posted
So when, exactly, do you think Enterprise is set? The script for "Broken Bow" says that it has been 90 years since first contact, which would be 2153; however, that's a long enough span that it could be a rounded figure. Scott Bakula said in an interview that it was 2151, and that seems to be what most people are going with; however, this is probably based on the "150 years from now" press information, also possibly rounded. If they want the Federation to be founded in the finale, then it should start in 2154, assuming the usual seven-season run; however, this is based on a plan that we don't even know to be in the works. All three dates have a large amount of inaccuracy in them. So is there any, um, evidence that I've missed?
Something like this has surely been discussed in the Paramount office over the two years they've been working on the show, might Mike Okuda know? I've got his email address, but I'm loathe to use it for something like this simply because I've never talked to him before. Some of us here have had significant contact with Mike in the past regarding Wolf 359, though... (hint, hint )
Jim Phelps
watches Voyager AFTER 51030
Member # 102
posted
It's also possible that someone added 90 years to the 2061 warp flight date from the Chronology. I actually have a feeling they'll stick to 2151, and run the series for ten seasons.
A related question is that of stardates. The log entries in the script begin with "Captain's starlog, Date: xxxxx.x". Despite the weird shift of the "star"-prefix, the x's indicate they're going to use stardates in the series. The best way to go, I think, would be four-digit stardates that increase/decrease like they did in TOS. A few references in that series (in "Conscience of the King" and "Where No Man Has Gone Before") suggest that four-digit stardates were in use decades before Kirk's time, albeit with rather low increase rates (i.e. 1277.1 date of Kirk's birth, 1087.7 of Gary Mitchell's, 1089.5 of Elisabeth Dehner's two years later, and stardate 2xxx.x when Kodos...something.)
Since this is more than a century before Kirk, it would be wise to make them three digits long, and have a year span 100 units or so. So the series might run from stardate 0000 to 0999 or so, which wouldn't confuse anyone.
posted
Well, the warp flight was in 2063... Are you referring to the first chronology? If so, then the date there was wrong, but not by much. In fact, if that were the real date, it would seem very logical to assume that the Federation was founded on the 100th anniversary of Cochrane's warp flight (2161). But, what is canon is canon...
posted
If the tombstone date was to represent the birth and death dates of Capt. Kirk, isn't the "C." a rather strange abbreviation for birth?
This is the stardate pattern- 1087.70 Gary Mitchell born 1089.50 Elizabeth Dehner born 1277.10 C. Captain Kirk 1312.40 "Where No Man Has Gone Before"
The stardates are chronological. If Capt. Kirk's birthdate was intended, his birthdate would be prior to 1087.70. In this case, the stardate assumed for his birthdate occurs after 1087.70. This leaves a variety of options.
I think one of these options is the stardate that Capt. Kirk became a Starfleet captain. In assigning dates to monarchs, historians use the abbreviated "r." to mark reign. On the tombstone, there is a "c.". "C." would be a good choice for a starship captain.
Unfortunately, we don't know when Kirk was promoted to captain and gain his first command.
quote:Originally posted by Jim Phelps: A related question is that of stardates. The log entries in the script begin with "Captain's starlog, Date: xxxxx.x". Despite the weird shift of the "star"-prefix, the x's indicate they're going to use stardates in the series.
Not neccessarily. The writers have used "stardate xxxxx.x" for so long that they could just be using that out of convenience for scriptwriting, with the "x"s filled in by any number of things. Don't get me wrong, I seriously doubt we're going to get Earth dates (despite it being an Earth ship) since those would be hard to keep up with... but they need not be any system related to stardates, even only in name.
Jim Phelps
watches Voyager AFTER 51030
Member # 102
posted
That would be consistent with the entire "we still have the exact same technology/concepts but in the prototype phase" approach.
I just found the May 11 Final Draft online(the "annotated" version). It lists the "date" as 1362.2. However, the aired version might still be different.
posted
Well, they'll probably be 4-digit stardates, at any rate ... I don't think they got the five digit (that is, ex: 43567.6) until TNG/DS9/VOY, with the TOS always using 4632.4 or some such.
Topic Closed
)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
