“Only in the narrowest of terms.”

What?

At no point—-I repeat—*at no point*, was Michael Okuda *ever* in charge of Star Trek’s creative direction, particularly with regard to “story”—which is what this conversation is about. Having “influence” isn’t even close to the same thing as “being in charge”.

And the only thing I am being “dismissive” about with regard to Michael Okuda is the notion that he has ever been “in charge” of Star Trek’s creative direction. Working on Trek, even to the point of being “influential”, is not the same thing as “being in charge”. Period. There is nothing “narrow” about it—it is simply being clear and literal.

“That date from “Q2″, 2270, comes from from this very same chronology and the chronology entry predates its use on the air by eight years.”

Curious.

I recall the “Chronology” using the year *2269* as the end of the 5 year mission, and in a previous conversation, that is what Alex Rosenweig recalled as well. If the “Chronology” was such a concrete source—then why the discrepancy (no matter how minor) between that and “Q2″?

Even if Alex and I are mistaken in our recollection of that, it wouldn’t matter. The “Chronology” is a fictional reference book. It isn’t canon. That category is reserved for what is depicted onscreen in live action Trek television and feature films.

Okuda interprets it one way—-and I interpret it in another. His treatment (and apparently yours as well) is based upon selective reasoning, while mine is based upon precedent. None of it really matters in the end.

From what we have seen of the trailers, it seems to me the Enterprise is being built according to the retconned timeframe submitted by Bennett and Nimoy in TSFS—-and not the one suggested by the dialogue in “The Menagerie” (convoluted fanboy explanations about the effects of altered timelines notwithstanding).

In the end, all this means is around an eight-year discrepancy in the age of the Enterprise between what is suggested by “The Menagerie” and the TSFS retcon.

We’ll know in a month whether those “in charge of Star Trek’s creative direction” (aka the “Supreme Court”) have gone with Okuda’s selective reasoning with regard to the contradiction, or the “precedent”—which is to defer to the later canon entry.

Because when Kirk asks how they would even know what a Romulan ship looks like (as opposed to any other), Stiles replies that they will know because the ship is painted like a giant bird of prey. If it had been a practice of *both* races, then this really wouldn’t be an answer to the captain’s question.

But alas, the practice of painting ship like giant birds of prey eventually became a Klingon practice—-which I maintain is a retcon of the dialogue in BOT.

“While Trek certainly is fiction, the fictional universe must map to the real universe as much as possible. ”

I don’t see why. It’s all make-believe. As entertaining as it is for me, I cannot say that I am under any illusions that any of this is prognostic.

“Two or three? Wasn’t Scotty a Captain at that point, too? ”

No. Even after Scotty is told by Morrow to report to USS Excelsior as “captain” of engineering, he still later identifies himself as “Commander Montgomery Scott”. Moreoever, he isn’t depicted wearing Captain’s braids at any point forward in either STIII, IV, or V to my recollection. I always assumed that Scotty’s “promotion” to captain was never actually formalized.

“And what was Sulu’s rank in ST5?”

Since there is a five-year gap between TFF and TUC, it isn’t clear when he is promoted to Captain—beyond being within that window.

“I agree that it was silly. But having two captains and five commanders — while illogical — doesn’t contradict anything we’ve seen. ”

And it wasn’t my intention to suggest anything other than the notion that it really doesn’t make sense, just like decommissioning the Enterprise simply because she is 20 years old. But you’re right. It doesn’t contradict anything (other than common sense).

Not to mention TNG: Inheritence, which featured Dtat’s “Mom,” Juliana Tainer a.k.a Juliana O’Donnell a.k.a Juliana Soong.

Hello, “staff position.” Scenic artist at first on TNG and then scenic art supervisor on TNG, DS9 VOY and ENT. Plus the TNG movies. The guy has more Trek cred than almost anybody so I find your dismissive attitude extremely hilarious. On a par with dismissing Matt Jefferies’s influence on the creative direction of Trek.

“It is absolutely true.”

Only in the narrowest of terms. For example, GR might have been The Man but Gene Coon, Matt Jefferies, D.C Fontana, et.al, were just as influential as he was in the creative direction of Trek.

The same for Mr. Okuda. And part of his influence was the creation of a chronology that was used on TNG, DS9, and VOY whenever a date was needed. That date from “Q2″, 2270, comes from from this very same chronology and the chronology entry predates its use on the air by eight years.

240
“Good point, which then brings me back to my system of resolving inconsistencies — credibility and likelihood. It’s not credible that Khan came from 1996, since we’ve long passed that year and no evidence that a genetically-engineered tyrant took over 1/4 the world appeared in the news (unless CNN was too busy covering the Clinton/Dole election at the time).”

Presupposes, does it not, that the trek universe is our universe.

There is also no McKinley rocket base, no orbital nuclear warhead crisis, no Voyager 6, no Cetacean Institute. And no Trekkies hounding Shatner and company for autographs when they appeared on the streets of San Fran in 1986, dressed atypically for the times.

