RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,677
Posts: 5,430,163
Members: 24,826
Currently online: 508
Newest member: ragster


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 > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 19 2013, 08:21 PM   #16
The Wormhole
Admiral
 
The Wormhole's Avatar
 
Re: Kirk Enterprise - the Enterprise(a)?

SalvorHardin wrote: View Post
The Wormhole wrote: View Post
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.

If there's one y'all should know about me by now is that I know a thing or two (02) about registry numbers...
__________________
"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 online now   Reply With Quote
Old April 20 2013, 02:24 AM   #17
Mr. Laser Beam
Fleet Admiral
 
Mr. Laser Beam's Avatar
 
Location: The visitor's bullpen
View Mr. Laser Beam's Twitter Profile
Re: Kirk Enterprise - the Enterprise(a)?

Do we know for SURE that the original 1701 was built in 2245? IIRC, there's no canon reference to the year that it was constructed.

In any case, even if it was built in that year in the prime timeline, Starfleet may have decided to build it earlier in the Abramsverse. The same ship, built in 2233 rather than 2245. Or something like that.
__________________
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
Mr. Laser Beam is online now   Reply With Quote
Old April 20 2013, 02:41 AM   #18
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Kirk Enterprise - the Enterprise(a)?

SalvorHardin wrote: View Post
The Wormhole wrote: View Post
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.

I feel really stupid, but I simply don't see it anywhere on that image...

Nevermind, I see it when I click through. The image is clearer on the hosting site. I simply chalk that up to artist error on a non-canon piece of material.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 20 2013, 02:43 AM   #19
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Kirk Enterprise - the Enterprise(a)?

Mr. Laser Beam wrote: View Post
Do we know for SURE that the original 1701 was built in 2245? IIRC, there's no canon reference to the year that it was constructed.
No. Just guesstimates based on the Okuda chronology.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 20 2013, 02:50 AM   #20
yenny
Captain
 
Re: Kirk Enterprise - the Enterprise(a)?

Mr. Laser Beam wrote: View Post
Do we know for SURE that the original 1701 was built in 2245? IIRC, there's no canon reference to the year that it was constructed.

In any case, even if it was built in that year in the prime timeline, Starfleet may have decided to build it earlier in the Abramsverse. The same ship, built in 2233 rather than 2245. Or something like that.
2245 is more of a conjectural date. The TOS Constitution class starships look like they were built in the mid 22th century.
yenny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 20 2013, 03:03 AM   #21
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Kirk Enterprise - the Enterprise(a)?

yenny wrote: View Post
The TOS Constitution class starships look like they were built in the mid 22th century.
Why?
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 20 2013, 03:54 AM   #22
yenny
Captain
 
Re: Kirk Enterprise - the Enterprise(a)?

BillJ wrote: View Post
yenny wrote: View Post
The TOS Constitution class starships look like they were built in the mid 22th century.
Why?
Cause I have serve in Star fleet in another life and because of the prime directive, I'm not allow to tell you why.
yenny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 20 2013, 09:28 AM   #23
Blip
Fleet Captain
 
Blip's Avatar
 
Location: Deck 13, section 21-Alpha
Re: Kirk Enterprise - the Enterprise(a)?

Good grief.
__________________
For those determined to contort yourselves into knots so as to include every minor production flub as gospel, and shoehorn it into "cannnonnnnn": STOP. I don't have all day to waste on here; I quite like enjoying real life thankyouverymuch.
Blip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 20 2013, 01:33 PM   #24
The Wormhole
Admiral
 
The Wormhole's Avatar
 
Re: Kirk Enterprise - the Enterprise(a)?

Mr. Laser Beam wrote: View Post
Do we know for SURE that the original 1701 was built in 2245? IIRC, there's no canon reference to the year that it was constructed.

In any case, even if it was built in that year in the prime timeline, Starfleet may have decided to build it earlier in the Abramsverse. The same ship, built in 2233 rather than 2245. Or something like that.
The closest thing to canon we have is the Defiant's database in Enterprise's Mirror Universe story, though that portion wasn't actually visible on screen.

The only concrete reference to the Enterprise's age was in Trek III when Admiral Morrow says it's twenty years old, but that contradicts The Cage.
__________________
"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 online now   Reply With Quote
Old April 20 2013, 02:02 PM   #25
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Kirk Enterprise - the Enterprise(a)?

The Wormhole wrote: View Post
The only concrete reference to the Enterprise's age was in Trek III when Admiral Morrow says it's twenty years old, but that contradicts The Cage.
I always figured he was talking about the refit.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 20 2013, 02:55 PM   #26
Mr. Laser Beam
Fleet Admiral
 
Mr. Laser Beam's Avatar
 
Location: The visitor's bullpen
View Mr. Laser Beam's Twitter Profile
Re: Kirk Enterprise - the Enterprise(a)?

But my point still stands - the original NCC-1701 could simply have been built earlier in the Abrams timeline. It doesn't violate anything established in canon if that happens.
__________________
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
Mr. Laser Beam is online now   Reply With Quote
Old April 20 2013, 03:09 PM   #27
BenRoethig
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Dubuque, IA
Re: Kirk Enterprise - the Enterprise(a)?

Mr. Laser Beam wrote: View Post
But my point still stands - the original NCC-1701 could simply have been built earlier in the Abrams timeline. It doesn't violate anything established in canon if that happens.
That it could have. While technically everything before the Nerada would have been the same, we never got a cannon date on when the Enterprise was launched, just than Spock had served on it in 2254 under Pike.
BenRoethig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 20 2013, 03:58 PM   #28
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Kirk Enterprise - the Enterprise(a)?

Mr. Laser Beam wrote: View Post
But my point still stands - the original NCC-1701 could simply have been built earlier in the Abrams timeline. It doesn't violate anything established in canon if that happens.
Agreed.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 20 2013, 04:45 PM   #29
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: Kirk Enterprise - the Enterprise(a)?

BillJ wrote: View Post
The Wormhole wrote: View Post
The only concrete reference to the Enterprise's age was in Trek III when Admiral Morrow says it's twenty years old, but that contradicts The Cage.
I always figured he was talking about the refit.
Yeah, or another interpretation is "20 years out of date." Same difference.
WarpFactorZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 20 2013, 06:31 PM   #30
Nightowl1701
Commander
 
Location: Orlando, FL
Re: Kirk Enterprise - the Enterprise(a)?

Mr. Laser Beam wrote: View Post
Do we know for SURE that the original 1701 was built in 2245? IIRC, there's no canon reference to the year that it was constructed.

In any case, even if it was built in that year in the prime timeline, Starfleet may have decided to build it earlier in the Abramsverse. The same ship, built in 2233 rather than 2245. Or something like that.
That's what I'm guessing. The Abramsverse Starfleet was on track to design the Constitution Class as we knew her UNTIL the Kelvin disaster (and the scans from the Nerada) forced them to scrap everything and start over from scratch. In the meantime, it was easy to slap existing Kelvin-era technology together in the intended configuration and launch that using the already-reserved names as a stopgap until the new Constitution v2 were finally ready. So April's Enterprise likely launched a decade early (2235), looking pretty much as Tobias Richter kitbashed her (check out the bottom three pics in the link):

http://www.startrek.pl/article.php?sid=680
Nightowl1701 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

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 03:25 AM.

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