We've been through this before, but the new movie's rather drastic twist on things made me return to my notes for comparison.
Basic assumptions, with which some might argue:
"Where No Man Has Gone Before" takes place in 2265. Icheb mentioned in "Q2" (VGR) that Kirk's 5-year mission ended in 2270, indicating that it began in 2265. Depending on whether or not the episode's stardate indicates it as being over a year into the mission (though of this I am quite dubious) it might actually take place in early 2266, skewing the dates based on this episode.
Cadets generally enroll in the Academy at age 17, the minimum age allowed. This is a bit more aguable, since it is never cited in any episode, but it is established by the TOS writer's guide, and seems to hold true in most (if not all) cases. We know from later references that SFA is generally a four-year institution, though it's possible that certain individuals may graduate early or be held back an extra year depending on their performance.
2233
Kirk is born to George and Winona Kirk of the U.S.S. Kelvin. His age was given as 34 in "The Deadly Years" (TOS), set in 2267. Parents' names and assignment from the new movie, prior to Nero's incursion.
2242
Gary Mitchell is born. His age was given as 23 on his personnel report in "Where No Man Has Gone Before" (TOS).
2246
Kirk, age 13, is on Tarsus IV when famine ensues after exotic fungus spoils the colony's food supplies. He is witness to Governor Kodos' declaration of martial law and subsequent mass murder of half the colony's population of over 8,000. Kirk is one of 9 surviving eye witnesses capable of identifying Kodos, along with Thomas Leighton and Kevin Riley. 20 years prior to "The Conscience Of The King" (TOS), according to computer record.
2250
Kirk enters Starfleet Academy. Age 17, as established by the TOS writer's guide.
Kirk meets Gary Mitchell. The Okudas failed to completely evaluate the references in WNMHGB on this issue. Kirk says he had known Mitchell for 15 years. However, Mitchell would be only 8 years old at this time, so he certainly wasn't a fellow cadet. More likely Kirk was acquainted with his family or something. In any case, the Okudas were mistaken in assuming they met when Mitchell was Kirk's student. They had already known each other 9 years previously!
One of Kirk's instructors as a midshipman is Ben Finney, and the two become close friends. Some years later the two will serve together aboard the U.S.S. Republic. "Court Martial" (TOS). The Okudas seem to have missed the fact that Kirk and Finney's Republic stint (during which Kirk was an ensign) was some years after Finney was his instructor. Which means that it needn't necessarily have occurred while he was still at the Academy, though it may have, nonetheless. "Obsession" (TOS) made two specific references: that in 2257 Kirk was a lieutenant aboard the Farragut under Captain Garrovick, and that Garrovick had been Kirk's commanding officer "from the day...[Kirk]...left the Academy." So it seems possible that Garrovick had commanded the Republic while Kirk and Finney served on her, and then took command of the Farragut, to which Kirk also transferred. However, there may be a small problem with this. Kirk was already a lieutenant when he conducted a planetary survey of Neural (see below) the same year he graduated. (See below.) Was he aboard the Republic then, or was he already aboard the Farragut? The latter seems more likely, because the Farragut was his "first deep-space assignment" according to "Obsession." So Kirk's graduation and commission to ensign, service aboard the Republic, transfer to the Farragut under the same CO, and promotion to lieutenant all occurred within one year. Or, alternatively, the Republic could indeed have been a pre-graduation assignment and Kirk was just special enough to attain rank while still a cadet. It's rather open-ended, but "Whom Gods Destroy" offers some further points that might be helpful.
Beyond this, things get vague and a bit tricky due to lack of specific dates, but by no means are they impossibly convoluted. Bear with me:
2250-2253
Kirk attends the Academy.
Kirk participates in a peace mission to Axanar after Garth of Izar's victory there. Kirk is awarded the Palm Leaf of Axanar. "Court Martial" (TOS) and "Whom Gods Destroy" (TOS), respectively. Kirk said he was "a new-fledged cadet" at the time of the Axanar peace mission. Could he have been aboard the Republic then, and could this help explain how Kirk might attain ensign rank before graduating the Academy, should we choose to follow that scenario? The conflict at Axanar was apparently of great historical importance and had something to do with Vulcans (or perhaps aliens in general) and humans becoming "brothers." Kirk apparently played a prominent role in the subsequent peace mission (winning the Palm Leaf) and he just may have distinguished himself enough to have pulled off his early promotion.
