The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > Constitution Class Launched
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old 03-11-2008, 12:24 PM
MissionTrek08's Avatar
MissionTrek08 MissionTrek08 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,562
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tejdog1 View Post
I never said he completed 3 five year missions. He stepped down in the middle of his 3rd one.
Well, your latest list above showed "May 2260 - May 2264" which would cap off at least fourteen years of missions. And as noted, no other reference material I can find even implies this.

It's great for your own theory, that's fine. But earlier you were saying these were based on Memory Alpha stats, which don't even seem to support your timelines given here.
__________________

MISSION:TREK's in-depth review of STAR TREK


Proud member of the Friends of Zardoz Association. Avatar courtesy of Eliza's House of Avatars with three convenient locations near you. Free balloons for the kids!
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 03-11-2008, 12:36 PM
tejdog1 tejdog1 is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 335
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissionTrek08 View Post
Well, your latest list above showed "May 2260 - May 2264" which would cap off at least fourteen years of missions. And as noted, no other reference material I can find even implies this.

It's great for your own theory, that's fine. But earlier you were saying these were based on Memory Alpha stats, which don't even seem to support your timelines given here.
I'm using Memory Alpha as a base and trying to fill in as best I can around dates which would be logical. Yes, it's all conjecture on my part, but it does fit much better then most other timelines I've seen. We KNOW April had 1 mission on the Enterprise, 2245-2250. From 2250-2254, we don't know what happened. Rigel and Talos may have been the first missions of the first mission (hahaha this is so messed up) - but then you can't explain Pike's line "I'm sick of deciding who goes and who stays, who lives and who...dies" from The Cage. Sticking a 5 year mission in there and making Rigel and Talos the end of that first mission makes that line make sense, and also solves the problem of Spock's 11 years 4 months under Pike.

Aug 2250-Aug 2254, Jan 2255-Jan 2259, May 2260-May 2264: Pike's three 5 year missions. Spock joined the crew in early 2252. Pike steps down as Captain in the middle of 2263. A few months pass while a suitable replacement is sought.

Spock, born in 2232, would serve as a ensign on the Enterprise at age 20, in 2252. Upon "completion" of his Academic career (2254) - he would be promoted or whatever, but remain on the Enterprise since Pike requests it. From that conjecture (2252), count forward 11 years 4 months to 2263, and Pike steps down.

2250-2254
2255-2259
2260-2264 * 3rd 5 year mission, Pike steps down as Captain in 2263.

It fits. It's logical.
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 03-11-2008, 01:09 PM
TJJones's Avatar
TJJones TJJones is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Monterey, CA
Posts: 341
Default

Kirk said he was 34 in The Deadly Years, which aired in 1967. The currently accepted conjecture was that the events took place 300 years after the the air date, so that Kirk was 34 in 2267. That's the basis of his conjectured birth year of 2233, IIRC.

The end of the series was supposed to roughly correspond with the end of Kirk's first five year mission (Spring 2269). Add about 30 months to that and you have late 2271 as the conjectured time frame for the V-Ger incident.

Star Trek II-IV are supposed to take place around 2284-5. (It was certainly some time after 2283, which was the vintage year for the Romulan Ale that Bones bought for Jim's birthday).

Morrow's 20-years-old statement would be accurate if the comment only counted the beginning of Kirk's command. It's seems likely that someone looking through the Star Trek bible for a number to fit the quote mistakenly believed the 2264-5 start of Kirk's five year mission as the origin of the Enterprise, when, instead the ship is about twice that age.

I can't remember if the 2293 date for Star Trek VI was a conjectured date or noted in the movie.
__________________
Davy Jones
Your Friendly, Neighborhood, Navy Vet!

The United States Navy: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of all Who Threaten It!

