posted
So, if I said, for example, "I'm 23 years old", you would assume that I had lived through twenty-three 1. Jan. - 31. Dec. calendar years?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Why, the same source that originally led to the 2218 date, whatever it is. I don't have the book in front of me, but I think it was a line from "Day Of The Dove." You know bloody well by now that I don't give a rip about "canon."
posted
Well, FYI, the Okudas' Star Trek Chronology was the original source of the date. The annotations in the book claim that Dr. McCoy stated that humans and Klingons had been adversaries for 50 years in "Day of the Dove" (TOS).
However, at least according to this transcript, no such line was spoken in the episode. Now, it's possible that there was such a line and that this transcript omits it. (It occasionally happens that closed-captions abbreviate certain lines, and alternatively the transcript may be of a version of the episode that had certain scenes trimmed in television syndication.) I think it would be exceedingly helpful if someone who actually owns the full DVD version of the episode would please verify whether or not it exists.
Even in the case that McCoy did utter such a line, though, it doesn't necessarily tell us anything about when Klingon first contact happened. Just because there was a period of hostility going back half a century before 2268 doesn't mean that first contact couldn't have predated that particular period of hostility.
Furthermore, the only line that ever explicitly referred to first contact with the Klingons was in the TNG episode "First Contact," and described it as having taken place "centuries ago." Being that the episode was set in 2367, and being that first contact occurred at least two centuries before that date, it cannot have occurred in 2218. Rather, it must have occurred at least as far back as 2167.
"Broken Bow" (ENT) nailed it down more precisely as 2151, a date which is in no way inconsistent with any of the above lines, and there can now be no question whatever as to when first contact between Earth and the Klingon Empire canonically took place.
End. Of. Story.
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: However, at least according to this transcript, no such line was spoken in the episode. Now, it's possible that there was such a line and that this transcript omits it. (It occasionally happens that closed-captions abbreviate certain lines, and alternatively the transcript may be of a version of the episode that had certain scenes trimmed in television syndication.) I think it would be exceedingly helpful if someone who actually owns the full DVD version of the episode would please verify whether or not it exists.
From my experience: these scripts are about 99% accurate, with the exception being trivial "yes, sir"s and so forth. I went through about 8 different episodes (that I had taped off the SciFi Channel) and watched them while refering to this site and found it to be nearly word for word. It also gave me an impression of just how much SciFi cuts out of the show for extra ad-time.
-------------------- Hey, it only took 13 years for me to figure out my password...
Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim:
quote: End. Of. Story.
For you. I'm more interested in the "disasterous" part of Picard's line than the "centuries" part, which I ignore as a goof. Maybe Picard thought "centuries" sounded better than "seventy-five years or so." Maybe he's just not the sharpest student of early Federation history. Maybe the writer should be flogged. It's happened before.
And as for ENT, one of the top ten reasons I hate that show with such unrelenting passion is the way it's fucking up Star Trek's history. I could care diddly about what any ENT episode says about anything.
Nowhere did I say that everyone has to agree with me. In fact, I've said the exact opposite, more than once.
quote:Originally posted by MarianLH: I'm more interested in the "disasterous" part of Picard's line than the "centuries" part, which I ignore as a goof. Maybe Picard thought "centuries" sounded better than "seventy-five years or so." Maybe he's just not the sharpest student of early Federation history. Maybe the writer should be flogged. It's happened before.
So a Klingon being shot at in the middle of a farmer's field and then nearly becoming the cause of a major interstellar incident isn't disasterous? They've even shown in subsequent episodes that this led to other incidents that have generated heightened tensions between the Klingon and Earth governments. Hell, a small fleet of Klingon vessels even invaded the Sol system and engaged a small fleet of Starfleet vessels! And we know from TOS and the films that these tensions will continue to escalate to the brink of war, subside and flare up again all the way until the Khitomer talks in 2293. Sounds wholly consistent with Picard's line to me.
quote:And as for ENT, one of the top ten reasons I hate that show with such unrelenting passion is the way it's fucking up Star Trek's history. I could care diddly about what any ENT episode says about anything.
But, as I just pointed out above, there was never any line regarding the date of first contact with the Klingons other than Picard's. Not in "Day of the Dove" and not in any other episode. IT'S A MYTH. A mistake on the part of the authors of the Chronology. So there's no "fucking up of Star Trek's history" taking place, at least not on this issue.
