Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 20

Thread: The canon post-TNG dating system

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    52

    The canon post-TNG dating system

    For the last several years, I've been dismayed at the revised Star Trek Calendar as I'm just not used to it.

    After years of playing and getting very attached to ones Star Trek characters, knowing them inside out AND the universe they inhabit, it is slightly annoying to find that the "date" that you oriented yourself in that universe has been revised as an afterthought by Paramount . You feel - however slightly and naively- like you were playing the fool or were "had."

    I - and am sure many old FASA gamers and people who used to read the old "Best of Trek" books in the 1980s- still would like to use the pre-TNG calendar dating system in our minds. (I'm not talking about the FASA method of stardating, but the equivalent stardates in our Gregorian calendar.)

    I know this is an old old argument, and I'm resigned to the new calendar, but I would like to make a "last stand" for all the old timers who are still not used to the new trek dating (an overall + 60 to 70 odd year jump).

    For instance, TOS now is supposed to have taken place in the 2260s, rather than in 2200s. (and STII took place in the early 2280s instead of the early 2220s.)


    I know trek is contradictory on this topic, and I understand the counter-arguments. However, I always in the back of my mind used "Space Seed" as the anchor as we actually have a specific date mentioned in that TOS episode (1996).

    TOS "5 year mission" --->1996+200 years = 2196 a.d + or - (20 to 30 years).

    Unless you assume Khan can't count, something is not right. Khan in STII tells Terrell that his people have sworn to live or die at his command 200 years before Terrell's birth. Now, Terrell is about 50 is in that movie, so if we assume Khan's followers were with him 10 years before the Eugenics Wars, then:

    200+(50 -10)+ 1996 = 2236 a.d, which is close to the FASA/80s fandom dating of STII in the 2220s, NOT the newly revised 2280s.

    Now, I know that in the very same movie, a bottle of Romulan Ale had a vintage of 2283, so it can be argued either way.
    So, yes, I know the vintage reference supports the new dating, but conversely, Khan's remarks support the old dating method.

    (I won't even bother to argue that it doesn't make sense for the Romulans to bottle their ale with Earth dates, or UFP smugglers would bother dating illegal hooch.)

    So, even though the old dating method has surrendered in the face of Paramount-approved judgement calls on the date, the old dating methodology still has its fans.

    It's gone but not forgotten.
    ----
    Byteknight

    Please visit my gaming blog at

    http://fasatrekker.blogspot.ca/

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM, USA
    Posts
    2,990
    um...no offense meant, but what does this matter? it's fiction, after all; roll with it.
    "War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

    John Stuart Mill

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    52
    Originally posted by qerlin
    um...no offense meant, but what does this matter? it's fiction, after all; roll with it.
    It doesn't matter. I'm just thinking outloud about the weaknesses of the current dating methodology employed by TNG-sponsored books.

    This is a trek rpg site after all, and it is, or it used to be, an issue.
    I have "rolled with it." As I said, I go along with the new dates, though I prefer the other dating way.

    I'm sure when the Julian calendar was replaced by the Gregorian calendar in 1582 (or when the American Colonies and Britain changed over in 1752), there were some who didn't like it, as well.
    Last edited by byteknight; 12-05-2003 at 07:56 AM.
    ----
    Byteknight

    Please visit my gaming blog at

    http://fasatrekker.blogspot.ca/

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Wichita, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    582
    Originally posted by byteknight
    This is a trek rpg site after all, and it is, or it used to be, an issue.
    As we all know, Star Trek dates were never really meant to be looked at closely and in fact the show used the fictional star dates so that the writers wouldn't have to pin down a specific time period for the show's episodes.

    When fans started discussing dates and occurrences, it was an entertaining exercise. But, at that time, even the published stuff was all fun conjecture which was to be ignored at the end of the day. (Which was good because FASA's dating system was a pain in the ass.)

    When Micheal and Denise Okuda actually sat down, watched all the episodes and movies, took notes, and did their exhaustive research for the Star Trek Chronology, that raised the bar for Star Trek historiography.

    It has nothing to do with Paramount "supplanting" an unofficial fan-invented system. Its just that the Okudas' research was so tight and thorough that there was a lot less room for debate. So, its really no longer an issue.
    "The American Eagle needs both a right wing and a left wing in order to fly."
    -paraphrase of Bill Moyers

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Somewhere behind a sand dune
    Posts
    2,263
    Stardates have always given me a headache when running a game. So I just use the Earth Calender and dates for Central Database and fleet updates, while the players use the local calender and time calculation. make my life simpler
    A brave little theory, and actually quite coherent for a system of five or seven dimensions -- if only we lived in one.

    Academician Prokhor Zakharov, "Now We Are Alone"

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Dundee, Scotland, UK
    Posts
    1,808
    This wasn't the fault of the TNG generation. FASA's dating system was a bone of contention well before TNG locked the dates.

    "You can't take a picture of this; it's already gone." -Nate Fisher, Six Feet Under.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Newcastle, England
    Posts
    3,462
    I've also never bothered to use Stardates in my games. They are just an unimportant detail amongst dozens of other things I have to worry about, and i'm sure my players would apprecviate a deviously thought out plot device over a technically accurate Stardate

    I have to agree that the whole point about Stardates was that the whole thing was kept as vague as possible. We all know that Gene Rodembery just blagged his way through the issue of Stardates, but the Okuda's made a concerted effort to timeline the whole thing so it's easier to go with that. Point in case there have been several statements in TNG to give away that the TOS series was set in the 2260's to really override that and there was very little but wooly statements in TOS to give any hard facts on what the dates were. If it was all about blatant contradiction then I might agree but nothing hard was given in TOS because it was designed to do that!

