RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,162
Posts: 5,402,569
Members: 24,751
Currently online: 533
Newest member: kaklina

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Time’s Orphan
By: Michelle on Aug 30

September-October Trek Conventions And Appearances
By: T'Bonz on Aug 29

Lee Passes
By: T'Bonz on Aug 29

Trek Merchandise Sale
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Star Trek #39 Villain Revealed
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Trek Big Bang Figures
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Star Trek Seekers Cover Art
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Fan Film Axanar Kickstarter Success
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Two New Starship Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

Trek Actor Wins Emmy
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Misc. Star Trek > Trek Literature

Trek Literature "...Good words. That's where ideas begin."

View Poll Results: Rate the comics
Excellent 5 14.71%
Above Average 13 38.24%
Average 10 29.41%
Below Average 2 5.88%
Poor 4 11.76%
Voters: 34. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 22 2013, 04:04 PM   #166
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Countdown to Darkness - Review and Discussion

Markonian wrote: View Post
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.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is online now   Reply With Quote
Old February 22 2013, 04:43 PM   #167
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Countdown to Darkness - Review and Discussion

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?
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 22 2013, 05:15 PM   #168
The Wormhole
Admiral
 
The Wormhole's Avatar
 
Re: Countdown to Darkness - Review and Discussion

King Daniel wrote: View Post
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.
__________________
"Internet message boards aren't as funny today as they were ten years ago. I've stopped reading new posts." -The Simpsons 20th anniversary special.
The Wormhole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 22 2013, 05:18 PM   #169
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Countdown to Darkness - Review and Discussion

^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.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is online now   Reply With Quote
Old February 22 2013, 07:47 PM   #170
EliyahuQeoni
Commodore
 
EliyahuQeoni's Avatar
 
Location: Redmond, Oregon, United States of America, North America, Earth, Sol System, Milky Way, Universe
View EliyahuQeoni's Twitter Profile
Re: Countdown to Darkness - Review and Discussion

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?
__________________
"Canon is only important to certain people because they have to cling to their knowledge of the minutiae. Open your mind! Be a Star Trek fan and open your mind and say, 'Where does Star Trek want to take me now'." - Leonard Nimoy
EliyahuQeoni is online now   Reply With Quote
Old February 22 2013, 08:22 PM   #171
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Countdown to Darkness - Review and Discussion

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.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is online now   Reply With Quote
Old February 22 2013, 08:45 PM   #172
Ronald Held
Rear Admiral
 
Location: On the USS Sovereign
Re: Countdown to Darkness - Review and Discussion

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?
Ronald Held is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 22 2013, 09:07 PM   #173
ATimson
Rear Admiral
 
ATimson's Avatar
 
Location: Andrew Timson
Re: Countdown to Darkness - Review and Discussion

Christopher wrote: View Post
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...
__________________
Andrew Timson
===============
"Niceness is the greatest human flaw, except for all the others." - Brendan Moody

"...don't mistake a few fans bitching on the Internet for any kind of trend." - Keith R.A. DeCandido
ATimson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 22 2013, 09:38 PM   #174
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Countdown to Darkness - Review and Discussion

^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.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is online now   Reply With Quote
Old February 22 2013, 10:32 PM   #175
ATimson
Rear Admiral
 
ATimson's Avatar
 
Location: Andrew Timson
Re: Countdown to Darkness - Review and Discussion

Christopher wrote: View Post
^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.
__________________
Andrew Timson
===============
"Niceness is the greatest human flaw, except for all the others." - Brendan Moody

"...don't mistake a few fans bitching on the Internet for any kind of trend." - Keith R.A. DeCandido
ATimson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 23 2013, 01:21 AM   #176
Nightowl1701
Commander
 
Location: Orlando, FL
Re: Countdown to Darkness - Review and Discussion

The Wormhole wrote: View Post
King Daniel wrote: View Post
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.
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."
Nightowl1701 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 23 2013, 01:36 AM   #177
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Countdown to Darkness - Review and Discussion

^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.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is online now   Reply With Quote
Old February 23 2013, 02:22 AM   #178
The Wormhole
Admiral
 
The Wormhole's Avatar
 
Re: Countdown to Darkness - Review and Discussion

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...
__________________
"Internet message boards aren't as funny today as they were ten years ago. I've stopped reading new posts." -The Simpsons 20th anniversary special.
The Wormhole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 23 2013, 03:10 AM   #179
JD
Admiral
 
JD's Avatar
 
Location: Arizona, USA
Re: Countdown to Darkness - Review and Discussion

Wow, I didn't realize the Ongoing series had been that full of errors.
__________________
They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it is not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett, Equal Rites
JD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 23 2013, 06:02 AM   #180
Cadet49
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: Countdown to Darkness - Review and Discussion

Nightowl1701 wrote: View Post
The Wormhole wrote: View Post
King Daniel wrote: View Post
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.
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.
Cadet49 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
countdown to darkness, reviews, star trek into darkness, trek comics

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:40 AM.

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