Do the math if you are able.
The TOS aesthetic…
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
Okay, you're coming in really hot for a newbie.
This kind of posting isn't going to get you very far here. I suggest you dial the snark back several notches.
Thanks
We've wandered a bit far afield from the original topic anyway. Let's see if we can get back on track...
One thing I've really come to appreciate in Matt Jefferies' set and ship designs in TOS are the strong, simple shapes. Even something rather prosaic like the transporter room console or the briefing room table has a striking, unusual shape to it. And the Enterprise and the Klingon D-7 cruiser both have strong silhouettes that are instantly identifiable from any angle.
Jefferies' set designs for the Enterprise also always gave you an idea of where they were located on the ship just from the shapes of the rooms. The round bridge was obviously on the very top. The briefing room had buttresses on the side of the wall that placed it along the side of the ship. The curve to the ceiling in engineering made it obvious that it was located along the top of the lower section of the ship. Even Kirk's quarters had a slight curve to the ceiling that added visual interest. That's something that the subsequent shows got away from.
This video makes a case that Jefferies' Enterprise design adheres to the Golden Ratio, which is a big part of why it's so pleasing to look at. There's further analysis here if you want to go deeper down the rabbit hole.
One thing I've really come to appreciate in Matt Jefferies' set and ship designs in TOS are the strong, simple shapes. Even something rather prosaic like the transporter room console or the briefing room table has a striking, unusual shape to it. And the Enterprise and the Klingon D-7 cruiser both have strong silhouettes that are instantly identifiable from any angle.
Jefferies' set designs for the Enterprise also always gave you an idea of where they were located on the ship just from the shapes of the rooms. The round bridge was obviously on the very top. The briefing room had buttresses on the side of the wall that placed it along the side of the ship. The curve to the ceiling in engineering made it obvious that it was located along the top of the lower section of the ship. Even Kirk's quarters had a slight curve to the ceiling that added visual interest. That's something that the subsequent shows got away from.
This video makes a case that Jefferies' Enterprise design adheres to the Golden Ratio, which is a big part of why it's so pleasing to look at. There's further analysis here if you want to go deeper down the rabbit hole.
I agree that the key ships in the show had strong, distinct silhouettes, something later shows lost somewhat.
The Golden Ratio be rubbish tho.
The Golden Ratio be rubbish tho.
Following up on Nerys Myk's quotes:
"We estimate two centuries" since Khan was put into suspended animation. This would put "Space Seed" ca. 2196 + or - some unspecified number of years.
While Kirk's flippant reply to Colonel Fellini that being locked up for "two hundred years" should be "just about right" could indicate that Kirk's present was set ca. 2169 plus or minus. It could also be interpreted that the year of Kirk's birth arohnd 2169, instead.
There are plenty of statements from Roddenberry in THE MAKING OF STAR TREK putting TOS in the 23rd century, and sometimes the more ambiguous "twenty-second or twenty-third century." This would indicate to me that, at the time of production, the team were thinking more that the series was set closer to 2200 than 2165. The German dub of Raumschiff Enterprise does set the series in 2200, and the non-canonical Goldstein SPACEFLIGHT CHRONOLOGY released with TMP placed the five year mission in the early 23rd century before 2215, contradicting Decker's line about Voyager 6 being launched from Earth "more than three hundred years ago."
Before TNG: "The Neutral Zone" set a year for TNG's present onscreen (2364), I used to place myself firmly in the early 23rd century camp for TOS chronology and regarded Decker's line about Voyager 6 as an error. Since 1988, I've accepted the post-TMP and TNG retcon.
Where Star Wars ships had simple shapes but great greebles. K’tinga and the Refit Aztec pattern allowed for both.
What many people fail to note in "Where No Man Has Gne Before" is the information about the poem:
According to the literal meaning of Mtchell's words, the year 1996 was more than 100 but less than 200 years before the episode, making the date sometime between 2096 and 2196. The two centuries since some time in the 1990s puts "Space Seed" about 2190 to 2199 if it is exactly 200 years. The two centuries after the late 1960s puts "Tomorrow is Yesterday" sometime in about 2165 to 2169 if it is exaclty 200 years and if kIrk isn't just joking. The latest date mentioed in any episode of TOS of is 2156, putting "Wolf in the Fold" in 2156 or later.
