Star Trek II, III, IV movie Timeline question...
- Thread starter DIrishB
- Start date
i still argue its just a good vintage supposedlyRemarkably, he's reading it before he gets the glasses.
One wonders... Did the prop have actual text on it? In English or alienese? The label is intentionally very, very dark...
Anyway, FWIW, BK613 explained it all, back in 2015:
Timo Saloniemi
i dont pay attention when they use the termale or wind because i think its jist a device to convey to the audience its alchohol
@DIrishB I'm glad to hear that Michelob is no good being that we tried to source it for our Voyage Home episode of our Podcast, Spocklight, to recreate Kirk and Gillian's meal but not available in the UK 
so we plumped for Anchor Brewery California Lager instead, brewed in San Fran itself. Not only that but we called the Pizza joint during the Pod for them to make a to order pizza exact as it is in the film and the oven was broken...
so we plumped for Anchor Brewery California Lager instead, brewed in San Fran itself. Not only that but we called the Pizza joint during the Pod for them to make a to order pizza exact as it is in the film and the oven was broken...People in fiction have to speak correctly almost all the time, to give the readers/viewers correct information about the fictional world. Unlike real people, they almost never give inaccurate information.
Real people, even the smartest, often make simple mistakes. One possible explanation for the sinking of HMS Victoria in 1893 is that Admiral Tryon made a simple mistake, confusing his ships' turning radius for their turning diameter, and so thought the maneuver was safe.
Isaac Asimov wrote new novels in the 1980s to tie his classic robot, empire, and foundation novels into one large series. In the introduction to one - probably Prelude to Foundation - Asimov listed the fictional order of the novels. But by mistake - probably corrected in later editions - Asimov listed The Currents of Space as happening before The Stars like Dust, not after.
Just as Asimov's list could not change the internal evidence that The Currents of Space happened thousands of years after The Stars like Dust, so Gene Roddenberry and Richard Arnold could not decree arbitrary fictional dates for Star Trek productions with any certainty that their dates would agree with the evidence in various productions. But during the 1980s they arbitrarily decided that TOS happened 300 years after the episodes were aired in 1966-1969, and that each season of TNG was a calendar year, starting with 2364, 400 years after "The Cage" was filmed, and they didn't notice or care about any contradictory evidence in the episodes.
The Okudas accepted those assumptions as a basis for their chronological work in the Star Trek Encyclopedia and Star Trek Chronology: The History of the Future, so all of their work trying to be as accurate as possible is a house of cards erected upon a foundation of quicksand.
One of the biggest failures in the official but not canonical chronology is the failure to notice that various Star Trek productions, starting with various TOS episodes, give dates in different Earth calendars with different starting years. Thus events in years with higher numbers do not necessarily happen after events in years with lower numbers.
So don't assume that the official dates of various Star Trek events are accurate.
Real people, even the smartest, often make simple mistakes. One possible explanation for the sinking of HMS Victoria in 1893 is that Admiral Tryon made a simple mistake, confusing his ships' turning radius for their turning diameter, and so thought the maneuver was safe.
Isaac Asimov wrote new novels in the 1980s to tie his classic robot, empire, and foundation novels into one large series. In the introduction to one - probably Prelude to Foundation - Asimov listed the fictional order of the novels. But by mistake - probably corrected in later editions - Asimov listed The Currents of Space as happening before The Stars like Dust, not after.
Just as Asimov's list could not change the internal evidence that The Currents of Space happened thousands of years after The Stars like Dust, so Gene Roddenberry and Richard Arnold could not decree arbitrary fictional dates for Star Trek productions with any certainty that their dates would agree with the evidence in various productions. But during the 1980s they arbitrarily decided that TOS happened 300 years after the episodes were aired in 1966-1969, and that each season of TNG was a calendar year, starting with 2364, 400 years after "The Cage" was filmed, and they didn't notice or care about any contradictory evidence in the episodes.
