Flare Sci-Fi Forums: James Dixon's Timeline

This is topic James Dixon's Timeline in forum General Trek at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/707.html

Posted by nx001a (Member # 291) on :

A long time ago I remembered reading a time line by James Dixon. I was wondering is this timeline still around and if so what is the url?

Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :

A quick search turned up the 14th edition: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Crater/2077/scifi.htm

Posted by nx001a (Member # 291) on :

Many thanks for the link.

Posted by Wes1701E (Member # 212) on :

This guy is so sad its not even funny anymore.

"A note at the bottom of the page to explain all the other notes. "We occasionally step out of the Star Trek scenario for a moment to relate a bit of trivia or background information." Well, that's just fine for a "Making of Star Trek" type of book, but Not for a Technical Manual. Maybe these tidbits could be placed into an appendix or "add-on" chapter at the back of the book after the material, because these comments Really detract from the context of the Trek Universe and make the "manual" all the more UN tech manual like. The Franz Joseph Star Fleet Technical Manual didn't need commentaries on each page nor did any other manual. More recent works like Starfleet Prototype even goes as far as bearing the copyright date of 2292! Not a chance here. Bad enough that 4 previous pages are Introductions and Acknowlegments. The latter consisting of a hundred names to people, and the first of X number of name-droppings signifying that this "manual" and its drawings were done on his "trusty" Apple Macintosh computer (p.16, p 36, p.53)... Did Okuda make a deal with Apple in which he puts a few good words into this book and in turn they send him free software? Digging a little niche for himself incase he departs Paramount Pictures? Again, all Highly inappropriate for a Treknical manual. Franz Joseph didn't need all these people and CAD to turn out the classic Tech Manual, and neither did Todd Guenther to print Starship Design."

Christ. I mean really, going too far is going too far. He's complaining about the author thanking people for 4 pages... its really sick. This guy needs to understand that science fiction doesnt always need to be reprsented as fact.... these people complain like this and give trek fans that awful 'Comic book guy' stereotype.

Posted by Mr. Christopher (Member # 71) on :

I suppose you didn't bother to read the 1100-some-odd pages to that timeline, did you, Wes? Some people appreciate this timeline. It took a lot of effort to produce.

Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :

James Dixon gets high marks for his timeline. It's a very complete reference that even includes dates for when the buttons on Kirk's command chair changed. The dates for The Original Series era and earlier differs a bit from the Okudian chronology, but a large number of events in the Trek universe are dateless and open to interpretation. Dixon also seems to include every novel and TAS episode in the mix. Quite interesting.

On the other hand, some of James Dixon's critiques of the Okudian era of supplemental materials is pretty far out there. He trashs a good deal of the Chronology by saying the Mike Okuda did not bother to research the information. What was Okuda supposed to research other than the episodes and movies? Obviously, he was supposed to research the novels, TAS, and the fandom RPG materials for information on dates in the Trek universe. Dixon also trashs the TNG Technical Manual because it doesn't live up to the quality and information espoused in the Franz Joseph Technical Manual.

Posted by MeGotBeer (Member # 411) on :

Well, as long as he's not out gunning down people or running over old fellows in his Silverado -- and, for that matter, not running over deer ...

More power to him.

But I think he's wrong to criticize those who choose not to accept non-episodes/movies as canon.

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

Wes wasn't criticising the timeline. He was criticising the authors own criticisms of Okuda's work. And he's right. I mean, criticising the TNG tech manual because it has acknowledgements in it?

Actually, I've just read his criticisms of the tech manual, and if I wasnt so tired, I might just have a rant. But I'll leave it. I will say though, that just as he's annoyed at Okuda et al for choosing certain things to be canon, and certains things to not be canon, he's done exactly the same thing. He also quite obviously wants to marry Franz Joseph. (Who was it around here that did an excellent summary of the FJ blueprints, Greg Jein constitution list, and Okuda history a while back? They could probably comment on this better.)

To be fair, a lot of this stuff is fascinating, and there's no doubt he's done a huge amount of research. But still, he doesn't seem consistent unto himself.

[ August 07, 2001: Message edited by: PsyLiam ]

Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :

Dixon took on the impossible task of attempting to reconcile hundreds of different fan, licensed, official, and aired sources (including, I add in all modesty, my Starfleet Museum!), so you at least have to admit he has balls. However, he does got a bit far in his hatred of Okuda. Just skip his rants, unless his beliefs jive with yours.

Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :

I wonder what Dixon is going to do with ENT...

Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :

I'm with Wes on this, incredibly enough. This Dixon guy takes himself a bit too seriously. He should write for Ain't-It-Cool-News. . .

Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :

What I like about Dixon's work is that he really breathes Trek and soaks up everything he can get from canon and fandom. His timeline is definitely a great work.

What I dislike is that he arbitrary selects which kind of fandom work is worthy to be considered by him, and that he easily gets into pointless arguments with other people who have just a completely different background.

What I dislike too is his unjustified bashing of all of Okuda's work. Why does he blame Okuda for using only the aired episodes minus TAS? Within this scope Okuda made rather few errors, but Dixon points them out again and again without really making a point. His criticism of the TNGTM is completely unjustified, and I don't agree with a single of his many points. Also, I don't care if the Romulan War lasted four years or longer, or if there is no canon information at all about it, so what is so bad about the according entry in the Encyclopedia (or was it the Chronology?)? Enterprise will mess it up anyway.

BTW, this is where I may want to agree with him, I know he is definitely not looking forward to Enterprise.

Posted by Wes1701E (Member # 212) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vogon Poet:
I'm with Wes on this, incredibly enough. This Dixon guy takes himself a bit too seriously. He should write for Ain't-It-Cool-News. . .

omg.

im sure his timeline is great, its just that I am a fan of okudas work as well.

Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :

Dixon is a completist, but a lot of his stuff is sourced poorly. A lot of really long entrie are followed by a million little letters that represent thousands of RPGs, comics and manuals and i cant tell which fact comes from where. And then i have to scrounge through the abbreviations before i can even attempt to figure out what the abbreviations mean. And its true, a lot of it has no place anywhere near a timeline because some of it is too far fetched to be considered even a loose kind of canon i like to interpret. I love all star trek but i sure as hell dont think it will fit into one timeline.

loose canon.. i just got that