The Trek BBS

The Trek BBS (http://www.trekbbs.com/index.php)
-   Star Trek Movies XI+ (http://www.trekbbs.com/forumdisplay.php?f=50)
-   -   Kirk Enterprise - the Enterprise(a)? (http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=209797)

Cadet49 April 18 2013 05:40 AM

Kirk Enterprise - the Enterprise(a)?
 
Since Star Trek: Countdown to Darkness established that
, does that mean that Kirk's Enterprise is the "Enterprise-A"? I mean it's registry is still NCC-1701, but maybe it's official designation is the NCC-1701(a) on paper?

I remember reading somewhere that there was some original intentions of the film makers in the 2009 film to have Kirk's ship be the second Enterprise, an Enterprise-A, but I'm not sure if that was just a rumour?

BenRoethig April 18 2013 05:45 AM

Re: Kirk Enterprise - the Enterprise(a)?
 
I believe the original idea was to have the TOS Enterprise newly commissioned under April play the role that the Kelvin ultimately played. Studio wouldn't let them do it.

SalvorHardin April 18 2013 10:44 AM

Re: Kirk Enterprise - the Enterprise(a)?
 
Quote:

Cadet49 wrote: (Post 7962127)
Since Star Trek: Countdown to Darkness established that
, does that mean that Kirk's Enterprise is the "Enterprise-A"? I mean it's registry is still NCC-1701, but maybe it's official designation is the NCC-1701(a) on paper?


Actually, unless I really missed something, April's Enterprise appears only in the flashbacks of Countdown 2 and we never see its registry number.
So it can easily be assumed that it didn't have the 1701. Kirk's is the first 1701.

C.E. Evans April 18 2013 01:00 PM

Re: Kirk Enterprise - the Enterprise(a)?
 
In this new continuity, there were other Enterprises between NX-01 and NCC-1701, IMO (or at least one). Starfleet didn't go a century without an Enterprise in service.

King Daniel Into Darkness April 18 2013 04:18 PM

Re: Kirk Enterprise - the Enterprise(a)?
 
According to the comic tie-ins, there was an Enterprise NCC-1701 immedately prior to the one seen in the last movie. According to just the films themselves, maybe not, we'll see.

It's worth noting that in Harve Bennett's almost-made movie Star Trek: The Academy Years, there would have been a pre-TOS USS Enterprise commanded by Captain Gregory Thorpe. And of course the Enterprise TV series already squished one more Enterpise into the past of the Trekverse.

SeerSGB April 18 2013 04:23 PM

Re: Kirk Enterprise - the Enterprise(a)?
 
Quote:

King Daniel wrote: (Post 7963750)
According to the comic tie-ins, there was an Enterprise NCC-1701 immedately prior to the one seen in the last movie. According to just the films themselves, maybe not, we'll see.

It's worth noting that in Harve Bennett's almost-made movie Star Trek: The Academy Years, there would have been a pre-TOS USS Enterprise commanded by Captain Gregory Thorpe. And of course the Enterprise TV series already squished one more Enterpise into the past of the Trekverse.

The problem (if you can call it that) hangs around TNG and DS9 setting a number of Federation starships named Enterprise. Now that is the "Prime" timeline so it really doesn't matter to the reboot timeline. And even in the "Prime" universe you could probably crowbar in another Enterprise if the Powers That Be really wanted to.

C.E. Evans April 18 2013 08:31 PM

Re: Kirk Enterprise - the Enterprise(a)?
 
Quote:

King Daniel wrote: (Post 7963750)
According to the comic tie-ins, there was an Enterprise NCC-1701 immedately prior to the one seen in the last movie.

:confused:
I've got the comic tie-ins and I didn't see that anywhere at all, just an Enterprise prior to NCC-1701 with no hull registry visible or referred to in dialogue.

King Daniel Into Darkness April 18 2013 08:36 PM

Re: Kirk Enterprise - the Enterprise(a)?
 