The Okudas accepted those assumptions as a basis for their chronological work in the Star Trek Encyclopedia and Star Trek Chronology: The History of the Future, so all of their work trying to be as accurate as possible is a house of cards erected upon a foundation of quicksand.
One of the biggest failures in the official but not canonical chronology is the failure to notice that various Star Trek productions, starting with various TOS episodes, give dates in different Earth calendars with different starting years. Thus events in years with higher numbers do not necessarily happen after events in years with lower numbers.
So don't assume that the official dates of various Star Trek events are accurate.
Great question about The Martian Chronicles.
About various Star Trek chronologies. I have always considered the official chronology a house of cards based on a foundation of quicksand. And until it appeared it was common for fans to offer various and competing chronologies.
I have seen more Star Trek chronologies than I can remember, starting with one published in 1968 in Star Trek: an Analysis of a phenomenon in Science Fiction. I was trying to list all the ones I could remember, but I kept accidentally erasing all my work and gave up.
I actually just started a thread about various Star Trek chronologies.
http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/different-star-trek-chronologies.285392/
Last edited:
I hope to someday create my own chronologies of Star Trek.
In one, I put every episode in order of stardates (though most episodes happen in alternate universes of their own) extending the Next Generation era stardate system back to TOS era and lining it up with Earth dates according to my unique system that nobody else seem to have deduced yet.
In another system the productions in and after the second season of TNG will be in stardate order as in the above (though most episodes happen in alternate universes of their own) since stardate order, production order, and airdate order are almost exactly the same in that era. TOS, TAS, and the first season of TNG will be in airdate order and use a different star date system. A stardate system which can calculate and predict the Earth dates that various stardates will fall on despite being much stranger than the TNG one.
In another system the productions in and after the second season of TNG will be in stardate order as in the above (though most episodes happen in alternate universes of their own) since stardate order, production order, and airdate order are almost exactly the same in that era. TOS, TAS, and the first season of TNG will be in production order and use a different and third star date system. A stardate system which can calculate and predict the Earth dates that various stardates will fall on despite being much stranger than the TNG one.
In The Final Reflection by John M. Ford there are several references that establish that Klingon years are longer than Earth years. But there is one that makes Klingon years shorter than Earth years. I guess Ford did the math in reverse hen writing that.
I consider things like the writer's guides and The Making of Star Trek (1968) and the 1968 article "To Make a Star Trek" in Analog magazine to be semi canon. The more official the source the more canon. And the more that Star Trek creators thought that those sources might influence future Star Trek writers and provided information to those sources the more canon they were.
You write: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"
I don't remember any specific years being mentioned in The Making of Star Trek (1968). Are you talking about the same book? Could you quote where it gives Kirk's birth year?
Even the science varied between episodes. (For example, the ship's orbit decaying shortly after Finney messes with the engines in "Court Martial," versus Norman's line early in "I, Mudd": "If you do not come with me, your engines will be destroyed and you will remain in orbit here forever.") Why does anyone take any of this seriously enough to even use the word "canon"?!
What's enjoyable or thought-provoking about a given Star Trek episode (or movie) is changed not one iota by whether it fits into anyone's idea of what is "official."
[Similarly, I get annoyed when I see (for example) a 50th-anniversary story that refers to Nichelle Nichols' role in the original series as "Nyota" Uhura.][/QUOTE]
I don't know what planet you came from to investigate Earth culture, but it is quite common for Earthlings to have multiple names. For example, an Ann Francis Veronica Hurst (1801-1868) was the third wife of Jacob Demuth (1779-1842) of Lancaster, Pennsylvania. She was named as "Mrs. Demuth", "Ann Demuth", Ann F. Demuth", "Francis Demuth", etc. in various documents. Jacob Demuth and his second wife named 2 of their sons "Carl Augustus Rudolphus Hartafel Demuth" and "Gottfrid Ottfrid Obadja Eckert Demuth". Similarly Mrs. Margaret Augusta Wise Buckius Demuth was the mother of the famous artist Charles Henry Buckius Demuth.
