Star Trek VI. the stupidity of Starfleet and Spock for choosing Kirk to meet with Gorkon

[Mres_was_framed!]

I quite frankly HATE the idea of the Enterprise-A right after they get it at the end of The Voyage Home. YMMV.

You mean you hate the Enterprise-A, or you mean you hate that they had problems right after they get it?

So outside of making sure Stardates progressed upwards over the course of an episode, even Roddenberry didn't think they should be examined too closely.

Those are actually great quotes from Roddenberry, quotes with which I was familiar, and they really give an honest look at making sci-fi in a way that is not often explored: It has to make sense in a way that fantasy does not have to, but yet should not explain to much and then be wrong when scientific opinion changes.

It just hard for me to accept that, as far as I am aware, there is no documentation of a specific writer picking a specific stardate for any specific reason, even for a silly reason like the one I made up earlier.

TWOK's Stardates being roughly 1000 units above TMP's despite being 10-12 years later. It makes as much sense as anything, I suppose.

I agree with that about the numbers rolling over prior to TNG. I also agree that, where the movies are concerned, they just wanted to show some kind of progression.

However, let me give one more specific example. ST:3 (8210) to ST:4 (8390). Why 180 units as opposed to, say 247 units? There likely was some reason in the writer's head, even if it is basically "random." Was it meant to be over a year after the Genesis survey (implying thousandths-of-a-year system)? Six months after the survey (implying 1 day = 1 unit system, per Writer's Guide)? A number that sounded interesting (artistic effect)? (The serial number of the writer's favorite clock (inside joke)? Some episode or movie somewhere must have a story like one of these behind selecting its stardate, where the writer or writing staff could say "we picked this one for this reason. It might, and probably wouldn't relate to canon at all, but it would be more info anyway.

I could compare it to the number 1701 for the ship. We know that Jeffries picked this number because the he was thinking, "17th design, 1st vessel aside from the prototype," and also that those numbers are distinct, as opposed to 3's or 8's that might get confused on a small screen. Whether canon supports his idea, or even how committed he was to that idea, is up for debate, but it is a valid data point for those who want to estimate the size of the TOS fleet. There must be something like this for stardates.

So occasionally you will see an episode with lower stardates than an episode that was produced before it, or even overlapping stardates when obviously the events of two unrelated episodes were not happening simultaneously.

We see this in TOS, but using averages for episodes that do not have stardates, it is possible to put them in an order that progresses up from episode to episode. There are still some overlaps, but I would suggest those are where the time and position effects kick in. We do not have to accept production or airdate order as the only options, as there are stardate-based options that definitely work.

EDIT: I do suppose that I should add stardates from the alternate universe movies seem to relate to actual Earth dates and that seems to be clearly done on purpose, but I am not counting those in my questions because they seem TOO connected to Earth dates. 2233.04 for the 2009 film for example, seems to literally be a year and a month, for the year of Kirk's birth and the month of April (or a bit earlier than April, as in late March). That system is not foreign enough to be a part of the discussion of what stardates in TOS, the movies, or the TNG-era mean, in my opinion.

 

[Maurice]

It just hard for me to accept that, as far as I am aware, there is no documentation of a specific writer picking a specific stardate for any specific reason, even for a silly reason like the one I made up earlier.

Wildly "off" Stardates get mentioned in the memos from de Forest Research and were sometimes, but not always, revised.

 

[Mres_was_framed!]

Wildly "off" Stardates get mentioned in the memos from de Forest Research and were sometimes, but not always, revised.

Now I'm excited, as this is the kind of thing I was talking about.

I am aware that TOS "sort-of" considered 1 unit to be about 24 hours, so I suppose that an episode that is mostly made up of a 2 hour countdown but has stardates from 3326 to 8837 would be called out and fixed. I'm guessing that "The Gamesters of Triskellion was not one of the episodes that was fixed, in that case, and also it happens to be one of the "overlap" examples.

Even a couple of short examples of such corrections would be the kind of stuff I have hoped for as a fan for a long time, or better yet, an article from your site about them

To try and not take this thread too much away from it's original meaning, I'll say it like this: Even though we do know that stardates do not represent a clear system of time, any such corrections from some part of the TOS continuity might allow we fans to "pretend that we could know" a possible time frame between ST:5 and ST:6 and thus make an artistic judgement as viewers about how much Kirk could have, or could not have, changed between those two movies.

 

[Maurice]

Now I'm excited, as this is the kind of thing I was talking about.

