Countdown to Darkness - Review and Discussion

[Christopher]

Markonian wrote:

---

Fact: A ship with the basic Constitution-class saucer-hull-nacelles configuration can be seen in the trailers. Another ship fitting that basic description is seen in the comics.

Speculation: They are of the same type, presumably a forerunner of the Constitution-class.

On the other hand, starships of that configuration are not at all rare in Trek stories set in the mid-23rd century. It's been the default configuration for Starfleet vessels for as long as Star Trek has existed. So the similarity doesn't prove they're the same ship, any more than you can prove that two blurry photographs are of the same person because they both have two arms and two legs.

[King Daniel Into Darkness]

I just realized, if this movie has dueling Enterprises, that might explain the "are you the 1701?" viral marketing stuff. April's or Kirk's?

[The Wormhole]

King Daniel wrote:

---

I just realized, if this movie has dueling Enterprises, that might explain the "are you the 1701?" viral marketing stuff. April's or Kirk's?

Problem with that idea is I doubt the registry number of April's Enterprise was 1701.

[Christopher]

^Well, yeah, but that's not a problem -- "are you the 1701" as opposed to the other Enterprise with a different number?

Not that I think it's remotely likely that April or his ship will appear in the film; I'm just saying there's no contradiction with that specific point.

[EliyahuQeoni]

Out of curiosity, is there anything in on-screen canon that establishes when the original Enterprise, NCC-1701, was launched? The Okuda Chronology says 2245, but is this stated on screen anywhere? My point being, is there any reason why the 1701 couldn't have been launched in 2235 instead in the Prime Universe and/or the New Universe?

[Christopher]

The Primeverse Enterprise's launch date is not canonically established. All we know is that it was launched sometime prior to 2254 ("The Cage"). (There was a viewscreen graphic made for "In a Mirror, Darkly" that gave the Enterprise a 2245 launch date, but it wasn't seen in the final episode.) Indeed, we can't even rule out the possibility that it could have been launched before 2233.

[Ronald Held]

Didn't Gene want a ship about 20 years old at the start of TOS? Could that class of ship be designed and constructed that far back?

[ATimson]

Christopher wrote:

---

The Primeverse Enterprise's launch date is not canonically established. All we know is that it was launched sometime prior to 2254 ("The Cage"). (There was a viewscreen graphic made for "In a Mirror, Darkly" that gave the Enterprise a 2245 launch date, but it wasn't seen in the final episode.) Indeed, we can't even rule out the possibility that it could have been launched before 2233.

Unless you're willing to allow registry number reuse, the Abrams movie pretty thoroughly rules that out, I would say...

[Christopher]

^Well, the second DS9 Defiant (i.e. the renamed Sao Paolo) had the same registry number as the first, because the producers didn't want to stop using their existing stock footage/CG elements of the ship. So it's not like registry numbers have ever been treated consistently in Trek.

[ATimson]

Christopher wrote:

---

^Well, the second DS9 Defiant (i.e. the renamed Sao Paolo) had the same registry number as the first, because the producers didn't want to stop using their existing stock footage/CG elements of the ship. So it's not like registry numbers have ever been treated consistently in Trek.

True. I tend to ignore that one since the writers said they wanted to change it, but it did happen.

[Nightowl1701]

The Wormhole wrote:

---

Problem with that idea is I doubt the registry number of April's Enterprise was 1701.

Go back to page 9 of this thread and have a look at the second image of April's Enterprise again (the one facing forward). On the inner port nacelle, you can clearly read "NCC-1701."

[Christopher]

^But we've also seen a panel in an IDW comic showing the Abramsverse Enterprise with an NCC-1701-D registration number, and another showing the Abrams ship as the TMP ship. It can be hard to tell what's actually intended and what's just the artist using the wrong photo reference.

[The Wormhole]

Hell, one of the Ongoing comics had an image of Scotty Prime wearing an Abramsverse uniform. The recent issue of Ongoing about Uhura's backstory featured 24th century shuttlecraft. To say nothing of how often 24th century LCARS displays show up in the Ongoing...

[JD]

Wow, I didn't realize the Ongoing series had been that full of errors.

[Cadet49]

Nightowl1701 wrote:

---

Go back to page 9 of this thread and have a look at the second image of April's Enterprise again (the one facing forward). On the inner port nacelle, you can clearly read "NCC-1701."

I can see them re-using the same registry number on a new version of a starship, for record purposes. Using an example from my profession, when an old school is torn down to build a new school on the property once occupied by the former building, it is not uncommon for the new version of the school to be given the same name and school ID number, even though it's technically a different school - it's address ID also doesn't change. It seems to make sense to keep the same designation on a starship.