RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,846
Posts: 5,474,144
Members: 25,040
Currently online: 502
Newest member: Space Tennis

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Covenant
By: Michelle on Nov 22

Two Official Starships Collection Previews
By: T'Bonz on Nov 21

Saldana: Women Issues In Hollywood
By: T'Bonz on Nov 21

Shatner Book Kickstarter
By: T'Bonz on Nov 20

Trek Original Series Slippers
By: T'Bonz on Nov 19

Hemsworth Is Sexiest Man Alive
By: T'Bonz on Nov 19

Trek Business Card Cases
By: T'Bonz on Nov 17

February IDW Publishing Trek Comics
By: T'Bonz on Nov 17

Retro Review: The Siege of AR-558
By: Michelle on Nov 15

Trevco Full Bleed Uniform T-Shirts
By: T'Bonz on Nov 14


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 February 22 2013, 06:18 PM   #256
The Wormhole
Admiral
 
The Wormhole's Avatar
 
Re: COUNTDOWN TO DARKNESS 5-page preview

King Daniel wrote: View Post
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?
__________________
"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 February 22 2013, 07:11 PM   #257
Franklin
Rear Admiral
 
Location: In the bleachers
Re: COUNTDOWN TO DARKNESS 5-page preview

The Wormhole wrote: View Post
King Daniel wrote: View Post
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?
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.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. -- Mark Twain

Last edited by Franklin; February 22 2013 at 08:21 PM.
Franklin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 22 2013, 07:40 PM   #258
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: COUNTDOWN TO DARKNESS 5-page preview

The Wormhole wrote: View Post
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.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 11/16/14 including annotations for "The Caress of a Butterfly's Wing" and overview for DTI: The Collectors

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 22 2013, 08:18 PM   #259
throwback
Captain
 
Re: COUNTDOWN TO DARKNESS 5-page preview

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")
throwback is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 22 2013, 08:27 PM   #260
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: COUNTDOWN TO DARKNESS 5-page preview

throwback wrote: View Post
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."
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 11/16/14 including annotations for "The Caress of a Butterfly's Wing" and overview for DTI: The Collectors

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 22 2013, 08:33 PM   #261
Hartzilla2007
Vice Admiral
 
Hartzilla2007's Avatar
 
Location: Star Trekkin Across the universe.
Re: COUNTDOWN TO DARKNESS 5-page preview

The Wormhole wrote: View Post
EyalM wrote: View Post
Kirk's line in the comic about getting the new Enterprise can still work, if the refit was extensive enough. Decker claimed the Enterprise to be new in TMP, so why not here?
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: View Post
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.
Hartzilla2007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 22 2013, 08:37 PM   #262
throwback
Captain
 
Re: COUNTDOWN TO DARKNESS 5-page preview

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.
throwback is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 23 2013, 01:30 AM   #263
Ovation
Vice Admiral
 
Location: La Belle Province or The Green Mountain State (depends on the day of the week)
Re: COUNTDOWN TO DARKNESS 5-page preview

Franklin wrote: View Post
The Wormhole wrote: View Post
King Daniel wrote: View Post
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?
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?
Ovation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 23 2013, 04:45 AM   #264
throwback
Captain
 
Re: COUNTDOWN TO DARKNESS 5-page preview

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.
throwback is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 23 2013, 05:55 AM   #265
Lord Garth, FOI
Commander
 
Lord Garth, FOI's Avatar
 
Re: COUNTDOWN TO DARKNESS 5-page preview

So is khan's ship gonna be the original enterprise?
Lord Garth, FOI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 23 2013, 07:30 AM   #266
throwback
Captain
 
Re: COUNTDOWN TO DARKNESS 5-page preview

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.
throwback is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 23 2013, 12:33 PM   #267
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: COUNTDOWN TO DARKNESS 5-page preview

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.)
__________________
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 23 2013, 01:19 PM   #268
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: COUNTDOWN TO DARKNESS 5-page preview

King Daniel wrote: View Post
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.
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old February 23 2013, 01:24 PM   #269
ChristopherPike
Rear Admiral
 
ChristopherPike's Avatar
 
Re: COUNTDOWN TO DARKNESS 5-page preview

Looks like a clear case of the 98th Rule of Acquistion to me.
__________________
STAR TREK: ENTERPRISE Season 5 on Netflix Facebook page
ChristopherPike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 23 2013, 05:03 PM   #270
Franklin
Rear Admiral
 
Location: In the bleachers
Re: COUNTDOWN TO DARKNESS 5-page preview

King Daniel wrote: View Post
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/
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. -- Mark Twain
Franklin 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 04:00 AM.

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