouble With Tribbles"?

But as the Okudas said, the ST timeline does hang together surprisingly well, considering how haphazardly it was developed in the beginning.

As was stated earlier Antonia is the real problem here. Nine years before 2293 he returned to Starfleet, that's 2284, If we assume the Enterprise B launched early in the year, we can push that to mid 2283. He met Antonia 11 years earlier in 2282. It's likely he was still in Starfleet at that point and Antonia was the catalyst for him to leave. So there is a 3 month gap of April to June 2283 we have to close.

Yeah, she really screws up Kirk's TWOK backstory, IMO. I tend to disregard her in my own timelines.

Kirk isn't the sort to leave Starfleet, for a woman or for anything else.

Agreed. At least not for some woman we only hear about and never see.

Question for discussion: Did the Okudas, 25 years ago when they first sold the Chronology to its publisher, fill a gap that some group of fans had been asking to be filled, with respect to timelines of the various series and movies that had been produced to date? Or was it their own impulse alone that led them to think such an effort - in combination with their insider status Trek-wise - would lead to a sale? (And if there was indeed some sort of demand among fans, how was it made known? At conventions, by U.S. mail, carrier pigeon, or what?)

Well, as I said above (and I think the Okudas write in their introduction), they originally developed a basic timeline for internal use on the shows. But since there was fan interest and they could make a profit for Pocket/Paramount, why not sell it? And Trek fans had been messing around with theoretical timelines since at least the early 70s. It probably felt like high time for an official one in the early 90s.

 

[Phoenix219]

Kirk has had his mind messed with by so many alien super entities, could Antonia/The Nexus truly have been an alternate / what if / fantasy of his, rather then a real event?

 

[Timo]

Certainly. But it's a fluffy bit of trivia, a minor incident in the rich life of an interstellar hero. It's not as if there wouldn't be room for it - especially as the very point is that it is a non-event, as Kirk is not swayed by it and dutifully returns to his Starfleet office in the morning.

We get such short glimpses to the lives of our heroes that there's room for an unseen marriage with two kids and a bitter divorce in the story of every TOS character. Such things could be happening during rather than between the adventures, too. Our consummate pros keep their civilian and military lives carefully separate, to the point that any working-hours romance (say, "Lights of Zetar") or other moment of letting your hair down ("Shore Leave" or "Wolf in the Fold") is a remarkable adventure unto itself. But that probably just means these things normally happen in the background, outside the working hours.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Phoenix219]

I like the idea that it was just a fling, that he *didn't* stay with, and he returned to Star Fleet when his leave was over; that moment in time became is Nexus fantasy, because it was something he never actually got to stay and enjoy.