Clearly he didn't pay much credence to the actual dialogue spoken onscreen in the movie itself ("You haven't logged a single star-hour in two-and-a-half years," etc.), and simply assumed an identical span of time (a decade) elapsed within the Star Trek universe as in the real world. It's clearly a 2272/2273 dating-placement, and I tend to use the generally-accepted date of 2273 myself.Question: Hi Mr. Wise, I would like to know why Star Trek: The Motion Picture was set about three years after their original five-year mission at the end of the 1960s? Thank you, Christian R.
Robert Wise: We made the picture about nine years after the last episode of the series had been filmed, and so at the time we all just assumed that our story took place nine years after the completion of the original Enterprise mission. Clearly the characters have aged a bit, McCoy is retired, and so on. I don't know where the idea came from that it takes place only three years later.
Clearly he didn't pay much credence to the actual dialogue spoken onscreen in the movie itself ("You haven't logged a single star-hour in two-and-a-half years," etc.), and simply assumed an identical span of time (a decade) elapsed within the Star Trek universe as in the real world. It's clearly a 2272/2273 dating-placement, and I tend to use the generally-accepted date of 2273 myself.
However, during the interview, he very clearly has an excellent and immediate recall of the facts, and is very eloquent and detailed during his responses -- it's clear that he'd always held that opinion for decades, and he answers the questions like he'd directed ST:TMP only yesterday.It had been 25 years since he directed TMP and he was near 90 years old at the time of the interview in 2004. So I'd say cut the guy some slack.
It had been 25 years since he directed TMP and he was near 90 years old at the time of the interview in 2004. So I'd say cut the guy some slack.
Exactly.Also- just because he hasn't logged a single star hour in 2.5 years doesn't mean that that last logging was with the Enterprise during her 5-year mission.
Yes, but outside of the actors being visibly older, there's also nothing in the movie that indicates that it was necessarily anything longer than 2 1/2 year gap. Nothing about McCoy being retired for 8-9 years, for instance.
Hard to say when he retired, was it right after the end of the five year mission, or was it later?Nothing about McCoy being retired for 8-9 years, for instance.
In the movie, Kirk's been the Chief of Starfleet Operation for two and a half years.there's also nothing in the movie that indicates that it was necessarily anything longer than 2 1/2 year gap
Good point, that narrows it between 2272 - 2278.From Cause and Effect, Starfleet officer are wearing the maroon uniforms in 2278, so TMP took place early in 2278 just prior to the uniform switch.
I think this is great logic if TMP exists in isolation to the rest of Trek. But it doesn't.It's made clear that Kirk does have at least one superior officer, still to jump from captain of a ship straight to such a high administrative position is difficult to grasp.
Promotional stunt to the side, would Kirk have even been capable of preform the duties required of of such a position?
It would make more sense (at least to me) if Kirk had spent several years at Starfleet Command working his way up, before becoming the Chief of Starfleet Operation.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.