Trek doesn’t occur in OUR universe and therefore, there is not need to these kinds of inconsistencies. IMO

“I suggest you revisit “Balance Of Terror”. It’s made very clear that it is a distinctly “Romulan” practice. In TSFS, it is depicted as a “Klingon” practice. That is the very definition of “contradiction”.”

Why can’t it be a practice of both races? Where did we see that only Romulans are known to put animals on their ships, or (prior to ST3) that Klingons would never put animals on their ships?

You can’t assume a contradiction. It has to be outright established that either ONLY Romulans do the bird painting thing or that the Klingons would NEVER do the bird painting thing. Just showing the Romulans with the bird painting and then later showing the Klingons with it as well doesn’t mean anything was contradicted anywhere.

“The Star Trek timeline is a “fictional” version of the future from the 1960’s onward. It doesn’t have to be reconcile with actual history since that time. That’s the difference between fiction and non-fiction. Non-fiction is reality, while fiction is not.”

Trek also intends to be our future. The Trekverse isn’t, say, the Star Wars universe, where there’s no explanation for how humans got to another galaxy in the distant past. Trek is quite specifically trying to show how we — you and me and everyone else on the planet who actually exist in reality — are going to progress past all our problems and survive as a species. While Trek certainly is fiction, the fictional universe must map to the real universe as much as possible. And it must continue to map moving forward if it’s to remain relevant. Since 1996 had no Khan, that means an unrevised Trek universe isn’t our universe and that connection to our future is diminished.

So it serves the purpose of Trek to revise it such that the Khan contradiction goes away. The simplest answer is that “1996″ is wrong and Khan is yet to come. Let people in the 2060s deal with how to fix it when the time comes, but at least for now, Trek remains a speculation about our actual future.

“Actually, the only canonical entry that I can recall it contradicting is “The Menagerie”. It is pretty much one-for-one, unless I’m forgetting something (and in 5 live action series and 10 previous films, that’s quite possible).”

Accepted. I was combining the “13 years” and the “15 years” references, but as you imply, only one of them has to be incorrect.

So I still fall back on likelihood and credibility.

“*That* would have made more sense, and not been contradictory—but it is what it is—an “intentional” retcon.”

This brings up another issue. In Star Trek Nemesis, Data mentions that he’s not aware of Dr. Soong creating any other androids, aside from himself. This is a clear contradiction to those TNG episodes that feature Lore. Did Nemesis retcon Lore out of existence? Would you now argue that moving forward, Lore should not be mentioned and those episodes that featured him never happened? Wouldn’t Occam’s razor come down on the side of just omitting or amending Data’s line?

“Is that (as far as making any sense) any worse than (in STV) the notion that 2 captains and 5 commanders are assigned to the same starship?”

Two or three? Wasn’t Scotty a Captain at that point, too? And what was Sulu’s rank in ST5?

I agree that it was silly. But having two captains and five commanders — while illogical — doesn’t contradict anything we’ve seen. It’s not like it was established anywhere prior (or since) that it violates some Starfleet regulation to have that many high-ranking officers serve together for a mission. Silliness is silliness and it should be avoided, but it’s not the same thing as a contradiction.

I suggest you revisit “Balance Of Terror”. It’s made very clear that it is a distinctly “Romulan” practice. In TSFS, it is depicted as a “Klingon” practice. That is the very definition of “contradiction”.

” It’s not credible that Khan came from 1996, since we’ve long passed that year and no evidence that a genetically-engineered tyrant took over 1/4 the world appeared in the news.”

That’s completely irrelevant.

The Star Trek timeline is a “fictional” version of the future from the 1960’s onward. It doesn’t have to be reconcile with actual history since that time. That’s the difference between fiction and non-fiction. Non-fiction is reality, while fiction is not.

“it’s interesting that “200 years” is used in both Space Seed and ST2 — stories that were separated by almost 20 years. This points to a lot of rounding.”

Indeed. A lot of rounding, or yet another “retcon”, depending upon how you look at it.

“There are a number of references to the Enterprise’s age that wouldn’t allow it to be 20 years old at the time of ST3, and only one that says otherwise.”

Actually, the only canonical entry that I can recall it contradicting is “The Menagerie”. It is pretty much one-for-one, unless I’m forgetting something (and in 5 live action series and 10 previous films, that’s quite possible).

“You’re saying that’s ALL that matters?”

I’m saying that—to my knowledge—that is all for which there is any precedent.

Any ‘fan’ can make any interpretation he/she wants. All I can do is offer support for mine.

Don’t mistake my own interpretation for lack of respect for the possible validity of yours.

I also believe it wasn’t a good creative decision. I think it was totally unnecessary. But I also don’t think that “explaining away” contradictions is necessary either.

As I said before, Morrow could have suggested that the Enterprise is being retired because the battle damage she sustained against Khan and Reliant was either too great to be repaired, or not worth the effort vs. the option of building another ship to replace her.

*That* would have made more sense, and not been contradictory—but it is what it is—an “intentional” retcon.

Is that (as far as making any sense) any worse than (in STV) the notion that 2 captains and 5 commanders are assigned to the same starship?

Talk about “credibility” issues with storytelling! Come on.