So the first time I worked on a Star Trek chronology I decided that the five year mission happend sometime during 2156 to 2196. And of course it is strengthened by the data in "The Savage Curtain":
That indicates that "The Savage Curtain" happens about 2165.
Some people interpret "The Squire of Gothos" as happening about 900 years after 1804, or about 2704. But there ae somemany problems with Trelane using some sort of super telescope to observe Earth that it seems probable that he learned about Earth some other way. The architecture and furnishings in Trelane's place come from Earth eras spead over many centuries, so Jaeger could have been thinking about the oldest style instead of the newest when he speculated Trelane was 900 years behind the times.
In my post number 116 at : https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/rewatching-miri.309758/page-6 I show that "Miri" shouldn't be interpreted as putting TOS 300years in the future.
In "Shore Leave" there is Sulu's dating of the production of his pistol:
So 2196 minus 200 years would give about 1996 as the latest possible date for those pistols to go out of production in the fictional universe of Star Trek.
So the data in TOS seems to indicate a period of about 2150 to 2200 for the five year mission in TOS. And it seems that it would have been a good idea for writers of later productions to do their research and make similar deductions and use that as the basis for their date information they gave.
I
Since I first worked on Star Trek chronology I have learned to avoid making assumptions.
One assumption that could be made would be to assume that a time span of X centuries or X hundred years means exactly X hundred years to the year. Insead I assume that X hundred years could be a bit rounded. Maybe it could mea nX hundred years plus or minus a quarter of century. Maybe it means X hundred years plus or minus a third of a century. Maybe it means X hudred years plus or minus half a century.
n
But I am certain that X centuries or X hundred years must mean more than X hundred years minus 1 hundred years and less than X centuries plus 1 century. That is the limit I make allowing for the lack of precison people may use when speaking.
One of the assumptions made by the Okudas in Star trek Chronology: The History of the Future is that X centuries or X hunded years means exactly that number of years to the nearest year. Since they make "The Savage Curtain happen in 2269, that should mean that Abraham Lincoln died in 1969, 160 years since he was born - though with variuus science fiction possibilities Lincoln could have been older or younger than 160 when he died in 1969.
It also means that the fact that Lincoln died in 1969 was known to historians by the era of TOS, since Spock didn't correct Scott about the number of years since Lincoln died. At least if you accept the assumptions in the Okuda's chronology!
And I also stopped making the assmpton that all dates mentoned in Star Trek productions use the same calendar era, let alone that it must be the Annno Domini calendar era.. Instead I consider the calendar era of every and any date mentioned in any Star Trek production is unknown, except for half a dozen dates specified as AD or BC.
I note that the date information in "Encounter at Farpoint" and "Datalore" indicates that the first season of TNG must happen some time between the year 93 of an unspecified century and the year 01 of the next century.
And in "The Neutral Zone" Data talks to Ralph Offenhouse, who had been frozen about 370 years earlier.
So clearly the calendar used by Data, presumably the one used in Data's time, is different from the calendar used when Ralph Offenhouse was frozen. It is my openion that when the revived "corpsicles" returned to Earth, they became celebrities,and their fame helped to get the calendar they had used adopted as the official United Earth Calendar, replacing the one used earlier in the first season. That is the theory I adopted when I saw dates consistent with Ralph's calendar starting to be used in later seasons of TNG.
And I have always been surprised that other fans have not interpreted this as an example of a new calendar era being adopted by United Earth during the course of TNG. It seems so obvious to me. And once I decided that the United Earth government would sometiems change the calendar, or at least the claendar era,used, I looked for and found other examples, some as early as TOS.
And no, I have never assumed since then that any one of the several different calendar eras used in various productions was the Anno Domini calendar era, except for the handful of times the year number was specified as AD or BC.
Last edited:
Oh please.
I agree. Round figures tend to be approximations, though of course they aren't always that.
Folks, THIS THREAD ISN'T EVEN ABOUT THE TIMELINE.
Never sat in one. Comfy?
They don't look it.
M
My in laws had them…. Not sure if I was uncomfortable being in their house and at their table or the chairs were not comfy. I wasn’t well liked by my in laws…lol. So… Not in a rush to go back and find out….
They look attractive, especially with the padded backing created for Star Trek. Without those backings, they don't look as good.
Similar threads
