Beyond question (asking for someone else)

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

Somebody asked me to pose these questions for them.

- In Star Trek 2009, the Enterprise suffered heavy crew losses and damage from the Narada. Vulcan and nine ships full of crewmen were destroyed, but the adventures began and the main crew had come together. In Into Darkness, the crew was again decimated and despite Kirk's heroism, most of the crew was dead and hundreds of thousands below in San Francisco die from the crashed Vengeance. In Beyond, the first Enterprise is destroyed 25 years before its OS counterpart was, marking the deaths of just about everyone on board. My question is why does every movie hinge on mass casualties suffered by the crew, and how will Star Trek 4 top the previous movie's body count? Is Star Trek's new movie series just about how many red shirts can be blasted in 120 minutes?

- I've now watched Star Trek, Into Darkness and Beyond. Why is it that all three movies hinge on the main plot point of the Enterprise's crew being slaughtered?

- At the beginning of Star Trek: Beyond it was nice to see the crew settled into the five year mission and interacting like family, being finally familiar and in high spirits. It was like the original series had begun, only earlier than the prime universe, which was great. Tragically, they were summarily executed by Krall. Now it seems the movie franchise, like the original series ones, have moved away from the crew-family aspect and toward a "crew of seven" theme. This makes me mad. Thoughts?

- With Star Trek: Beyond killing off practically all the Enterprise crew, I guess this means that people like Helen Noel, Kevin Reilly, O'Neil, Rand, Romaine, Zahra and other recurring characters are gone forever, too….

-I think it would be best to recast Chekov rather than killing off or moving his character away following Anton Yelchin's death. English actor Jack O'Connell looks a lot like him, and could be a good fit. I don't want to replace Yelchin, but with all the pain Star Trek fans have been through saying goodbye to on and off-screen favorites alike, losing Chekov's character would, in my opinion, be too much. After we lost the rest of the crew in Beyond, I really wouldn't want to see Kirk lose yet more people….

-Why does it seem that despite Kirk's overwhelming pain for the loss of his father and Chris Pike, nothing else phases him. He loses his crew three times and his whole ship once, yet he always jokes around and ends off movies with a neutral attitude (Let's not forget the 2013 video game events - which are cannon to an extent - that saw another tragedy occur). How can any human being not be miserable or at least traumatized with what he has seen and lost?

-It's frustrating that you can't really begin to like any characters in the Star Trek new movies because they are always wiped out. Hendorff doesn't count because he really isn't in Into Darkness or Beyond. Thoughts on this?

-I wish that the new Star Trek movies wouldn't follow in lock step with the original series movies, at least not just all at once right now.

-It's just demoralizing that the 50th anniversary of Star Trek is marked by probably the biggest, most tragic catastrophe to ever hit the Enterprise crew in any Trek show or movie. Is this indeed the most painful mass disaster ever depicted as inflicted on the crew of a ship?

-Krall/Balthazar Edison mentioned in Beyond that after everything he had done and the millions that were lost in the wars with the Xindi and Romulans, the Federation and Starfleet were now "breaking bread with the enemy." To an extent, I felt almost bad for him. The MACOS weren't even thanked for the incredible losses they incurred, and really…was it all for nothing, since Federation citizens - especially humans and Starfleet officers - die by the boatload with no punishment for those responsible?

-If Starfleet has such amazing technology to create the virtually invincible USS Vengeance why hasn't the same tech been equipped on board regular starships? (Maybe then the Enterprise could actually survive a movie lol).

-I really feel sorry for the alternate reality Kirk. By 2263 he has already lost two crews, his ship, his dad and if Star Trek 4 is like its predecessors, hundreds more crewmen. Prime Universe James Kirk had a record of very few losses and was known for this even as far ahead as the early 2290's. Poor alternate reality Kirk has a long way to go in his storied career, but who knows how many more losses he'll have to endure...

 

[Balok's Decoy]

Somebody asked me to pose these questions for them.