Is this not making sense to you? If there is a logical flaw anywhere in my argument, please point it out directly. Tell me WHY you take issue with it. My hopes that you are not just bashing ENT for the sake of bashing it are dwindling.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
This, more than anything, is what really bugs me about "canon" and its defenders. This messianic drive to make everyone toe the party line.
Why are you trying to convince me? Why do you care? Essentially all I said was, "I'm sticking with the original story, regardless of ENT." The original post was even meant to be whimsical, not to kick off a rehash of the same evidence everyone already knows all of and has already drawn whatever conclusions they are going to draw from. Why can't you leave it at that? Why do you have to try and force me to accept your version?
posted
Because your argument has no validity to it. It's equivalent to someone deciding to believe "the original story" that the Sun revolves around the Earth and not vice versa. I am reacting to your misconception of this issue the same way I would react to any other misconception, regardless of whether it's Trek-related or not.
You (and Okuda, et. al.) drew an incorrect conclusion based on incomplete or faulty evidence, just as those who originated the Earth-centric model of the universe did. It wasn't illogical based on what data was available to work with at the time, but now additional and more complete information has come to light. You sitting with your hands over your eyes screaming "THIS IS MY OPINION!! I'M ENTITLED TO MY OPINION!!" is as ridiculous as someone saying that in their opinion the Sun revolves around the Earth. It doesn't change the facts, and to put it quite bluntly, the facts of the matter show that you are wrong.
Now, that being said, I would like to note that I am not trying to personally attack or belittle you, but merely to stop the spread of these woefully incorrect conceptions that have circulated for so long. As others on this board can readily point out, I too was once deadset on taking everything in the Chronology and Encyclopedia as firm and true. I even railed against the idea of ENT showing Klingon first contact when I first heard about it. But once I went back and examined all the evidence for myself, I discovered that it was I (along with the authors of the texts) who was in error, and I adjusted my views accordingly. It is in this scientific manner which a healthy and objective knowledge of the universe (be it the real one or the Trek one) is gained.
And yes, I think a scientific manner of thinking is important whenever discussing a science fiction series. I know some of that last sounded a little high and mighty of me, but I assure you it was not intended as such.
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
1. I am not screaming. I never once used an !, let alone all caps, and I have to say I am unhappy with the (mis)characterization.
2. Your argument is based on the assumption that one must base the conclusion on all of the "evidence" that has appeared in a film/movie, and none from any other source. As I have said before, I do not share this assumption.
Star Trek is fiction. Therefore the comparison to actual fact, i.e. the sun, is a false one. The game of science (i.e., facts A and B lead to conclusion C) changes greatly when you can choose to ignore some of the "facts," because they are in fact not facts, and draw your conclusion solely from those "facts" that you want to.
My conclusion is not an incorrect conclusion, because there is no correct conclusion. It is not a misconception, because each person's conception of the Star Trek universe is their own, subjective conception, defined by whatever parameters they see fit to impose on themselves. I object strongly to having someone else's parameters imposed on me from without.
Or, as Okuda allegedly put it, "it is really up to each fan to decide what is "canon" and what isn�t, based upon personal enjoyment."
I personally enjoy a Star Trek universe with the 2218 first contact date, with Rihannsu-based Romulans, and with one-nacelled scout ships. Among other things. I fail to see why I should not. And I fail to see why I should not share this point of view, for others to use or ignore as they wish, so long as I present it as a point of view, rather than the "right" one.
And this is why I think the very concept of "canon" is such a toxic addition to Star Trek fandom. The very idea that there is some "official" version of a fictional future history inevitably leads to contentious disagreements between otherwise nice, sane, well-adjusted people who might under other circumstances happily have a beer together*. It's the difference between saying "I disagree, because of A, B, and C," and "you're wrong, because of A, B, and C." The latter is far less congenial, and really rather pointless.
Marian
*I don't, actually, drink beer. Yuck. But you get the idea.
[ June 05, 2004, 07:35 AM: Message edited by: MarianLH ]
Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
What's the point of watching the show and spending your free time thinking about it, discussing it, etc., if you're going to ignore it? If you're just going to make things up on your own that contradict the actual show, what do you need the show for in the first place?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