So I find it easy to believe that when James Tiberius Ragnar Horatio Kirk - or whatever his full name was - joined Starfleet he chose his favorite middle name to makes his official name form "Jame R. Kirk" and after the events on Delta Vega changed his official Starfleet name form to James T. Kirk because he didn't want to be reminded of the tombstone and having to kill Gary.
About orbits, we all know that low orbits decay much faster than high orbits, and a high enough orbit will seem eternal to mortal humans. And some of the creators of TOS were amateur or professional pilots. So possibly they imagined that sometimes the Enterprise would use an astronautical orbit, and sometimes - perhaps for reasons connected to transporter use - it would use an aeronautical orbit.
And some fans enjoy episodes more when they think about those things.
Interestingly, while non-canon, there's also Vonda McIntyre's 1986 novel Enterprise: The First Adventure, which has McCoy signing on for a temporary stint as ship's surgeon in 2264 during Kirk's first voyage as captain, taking over for Dr. Piper for an indefinite period prior to WNMHGB. Although written prior to The Undiscovered Country, it could help to account for some of that "interstitial" time McCoy might've been factoring into his dialogue during the Qo'noS trial-sequence in that film (regarding the "27 years"-figure).
Not necessarily -- there's evidence to suggest that the timespan between The Voyage Home and The Final Frontier is substantially more than three weeks; among other things, Harve Bennett himself stated in interviews that there was at least a six-month shakedown-cruise for the Enterprise-A between the fourth and fifth movies, and there are other bits in TFF's onscreen dialogue (such as "twenty years" passing since the establishment of official communications between the UFP and the Romulans) as well which support a much longer timescale in between stories.
If anything, going by TFF alone, the timescale would actually be pushed further into the future (as in, even into 2288, perhaps), if we assume that official relations between those powers didn't simply commence instantaneously overnight following the events of "Balance of Terror" (which was a pretty seismic incident), but rather took some reasonable time to set up, in order for the two sides to build up diplomatic trust, for the Romulans to come to the table with some dignity intact, etc.
Last edited:
Michelob was an American "premium" beer before the advent of the craft beer movement that made such American "premium" beer variants laughable. Frankly, I'm not sure exactly what made this beer 'premium' as it tasted to me like all the other American beers - essentially weak pilsners. It has been argued that anchor steam was (one) of the first American beers in the craft beer movement. Personally, I drink mostly Belgian Trappist beers - as they are full of flavor@DIrishB I'm glad to hear that Michelob is no good being that we tried to source it for our Voyage Home episode of our Podcast, Spocklight, to recreate Kirk and Gillian's meal but not available in the UK
Michelob... ugh@PCz911 I can assure you we only intended to drink it in an attempt to recreate Kirk and Gillian's meal in audio form on the Podcast lol, not because we enjoy American "premium" beers
You suffer for your art, sir.
I totally agree with you as Kahn would definitely remember how long he was marooned on Ceti Alpha V and Kirk would also remember. It is in my book I wrote on stardates. I suppose Kahn could have been referring to Ceti Alpha year but if I remember my space seed correctly Ceti Alpha V is a bit like Earth.
Kirk says 15 years instead of 20 because rounding up would mean admitting even more time has passed—something he’s already struggling with as he feels the weight of age. By saying 15, he’s subconsciously trying to hold back time. Kind of like when I insist the ’90s were only a decade ago.
It's weird that both Khan and Kirk would hold the exact same delusion.
Occam's Razor suggests that fifteen years have passed. The easiest thing to move is Space Seed. The Okudas arbitrarily placed TOS 300 years in the future, but there's no real reason why the episode couldn't take place in 2269 or 2270.
This thread is a temporal anomaly in itself!
Occam's Razor suggests that fifteen years have passed. The easiest thing to move is Space Seed. The Okudas arbitrarily placed TOS 300 years in the future, but there's no real reason why the episode couldn't take place in 2269 or 2270.
This thread is a temporal anomaly in itself!
You mean It’s a temporal anomaly because it was originally posted 5 years ago?
Similar threads