2254
Kirk graduates the Academy. See notes above. He may have already attained ensign rank and been serving on the Republic. On the other hand, with the new film depicting him as being capable of finishing the Academy in 3 years, it's possible he graduated in 2253 as ensign and the scenario with Garrovick commanding both the Republic and the Farragut would hold.
Promoted to lieutenant, Kirk conducts a planetary survey on Neural and befriends a hunter named Tyree. 13 years prior to "A Private Little War" (TOS). As reasoned above, he was (probably) already aboard the Farragut at this point, under the command of Captain Garrovick.
2257
Lt. Kirk is serving on the Farragut, when it is attacked by a dikironium cloud creature. 200 people, half the ship's crew, are killed, including Captain Garrovick. Kirk had been operating the ship's phasers at the time of the incident, and blamed himself for having hesitated when firing on the creature, though in fact his momentary delay had no effect on the outcome of the attack. Eleven years prior to "Obsession" (TOS).
At some point after this, Lt. Kirk left shipboard assignments and became an instructor at Starfleet Academy. I would suggest that it was soon after, and that it was direct result of his guilt over the incident.
2259
Gary Mitchell enters Starfleet Academy. One of his instructors is Lt. Kirk, "a stack of books with legs" in whose class he is told by upperclassmen he must "either think or sink." "Where No Man Has Gone Before" (TOS). Assumes Mitchell was 17 at the time of entrance. At some point, Mitchell sets up Kirk with a blonde lab technician who may or may not be Carol Marcus, but it is not clear exactly when.
At some point between this and 2264-65 (depending on when Kirk took command of the Enterprise in relation to when the 5-year mission started) Kirk gets back on the command track and is promoted to Captain. According to the TOS writer's guide, he was the youngest Captain in Starfleet at the time, and his first command (during which he asks for Mitchell to serve under him, and we may presume the incident on Dimorus described in WNMHGB occurred) was a destroyer-type vessel.
I have a question for Peregrinus and others who seem to prefer other TOS dating schemes: what is the reasoning behind it? Why not have the 5-year mission from 2265-2270 and stay consistent with the only concrete dating reference we have, namely Icheb's line in "Q2" (VGR)? Is it only the "15 years" reference in TWOK, because firstly that could easily be an approximate figure and secondly we have no hard specific date for that film at all...
[ May 26, 2009, 11:07 PM: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Interesting.
I note that in the Altered Timeline, Spock is a Commander in 2258. Presumably a full Commander at that, since he's also already First Officer of the new Enterprise. Now, we could go on to debate whether that represents any great change in his personal timeline given that for most of TOS s1 he had Lt. Commander stripes (I can't remember what the consensus is on that little niggle); obviously in the original timeline he and Kirk would never have come into opposition over the Kobayashi Maru test since Kirk graduated in 2254 not 2258, when Spock would have been just a Lieutenant or Ensign and presumably assigned (or just about to be) to the original-timeline Enterprise. But, my point is, Spock being a Commander at age 28 doesn't seem to be considered all that unusual - for the altered timeline at least (wasn't it implied in TOS that Spock's path up the career ladder hadn't been all that smooth because of his mixed-race heritage?), so the six years between 2259 and 2265 would be plenty of time for Kirk to work through both Commander grades prior to commission as a Captain in 2265.
quote:Originally posted by Lee: Adapted from a much-earlier posting on another board, here's an examination of ages. . .
Scott 2222 (44) - Doohan was 46 - Pegg is 37 McCoy 2227 (39) - Kelley was 46 - Urban is 35 Spock 2230 (36) - Nimoy was 35 - Quinto is 30 Kirk 2233 (33) - Shatner was 35 - Pine is 27 Uhura 22? (20something) - Nichols was 33 - Saldana is 29 Sulu 22? (20something) - Takei was 29 - Cho is 35 Chekov 2245 (22 in 2267, when he first appeared in TOS season 2, consistent with going to the Starfleet Academy at age 18 and graduating after a standard 4 years) - Koenig was 31 when he started on the show - Yelchin is 18
Of course, add another year onto the new actors' ages by the time the film comes out. . .
. . . Which puts Chekov as supposedly age 13 in 2258! The notion that Uhura would already be at the Academy in 2255 isn't a problem, she could have started in 2254 and thus be four years younger than Kirk (and due to graduate in 2258). It's impossible to say when Sulu went to the Academy, but I'd guess he might have been there at least two years in the new film.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: I note that in the Altered Timeline, Spock is a Commander in 2258. Presumably a full Commander at that, since he's also already First Officer of the new Enterprise. Now, we could go on to debate whether that represents any great change in his personal timeline given that for most of TOS s1 he had Lt. Commander stripes (I can't remember what the consensus is on that little niggle)
Not only by his stripes, but his rank was explicitly given as Lieutenant Commander by the court computer in "Court Martial" (TOS). Everyone getting too high in rank too early and too quickly was definitely one of my biggest problems with the new movie. It's not only unbelievable, but it leaves little room for character growth and advancement from here onward.
quote:Which puts Chekov as supposedly age 13 in 2258! The notion that Uhura would already be at the Academy in 2255 isn't a problem, she could have started in 2254 and thus be four years younger than Kirk (and due to graduate in 2258). It's impossible to say when Sulu went to the Academy, but I'd guess he might have been there at least two years in the new film.
The more I look at it, the more it becomes clear that trying to shoehorn everyone in together at one time in one movie was just a stupid idea. All the subtle developments that occurred for the characters on the series are completely lost. (McCoy and Chekov joining as the series went on, Sulu and Uhura changing positions, Spock having been with the ship longer than anyone else, his relationship with Kirk evolving from prickly CO/XO to friendship, etc.) I understand the rationale behind it, but it's just too hokey and contrived for my taste.
And they really ought to have at least consulted someone with a passing familiarity with naval ranks and the chain of command. That stuff was just all over the place in the film.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: I have a question for Peregrinus and others who seem to prefer other TOS dating schemes: what is the reasoning behind it? Why not have the 5-year mission from 2265-2270 and stay consistent with the only concrete dating reference we have, namely Icheb's line in "Q2" (VGR)? Is it only the "15 years" reference in TWOK, because firstly that could easily be an approximate figure and secondly we have no hard specific date for that film at all...
A few things... The dating referent Icheb used was taken from the Okudas' Chronology, which they didn't reasearch enough, and a lot of their dates were arbitrary for that era. I do my best to go with the earliest references, and attendant references. Later (post-1986/'87) Trek starts becoming a little suspect for me due to the Okudas' incomplete research methodology.
We had two dates spoken clearly on-screen, in different contexts. First, in Star Trek II, Kirk read the 2283 date off the bottle of Romulan Ale. Associated dialogue indicates that is not the current year. That automatically makes it at least 2284, more likely later still. I have no problem with Mike's 2285 date here, as nothing contradicts it.
The script indicates this is Kirk's fiftieth birthday, and even though there's no dialogue to this effect, that's the motivation behind Meyer's direction and Shatner's performance. That yields a birth year of 2235. The good (for characters and historical events, not technical stuff) novel Final Frontier established that Kirk was ten when the Enterprise was launched, which would be 2245, which again lines up with the Okuda chronology.
When possible, I prefer not to contradict it, as it's the go-to source for the current crop of writers. But I won't hesitate to counter it when it gets something wrong.
The writer's bible for TOS' first season said that Kirk was "about 34", even though Shatner was 36 at the time. Close enough. Kirk's birthday is late March, so the events in Star Trek II were most likely an end-of-term cadet training cruise. First season's "Charlie X" was Thanksgiving on Earth, ergo late November. Maybe the same year as "Where No Man Has Gone Before", maybe not. I presume same year, with the rest of first season being the next year. This is where "Space Seed" is.
So I did a couple things there. 2285-15=2270. 2235+34=2269. So I have "Space Seed" taking place in late 2269, since Star Trek II is not even three months into its year.
I treat Mitchell's file as his age at the time of his testing, and not his age at the time of the episode. He'd be 11 years younger than Kirk at that point, if accurate -- which would make him 10 or 11 at the time he had Kirk as an instructor. It's also out of whack with his rank and Gary Lockwood's age at the time.
The other referent is the 2364 date from TNG's "The Neutral Zone", upon which all dates from that era are based. They still did their math wrong from time to time, mainly with TOS era characters (Sarek and McCoy). But it's mostly reliable. And it gives us the other end of the TOS era as a result. Thanks to Generations, we know the TNG-era events of that film were 78 years after the launch of the Enterprise-B. 2371-78=2293. June, going by the stardate.
So, using later stuff as precedent... I have Kirk take command of the Enterprise in 2266 or so, oversee its refitting, then take it out on his (first?) five-year mission from 2268 through 2273. He gets promoted to [Commodore] and Wil Decker oversees its next refit as its intended Captain. In 2275 or so, the V'Ger Incident gets Kirk the Enterprise back. We don't know what happens next, but somewhere between here and 2284, Kirk leaves Starfleet, takes up with Antonia, and then comes back to Starfleet -- apparantly as an Academy instructor (again) -- in 2284.
It's Icheb's line that is out of sync with those dating referents, so I ignore it -- and wish Okuda would revise his Chronology to be less arbitrary than "adding three hundred to the original airdates". There's plenty that can be deduced from aired/screened material, their scripts, and a good chunk of the novels and attendant "EU" stuff without needing to pull stuff out of asses.
--Jonah
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Wasn't there a big, hotly-debated dating thread on here somewhere? I remember a lot of it going over my head or just seeming to focus on trivial points, but that's just me. I think it involved placing TMp as much later than 2271 (which seemed sensible, its timing is just too damned close to any conceivable end of the five year mission), and, I'm not sure, requiring TWoK to be 20 years after TMP because that would make the "Enterprise is 20 years old" comment make sense if that Admiral was talking about the Refit.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Hmm. Maybe. I'm sure I can remember some discussion in which someone recalculated all dates almost totally from scratch, and TMP ended especially "out there" in relation to when we're used to thinking it was set. Perhaps not. I dunno.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
@Lee:
In TMP Decker says Voyager VI was launched "more than 300 years ago." Since Voyager I and Voyager II were launched in 1977, some have reasoned that the film cannot take place any earlier than 2278.
Of course, we already know of instances where Trek's spaceflight history and real-life spaceflight history differ considerably. Or Decker could have really meant to say "nearly 300 years ago" and gotten caught up in the moment.
Also, in TSFS Morrow says the Enterprise is "20 years old," which cannot be possible, so some have rationalized that it is relative to the TMP refit. This doesn't really work either, but it could be a reason why you might have seen a wacky date for TMP in someone's chronology.
@Jonah:
Icheb's 2270 reference was not taken from the Chronology, which placed the end of the 5-year mission in 2269. I was specifically rather delighted at the time, because it left room for TAS to follow TOS.
In any case, and notwithstanding your personal predilection to selectively discount material produced after a particular cutoff date, I think specifically quoted dates and lengths of time not likely to be rounded off have to take precedence over less precise references.
What I do think can be fudged a bit is when in relation to each other TOS episodes occur, since they were originally shown out of sequence anyway. Add to that the fact that Khan remembers Chekov being around during "Space Seed" and what little leeway we have in dating TWOK based on internal references--a "15 years" that could really represent anything between 14-18 and what may or may not be a Romulan bottle's vintage date given in Earth standard format--and GEN, and I think it can be smoothed over.
It's also possible that Kirk regards his 5 years aboard the Enterprise as one chunk or block of time, a single mission just as implied by the TOS opening monologue, and doesn't distinguish in his mind between one year or another within that period. Thus, his "15 years" line could be in relation to the end of that mission, 2270.
Besides, from the new film we have independently confirmed 2233 as Kirk's year of birth. (Winona was already in labor at the time of Nero's incursion.) Essentially, though this is admittedly circular logic, it means that "The Deadly Years" (TOS) must have indeed taken place in 2267.
Also, even if one chooses to disregard Mitchell's age as given in WNMHGB, it still has a negligible effect on Kirk's overall chronology.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Hm. Forgot the Klingon prosecutor from Star Trek VI saying McCoy had been the Enterprise's CMO for 27 years... That muffs things. Back to the rationalization that Piper was filling in while McCoy was off doing something?
My take on the Klingon thing. We have three references: "Day of the Dove", Star Trek VI, and "First Contact". Plus the Enterprise pilot.
First contact in 2151. McCoy's line from "Day of the Dove" and Spock's from Star Trek VI both point to "unremitting" hostilities starting c.2220. So one wonders how much reconciliation followed by miscommunication there was between those two dates...
