Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Star Trek
»
General Trek
»
The Totally Incomplete and Purposefully Inaccurate Star Trek Chronology Project!
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sol System: [QB] For laughs...for kicks...for a way to keep my mind off certain unpleasent realities of the day, I've decided to try and construct my own, completely inclusive canon Trek timeline. This is partly in order to see just where the inconsistancies lie, and partly just to enjoy watching Roddenberry et al figure out just where this "Star Trek" show is going. Anyway, some ground rules: I'm going in chronological order from the second pilot, so until I come to an episode I'm not recognizing its information. (Which is why my date for the series spans about two hundred years of possibilities.) Stuff that's in italics is either contradicted in the episode itself or based on unsupported conjecture on my part or information that does come from later episodes, or series, or guide books. Assuming I ever finish this, and people haven't beaten me to death for being pedantic and/or boring, these might get fancy color codes to separate contradictions from conjectures and so on. There are three sorts of dates used. One is absolute, dated from the second pilot. ST for Star Trek and BST for before Star Trek. (Even though we've got Star Trek before our Before Star Trek dates.) One is based on the current era dates that can be derived from the episodes. And the last is stardates, which are unreliable for reasons we're all aware. Finally, the numbers in parenthesis lead to footnotes. Anyway, that's about it. I've done all of two episodes so far. Enjoy. [b]Where No Man Has Gone Before[/b] <u>BST 400-200</u> "Nightingale Woman" written by Tarbolde on the Canopius planet CE 1996 (1) <u>BST 210-190</u> S.S. Valiant lost CE 2006-2186 <u>BST 33</u> [i]Gary Mitchell born[/i] (2) Stardate 1087.7 [i]CE 2163-2363[/i] <u>BST 31</u> [i]Elizabeth Dehner born[/i] (2) Stardate 1089.5 [i]CE 2165-2365[/i] <u>BST 23</u> [i]Gary Mitchell born[/i] (2) Stardate 1087.7 [i]CE 2153-2353[/i] <u>BST 21</u> [i]Elizabeth Dehner born[/i] (2) Stardate 1089.5 [i]CE 2155-2355[/i] <u>BST 15</u> Kirk and Mitchell meet, presumably at the academy (3) CE 2181-2381 <u>ST 1</u> "Where No Man Has Gone Before" Stardate 1312.4-1313.8 CE 2196-2396 1.) Mitchell gives the date of the poem and then mentions it was the most romantic written in the "past couple of centuries." My purely arbitrary definition of couple is two to four. 2.) It seems highly unlikely that Mitchell and Dehner were 23 and 21, respectively, during the episode, regardless of the ages given on their files. 3.) Mitchell's description of his academy years make it sound like he had not met Kirk prior to attending. It is interesting to note that if Mitchell met Kirk during his first year, and we assume from evidence in TNG that most people go to the academy at the age of 18, Mitchell would be 33 during the episode, which seems like a more reasonable age for a Lieutenant Commander and possible XO. If we're adding ten years to Mitchell's age, it doesn't seem unreasonable to do the same for Dr. Dehner, making her 31. We get two different and mutually exclusive stardate schemes here. The first, appearing on the personnel files Spock reviews, suggest that one stardate equals one year. By that scheme, Mitchell was 226 years old when he died, and the episode itself took over a year. Kirk's date of birth, as given by his tombstone and as near as I can make out, is stardate 1277.1. [b]The Corbomite Manuver[/b] <u>BST 250-200</u> Earliest days of space exploration (1) CE 1946-2196 <u>BST 11</u> Kirk's first promotion to bridge officer (2) CE 2185-2385 <u>ST 1+[i]93 days[/i]</u> "The Corbomite Manuver" Stardate 1512.2 (3) CE 2196-2396 1.) This is more or less how long Kirk says human starships have been using corbomite devices. Another assumption on my part is that "over two centuries" means at least two, but not more than two and a half, at which point we might round up to "almost three" instead. Not, perhaps, the most defensible interpretation, but there you are. This could be used to date the episode, but it has a number of problems we must overcome first. One, is Kirk talking about the earliest days of human space exploration or Federation space exploration? Arguably human, since the UFP hadn't been thought up by Roddenberry and company yet. Two, does earliest mean earliest overall or earliest that actually went anywhere? In other words, is he dating from Gagarin or Cochrane? Tricky, as there's a century just inbetween them. Lastly, seeing as how the whole bit was a bluff anyway, more than two centuries could just have been the first number that popped into Kirk's head. (Of course, assuming that it is a more or less accurate number, and that Kirk was speaking of Cochrane, this number easily fits into the "true" timeline. So, hooray.) One other thing to consider is that he might be dating from the time of the Valiant, in which case this episode adds to the pilot, but doesn't introduce any new timeline information. For now, we'll just go with the date derived from the pilot. 2.) McCoy tells Kirk that the captain was like Bailey 11 years ago. I assume here that the good doctor was speaking about their shared situation, that is, their first permenant seat on the bridge of a starship. But it is also possible McCoy was speaking of a shared rank, or a shared tendancy to spout off dramatic monolouges at opportune moments. I'm going to stick with bridge officer, though, as I think that was the intention. 3.) Another stardate scheme is presented. From the first captain's log to the second, 18 hours and 1.6 stardates have passed. Thus 1 stardate equals 11.25 hours. By this reckoning, about 93 and a half days have passed since "Where No Man Has Gone Before." Not entirely unreasonable, as three months seems almost enough time to refit the ship, change uniforms, and mix and match personnel, especially if the Enterprise returned to base immediately following their galactic barrier encounter, and didn't depart until just before this mission. Of course, it also means that Mitchell would have been only 105 days old. Coming soon: "Mudd's Women" or "Tomorrow is 85 Days Ago." (Note: It's unlikely I'll be able to come up with joke titles based on stardate inconsistancies for every episode, so enjoy them while you can.) [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3