    As long as your series is internally consistent then it doesn't actually matter what the gregorian calendar date is - because if you used Stardates all along then they are STILL right!

    The Stardate masuring system it's self is also highly conjectural in both it's design and structure and ultimatelly had more to do with numbering the episodes than it did with an actual date.

    It's ironic that these problems are created by the fans and not Paramount, because after all it's the fans whom these systems contradict!
    Ta Muchly

  8. #8
    I use loosly defined Stardates. I understand how the first 2 digits of the Stardate correspond to which show series the episode takes place during, and thus equally as loosly which in-character year it takes place in...

    Outside of that and a slight amont of research to put episode sequels after the correct Stardate, I tend to just let them fly and make them up on the spot...

    Occasionally I have been asked to pin it down further, and if you think my half-arsed Stardates are bad, you should see the results of this No calculation involved!!!

    Of course in Trek this happened too. Later DS('s and Voyagers simply didn't bother with Stardates on occsion.
    DanG/Darth Gurden
    The Voice of Reason and Sith Lord

    “Putting the FUNK! back into Dysfunctional!”

    Coming soon. The USS Ganymede NCC-80107
    "Ad astrae per scientia" (To the stars through knowledge)

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    52
    Originally posted by Ezri's Toy
    It has nothing to do with Paramount "supplanting" an unofficial fan-invented system. Its just that the Okudas' research was so tight and thorough that there was a lot less room for debate. So, its really no longer an issue.

    No, no longer an issue, but there was some supplanting. Which is ok, because as the owner, it is Paramount's right.

    However, the Okuda's "air-tight defence" can never be that air-tight given the many contradictions. They made a judgement call on the dates, as you must when trying to sow some logic with all the contradictions. They ignored some criteria (the 1996 + 200 framework) and picked others (the inevitable TNG this or TNG that reference, blah blah blah).

    I just would have preferred if they leaned one way instead of the other.

    Oh, well. The 2260s it is, then.
    Last edited by byteknight; 12-05-2003 at 08:19 AM.
    ----
    Byteknight

    Please visit my gaming blog at

    http://fasatrekker.blogspot.ca/

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    143
    Something I like about Okuda's dating system is that the Gregorian calendar years for TOS and Star Trek I to Star Trek VI roughly match to the 20th century decades in which the films were actually produced.

    TOS occured in the 2260s, and was filmed in the 1960s. Star Trek I occured in the early 2270s, and was produced in the late 1970s. Star Trek II thru V were made in the 1980s and are dated in the 2280s, and Star Trek VI was early 1990s and early 2290s.

    Something appeals to me about that.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Location
    MetroWest, MA USA
    Posts
    2,590
    While Okuda had some wiggle-room in his chronology, especially with regard to the exact dating of the five-year mission, it pretty much had to be placed when it was, plus or minus a decade.

    While much has been made of the 200 year comment by Khan, the only positive dating given in the original series was in Star Trek IV, where Kirk indicated he was from the late 23rd century. That would put Star Trek IV as taking place in the late 2260's at the earliest.

    FASA's dating system of an early 23rd century period for TOS was one of two main ones popular in the 70's/early 80's, with the other, if memory serves, putting the five year mission of Kirk in the early 2260's.
    AKA Breschau of Livonia (mainly rpg forums)
    Gaming blog 19thlevel

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Dundee, Scotland, UK
    Posts
    1,808
    Originally posted by byteknight
    No, no longer an issue, but there was some supplanting. Which is ok, because as the owner, it is Paramount's right.

    However, the Okuda's "air-tight defence" can never be that air-tight given the many contradictions. They made a judgement call on the dates, as you must when trying to sow some logic with all the contradictions. They ignored some criteria (the 1996 + 200 framework) and picked others (the inevitable TNG this or TNG that reference, blah blah blah).

    Or how about the Voyager 6 was launched "more than 300 years ago" reference in the Motion Picture, which predates any Wrath of Khan quotes, and has absolutely nothing to do with TNG.

    "You can't take a picture of this; it's already gone." -Nate Fisher, Six Feet Under.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    52
    Originally posted by Dan Stack
    FASA's dating system of an early 23rd century period for TOS was one of two main ones popular in the 70's/early 80's, with the other, if memory serves, putting the five year mission of Kirk in the early 2260's.

    Exactly. My preferences were for the 70s/early 80s method. Call me old-school.

    Oh well. If you can't beat them, join them.
    Last edited by byteknight; 12-07-2003 at 11:32 AM.
    ----
    Byteknight

    Please visit my gaming blog at

    http://fasatrekker.blogspot.ca/

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    52
    Originally posted by Capt Daniel Hunter
    Or how about the Voyager 6 was launched "more than 300 years ago" reference in the Motion Picture, which predates any Wrath of Khan quotes, and has absolutely nothing to do with TNG.

    You got me there.

    However, we can assume that either Capt. Decker can't count, or Khan Noonian Singh can't count.

    My money is on Khan. :-)
    ----
    Byteknight

    Please visit my gaming blog at

    http://fasatrekker.blogspot.ca/

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    3,490
    Dating in TOS gave the timeframe as anywhere between 200 and 900 years in the future. The timeline FASA used was not a fannish invention, but rather was taken from the Space Flight Chronology by Stan and Fred Goldstein, issued as part of the marketing for TMP. In fact, certain factions within fandom <cough>James Dixon</cough> soundly rejected it, going on at great length.

    The most common Fannish dating system for TOS is remarkably close to the official system, with Kirk assuming command of the Enterprise in 2262 and the Organinan Treaty being imposed in 2265. This timelins was documented in the Star Trek Giant Poster Book, Voyage 14, 1n 1977. This issue also printed a set of fan-written 3-D chess rules which were later plagiarised by Franklin Mint.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •