The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > The year the film is set
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-02-2008, 09:15 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,078
Default The year the film is set

I don't know if this has been discussed before so apologies if it has, but I got to thinking that there are a lot of questions about the likelihood of all the characters being on the ship at the same time, and it started me wondering about whether there was a way to maybe narrow down the options of when in the timeline the new film could be set.

So uising the biographical data that we know and which is summarised on Memory Alpha I took a look at each characters history (Birth dates, bio etc) and came up with the following thought.

The film can make sense of all the crew being present if it's set around 2265, or even 2264.

Kirk was born 2233, and was a Captain by 2265 (age 32), he was also a lieutenant by 2255 (22) so it ties in with his rapid command advancement, it also fits with Pike's accident taking place not long before 'The Menagerie' which was also 2265, so Pike can be healthy and in command of the Enterprise before Kirk takes over.

As to the others, Uhura was born in 2239 so would be 26 in 2265 (this fits with Saldana's age), Sulu was born 2237 so would 28 (again a fit for Cho), Chekov was born in 2245 and went into the Acadamy in 2263 so would be 21/22 (again a fit for Yelchin), McCoy was born around 2226/2227 so would be in his late 30's (which fits for Urban), and the only other matter is Scotty, as he was born 2222 he would be in his 40s which maybe Pegg looks younger than but some people age better than others! It also fits for Spock, born 2232 and having stayed with the Enterprise through Pike's command into Kirk's. There's also some evidence that the Enterprise was the first ship assignment of some of the crew. And it slots in neatly to taking place just before the TOS five year mission.

Basically, I think the events can hold together if the film were set in the period of early 2265. But I know there is no evidence for that being when that part of the film is set, I just looked at it from curiosity and was a little surprised to find that it can work out based on some of the things we can say about each characters bio.

I just wondered what other people might think.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-02-2008, 09:30 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

Nicely put together, Kevin.
I think the time references in the episodes and movies are hard to notice and often intentionally kept vague, I remember some discussion here about the rough duration of the events in TUC and opinions went from a few days to a more than a month.
What is more important IMO is the more obvious age impression of the charactors, for example it was clear that Chekov is a greenhorn and that Kirk is a young captain in TOS while e.g. it was more ambiguous how old Spock is. I think the birthyear of Spock comes from Yesteryear, canonized by the Okudas. I have no problem with making Spock as old as Kirk and portray them as kind of equals (which seems very likely IMO), but there is also nothing wrong with assuming that Vulcans just go longer to school due to their longer lifespan such that Spock should be older or with making Spock even a bit more older; as a lecturer at the academy he could have the little mentor role which seems is given to Pike in this movie.
My best guess is that the movie will be as vague as any other Trek movie before and not throw around dates especially because it covers so many time periods. Nothing more tedious than to add a specific date in a log-like manner to each time frame.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-02-2008, 09:32 AM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

I think I would be more or just as concerned as you are about the dates if this was the same trek. But seeing as it's taking some creative license I don't think it's important for some reason. It's intresting but I don't think we're meant to look at this film and regard it as a true prequel to what we know...but you know I could be wrong.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-02-2008, 09:37 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,078
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
Nicely put together, Kevin.
I think the time references in the episodes and movies are hard to notice and often intentionally kept vague, I remember some discussion here about the rough duration of the events in TUC and opinions went from a few days to a more than a month.
What is more important IMO is the more obvious age impression of the charactors, for example it was clear that Chekov is a greenhorn and that Kirk is a young captain in TOS while e.g. it was more ambiguous how old Spock is. I think the birthyear of Spock comes from Yesteryear, canonized by the Okudas. I have no problem with making Spock as old as Kirk and portray them as kind of equals (which seems very likely IMO), but there is also nothing wrong with assuming that Vulcans just go longer to school due to their longer lifespan such that Spock should be older or with making Spock even a bit more older; as a lecturer at the academy he could have the little mentor role which seems is given to Pike in this movie.
My best guess is that the movie will be as vague as any other Trek movie before and not throw around dates especially because it covers so many time periods. Nothing more tedious than to add a specific date in a log-like manner to each time frame.
Thanks Horation, indeed I don't usually dwell on the details of dates too closely, but I just did it as an excercise to see how it worked out in theory. I wouldn't yet hazard a guess on the dates of the other events yet. This was just about the sense of all the bridge crew being there at the same time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
I think I would be more or just as concerned as you are about the dates if this was the same trek. But seeing as it's taking some creative license I don't think it's important for some reason. It's intresting but I don't think we're meant to look at this film and regard it as a true prequel to what we know...but you know I could be wrong.
Yes, I know this is where some do differ in our take, but I have to confess mine is to treat it as part of the established universe until the film contradicts that. But, I could myself be wrong in that. Like I said, it was really for curiosity myself.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-02-2008, 09:51 AM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

Why?
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-02-2008, 09:54 AM
DNA-1842's Avatar
DNA-1842 DNA-1842 is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland, Europe, Terra - ZZ9 PluralZAlpha
Posts: 3,594
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
Why?
What Kevin is saying is that he is trying to look at the film (just for the moment!) as if he had a prescription of -5.5 and forgot to put his glasses on!
__________________
Gronda Gronda to all Zarking Hoopy Froods! Bowties are cool.
I Am A Friend Of


(And an indirectly founding patron of the Elizadolots Avatar Thingy.)
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-02-2008, 09:58 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,078
Default

Because a lot of people are postulating alternate universes, reset timelines, erasure of TOS etc, mostly because of the design alterations and some of the crew being present when some think they shouldn't be able to be. At the end of the day they are doing that because they are upset by the apparent changes and moving it to an alternate timeline justifies the changes. I can't do that. I'd like to see if the film explains these differences in the script first, so until otherwise I'm treating it as part of official TOS history - just parts we haven't seen yet.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-02-2008, 10:01 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,078
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DNA-1842 View Post
What Kevin is saying is that he is trying to look at the film (just for the moment!) as if he had a prescription of -5.5 and forgot to put his glasses on!
Well just trying to see what might hold up. A lot of people are worrying because they think all the crew can't possibly be together on th ship prior to TOS - I spent a few minutes looking at major dates in their bios and was able to come up with a potential calendar setting that would permit it, and fir with some other character points. Now if I can do that, why assume Abrams and Co can't do it either?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-02-2008, 10:03 AM
DNA-1842's Avatar
DNA-1842 DNA-1842 is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland, Europe, Terra - ZZ9 PluralZAlpha
Posts: 3,594
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin View Post
Well just trying to see what might hold up. A lot of people are worrying because they think all the crew can't possibly be together on th ship prior to TOS - I spent a few minutes looking at major dates in their bios and was able to come up with a potential calendar setting that would permit it, and fir with some other character points. Now if I can do that, why assume Abrams and Co can't do it either?
That is what I meant by my analogy.


(And I used my own prescription!)
__________________
Gronda Gronda to all Zarking Hoopy Froods! Bowties are cool.
I Am A Friend Of


(And an indirectly founding patron of the Elizadolots Avatar Thingy.)
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-02-2008, 10:04 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

And you showed that there is no problem with the ages of the charactors if the main part of the movie is set a few years before the five-year mission.
Not that this is very crucial to the story, I don't remember precise time references except the 78 years or whatever it was mentioned in GEN.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin View Post
Now if I can do that, why assume Abrams and Co can't do it either?
One of the folks from the prodctuion team even said they used Memory Alpha from time to time.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:35 PM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.