Basically with Star Trek it's quite unusual because TNG/DS9/Voyager were all set in roughly the same time (well 15/20 years anyway). TNG was set about 100 years after TOS and Enterprise is set about 60 years before TOS.
Sorry to put my pedantic's hat on which reveals a shocking insight into my Trekkie past, but...
The currently used dates put TOS as depicting the final 3 years of Kirk's 5 year mission (the pilot 'Where No Man Has Gone Before' being set about a year into it, and the end of the mission supposedly came very soon after the final TOS episode), and these took place from 2266-2269. Since Enterprise is set in the middle of the 22nd century, that would put it about 80-90 years before TOS.
Aswell as that Star Trek VI was set it 2296, and the 'past' scenes of Star Trek Generations are set 6 months to a year after Star Trek VI, and this is shown by an on screen caption to be 78 years before the TNG era scenes of Generations (which are set 7 years after TNG started). To round things a bit, lets say the past scenes of Generations are set 30 years after TOS, and those scenes are 80 years before the film fastforwarded to the TNG universe, that actually puts TNG 110 years after TOS.
Basically with Star Trek it's quite unusual because TNG/DS9/Voyager were all set in roughly the same time (well 15/20 years anyway). TNG was set about 100 years after TOS and Enterprise is set about 60 years before TOS.
Sorry to put my pedantic's hat on which reveals a shocking insight into my Trekkie past, but...
The currently used dates put TOS as depicting the final 3 years of Kirk's 5 year mission (the pilot 'Where No Man Has Gone Before' being set about a year into it, and the end of the mission supposedly came very soon after the final TOS episode), and these took place from 2266-2269. Since Enterprise is set in the middle of the 22nd century, that would put it about 80-90 years before TOS.
Aswell as that Star Trek VI was set it 2296, and the 'past' scenes of Star Trek Generations are set 6 months to a year after Star Trek VI, and this is shown by an on screen caption to be 78 years before the TNG era scenes of Generations (which are set 7 years after TNG started). To round things a bit, lets say the past scenes of Generations are set 30 years after TOS, and those scenes are 80 years before the film fastforwarded to the TNG universe, that actually puts TNG 110 years after TOS.
So you're arguing over 10/20 years each way???
In the grand scheme of things not that much time to be honest
Basically with Star Trek it's quite unusual because TNG/DS9/Voyager were all set in roughly the same time (well 15/20 years anyway). TNG was set about 100 years after TOS and Enterprise is set about 60 years before TOS.
Sorry to put my pedantic's hat on which reveals a shocking insight into my Trekkie past, but...
The currently used dates put TOS as depicting the final 3 years of Kirk's 5 year mission (the pilot 'Where No Man Has Gone Before' being set about a year into it, and the end of the mission supposedly came very soon after the final TOS episode), and these took place from 2266-2269. Since Enterprise is set in the middle of the 22nd century, that would put it about 80-90 years before TOS.
Aswell as that Star Trek VI was set it 2296, and the 'past' scenes of Star Trek Generations are set 6 months to a year after Star Trek VI, and this is shown by an on screen caption to be 78 years before the TNG era scenes of Generations (which are set 7 years after TNG started). To round things a bit, lets say the past scenes of Generations are set 30 years after TOS, and those scenes are 80 years before the film fastforwarded to the TNG universe, that actually puts TNG 110 years after TOS.
Does anyone have any information on Joey (and is that REALLY the name, it's just a bit too similar to Cheers > Frasier isn't it?)? Last I heard it was just in the pipeline but hadn't been confirmed.
Is it going to see him actually moving to where Days of Our Lives is produced (atm there seems to be a bit of suspension of disbelief going on whereby Friends is set on the east coast and Joey is a starring actor in DOOL which is made on the west coast - which means he has a 5000 mile round trip every day. I've heard of commuting, but that's ridiculous).
Basically with Star Trek it's quite unusual because TNG/DS9/Voyager were all set in roughly the same time (well 15/20 years anyway). TNG was set about 100 years after TOS and Enterprise is set about 60 years before TOS.
Sorry to put my pedantic's hat on which reveals a shocking insight into my Trekkie past, but...
The currently used dates put TOS as depicting the final 3 years of Kirk's 5 year mission (the pilot 'Where No Man Has Gone Before' being set about a year into it, and the end of the mission supposedly came very soon after the final TOS episode), and these took place from 2266-2269. Since Enterprise is set in the middle of the 22nd century, that would put it about 80-90 years before TOS.
Aswell as that Star Trek VI was set it 2296, and the 'past' scenes of Star Trek Generations are set 6 months to a year after Star Trek VI, and this is shown by an on screen caption to be 78 years before the TNG era scenes of Generations (which are set 7 years after TNG started). To round things a bit, lets say the past scenes of Generations are set 30 years after TOS, and those scenes are 80 years before the film fastforwarded to the TNG universe, that actually puts TNG 110 years after TOS.
I'm not sure I still qualify as a Trek fan, I'm not really into Enterprise (although I did like the borg episode I d/l'd), I didn't go to see Nemesis in the cinema (although having watched it I wished I had) and I rarely watch Star Trek reruns on TV any more.
I used to be into it in a major way, and hence learnt all the lore and backstory to it and I tend never to forget things like that.
If I'm going to rate a series though, I'll have to go for TNG. It did get off to a bit of a shakey start (I felt the pilot episode was very weak), and like all series it does have it's fair share of apalling episodes (and I never liked the design of the Enterprise D bridge, it was too brightly lit, and too big - rather than being impressive it just look spartan. Ironically they fixed all of this in Generations by making the lighting more dramatic and installing more workstations to fill out the space, only to destroy the ship 40 minutes later) but once it got going I do think it served up the best Trek ever produced for the small screen ('The Best of Both Worlds' presents a story which imo is as yet unmatched on any of the TV series).
As far as the movies go, I'm going to rate Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan as my favourite. The direction, acting (Kirstie Alley I thought was particularly strong - and showed how she can be so much more than Rebecca Howe), lighting, set construction, music, and everything about it was spot on. It also set a record as being the first feature film to include a solely computer generated sequence that was realistic (the transformation of the dead moon into the Genesis planet - it still holds up pretty well even by today's standards).
