COUNTDOWN TO DARKNESS 5-page preview

[BillJ]

King Daniel wrote:

---

YES. daughter is good. He looked old enough to me in TOS to have one.

But he'd be six or seven years younger in 2258/59.

[bullethead]

BillJ wrote:

---

But he'd be six or seven years younger in 2258/59.

My solution: Mudd knocked up some girl when he was really young and ran away. The girl is hunting down her father and attempting to get all the child support money her mom was owed

[Franklin]

SalvorHardin wrote:

---

Oh shi-

If that could be

a child of Harcourt Fenton Mudd

someone has a lot of explaining to do to this woman -- .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag1EbxYKh_4

[BillJ]

bullethead wrote:

---

My solution: Mudd knocked up some girl when he was really young and ran away. The girl is hunting down her father and attempting to get all the child support money her mom was owed

He'd have to be really young.

[Christopher]

If Harry was the same age as Roger C. Carmel, he would've been born in 2232, just a year before Kirk. That would be a bit young to have an adult daughter. However, that would've made him only 34 in "Mudd's Women," and he always struck me as being at least a decade older than that.

[Lord Garth, FOI]

King Daniel wrote:

---

YES. daughter is good. He looked old enough to me in TOS to have one.

Who wants to bet Greg Grunberg shows up as Harry in the movie?

More likely the creators are telling the hard core F U it's always been a reboot

[Christopher]

^"The creators" are not responsible for the contents of the comic. One of them, Roberto Orci, has approval over its storylines, but it's unclear just how closely he works with the comic's writers. And the rest of the filmmakers are busy actually, y'know, making the film. The comics are not actually canonical, as Orci has told us dozens of times.

[ChristopherPike]

Bajoran name system ran a little differently didn't it? Nerys Kira is how we'd present her forename and surname but there were cultural reasons for the switch. Am I remembering this right?

I just think the Abramsverse wants to play fast and loose with some of established pieces. Hoping that splintering off at Kirk's 2233 birth would be enough to do it with 100% freedom, but some of the reasoning has to worked hard to try and fit it in with what their nature is, in any universe... even a twisted evil one like the Mirror one. Sooner or later, I'm beginning to think they're going to undermine their own rule about everything up until the start of the film, being the Prime universe.

It comes across as somebody having thought "Wouldn't it be cool if Mudd had been a female Bajoran?" because the vocal Niners will get a kick out of that. Not a whole lot of thinking beyond that as far as I can see. I very much hope I'm proved wrong and there are well-versed fans behind this with an answer for everything.

Anyway what happened to Mudd's nagging other half? The one he had a robot version made of once? Stellaaaaaaaaaa!

[BillJ]

Lord Garth, FOI wrote:

---

More likely the creators are telling the hard core F U it's always been a reboot

Doubtful. I fully expect there will be an explanation on why Mudd went from male human to female bajoran. Possible she's a sibling, ex-wife or daughter.

[The Wormhole]

Christopher wrote:

---

^"The creators" are not responsible for the contents of the comic. One of them, Roberto Orci, has approval over its storylines, but it's unclear just how closely he works with the comic's writers.

Actually, isn't the story for Countdown to Darkness co-developed by Orci? The credits page of issue 1 gives him a Story credit as opposed to the Creative Consultant credit he has in the Ongoing series.

[Pauln6]

Maybe she was one of Mudd's women that he married himself?

[Christopher]

The Wormhole wrote:

---

Actually, isn't the story for Countdown to Darkness co-developed by Orci? The credits page of issue 1 gives him a Story credit as opposed to the Creative Consultant credit he has in the Ongoing series.

If you say so. But he's still just one member of the films' creative team, so assuming that the comics are the work of the exact same creative brain trust as the films is incorrect.

Also, a "story" credit can refer to anything from a panel-by-panel breakdown of the entire issue sans dialogue to merely a rough summary of the basic premise. So we don't know which parts of this story actually come from Orci and which come from Mike Johnson.

[Ketrick]

Christopher wrote:

---

The comics are not actually canonical, as Orci has told us dozens of times.

True, but it's not quite that simple. First, he's made it clear that the reason they're not canonical is simply because the Supreme Court doesn't feel it's right to change the current rule that only what's on film is canon, not that the decision has anything to do with whether or not they believe the comics are canon worthy. Also, he's made it clear that a future court may decide they are canon and he also stated that he wouldn't mind if Countdown were adapted into an animated dtv thus making it canon. Second, he stated in the recent startrek.com interview that while they aren't canon, the comics are as close you can get to being canon without being filmed which IMO makes them at least semi-canonical.

[Christopher]

^Yeah, and the Star Wars novels were "canonical" until new screen productions started contradicting them, and now we hear that Episode VII will probably disregard the EU altogether. Canon is not some magical invocation that fans can rely on as an absolute standard of truth. It's all just made up anyway and the people making it up can change their minds about anything. Even onscreen canon can contradict itself all the time. So Chekov wasn't on the show in the first season? Who cares? We'll say Khan knew him anyway. So Data used contractions all the time up to now? So what? Now he can't use them.

Fans put all this energy into talking and arguing and worrying about whether one thing is canon or another thing isn't, as if canon were some important, fixed truth they could rely on, but it really doesn't matter that much. It's just a label.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Ketrick wrote:

---

First, he's made it clear that the reason they're not canonical is simply because the Supreme Court doesn't feel it's right to change the current rule that only what's on film is canon, not that the decision has anything to do with whether or not they believe the comics are canon worthy. Also, he's made it clear that a future court may decide they are canon...

You do understand that there are no actual courts or body of law or precedent involved here, right? It's all figurative speech.