- In Star Trek 2009, the Enterprise suffered heavy crew losses and damage from the Narada. Vulcan and nine ships full of crewmen were destroyed, but the adventures began and the main crew had come together. In Into Darkness, the crew was again decimated and despite Kirk's heroism, most of the crew was dead and hundreds of thousands below in San Francisco die from the crashed Vengeance. In Beyond, the first Enterprise is destroyed 25 years before its OS counterpart was, marking the deaths of just about everyone on board. My question is why does every movie hinge on mass casualties suffered by the crew, and how will Star Trek 4 top the previous movie's body count? Is Star Trek's new movie series just about how many red shirts can be blasted in 120 minutes?

- I've now watched Star Trek, Into Darkness and Beyond. Why is it that all three movies hinge on the main plot point of the Enterprise's crew being slaughtered?

- At the beginning of Star Trek: Beyond it was nice to see the crew settled into the five year mission and interacting like family, being finally familiar and in high spirits. It was like the original series had begun, only earlier than the prime universe, which was great. Tragically, they were summarily executed by Krall. Now it seems the movie franchise, like the original series ones, have moved away from the crew-family aspect and toward a "crew of seven" theme. This makes me mad. Thoughts?

- With Star Trek: Beyond killing off practically all the Enterprise crew, I guess this means that people like Helen Noel, Kevin Reilly, O'Neil, Rand, Romaine, Zahra and other recurring characters are gone forever, too….

-I think it would be best to recast Chekov rather than killing off or moving his character away following Anton Yelchin's death. English actor Jack O'Connell looks a lot like him, and could be a good fit. I don't want to replace Yelchin, but with all the pain Star Trek fans have been through saying goodbye to on and off-screen favorites alike, losing Chekov's character would, in my opinion, be too much. After we lost the rest of the crew in Beyond, I really wouldn't want to see Kirk lose yet more people….

-Why does it seem that despite Kirk's overwhelming pain for the loss of his father and Chris Pike, nothing else phases him. He loses his crew three times and his whole ship once, yet he always jokes around and ends off movies with a neutral attitude (Let's not forget the 2013 video game events - which are cannon to an extent - that saw another tragedy occur). How can any human being not be miserable or at least traumatized with what he has seen and lost?

-It's frustrating that you can't really begin to like any characters in the Star Trek new movies because they are always wiped out. Hendorff doesn't count because he really isn't in Into Darkness or Beyond. Thoughts on this?

-I wish that the new Star Trek movies wouldn't follow in lock step with the original series movies, at least not just all at once right now.

-It's just demoralizing that the 50th anniversary of Star Trek is marked by probably the biggest, most tragic catastrophe to ever hit the Enterprise crew in any Trek show or movie. Is this indeed the most painful mass disaster ever depicted as inflicted on the crew of a ship?

-Krall/Balthazar Edison mentioned in Beyond that after everything he had done and the millions that were lost in the wars with the Xindi and Romulans, the Federation and Starfleet were now "breaking bread with the enemy." To an extent, I felt almost bad for him. The MACOS weren't even thanked for the incredible losses they incurred, and really…was it all for nothing, since Federation citizens - especially humans and Starfleet officers - die by the boatload with no punishment for those responsible?

-If Starfleet has such amazing technology to create the virtually invincible USS Vengeance why hasn't the same tech been equipped on board regular starships? (Maybe then the Enterprise could actually survive a movie lol).

-I really feel sorry for the alternate reality Kirk. By 2263 he has already lost two crews, his ship, his dad and if Star Trek 4 is like its predecessors, hundreds more crewmen. Prime Universe James Kirk had a record of very few losses and was known for this even as far ahead as the early 2290's. Poor alternate reality Kirk has a long way to go in his storied career, but who knows how many more losses he'll have to endure...

There's a lot of assumptions here about "mass casualties." Certainly some crew were killed during attacks, but Kirk hasn't "lost two crews." Most of the Enterprise crew survived Krall's attack -- they were captured by the drones, not killed. And in STID, while the ship took significant damage, we can hardly say that the crew was "lost." That kind of damage has happened in other Trek movies too, it's not unique to Kelvin Kirk.

EDIT: We're not even aware of the presence of those TOS side characters being on board the Enterprise. Except for Nurse Chapel who we know from STID is definitely not on board.