I am aware that TOS "sort-of" considered 1 unit to be about 24 hours, so I suppose that an episode that is mostly made up of a 2 hour countdown but has stardates from 3326 to 8837 would be called out and fixed. I'm guessing that "The Gamesters of Triskellion was not one of the episodes that was fixed, in that case, and also it happens to be one of the "overlap" examples.

Even a couple of short examples of such corrections would be the kind of stuff I have hoped for as a fan for a long time, or better yet, an article from your site about them

To try and not take this thread too much away from it's original meaning, I'll say it like this: Even though we do know that stardates do not represent a clear system of time, any such corrections from some part of the TOS continuity might allow we fans to "pretend that we could know" a possible time frame between ST:5 and ST:6 and thus make an artistic judgement as viewers about how much Kirk could have, or could not have, changed between those two movies.

I'll keep an eye out for stardate mentions in those reports when I look into any of them again.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

You mean you hate the Enterprise-A, or you mean you hate that they had problems right after they get it?

I accidentally skipped some words when I was typing out my post. That should've read: "I quite frankly HATE the idea of the Enterprise-A breaking down right after they get it at the end of The Voyage Home. YMMV."

I'll correct my original comment.

However, let me give one more specific example. ST:3 (8210) to ST:4 (8390). Why 180 units as opposed to, say 247 units? There likely was some reason in the writer's head, even if it is basically "random."

...And this is around the point when I just shrug my shoulders, say "I dunno," and move on to something else. I just don't care enough to figure out the meaning of Stardates at that picayune a level. If you tell me there's a three month gap between TSFS and TVH, or 15 years between "Space Seed" and TWOK, great! I can work with that in assembling a chronology. But if you tell me it's been 180 or 247 Stardate units, that's essentially meaningless. You might as well tell me it's been 3700 ultramacs in a flubitajorb. It's a made up unit of a nonexistent system of timekeeping. I'm not going to drive myself nuts trying to make that make any sense outside of the broad strokes.

 

[dupersuper]

I accidentally skipped some words when I was typing out my post. That should've read: "I quite frankly HATE the idea of the Enterprise-A breaking down right after they get it at the end of The Voyage Home. YMMV."

To me that seems like a logical time if they rushed construction or dusted off and renamed an older ship for the occasion.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

To me that seems like a logical time if they rushed construction or dusted off and renamed an older ship for the occasion.

I see the logic, I just hate the idea. It's taking the happy ending of the previous film and saying, "PSYCHE!!!" for the sake of a bunch of dumb gags about the ship not working right.

 

[dupersuper]

I see the logic, I just hate the idea. It's taking the happy ending of the previous film and saying, "PSYCHE!!!" for the sake of a bunch of dumb gags about the ship not working right.

I don't think the happy ending of our heroic crew all getting a new ship to serve on together is undercut by it needing a few months of work to get ready.

 

[urrutiap]

Kirk having problems with the tech for Enterprise A in Star Trek VI, its like theyre just repeating the same crap from The Motion Picture.

makes you wonder if they had another expanded universe transporter gruesome moment between Star Trek V and Star trek VI.

 

[Voodoowoman2]

Why would both Starfleet and Spock choose Kirk of all people to meet up with Gorkon?

Spock especially since klingons did kill David back in Star Trek III.

Even Kirk was shocked/surprised that Spock would just vouch for Kirk. For what exactly?

and what the hell was Sulu and his crew doing anyway where they were out in space anyway when Praxis sort of blew up?

Because Jim Kirk is the main character in the little play. Also the nonsensical idea that Spock stands up in front of people with authority and announces that StarFleet is demilitarizing. Eh? Spock, then, is partially responsible for the debacle of Wolf 359. StarFleet was playing exploration games and patting themselves on the back that they achieved "Peace."

 

[David cgc]

I don’t think an eighty-year-old Maginot Sphere that had outlived what little usefulness it had containing a starved and desperate Klingon Empire is the sure-fire anti-Borg defense you’re suggesting.

 

[publiusr]

Because Jim Kirk is the main character in the little play. Also the nonsensical idea that Spock stands up in front of people with authority and announces that StarFleet is demilitarizing. Eh? Spock, then, is partially responsible for the debacle of Wolf 359. StarFleet was playing exploration games and patting themselves on the back that they achieved "Peace."

The pendulum swings back and forth. Post ST VI, there was demil', then TNG---and NEM-PICARD had us right back to Cartwright.