COUNTDOWN TO DARKNESS 5-page preview

[The Wormhole]

King Daniel wrote:

---

It's worth pointing out that the 2245 launch date for the Primeverse Enterprise is conjecture originally from the TNG Technical Manual. AFAIK, it's never been said on-screen. So despite how it was drawn in the comic (and IMO these ship designs can be recast as easily as actors), April's Enterprise and the ship we see in TOS may be one and the same.

2245 is in the Defiant's database as the Enterprise's launch date, and besides, even if April's and the ship in TOS are the same, why is the Abramsprise 1701?

[Franklin]

The Wormhole wrote:

---

2245 is in the Defiant's database as the Enterprise's launch date, and besides, even if April's and the ship in TOS are the same, why is the Abramsprise 1701?

True. But when push comes to shove, why should anyone be limited by that date and registry numbers when it's all made up, anyway?

[soap box] This is a bit of a rant, but frankly, what really fries my fish is when REAL history is drastically distorted in a movie (ususally under the guise of "artistic license"). "Lincoln" is a great movie that's pretty true to history, but there's one particular moment that taints the movie for me because it's so wrong. So very wrong that I have pointed it out to my students as (in my opinion) going beyond the artistic license you have to allow in these movies sometimes for brevity and drama.

In the movie, using true artistic license, the voting on the 13th Amendment in the House was done alphabetically by state, even though in reality, the vote was done alphabeticaly by member name. The big deal (overuse of "artistic license") to me was that in the movie, the entire Connecticut delegation votes "no" on the amendment, even though in reality those CT members were abolitionists who supported Lincoln openly and all of them voted FOR the amendment. The makers said they did it the other way to simplify things. Connecticut, starting with "C," is one of the first states to vote, and having them all vote "no" heightened the dramatic tension of the vote.

If real and important historical events in a movie, one that's even trying pretty hard to be as accurate as possible, can be deliberately and drastically distorted for dramatic effect, then what the hell's wrong with retconnnig the date of the construction of a fictional starship in order to tell a story? [/soap box]

Again, sorry for the rant.

[Christopher]

The Wormhole wrote:

---

Okay, but even if we assume April's Enterprise was launched after the Kelvin's destruction, that would mean Starfleet decommissioned a starship that was only twenty years old. Despite what Admiral Morrow thought, that's pretty early to retire a starship.

Maybe the ship was too badly crippled in action to be repairable. Maybe a new administration came in and diverted Starfleet's resources to new classes of ship. Heck, the Enterprise-A was less than a decade old when it was decommissioned (unless you assume it was a much older ship that was simply renamed).

Yeah, this is before the 2233 timeline divide, but perhaps it's time we consider there was another Enterprise between NX-01 and hte 1701, even in the Prime Timeline, canon be damned.

But do we need to? It seems arbitrary to introduce such a major divergence without any solid reason for doing so.

And besides, nothing wrong with commanding the same ship for ten years.

Nobody said there was anything "wrong" with it -- just that he didn't specifically say that. He just said he'd been a captain for ten years, period.

If we assume his Enterprise was on a five year mission rotation, then April stayed in command for two five year missions, which both Pike and Kirk did in the Prime Timeline.

I have come to hate the kneejerk assumption that all starship missions are 5 years in duration. The fact is, we have evidence of only one 5-year mission for only one ship. There's no evidence whatsoever to suggest that any other ship had a mission of that scheduled duration at any other time. It just doesn't make sense to assume that a single example is evidence of a universal norm.

In fact, there was never any mention of a 5-year mission in TOS itself aside from the opening narration. The only canonical, in-story proof we have of it comes from TMP ("My five years out there") and VGR: "Q2" ("Kirk completed his historic five-year mission") -- and the fact that both characters need to call attention to the 5-year duration suggests, if anything, that it was unusual rather than routine.

Also, it doesn't make sense to assume that all starship tours of duty are exactly the same duration. There may be all sorts of different mission profiles of any number of durations. A mission could be five years, three years, six months, eight weeks, anything depending on the particular type of mission and ship we're dealing with.

What I've tried to establish in my TOS novels is that five years represents the maximum time a Constitution-class ship is expected to stay in service without a full overhaul or refit -- that it's not some lockstep mission profile for all starships regardless of need and circumstances, but just a recommended maximum for that class, with a margin of flexibility.

[throwback]

I don't have the issues that others have with this new Enterprise. If anything, it goes to the theory that ships of the Starship Class could look similar, but belong to separate classes. This could be connected to the specifications and performance of each class.

I do have an issue with the depiction of the USS Archon. It doesn't look anything like a Daedalus-class starship. Rather, it looks like a modified NX class starship. However, I am willing to overlook this issue.

The Enterprise-A is definitively identified as a new ship in Star Trek V: The Final Frontier.

U.S.S. Enterprise, shakedown cruise report. I think this new ship was put together by monkeys. Ooh, she's got a fine engine, but half the doors won't open, and guess whose job is it to make it right?

As for five years, a Constitution-class starship has the capacity to feed a crew of 430 for that length of time. ("The Mark of Gideon")

[Christopher]

throwback wrote:

---

I do have an issue with the depiction of the USS Archon. It doesn't look anything like a Daedalus-class starship.

There's no canonical evidence that it was. That's just a conjecture from the Okuda Chronology, based on the fact that it dated from around the same time as the Daedalus-class Essex established in TNG: "Power Play."

[Hartzilla2007]

The Wormhole wrote:

---

Decker's actual line was "this is an almost entirely new Enterprise." He was being metaphorical, not literal.

And it was mostly part of trying to get Kirk to stop thinking he could just jump back in the center seat like the 2 years since he was last there hadn't happened by reminding him they changed a lot of stuff on the ship.

throwback wrote:

---

I do have an issue with the depiction of the USS Archon. It doesn't look anything like a Daedalus-class starship.

