Spoilers Strange New Worlds General Discussion Thread

[Okmyx]

In 1965, 1999 was several years in the future. In 2016 it was way back in the past. Today, it's even farther back. I generally just look at specific Trek dates as relative to the date of the original airing of the show - in the recent past, the far past, the near future or the far future. That way the specific date doesn't really matter. To me.

 

[Tallguy]

In 1965, 1999 was several years in the future. In 2016 it was way back in the past. Today, it's even farther back. I generally just look at specific Trek dates as relative to the date of the original airing of the show - in the recent past, the far past, the near future or the far future. That way the specific date doesn't really matter. To me.

This is the way.

 

[Commander Troi]

So say we all!

 

[UssGlenn]

I always kinda figured that it was the fact that the new WARP drive in TMP had never really been field tested before Kirk took over the Enterprise and they weren't sure exactly what effect it might have near planets.

So Kirk in his usual style was bucking the norm when ordering WARP so soon.

I figure it wasn't so much the new drive design per se, but that it hadn't been thoroughly calibrated due to lack of time. And we saw in that was indeed the case with the wormhole. The only reason being in the solar system was a problem was that there is more debris around, and indeed they sucked in an asteroid.

 

[Blackout]

In 1965, 1999 was several years in the future. In 2016 it was way back in the past. Today, it's even farther back. I generally just look at specific Trek dates as relative to the date of the original airing of the show - in the recent past, the far past, the near future or the far future. That way the specific date doesn't really matter. To me.

Things would go a lot more smoothly if star trek never used hard dates altogether. Just reference things in relative terms, like "300 years ago" or "80 years ago."

Of course, I'm sure nobody expected the show to become a series that went on long enough to start crossing the dates they mentioned! Their obvious intent at the time was simply to say to the audience "three decades in your future," not necessarily for the goal of locking in a specific date. But with the benefit of hindsight, it was not a good idea to ascribe specific dates to anything in Trek if they wanted to maintain the illusion that it was "our" future.

And I think long term, Trek might start pivoting toward a more vague stance on the whole thing, which would be for the best. Maybe they can start using the BBY/ABY system...Before Borg Yield, and After Borg Yield.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Things would go a lot more smoothly if star trek never used hard dates altogether. Just reference things in relative terms, like "300 years ago" or "80 years ago."

Of course, I'm sure nobody expected the show to become a series that went on long enough to start crossing the dates they mentioned! Their obvious intent at the time was simply to say to the audience "three decades in your future," not necessarily for the goal of locking in a specific date. But with the benefit of hindsight, it was not a good idea to ascribe specific dates to anything in Trek if they wanted to maintain the illusion that it was "our" future.

And I think long term, Trek might start pivoting toward a more vague stance on the whole thing, which would be for the best. Maybe they can start using the BBY/ABY system...Before Borg Yield, and After Borg Yield.

TOS actually started with that philosophy originally. It's why they invented stardates.

But a lot of writers can't resist throwing in relatable dates in the end. And certain types of stories (especially time travel) kind of require it, anyway.

 

[fireproof78]

TOS actually started with that philosophy originally. It's why they invented stardates.

But a lot of writers can't resist throwing in relatable dates in the end. And certain types of stories (especially time travel) kind of require it, anyway.

Yet another strong argument against time travel.

Besides, I always thought TOS was 200 to 800 years in the future depending on the episode

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Yet another strong argument against time travel.

Besides, I always thought TOS was 200 to 800 years in the future depending on the episode

Yep. The original stardate only idea did not last very long at all.

 

[Tallguy]

Yep. The original stardate only idea did not last very long at all.

It kind of lasted until 1979.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

It kind of lasted until 1979.

Not really. As fireproof alluded to, there are clear date references in TOS. They didn't go fully direct yet, but they couldn't in the end resist having people point at the present day and say things like 'x centuries/ x hundred years ago.'

 

[Noname Given]

Not really. As fireproof alluded to, there are clear date references in TOS. They didn't go fully direct yet, but they couldn't in the end resist having people point at the present day and say things like 'x centuries/ x hundred years ago.'

Yep. From TOS S1 Tomorrow Is Yesterday:

http://www.chakoteya.net/StarTrek/21.htm

FELLINI: I am going to lock you up for two hundred years.

KIRK: That ought to be just about right.

 

[Commander Troi]

Yep. From TOS S1 Tomorrow Is Yesterday:

http://www.chakoteya.net/StarTrek/21.htm

Yes, but that's a lot easier to handwave than a specific year.

 

[Noname Given]

Yes, but that's a lot easier to handwave than a specific year.

Well...since TOS was ultimately established to be in the 23rd century; given Kirk is definitely in the 20th century, yeah, I wouldn't call being oh, 100 years off "just about right..."

 

[cooleddie74]

That's still closer to the canonical TOS time period than the Starfleet Admiral got to the Eugenics Wars from the year 2373.

 

[Commander Troi]

Well...since TOS was ultimately established to be in the 23rd century; given Kirk is definitely in the 20th century, yeah, I wouldn't call being oh, 100 years off "just about right..."

I didn't say it was perfect...

 

[Jayson1]

That's still closer to the canonical TOS time period than the Starfleet Admiral got to the Eugenics Wars from the year 2373.

He was drunk, His wife moved out and was staying with her sister. He found out Starfleet doesn't have money and now doesn't know how to pay back some not so nice Nausicaans he made some no so smart bets with when he was drunk. Can you blame him with all those troubles on his mind.

 

[The Wormhole]

I mean, that Admiral was wearing the wrong rank insignia, so I wouldn't consider him particularly reliable regarding anything.

 

[Fantasy Lover]

The fact that the EW/WWIII is going to take place in our future guinely annoys me, why couldn't it stay in the 90's? What gives? Stupid temperal war.

 

[Nerys Myk]

The fact that the EW/WWIII is going to take place in our future guinely annoys me, why couldn't it stay in the 90's? What gives? Stupid temperal war.

It was always in our future.

 

[cooleddie74]

The Bell Riots are less than eleven months away. And I have the feeling someone's not going to like our hats.