Ah, my bad.

yenny April 19 2013 01:33 AM

Re: Kirk Enterprise - the Enterprise(a)?
 
The Enterprise that was built in the prime universe, would still had been built in JJ. alternate universe. It would still have been built and launch in the same time period as it was in the prime universe. It would had the same registry number as the prime universe Enterprise and still would been a Constitution class starship.

Because George Kirk had die when the USS. Kelvin was destroyed? He wasn't there to save the Enterprise from being destroy.

Ovation April 19 2013 01:36 AM

Re: Kirk Enterprise - the Enterprise(a)?
 
Quote:

yenny wrote: (Post 7966408)
The Enterprise that was built in the prime universe, would still had been built in JJ. alternate universe. It would still have been built and launch in the same time period as it was in the prime universe. It would had the same registry number as the prime universe Enterprise and still would been a Constitution class starship.

Because George Kirk had die when the USS. Kelvin was destroyed? He wasn't there to save the Enterprise from being destroy.

No. The "prime" Enterprise 1701 was built, supposedly, in 2245--that is AFTER the Narada incursion, so there is nothing to require that it be built in the alternate timeline.

yenny April 19 2013 02:34 AM

Re: Kirk Enterprise - the Enterprise(a)?
 
Quote:

Ovation wrote: (Post 7966432)
Quote:

yenny wrote: (Post 7966408)
The Enterprise that was built in the prime universe, would still had been built in JJ. alternate universe. It would still have been built and launch in the same time period as it was in the prime universe. It would had the same registry number as the prime universe Enterprise and still would been a Constitution class starship.

Because George Kirk had die when the USS. Kelvin was destroyed? He wasn't there to save the Enterprise from being destroy.

No. The "prime" Enterprise 1701 was built, supposedly, in 2245--that is AFTER the Narada incursion, so there is nothing to require that it be built in the alternate timeline.

Can you prove the person that designed the Constitution class starships was on the Kelvin and was kill when the Narada attacked?

The Wormhole April 19 2013 02:42 AM

Re: Kirk Enterprise - the Enterprise(a)?
 
Countdown to Darkness does show April's Enterprise had NCC-1701 for its registry, but this could just be one of IDW's infamous art screw-ups. They used the TMP-TUC design for the Abramsprise in two issues and gave it the registry NCC-1701-D for example.

King Daniel Into Darkness April 19 2013 09:27 AM

Re: Kirk Enterprise - the Enterprise(a)?
 
Aha! My good:cool:

SalvorHardin April 19 2013 09:46 AM

Re: Kirk Enterprise - the Enterprise(a)?
 
Quote:

The Wormhole wrote: (Post 7966657)
Countdown to Darkness does show April's Enterprise had NCC-1701 for its registry,


Can you say where?
Because, as I said in a post above, I only remember seeing April's Enterprise in issue 2 and they never showed registry.


edit: I went back and checked. There is indeed an NCC 1701 on the nacelle. I had completely missed it until now.

http://i.imgur.com/EGZMTQUl.jpg

Ovation April 19 2013 04:58 PM

Re: Kirk Enterprise - the Enterprise(a)?
 
Quote:

yenny wrote: (Post 7966612)
Quote:

Ovation wrote: (Post 7966432)
Quote:

yenny wrote: (Post 7966408)
The Enterprise that was built in the prime universe, would still had been built in JJ. alternate universe. It would still have been built and launch in the same time period as it was in the prime universe. It would had the same registry number as the prime universe Enterprise and still would been a Constitution class starship.

Because George Kirk had die when the USS. Kelvin was destroyed? He wasn't there to save the Enterprise from being destroy.

No. The "prime" Enterprise 1701 was built, supposedly, in 2245--that is AFTER the Narada incursion, so there is nothing to require that it be built in the alternate timeline.

Can you prove the person that designed the Constitution class starships was on the Kelvin and was kill when the Narada attacked?

What? Why? He doesn't need to have died for ship design after 2233 to be different in the alternate timeline. That's absurd.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:25 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.