Why do I say that? Because, this is pre-Okuda after all - remember, ST2: TWOK was a last-gasp attempt at making a successful and popular Star Trek film, they had no idea of all this that would come from it, if it had flopped that'd have likely been it, no more Trek. Until a comedy version was made a la Starsky & Hutch, with Owen Wilson as Kirk, Ben Stiller as Spock, Will Ferrell as McCoy, Ricky Gervais as Scotty. . . I oculd go on but I'd lose the will to live!
Which is basically the movie in production now, yes? With a less well know cast?
-------------------- Twee bieren tevreden, zullen mijn vriend betalen.
Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:In TOS, did anyone else besides those on the Enterprise say anything about stardates? I had a funny idea that in TOS, the stardates may just be a shipboard timekeeping system related to the current mission, and that changed somewhere between TOS & TNG (possibly even before the movies). Of course, if anyone else *did* use stardates, that theory goes out the airlock.
Well, (4000-range) stardates were also used by Matt Decker for his Constellation logs. But one could easily argue that those dates were out of synch with the Enterprise stardates - and consequently that "Doomsday Machine" took place at another timeslot entirely, and not in production or airdate order.
posted
Then it loses all value as a record keeping system. What sense is it to have station logs and ship logs with stardates if the stardates are all relative to the location of the ship or station?
Especially considering other people use these dates as references in researching this or that.
Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
posted
It was based on the heyday of the Royal Navy. The Admiralty kept track of when ships left, and the ships' logs were written in a "day 204" format. Gene didn't think things out all the way back then. His first notion was that stardates were much the same thing, set up with the first two numbers being months into the mission and the second two being days. That went out the window pretty quickly, but he didn't replace it with anything near as well-thought-out.
--Jonah
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Or it really was a system employed ship-by-ship, and not co-ordinated through a central Federation standard.
Not "or" - "and". The 4000-range dates dictated by Decker appear in between episodes where 3000-range dates are dictated by Kirk; the two ships might thus live by different stardate systems. But there is no pressing reason to assume that they do, or that the airdate/production order is the real order of the events.
There is lots of dramatic merit to the "day 204" interpretation, I guess. But even the earliest episodes of TOS use stardates in contexts that do not involve the Enterprise or her mission. Kirk's tombstone already starts the trend, and the (admittedly nonsensical) personnel records of Mitchell and Dehner concur. History for Kodos the Executioner and Anton Karidian is given in stardate format, too. "Stardate" is something that can be understood outside any specific context.
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: That places TOS approximately from 2268 to 2273
The thing is, we know from Voyager that Kirk's mission ended in 2270 (as per Icheb's pointless presentation)...so for TWoK to be set in 2285 and to be 15-years after "Space Seed", "Space Seed" needs to be set in 2270 and presumably be one of the final events in Kirk's mission. Unless TOS seasons don't flow chronologically or Kirk took NCC-1701 out for another mission in 2270, it's impossible given that "Space Seed" was a first season episode. It's either got to be that TWoK isn't set in 2285, or the 15-year line is inaccurate.
What were we talking about again?
Oh yeah...
Even more interesting thoughts from "Space Seed" and TWoK regarding the timeline.
Khan was from the late 20th century (1997). Kirk told Khan he was in suspended animation for "nearly 2 centuries." Nearly would imply not quite 200 years, but we'll go with that. This statement would put TOS in the 22nd century (2197).
TWoK opens with text stating explicityly "The 23rd Century." This is the first instance a specific time frame is mentioned for Star Trek. The earliest TWoK could be is 2201. Of course we know that other events and missions took place between "Space Seed" and TWoK, pushing the date even deeper into the 2200s.
For TOS to take place in the 2260s and TWoK in 2283 Khan would have had to been in suspended animation for nearly 300 years. (2283-15 = 2268. 2268-1997 = 271 years asleep).
Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by HerbShrump: For TOS to take place in the 2260s and TWoK in 2283 Khan would have had to been in suspended animation for nearly 300 years. (2283-15 = 2268. 2268-1997 = 271 years asleep). [/QB]
Assuming Khan was giving a date in the Gregorian Calendar, which only really makes sense if the Great Khanate was a "western" power. Makes more sense for it to either be an Indian Civil Calendar date (1996 in the Indian Civil would be roughly 2070 in Gregorian), or one from a calendar Khan invented. Fair enough, most likely the writers intended it to be AD1996...but it doesn't really make much sense for a crazed dictator controlling areas of Asia and the Middle East to use a Christian calendar.
Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
posted
I've always liked that, a it meshes well with the "two hundred years" comments and the whole 21st century post-atomic horror. However, how to reconcile Spock's statements regarding when the Eugenics Wars took place?
--Jonah
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
