Stardate for Dummies

[Kai "the spy"]

What actually bugs me about this movie (I know, it's one little detail, but it still haunts me) is this new crap system to determine the stardate.

It's the year? Really? Gregorian calendar? Wasn't the reason stardates were originally introduced in TOS to make it feel dateless? To have the feel to it that it could be happening in twenty years or a thousand years?

Okay, I know, this has been dealt with when they actually made the official timeline of the Trek universe.

But still, in-universe, the idea behind a stardate makes sense, as it is a way of measuring time that many different cultures from all kinds of planets can agree on. Point is, it was not earth-centric (or rather northwestern-centric).

So, along came Orci & Kurtzman, gave the stardate in the beginning as 2233.04, meaning it's some time in the year 2233. When the Enterprise departs from Starbase 1, it's stardate 2258.42, Gregorian calendar year 2258.

The intention of Orci & Kurtzman was to make it more easily understandable. They said as much somewhere, but I can't find the exact quote (I'm sure someone here can, I'd appreciate it if it would be added to this thread). So, basically, they made stardates for dummies.

Well, they missed the whole point. They made the stardate earth-centric. Basically, they made it just another way to read the Gregorian calendar. Why would anyone even bother creating this kind of date system?

 

[F. King Daniel]

TOS stardates were four random, meaningless numbers. Four numbers that mean something is an improvement.

 

[Ryan8bit]

TOS stardates were four random, meaningless numbers. Four numbers that mean something is an improvement.

The numbers don't need to mean anything unless you call it an Earth date.

Making stardates make sense is like making sense of dilithium crystals or red matter.

 

[C.E. Evans]

What actually bugs me about this movie (I know, it's one little detail, but it still haunts me) is this new crap system to determine the stardate.

It's the year? Really? Gregorian calendar? Wasn't the reason stardates were originally introduced in TOS to make it feel dateless? To have the feel to it that it could be happening in twenty years or a thousand years?

Okay, I know, this has been dealt with when they actually made the official timeline of the Trek universe.

But still, in-universe, the idea behind a stardate makes sense, as it is a way of measuring time that many different cultures from all kinds of planets can agree on. Point is, it was not earth-centric (or rather northwestern-centric).

So, along came Orci & Kurtzman, gave the stardate in the beginning as 2233.04, meaning it's some time in the year 2233. When the Enterprise departs from Starbase 1, it's stardate 2258.42, Gregorian calendar year 2258.

If I understand it correctly, the final digits in the new system now represents the day of the year?

Stardate 2233.04=January 4, 2233

Stardate 2258.42=February 11, 2258 (42nd day of the year 2258)

Stardate 2258.366=December 31, 2258 (2258 is a leap year).

 

[Merky]

Wasn't the reason stardates were originally introduced in TOS to make it feel dateless?

They also did that so they didn't want their highly conservative, racist, prejudice, anal viewing audience to scream holy hell that in 300 years from now their white daughter was going to marry some alien.

Or that their boss could be a black man... or a woman.

Or every other seemingly potentially offensive social strife of the 1960s. Star Trek was to give us the future but they avoided visited the planet earth and they avoided mentioning dates so people didn't think that " A few hundred years from now this will happen? oh god "

 

[BlobVanDam]

TOS stardates were four random, meaningless numbers. Four numbers that mean something is an improvement.

But it's not an improvement over the system used in every other Trek series.

I also felt the Trek XI system was pretty silly. The best thing about the stardates is that it felt like a universal system every race agreed on and uses. Why would a stardate be basically based around the possible yet incorrectly calculated birth of one guy on one planet that was late to the part anyway? Sure you could argue that the TNG stardates still seemed to correspond and increment with Earth years, but it was still a fairly vague system that still sort of meant something. It was the best of both worlds
But it's a pretty minor detail to me. It's not like it ruins the movie or anything

 

[F. King Daniel]

But it's not an improvement on the system used in every other Trek series

It is, because the rules that supposedly governed those systems never really worked (I've read essays from fans bemoaning Voyagers misuse of them, particularly in time travel episodes) - and when it got right down to it, it was still based on Earth days, months and years.