To be fair nothing on screen ever said or showed what a Daedalus-class starship looks like, everyone just assumed the model on Sisko's desk was of a Daedalus-class.

[throwback]

That's why I concluded that paragraph by stating that I can live with that inconsistency. I think that it's possible to accept an idea when introduced by someone else, especially when that else is a person of authority, and not question it. The comic presented an alternate version of the Archon that could be as legitmate as the Daedalus-class Archon.

[Ovation]

Franklin wrote:

---

True. But when push comes to shove, why should anyone be limited by that date and registry numbers when it's all made up, anyway?

[soap box] This is a bit of a rant, but frankly, what really fries my fish is when REAL history is drastically distorted in a movie (ususally under the guise of "artistic license"). "Lincoln" is a great movie that's pretty true to history, but there's one particular moment that taints the movie for me because it's so wrong. So very wrong that I have pointed it out to my students as (in my opinion) going beyond the artistic license you have to allow in these movies sometimes for brevity and drama.

In the movie, using true artistic license, the voting on the 13th Amendment in the House was done alphabetically by state, even though in reality, the vote was done alphabeticaly by member name. The big deal (overuse of "artistic license") to me was that in the movie, the entire Connecticut delegation votes "no" on the amendment, even though in reality those CT members were abolitionists who supported Lincoln openly and all of them voted FOR the amendment. The makers said they did it the other way to simplify things. Connecticut, starting with "C," is one of the first states to vote, and having them all vote "no" heightened the dramatic tension of the vote.

If real and important historical events in a movie, one that's even trying pretty hard to be as accurate as possible, can be deliberately and drastically distorted for dramatic effect, then what the hell's wrong with retconnnig the date of the construction of a fictional starship in order to tell a story? [/soap box]

Again, sorry for the rant.

Your rant piqued my curiosity as I did my graduate work on historical feature films and the way they influence the general public's perception of history. Among the things I examined were, of course, the juxtaposition of dramatic emphasis with historical distortions (and the extent to which such distortions pose problems). In the literature, I found two broad points of view on this matter--one where indignation was the norm and one where allowances were made for the format of film that would not be made for more traditional forms of presentation. I began my research with leanings toward the former position but concluded (and have become ever more convinced) the latter position is the way to go.

Now, as to the specific point of the Connecticut vote in Lincoln, I have no serious qualms about the choice (as the dramatic tension was heightened by the choice--even though I knew before viewing the film about Connecticut's actual vote, it did not stand out in the scene as the drama was compelling enough). However, I might have chosen a different tack by not showing Connecticut's vote at all (and omitting a couple of other ones). This would have avoided the factual error and maintained the drama (though others would no doubt have complained that a particular state's vote had been ignored). A similar situation is found in Argo. The dramatically effective action in the airport in the closing act of the film bears little resemblance to reality. Reality, though, would have been rather boring. Dramatic license in service of a commercial feature film was an appropriate option there (as it was in Lincoln).

In my work, I concluded that rather than gleefully nitpick historical feature films for flaws and factual errors (as many historians do--and in so doing come to resemble some of the more strident Trek purists), using such deviations from the historical record as starting points for discussions, and having students analyze why such deviations are there, make for a more fruitful exercise. So while a horrible history film like The Patriot can easily be dismissed as full of nonsense, that's too easy a path to follow (and it is a hollow discussion). I've found it to be an effective lesson in how popular cultural representations of historical events often reveal a great deal about the present, even as they distort (more or less heavily) the past.

Ok. Probably too much off topic. So, what was the topic again?

Oh yeah--April's Enterprise? Don't really care how it is depicted in a comic book. Is that the right answer?

[throwback]

When I watch a historical drama, I check the history behind the film. So, I suppose that these films are encouraging me to learn more about history.

[Lord Garth, FOI]

So is khan's ship gonna be the original enterprise?

[throwback]

If there are other Federation starships, or any starship for that matter, in the movie, I doubt that it will look like the hero ship. That whole thing about confusing the audience.

[King Daniel Into Darkness]

How's this for bizarre - Trekmovie.com's Anthony Pascale is in the Countdown to Darkness credits, but any comment mentioning this on their site is being deleted. I only know because of some people deliberately misspelling his name to avoid the find-and-delete script. I wonder why?

(although it does explain why he was so desperately pushing Bob Orci to declare the comics canon a few months ago. Poor guy needs to learn that canon isn't everything.)

[BillJ]

King Daniel wrote:

---

How's this for bizarre - Trekmovie.com's Anthony Pascale is in the Countdown to Darkness credits, but any comment mentioning this on their site is being deleted. I only know because of some people deliberately misspelling his name to avoid the find-and-delete script. I wonder why?

(although it does explain why he was so desperately pushing Bob Orci to declare the comics canon a few months ago. Poor guy needs to learn that canon isn't everything.)

Nice to know everyone has an ulterior motive.

[ChristopherPike]

Looks like a clear case of the 98th Rule of Acquistion to me.

[Franklin]

King Daniel wrote:

---

How's this for bizarre - Trekmovie.com's Anthony Pascale is in the Countdown to Darkness credits, but any comment mentioning this on their site is being deleted. I only know because of some people deliberately misspelling his name to avoid the find-and-delete script. I wonder why?

(although it does explain why he was so desperately pushing Bob Orci to declare the comics canon a few months ago. Poor guy needs to learn that canon isn't everything.)

On Comicvine, he's listed as a creative consultant, which could mean about anything. The link is below. On the page, his name is on the left under "Creators Credits." Click on any of the person's names, and you get their titles.

http://www.comicvine.com/star-trek-c...ness/49-56122/