--Jonah
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
It doesn't alter things at all, but for the record there is no McCoy line from "Day Of The Dove." Wherever the Okudas got that from (maybe a script draft?) it was not in the aired episode.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: @Lee:
In TMP Decker says Voyager VI was launched "more than 300 years ago." Since Voyager I and Voyager II were launched in 1977, some have reasoned that the film cannot take place any earlier than 2278.
Of course, we already know of instances where Trek's spaceflight history and real-life spaceflight history differ considerably.
I like to think the Voyager probe series was launched earlier in the Trek-verse, personally.
quote:Also, in TSFS Morrow says the Enterprise is "20 years old," which cannot be possible, so some have rationalized that it is relative to the TMP refit. This doesn't really work either, but it could be a reason why you might have seen a wacky date for TMP in someone's chronology.
I like to think this was the refit between Pike and Kirk. Weak, but the dates more-or-less jibe.
quote:@Jonah:
Icheb's 2270 reference was not taken from the Chronology, which placed the end of the 5-year mission in 2269. I was specifically rather delighted at the time, because it left room for TAS to follow TOS.
In any case, and notwithstanding your personal predilection to selectively discount material produced after a particular cutoff date, I think specifically quoted dates and lengths of time not likely to be rounded off have to take precedence over less precise references.
I'm sorry. I consider any dates derived from Okuda's chronology unreliable, due to the source. I hadn't realised Icheb's line was in conflict with the Chronology dates. Been a while since I've read it. I can even probably manage to push the five-year mission dates back a couple years -- but don't try to use the new film as supporting evidence for when events occur in the Prime timeline. Chekov's birthdate is off, and Kirk seems to be missing an older brother, etc...
quote:What I do think can be fudged a bit is when in relation to each other TOS episodes occur, since they were originally shown out of sequence anyway.
Well, even when I rearrange them into stardate order, "Space Seed" does a good job of maintaining its position.
quote:Add to that the fact that Khan remembers Chekov being around during "Space Seed" and what little leeway we have in dating TWOK based on internal references--a "15 years" that could really represent anything between 14-18 and what may or may not be a Romulan bottle's vintage date given in Earth standard format--and GEN, and I think it can be smoothed over.
Well, I have no problem fudging Chekove being there on a different watch prior to being moved to Alpha. But the latter... 1) I personally don't see Kirk being able to read Romulan, 2) I don't see Romulans having their years that close to one of our arbitrary dating systems, 3) I see this "border ship" that supplies McCoy labelling the bottles in such a way as to be clear for their customers.
Still, I think we're doing well that we have things locked in to a two-year range (2233-2283/2235-2285). The Icheb dates and the new film jibe with the former, the 2245 launch date of the Enterprise and the Romulan ale bottle support the latter. Beats the hell out of the disparity with the Spaceflight Chronology/FASA.
quote:Besides, from the new film we have independently confirmed 2233 as Kirk's year of birth. (Winona was already in labor at the time of Nero's incursion.) Essentially, though this is admittedly circular logic, it means that "The Deadly Years" (TOS) must have indeed taken place in 2267.
You can probably already guess what I'm going to say to that.
quote:Also, even if one chooses to disregard Mitchell's age as given in WNMHGB, it still has a negligible effect on Kirk's overall chronology.
Just pointing it out.
--Jonah
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Mimmy, that's probably what I'm thinking - that "more than 300 years" placing TMP post-2278. Which then allowed for a second, consecutive 5-year mission immediately/soon after the first (rather than conventional wisdom has it, after TMP - if it happened at all). I didn't like the idea at the time, but now I look at it again, given TMP grew out of the Phase II project which envisioned such a scenario, who knows?
It also occurs to me, how can anyone remember every single specific space-probe launched? It's just not feasible. Rather than assume Decker* got his dates wrong and mistakenly said "more than" when he meant "nearly," you could as well assume he was thinking of the wrong space-probe! For instance, maybe he was thinking of MARINER 6 (launched 1969); add to this the fact that Voyagers 1 and 2 were originally Mariners 11 and 12, and there's all sorts of possibilities for confusion.
