I know I can't.
I'm confused with Stardate is in this new series
- Thread starter Brainsucker
- Start date
- Status
I know I can't.
As others have stated, Stardates didn't mean anything in TOS. They were just extra seasoning to make the show more futuristic. Stardates didn't start meaning something until the 90's when they started having some order because the behind the scenes people like Mike Okuda wanted it that way. Even then stardates have always been gibberish with no one knowing how they work exactly.
Can you go one post without insulting the production team?
They're doing it be consistent with TOS, which wasn't consistent.
Yup. Any rationalizations after the fact doesn't change that in TOS it was pretty nonsensical. Therefore, the production team is under no obligation to make it make sense because of fan rationalization after airing of the show.
In a way, stardates making no sense whatsoever in nu-Trek is a very canonical thing to do. 
SNW does seem to have omitted the "trend upward as time progresses" part of "obscure numbers that trend upward as time progresses." I doubt the first six episodes of TOS bounced around quite that much. Or any string of six episodes, for that matter. Let's have a look.
SNW:
1739
2912[+1173]
1224[-1688]
3177[+1953]
2341[-863]
1943[-398]
Average absolute distance between episodes ± 1215
Number of episodes that go backwards: 3
TOS:
1312
1512[+200]
1329[-183]
1672[+343]
1513[-159]
1704[+191]
Average absolute distance between episodes ± 215
Number of episodes that go backwards: 2
And that's not even getting into the fact that ordering TOS by stardate does still make narrative sense (more sense than airdate or production order, in a few cases), something that's definitely not the case for SNW. Unless... "Illyria," "Strange," "Omlas," "Spocky Saturday," "Comet," "Gorns Gone Wild." Nope, for a second, I thought maybe they were doing some crazy Clone Wars thing where the episodes were intentionally out-of-order, but that's not it.
We don't need to exaggerate about how careless people were fifty-five years ago to vindicate what's happening today. Things are allowed to be bad, or overlooked, or unimportant, without constantly having to reach back to precedents that people also complained about.
Stardates in TOS weren't careless. They were intentionally kept vague by design, so writers wouldn't be beholden to an exact chronology. Within the course of a single episode, the numbers at the end of the stardate would increase. But from episode to episode or season to season they didn't need to continually go up.
Per the original Trek writer's guide, stardates would account for relativistic travel, physical position within the galaxy, etc., etc. So stuff that happened "later" from the point of view of our heroes, or from our point of view watching the episodes in production order, could end up being logged with a lower star date than what happened in a previous episode last week or the week before. Or different episodes have overlapping stardates even though it's obvious that the events didn't occur at the same time.
This is the exact description in the 1967 writer's guide:
Kor
Per the original Trek writer's guide, stardates would account for relativistic travel, physical position within the galaxy, etc., etc. So stuff that happened "later" from the point of view of our heroes, or from our point of view watching the episodes in production order, could end up being logged with a lower star date than what happened in a previous episode last week or the week before. Or different episodes have overlapping stardates even though it's obvious that the events didn't occur at the same time.
This is the exact description in the 1967 writer's guide:
Kor
More a matter of watching people invest time and energy in to something that was not regarded as important even in the past.
What I see far more is justification of "this was always treated as important until now," and it comes across, whether intentional or not, as veiled dig at the production team for being uncaring of TOS and Star Trek in general.
To me, stardates pretty much come across as before-script dressing.
"Edited for clarity by James T Dixon."
That's the part where I stopped reading.
I don't consider my comment as insulting. But then again, English isn't my mother tongue.
They use the local calendar of whatever inhabited planet they are nearest to or visiting or species' territory they are in so that any shuttle departures, away missions or landing parties are synchronized with the local time. The computer automatically adjusts for Federation Standard Time and appends it to the log as you speak.
If they are in unclaimed, unexplored, or uninhabited planets or territories they revert to Federation Standard.
If they are in unclaimed, unexplored, or uninhabited planets or territories they revert to Federation Standard.
its a little bit of camp no harm with that
Yeah, the scripts themselves are a handful enough, no need to worry about Stardates. Besides they can make adventure stories without them, the trope isn't necessary for this series.
Whoooaaa. I didn't even realize that they used a Kelvin reality stardate in the pilot episode, but they did. 2259.42 is the year 2259, day 42 (February 11). Nice catch!I wish they'd used Kelvinverse Stardates (as they did at the end of the first episode) but ... yeah, 4 random numbers point more random numbers. It's tradition, I guess
Resurrecting a thread that's been dormant for two years is bad form. Check out the board rules, please.
CLANG!
- Status
Similar threads