 

[BlobVanDam]

But it's not an improvement on the system used in every other Trek series

It is, because the rules that supposedly governed those systems never really worked (I've read essays from fans bemoaning Voyagers misuse of them, particularly in time travel episodes) - and when it got right down to it, it was still based on Earth days, months and years.

Yes, I forgot it was Earth days too, but I did point out the year problem in my post. But the Trek XI system had the same flaw too, and was directly based on Earth years to boot, which still makes it a worse system imo.
As for the errors such as in Voyager, that comes down to sloppy writing and checking, rather than a flaw in the system itself.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

So, maybe the stardates in previous shows didn't have any real system to them. So what? They had actually a charming mystery to them. It just makes sense that in a universe like Trek, there'd be something like the stardates, but why do you have to actually work out how they work? In that regard, some Trek fans might learn something from the attitude Doctor Who has to these kind of things.

 

[Agenda]

Who cares.

 

[6079SmithW]

What actually bugs me about this movie (I know, it's one little detail, but it still haunts me) is this new crap system to determine the stardate.

It's the year? Really? Gregorian calendar? Wasn't the reason stardates were originally introduced in TOS to make it feel dateless? To have the feel to it that it could be happening in twenty years or a thousand years?

Okay, I know, this has been dealt with when they actually made the official timeline of the Trek universe.

But still, in-universe, the idea behind a stardate makes sense, as it is a way of measuring time that many different cultures from all kinds of planets can agree on. Point is, it was not earth-centric (or rather northwestern-centric).

So, along came Orci & Kurtzman, gave the stardate in the beginning as 2233.04, meaning it's some time in the year 2233. When the Enterprise departs from Starbase 1, it's stardate 2258.42, Gregorian calendar year 2258.

If I understand it correctly, the final digits in the new system now represents the day of the year?

Stardate 2233.04=January 4, 2233

Stardate 2258.42=February 11, 2258 (42nd day of the year 2258)

Stardate 2258.366=December 31, 2258 (2258 is a leap year).

This is how I interpreted the new system to mean as well. I like this system better because it actually means something and isn't just a bunch of pointless, random numbers.

Yes, it was "dumbed down" in the sense that actual Gregorian dates are given so the non-trekkie audience can relate better but like I said above it makes more sense this way. The ship's internal clock is just set to cycle on an Earth year.

Also, Trek has always been Earth/human centric, from TOS to XI.

 

[BillJ]

Just one of many disappointing things.

 

[Sharr Khan]

Who cares.

Yeah, I'm with you.
Given the choice, I'd rather have a numerical date system that ties into some real world fact over being some airy, meaningless claptrap, but in the end it does not matter much since you know what? The date is the last thing I care about when it comes to a story but in a very broad way IE is it the 23rd or 24th Century? And you don't even need a string of numbers to inform me of that.

 

[Ryan8bit]

why do you have to actually work out how they work?

OCD?

I don't think some people are content to leave things as a mystery, especially when it's packaged in real, hard numbers. Taking the show Lost for instance, viewers took the mystical numbers and did all sorts of equations and tests with them because that's just how some people operate. People assign value to numbers beyond what they actually are.

I don't really care that they did what they did with the stardates, but let's be honest, why would it be called a "star" date if it's only just a date on Earth's Gregorian calendar? People who are clamoring for a sensible number corresponding to our calendar are ignoring the fact that it's really not supposed to by name and definition. By that same logic, dilithium should really just be called quartz and phasers should just be called lasers. Because it's more relatable, right?

 

[M'Sharak]

It just makes sense that in a universe like Trek, there'd be something like the stardates, but why do you have to actually work out how they work?

By the time TNG finished its run, it was no longer necessary to work out how stardates worked - it had already been done for us. The deliberate vagueness of TOS stardates had given way to a system which allowed relatively easy conversion to dates on the Gregorian calendar. From there to doing away with the different system almost entirely was only a short step, especially considering a feature-length movie doesn't allow much time for explaining fictional timekeeping systems to those not already familiar with them.

In that regard, some Trek fans might learn something from the attitude Doctor Who has to these kind of things.

My knowledge of Doctor Who has got some fairly major gaps in it, I'm afraid—a good deal of it was never even aired where I live—so I'm not completely certain what you mean here, but if DW doesn't bother nailing some things down too carefully, there still seem to be plenty of details left over for fans to argue.

 

[Devon]

The intention of Orci & Kurtzman was to make it more easily understandable. They said as much somewhere, but I can't find the exact quote (I'm sure someone here can, I'd appreciate it if it would be added to this thread). So, basically, they made stardates for dummies.

People who can tell the date on a calendar = Dummy?
People who can tell the date based on a system that doesn't even make sense by the writers standards = Superior form of intelligence?

Well, they missed the whole point. They made the stardate earth-centric. Basically, they made it just another way to read the Gregorian calendar. Why would anyone even bother creating this kind of date system?

To have a consistent date system, where as the old stardate system.. wasn't.

If you want to chalk up to something, just say that this is one of the phases of the Stardate system's history, transitioning from the "Captain's Star Log" which went off of real dates to the non-nonsensical stardate system of TOS and on.

 

[number6]

Or they simply used the same stardate system that their Star Trek calendars have used all these years.

 

[Kaziarl]

What actually bugs me about this movie (I know, it's one little detail, but it still haunts me) is this new crap system to determine the stardate.

It's the year? Really? Gregorian calendar? Wasn't the reason stardates were originally introduced in TOS to make it feel dateless? To have the feel to it that it could be happening in twenty years or a thousand years?

Okay, I know, this has been dealt with when they actually made the official timeline of the Trek universe.

But still, in-universe, the idea behind a stardate makes sense, as it is a way of measuring time that many different cultures from all kinds of planets can agree on. Point is, it was not earth-centric (or rather northwestern-centric).

So, along came Orci & Kurtzman, gave the stardate in the beginning as 2233.04, meaning it's some time in the year 2233. When the Enterprise departs from Starbase 1, it's stardate 2258.42, Gregorian calendar year 2258.

If I understand it correctly, the final digits in the new system now represents the day of the year?

Stardate 2233.04=January 4, 2233

Stardate 2258.42=February 11, 2258 (42nd day of the year 2258)

Stardate 2258.366=December 31, 2258 (2258 is a leap year).

I would hate to have to use that system. I have a hard enough time remembering the day of the week, let alone the number of days it's passed in a year.

 

[C.E. Evans]

What actually bugs me about this movie (I know, it's one little detail, but it still haunts me) is this new crap system to determine the stardate.

It's the year? Really? Gregorian calendar? Wasn't the reason stardates were originally introduced in TOS to make it feel dateless? To have the feel to it that it could be happening in twenty years or a thousand years?

Okay, I know, this has been dealt with when they actually made the official timeline of the Trek universe.

But still, in-universe, the idea behind a stardate makes sense, as it is a way of measuring time that many different cultures from all kinds of planets can agree on. Point is, it was not earth-centric (or rather northwestern-centric).

So, along came Orci & Kurtzman, gave the stardate in the beginning as 2233.04, meaning it's some time in the year 2233. When the Enterprise departs from Starbase 1, it's stardate 2258.42, Gregorian calendar year 2258.

If I understand it correctly, the final digits in the new system now represents the day of the year?

Stardate 2233.04=January 4, 2233

Stardate 2258.42=February 11, 2258 (42nd day of the year 2258)

Stardate 2258.366=December 31, 2258 (2258 is a leap year).

I would hate to have to use that system. I have a hard enough time remembering the day of the week, let alone the number of days it's passed in a year.

Where were you on stardate 2011.86?

 

[Kaziarl]

*runs and counts a calender* Sunday? Not at church. But then that's pretty normal for me.