In Generations, the Enterprise-D crashes and is destroyed but I don't think anyone was agonizing over the crew being slaughtered, because it's reasonable to assume that most of them escaped or survived the crash. Given that it's stated in Beyond that the crew was "taken," assuming the crew was outright killed is a leap, to say the least.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

He loses his crew three times and his whole ship once, yet he always jokes around and ends off movies with a neutral attitude

As I said in a previous post, he hasn't lost his crew three times. And honestly, ending on an up note regardless of the content of the movie is not too far from many TOS episodes, which would have rather tragic events but end with Kirk slapping McCoy on the back with a one liner.

It's frustrating that you can't really begin to like any characters in the Star Trek new movies because they are always wiped out.

Who exactly? The main TOS crew is in all 3, makes it through all 3. Like...Carol Marcus not being in Beyond?

I wish that the new Star Trek movies wouldn't follow in lock step with the original series movies, at least not just all at once right now.

ST09 bears more resemblance to A New Hope than to any previous Trek film. STID had Khan and a main character death scene, but the plot progression and character motivations were profoundly different. And Beyond wasn't really like any Trek movie either. ???

Is this indeed the most painful mass disaster ever depicted as inflicted on the crew of a ship?

See TNG, "The Best of Both Worlds Pt II", where a large part of Starfleet is decimated. Or First Contact, where most of the crew is assimilated by the Borg. Or Generations, when the Enterprise is destroyed. With families on board, no less.

If Starfleet has such amazing technology to create the virtually invincible USS Vengeance why hasn't the same tech been equipped on board regular starships? (Maybe then the Enterprise could actually survive a movie lol).

A large part of the Vengeance's strength was that it was built strictly for militaristic engagements, not exploration. And as is made clear in STID, that's not what Starfleet is about. The Vengeance, Krall, and the Narada managed to inflict heavy damage on the Enterprise because they are uniquely powerful, aware of the Enterprise's defense capabilities and able to take advantage of vulnerabilities, or from the future.

I'm sure some people will relate with the original post, but I think a lot of these criticisms have in-movie explanations, and many of these criticisms ignore context.

 

[The Wormhole]

With Star Trek: Beyond killing off practically all the Enterprise crew, I guess this means that people like Helen Noel, Kevin Reilly, O'Neil, Rand, Romaine, Zahra and other recurring characters are gone forever, too….

You're assuming they were all killed, that may not be the case, there were survivors. In fact, Romaine was at the party at the end. Hell, you're also assuming they all serve on the Enterprise in this timeline, and that they still were in Beyond.

Let's not forget the 2013 video game events - which are cannon to an extent

Not canon at all.

And Beyond wasn't really like any Trek movie either. ???

I think the comment is in reference that being the third movie, it features the Enterprise being destroyed, much like the third TOS movie. And there are rumours that the fourth will be a time travel story. This series really is aping the TOS movies.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I wonder if Kirk was court martialed for the loss of the Enterprise in STB? (We know that a court martial is standard practice whenever a ship is lost...)

Of course, even if he was, he obviously wasn't found guilty (given the upbeat tone of the closing scenes) but it would be interesting to see if Starfleet ever instituted formal proceedings against him. And if not, why didn't they.

Of course there's some wiggle room regarding exactly how many crewmembers were killed off during the film. But we see in STB that the Franklin, which surely can't handle more than a few dozen personnel (since it appears to be of a lesser design than the NX-01, which itself only accommodated about 80 crewmembers) could handle all the Enterprise survivors, so I think it's safe to assume that there were a significant amount of casualties.

As for Chekov: Nothing needs to be said (in ST4) apart from a throwaway line about his transfer to the Reliant. That would be a fitting conclusion to the character arc.

 

[RAMA]

Death: We don't have an figures for the death counts. In terms of Trek DS9 probably had the highest and most consistent death counts from casualty lists.

• The Enterprise took a few hits but I doubt they lost more than a few dozen at the most in 09.
  
• Into Darkness: I'd estimate about 20% casualties.
  
• Beyond. 30-50% possibly. Pretty heavy. Of the 3 this is the on;y one where the destruction of Enterprise was a major plot point, leading to the crew losingthe uniting force of the ship and having to get by on their own wits and unity..a major thematic point of the story.

We are looking at a 3-film origin of the crew before TOS prime. Some of them didn't like each other. Later the learned to respect each other as they continued to make mistakes, and in Beyond, they finally seem like an integrated crew working well together. In some cases the bonds are getting very strong.

