http://uk.ign.com/articles/2016/07/...d-stark-trekgreen-lantern-crossovers-incoming Star Trek/Green Lantern is getting a sequel!
I like the heading of the article: "Comic-Con 2016: More Batman/TMNT and Stark Trek/Green Lantern Crossovers Incoming" I did not know that Iron Man was also involved.
haha!! I really enjoyed The Spectrum War, possibly my favourite ever intercompany crossover, so I'm glad the story continues.
Alley was 30 and as a Vulcan, Saavik could have been older than that. However, she was meant to have been rescued by Spock from a Romulan colony world while still a child so she has to be a good 20 years younger than him unless you jettison that part of her history. Even though they never mentioned it on screen, it would be a shame to lose that background just for a name-check. I think she's just a few years too young unless they bring her in pre-Starfleet and tell her story from an earlier date - which has a certain appeal of its own.
So there's a bit of continuity issues regarding Star Trek Beyond and the Ongoing series. Beyond starts on 2263.02 (and if you know that the Big E gets destroyed just by the trailer). in the comic series, Live (which takes us to the Mirror universe) which takes place on stardate 2263.27 (25 days after the Events of Beyond). Now in Beyond Spoiler They construct the NCC-1701-A but there is no way in hell that a ship could be built in less than a month.
Even if not, that's basically not far from what happened in The Voyage Home anyway; three months since it was blown up vs. one, but still.
Typo or not, I wouldn't take the stardate of "Live Evil, Part 1" too seriously. Nor would I take the series' attention to detail and realism too seriously. "The Galileo Seven, Part 1" had a stardate of "2821.5". That makes no sense whatsoever. And "The Khitomer Conflict, Part 1" had a stardate of "2261.147". But dialogue in the issue places it days at most after the final scene of Star Trek Into Darkness, which is "nearly a year" after the Khan incident, which began on stardate 2259.55. And then the later issue "The Q Gambit, Part 1" has a stardate of 2261.34 What also annoys me besides the "stardates" merely being Gregorian days in numeral form is that stardates for days 1-99 of the year only have two digits. That makes no mathematical sense to me. If the Gregorian calendar has 365 days, then there should always be three digits after the decimal point.
Yeah, the comics' stardates have inexplicably been a year too high ever since After Darkness or so. I generally find it's best to ignore stardates and just treat them as the meaningless placeholders they were originally intended to be. There's never been any real logic or consistency to their usage, and the Kelvin Timeline approach makes no sense whatsoever -- why even call them "stardates" when they're just the Earthbound Gregorian calendar in a weird format? By definition, those are "Earthdates." (Of course, the novels' interpretation of the 24th-century scheme has nearly the same problem, in that the duration of a "stardate year" is assumed to be one Earth year from January 1 to December 31.)
Which is why I prefer what is stated near the end of Voyager that stardates, in that the end of season 7 would seem to be spring 2378. It's a bit less Earth-centric for something that was presumably created so that everyone in the Federation could have a unified date keeping system. Plus, if the stardate year is indeed January to December, than all those season finale/premiere two parters take place on New Year's, which makes that a pretty happening time in the 24th century. Although, I can just imagine Picard reuniting with his friends in Family (which should have been sometime in January 2367). "Jean-Luc, been a long time. How were your holidays?" "I was captured and assimilated by the Borg and forced to preside over the destruction of 39 Starfleet ships and nearly launched an attack on Earth itself."
Well, after having seen the movie... Spoiler: Only open after you see the film... It's pretty clear To Boldly Go will be set - for now - specifically during the construction timelapse, with various subsets of the crew being sent out on solo/team adventures from Starbase Yorktown until the new ship is ready (Which will likely be around the time ST-XIV goes into production, so the writers have a better idea of the setting/story). Chekov's fate, whatever it be, will likely be handled then as well with him simply being 'offscreen' until then. Doubtful it'll happen onscreen, but a TBG story about Spock/Uhura finding a preschool-age Saavik and Spock adopting her would be a great followup to Beyond's subplot about Spock wanting to contribute to New Vulcan's repopulation.
Jaylah seemed to me to be an example of what Saavik could have been (without the struggle to control her emotions) if 80s Trek movies had been more action oriented.
As I mentioned back in post #1465, this seems like the same situation DC was in between Search for Spock and Voyage Home. And we know how they solved that problem. Spoiler There are more ships in Starfleet than the Enterprise, after all.