Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Star Trek
»
General Trek
»
Can the Timeline for the Movies be wrong!
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Peregrinus: [QB] I dont normally like to do "me, too" responses, but I agree with Timo. There are still problems that have no way to rationalize (without being stupid), and entirely due to sloppy writing. Morrow's "twenty years old" line in STIII needs to be redubbed, for instance. Why attribute so much to Icheb's line, when Voyager was full of so many other little errors? Hey, Timo. Did Kirk's first year (of the five) start with a zero or a one? Was "WNM..." a few months in, or just over a year? Hell, we [i]still[/i] need to figure out what happened to stardates between TOS and TNG. Subtracting 41 from 2364 gives you 2323. What happened around then that would see the start of the ongoing stardate counter we have in contemporary Trek? How often did it reset in the TOS era, and what was with the crap stardate from the [i]Enterprise[/i] flight recorder log seen in STIII? [ADDITIONAL] Oh, and what the hell about the 1,000 units per year thing? Didn't anyone ever realize that that meant over two full units [i]per day[/i]? It almost works, though. Sort of. With a little tweaking, that can be rounded out to one tenth of a unit per hour. If things are standardized, based on but not exactly adhering to, one planet's cycles, that would work. So many questions yet... --Jonah [/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