* A note on Decker's mental state. Some of you here probably CAN remember useless info like dates of robotic-probe launches. Well, first let's see you:-
Lose your new command to the man who'd reccomended you for it
Watch as the transporter you'd supposedly helped to repair killed two of your crew slowly and horribly
Seen the woman you love apparently vapourised by an alien artifact
Seen the same woman resurrected as an identica, but soulless, drone AND TTHEN BEEN REQUIRED TO TRY TO FORM AN EMOTIONAL OR EVEN SEXUAL CONNECTION WITH IT
. . . THEN try to remember spaceflight history from three centuries before.
Posted by Zipacna (Member # 1881) on :
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: First, in Star Trek II, Kirk read the 2283 date off the bottle of Romulan Ale.
One thing that always got me with that, why would the Romulans be putting an Earth date (or more to the point, even a Gregorian Calendar date in the age of Stardates) when Romulan Ale is illegal in the Federation? It make no sense to date your produce for a market in which you're not going to be able to trade it. It would be like someone here opening a brewery, dating the beer using the French Republican Calendar, and then exporting it to China. Would be far more logical if 2283 is the year on the Romulan calendar...and given the whole Vulcan-Romulan split was somewhere around 2000-years ago, it's not too much of a jump if the Romulans started their dating system from that point.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: Mimmy, that's probably what I'm thinking - that "more than 300 years" placing TMP post-2278. Which then allowed for a second, consecutive 5-year mission immediately/soon after the first
The problem with this is that Kirk makes a big show at Decker about how he'd spent 5 years out dealing with the unknown. You'd think that if he'd spent more than that he wouldn't have failed to mention it.
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: ...but don't try to use the new film as supporting evidence for when events occur in the Prime timeline. Chekov's birthdate is off, and Kirk seems to be missing an older brother, etc...
Events which predate Nero's incursion should be the same if we assume a parallel universe prior to said incursion. (Granted, this could be arguable, but I think the intent is clear.) Chekov's birthdate is post-incursion, so it could have changed.
As for Sam Kirk, what can I tell you? Earlier drafts of the script had him in the place of the kid Kirk calls Johnny in the film, the novelization posits that he ran away from their unstable home, in other words there are rationalizations that can be made. We never even knew how much older than Kirk he was supposed to be anyway, just considerably so. Maybe he'd moved out, maybe he was off courting Aurelan, or maybe he was at the Kirk home passed out on the couch. For whatever we wish to speculate, we just didn't see or hear about him within the context of the movie's story.
quote:Well, even when I rearrange them into stardate order, "Space Seed" does a good job of maintaining its position.
Bah, don't give me any of that stardate crap! There was never any real order or system that stardates conformed to during TOS. Even beyond that, after such a system was designed and implemented for TNG, there are scattered inconsistencies. You can't trust 'em.
quote:Well, I have no problem fudging Chekove being there on a different watch prior to being moved to Alpha.
I seem to recall a big fuss made about Chekov being a green recruit when he joined the show, though.
quote:I personally don't see Kirk being able to read Romulan, 2) I don't see Romulans having their years that close to one of our arbitrary dating systems, 3) I see this "border ship" that supplies McCoy labelling the bottles in such a way as to be clear for their customers.
[Timo]Can we even be totally sure they're talking about vintage at all, though? Maybe it's the alcohol content he's reading off the bottle?[/Timo]
Anyway, I agree it's nice that we can be as specific as we can and still have everything match up reasonably well, given the length and complexity of the franchise's history. I'd wager that there are few shows that have paid as much attention to these kinds of details as Trek has. Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Just because it's illegal doesn't mean there aren't people prepared to import and package the stuff. Indeed, I'd imagine a vat of the stuff would be easier to smuggle, for eventual bottling at the destination.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Rumrunners, bootleggers, moonshiners... Given McCoy's heritage*, probably his sorta people.
* Southerner with authority problems who likes his liquor.
My point with using that date is that I highly doubt Nick Meyer was trying to overwork things with alien dates, so I spend my time working out how it would fit in as an Earth date instead of trying to figure out how it can fit in as a non-Earth date. I know something about alcohol, breweing, ales, and so forth. My observations and conclusions based on Star Trek II and VI are that Romulan ale is very dry, has a high alcohol content, and yet is very clear. I figure it's double-fermented from highly-sugared ingredients, and filtered prior to final bottling. That takes a while. Add in time for the border ship to be able to get over, back, and meet up with and deliver to McCoy, and that Kirk's birthday is in late March... *shrug* It pretty much has to be the next calendar year, and to allow fermentation/aging time, probably at least the year after that.
Going back the other way, I just re-skimmed my Chronology. No notes on "Day of the Dove" or "Friday's Child". Nothing in the notes for "Errand of Mercy" about the length of hostilities. A note c.2220 referring to Spock's line in Star Trek VI ("seventy years of unremitting hostility")... Nothing else. Is that whole McCoy thing from a later edition of the Chronology? Or is someone remembering something from one of those other episodes? I am unable to view "Errand..." or "...Child" right now, if someone wants to double-check...
Either way, that's before Kirk is born.
Kirk being born in 2233 lines up with him being/turning 34 in the first season of TOS if that takes place in 2266/7. I see that date as malleable, depending on when we're able to put TOS from other referents, so I'm not too attached to it. For me, since TWOK can't take place in 2283, and it's Kirk's 50th birthday, that means -- again, to me -- that he has to be born after 2233.
Here's a wacky idea. Maybe, due to Nero's appearance, George died instead of the Kirks going back to Iowa with their newborn son and ending up getting pregnant again a year or so later. Maybe this is Sam being born, but due to Nero's interference, they name him Jim instead. After all, in TOS, Sam was played by Shatner with a touch of grey at his temples.
Timeline stuff... I accept that Sam Kirk could be on Earth at school when Jim is born, or that he's off in school or university when Jim steals the Corvette. I can even deal with Chekov being born a few years earlier for some reason. But the Kelvin is very different from previously-established ships, inside and out. And I thought families didn't start coming along on deep-space missions until close to TNG's time.
See, there are premises they establish in this film that are at odds with background stuff from the existing canon. They shouldn't have tried to tie it in with the Prime Trek-verse. THey should have just done a full-on nu-BSG-esque re-imagining. New viewers wouldn't know the difference, old viewers would be less frustrated at trying to rationalize their sloppiness, and I could get back to eviscerating the movie on basic filmmaking/storytelling points.
That's why I don't want to reference this film to work out the Prime universe chronlogy.
--Jonah
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: I highly doubt Nick Meyer was trying to overwork things with alien dates
[...]
and it's Kirk's 50th birthday
I understand your approach, and I too consider behind-the-scenes intent to be important, but that is a double edged sword. You essentially seem to value the intent of Meyer/Bennett over that of their successors. If anything, it ought to be the other way around: the intent of the franchise's current caretakers should be seen as more definitive than that of those who no longer hold any creative input. I think one has to recognize that retconning is an ongoing process and that previous material must be constantly reinterpreted in the light of new context as it is established. In general, I think more specific or more recent datapoints must take precedence over less specific or older ones, except possibly in cases where an explicitly clear preponderance of evidence precludes this.
The Okuda timeline certainly has its glitches, and TPTB have seen fit to modify or deviate from it as deemed appropriate--Icheb's "Q2" line being an example--but by virtue of being easily accessible to those holding creative control it has formed and is likely to continue to form an underlying basis for canonical datapoints. I do not think it is appropriate to discount these datapoints simply because they were devised on that (or any) basis. Except in some rare instances, as mentioned above, rather than think of them as mistakes we should consider them revisions or clarifications.
quote:Going back the other way, I just re-skimmed my Chronology. No notes on "Day of the Dove" or "Friday's Child". Nothing in the notes for "Errand of Mercy" about the length of hostilities. A note c.2220 referring to Spock's line in Star Trek VI ("seventy years of unremitting hostility")... Nothing else. Is that whole McCoy thing from a later edition of the Chronology?
The most recent edition of the Chronology (1996) lists Klingon first contact as 2218, giving as a source a line by McCoy mentioning that Klingons and humans had been adversaries for 50 years in "Day Of The Dove" (TOS). This was the source of all the hubbub at the time of the ENT premiere. However, no such line is to be found in "Day Of The Dove" at all.
quote:After all, in TOS, Sam was played by Shatner with a touch of grey at his temples.
Seems it was more than just a touch of grey. He looks at least about ten years older than Kirk to me, but as I said we really have no way of knowing exactly.
quote:But the Kelvin is very different from previously-established ships, inside and out...there are premises they establish in this film that are at odds with background stuff from the existing canon. And I thought families didn't start coming along on deep-space missions until close to TNG's time.
Come on, though, that's no different from people saying as much about the NX-01 and other stuff on ENT. Just because something is not as we expected based on extrapolation, that doesn't make it a continuity error or evidence of an altered timeline.
quote:They shouldn't have tried to tie it in with the Prime Trek-verse. THey should have just done a full-on nu-BSG-esque re-imagining.
Ugh. I'm not exactly drooling over what we got, but I would have hated that soooo much more. I can't abide that kind of thing, but of course either way it's a matter of personal taste.
-MMoM
[ May 29, 2009, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Ah, turned the page. There it is -- 2218. Definitely need to check the other Klingon episodes and see if that's a mis-attribution. Either way, that would only support Spock's line from Star Trek VI indication that sustained hostilities had existed since c.2220 -- nothing ever indicated we were immediate enemies, though, as far as I know...
And my interpretation of Meyer/Bennett v. later creative heads is... the people who come after should work hard to not contradict the work of those who came before. You can take things in a different direction if you disagree with it, but don't contradict it. Even though it's a fictional universe, it has to have integrity or it's chaos.
And I am annoyed at Mike and Denise for the halfway research they did on the Chronology. If you don't have time to delve, farm it out. There are lots of things in the novels that are common koine to later authors and become tacitly accepted, even though they never appear in an episode or film. Uhura's and Sulu's first names, Kirk's hometown, McCoy's bitter divorce and the ex-wife and daughter he leaves behind to join Starfleet... That all was consistently in the novels (in the case of that McCoy example, all the way from the original character thumbnail) before it ever appeared onscreen.
I think the "screenwriters reserve the right to use or overrule any novel material" defense applies to a degree, but when something is consistently carried forward from work to work to work over decades, when you can ask any serious Trek fan "what's Uhura's first name" and get the same answer, it should, de rigeur, be incorporated into the official canon. The Okudas' ignroing it because it hadn't been on-screen was weak.
I know this is purely my opinion, but I think it is the responsibility of even later creative heads to fix the errors of those who came between them and the original creators of particular elements. This is also why I retcon Okuda's ship registry scheme to allow for what Jeffries intended back in the '60s up through the transition time circa Star Trek IV. I allow for real-world human factors, like misunderstandings, lack of research, and personal politics, and try to correct for those factors and come up with something that is internally logically consistent. And no, I don't think non-sequential registries are internally logically consistent. That's a feeble way to try to rationalise one single (to that point) production gaffe -- the Constellation.
But I'm rambling now. I'm going to let this stand, and see if I can re-focus on the subject at hand.
--Jonah
[Edited to fix typos.]
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: Either way, that would only support Spock's line from Star Trek VI indication that sustained hostilities had existed since c.2220 -- nothing ever indicated we were immediate enemies, though, as far as I know...
Picard in "First Contact" (TNG):
"Centuries ago, a disastrous first contact with the Klingon Empire led to decades of war."
I find it singularly ironic that the event's portrayal in "Broken Bow" (ENT), which garnered so much scorn at the time of its airing, actually fulfills in spades the conditions laid out by all previous references: (1) more than two centuries before 2367, (2) marked by disaster from the standpoint of either a diplomat or a starship captain, and (3) ultimately but not immediately leading to 70 years of unremitting hostilities ending in 2293, more than two decades of which comprised periods of outright war.
[ May 30, 2009, 02:25 AM: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Right. Sorry, I was trying to say there that nothing I've ever seen said the Federation and Klingon Empire were always enemies, right from the get-go. I didn't think I needed to point to Picard's like again as indicating that first contact got things off to a rocky start, but the "unremitting" part didn't come along 'til later.
Hell, might have been interesting to see the Battle of Axanar or the Axanar Peace Mission in this film -- the stuff that ended the Four Years War, where Garth of Izar fought and beat the Klingons, and the Peace Mission being something Kirk went on as "a new-fledged cadet"...
--Jonah
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Right, I wasn't arguing with you, just elaborating on (though hopefully not belaboring) the point.
And I completely agree that an interesting and entertaining film about Kirk's background could have been made, in accordance with previous references, without the need for the contrivances we ended up with. I'm not going to spend my time crying over spilt milk, though. (No offense; I don't mean that in a condescending way toward you.)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)