"I can imagine no more rewarding a career. And any man who may be asked in this century what he did to make his life worthwhile, I think can respond with a good deal of pride and satisfaction: 'I served in the United States Navy.'" -President John F. Kennedy


Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 03-11-2008, 01:30 PM
Damage75's Avatar
Damage75 Damage75 is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 1,593
Default

It fits. It's logical.[/quote]

Nice work. That's probably the cleanest timetable I've seen yet.

Of course, we're probably missing something that will send your hypothesis back to the drawing board LOL.

I hope, as someone mentioned earlier, that the movie guys pay attention to this thread....alot of GREAT historical info!
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 03-11-2008, 02:39 PM
tejdog1 tejdog1 is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 335
Default

It's a theory that fits the facts. I'm sure others could come up with different ones. Hell, I can.

2246-2250 April
2250-2252.5 Enterprise refit
2252.75-2256.75 Pikes first 5 year mission
2256.75-2258.75 Extensive Enterprise refit (it is the flagship, afterall)
2259-2263: Pike's second 5 year mission. Technically Spock joins the Enterprise in 2252, sometime in the 3rd quarter (July-September). Serves his 11.25 years (4/12), and vamu.

It's a little bit more farfetched to think of the Enterprise undergoing so many refits in such a short period of time, but it could happen.

You could formulate any number of timelines from 2230-2280 to fit the facts. That's why it's so annoying.
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 03-11-2008, 03:07 PM
Commodore's Avatar
Commodore Commodore is offline
Rear Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Starbase 24
Posts: 2,511
Default

Roddenberry didn't think people 42 years later would be working hard to connect the dots.

But it's true that people can come up with multiple timelines for Kirk's era with most fitting established events mentioned in both TOS and the TOS movies. VOY gave us the only canonical end date for Kirk's 5-year mission as 2270 but there's even wriggle room around that really...
__________________
Free your mind, and the rest will follow.
--En Vogue
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 03-11-2008, 04:11 PM
Zardoz's Avatar
Zardoz Zardoz is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere In The Future
Posts: 31,432
Default

C-

Again, the voice of reason. But we have to use some standard.
__________________
"High Priestesses Of Zardoz" By Eliza's Starbase Of Avatars Copyright 2009."
"Zardoz Speaks To You, His Choosen Trek Fans."
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 03-11-2008, 05:08 PM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissionTrek08 View Post
Good question, Tej. Well, I looked up this much:

According to the Star Trek Chronology, it says Kirk's age is given as 34 years old in "The Deadly Times."

The Encyclopedia dates that episode as Stardate 3478.2 (likely given in the log or such).

Kirk's birth year (2233) plus his age (34) puts "The Deadly Times" roughly in the year 2267 then.

The next question is: when did that episode happen within Kirk's five-year mission?

If you go by Harriman's line in ST:GEN, he says the Enterprise-B (launched in 2293) was "the first in 30 years without Kirk in command." Again, buying that, one might again fix Kirk's command of the 1701 to begin in 2263.

If so, then "The Deadly Times" happens sometime in the third year of Kirk's mission in command which reportedly began in 2264.

A lot of conjecture there, though... fair warning!
'm not even familar with the deadly times are you sure you don't mean the "Deadly Years"?

I wish I had followed Generations closer but the half Gen half Kirk era didn't really appeal to me. I know it was a passing of the torch but I thought it never really did bridge the gap.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 03-11-2008, 07:00 PM
MissionTrek08's Avatar
MissionTrek08 MissionTrek08 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,562
Default

Indeed... "The Deadly Years", Saquist. My typo! Sorry for the confusion.
__________________

MISSION:TREK's in-depth review of STAR TREK


Proud member of the Friends of Zardoz Association. Avatar courtesy of Eliza's House of Avatars with three convenient locations near you. Free balloons for the kids!
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 03-11-2008, 07:16 PM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

WHOA....you reallly had me there I thought I wasn't a trek fan any more because I had no idea what you were talking about.

What I didn't know is that Voyager made any mention of kirks time let alone refering to 2370 as Kirks five year mission.
Any idea what episode?
__________________

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 06:12 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.