Pegg said he couldn't work Carol Marcus in the story-line. Romaine can be seen with Scotty in the lounge at the end of Beyond.

They already announced no replacement for Anton. Sad, but I look forward to an Arex or similar character.

I'm sure Kirk may have had to deal with his pain, maybe he has PTSD. However, they haven't really had time to deal with it, all we got was a toast to their crew-mates.

Lock step? The new movie series isn't totally dissimilar to the Prime Trek movies but there's enough difference to make it unique.

So your take-away from the movie was tragedy, while the message was more about the crew coming together to face odds and overcome them against someone who couldn't let go of his past and held a grudge for it.

The Vengeance was the first of it's kind, designed by Khan and Section 31 and not part of regular Starfleet. They used DARPA-like development and put it into practice along with Scotty's transwarp transporter. It was a weapon only, not equipped for exploration. I don't think Starfleet was ready to abandon it's exploration mission.

Somebody asked me to pose these questions for them.

- In Star Trek 2009, the Enterprise suffered heavy crew losses and damage from the Narada. Vulcan and nine ships full of crewmen were destroyed, but the adventures began and the main crew had come together. In Into Darkness, the crew was again decimated and despite Kirk's heroism, most of the crew was dead and hundreds of thousands below in San Francisco die from the crashed Vengeance. In Beyond, the first Enterprise is destroyed 25 years before its OS counterpart was, marking the deaths of just about everyone on board. My question is why does every movie hinge on mass casualties suffered by the crew, and how will Star Trek 4 top the previous movie's body count? Is Star Trek's new movie series just about how many red shirts can be blasted in 120 minutes?

- I've now watched Star Trek, Into Darkness and Beyond. Why is it that all three movies hinge on the main plot point of the Enterprise's crew being slaughtered?

- At the beginning of Star Trek: Beyond it was nice to see the crew settled into the five year mission and interacting like family, being finally familiar and in high spirits. It was like the original series had begun, only earlier than the prime universe, which was great. Tragically, they were summarily executed by Krall. Now it seems the movie franchise, like the original series ones, have moved away from the crew-family aspect and toward a "crew of seven" theme. This makes me mad. Thoughts?

- With Star Trek: Beyond killing off practically all the Enterprise crew, I guess this means that people like Helen Noel, Kevin Reilly, O'Neil, Rand, Romaine, Zahra and other recurring characters are gone forever, too….

-I think it would be best to recast Chekov rather than killing off or moving his character away following Anton Yelchin's death. English actor Jack O'Connell looks a lot like him, and could be a good fit. I don't want to replace Yelchin, but with all the pain Star Trek fans have been through saying goodbye to on and off-screen favorites alike, losing Chekov's character would, in my opinion, be too much. After we lost the rest of the crew in Beyond, I really wouldn't want to see Kirk lose yet more people….

-Why does it seem that despite Kirk's overwhelming pain for the loss of his father and Chris Pike, nothing else phases him. He loses his crew three times and his whole ship once, yet he always jokes around and ends off movies with a neutral attitude (Let's not forget the 2013 video game events - which are cannon to an extent - that saw another tragedy occur). How can any human being not be miserable or at least traumatized with what he has seen and lost?

-It's frustrating that you can't really begin to like any characters in the Star Trek new movies because they are always wiped out. Hendorff doesn't count because he really isn't in Into Darkness or Beyond. Thoughts on this?

-I wish that the new Star Trek movies wouldn't follow in lock step with the original series movies, at least not just all at once right now.

-It's just demoralizing that the 50th anniversary of Star Trek is marked by probably the biggest, most tragic catastrophe to ever hit the Enterprise crew in any Trek show or movie. Is this indeed the most painful mass disaster ever depicted as inflicted on the crew of a ship?

-Krall/Balthazar Edison mentioned in Beyond that after everything he had done and the millions that were lost in the wars with the Xindi and Romulans, the Federation and Starfleet were now "breaking bread with the enemy." To an extent, I felt almost bad for him. The MACOS weren't even thanked for the incredible losses they incurred, and really…was it all for nothing, since Federation citizens - especially humans and Starfleet officers - die by the boatload with no punishment for those responsible?

-If Starfleet has such amazing technology to create the virtually invincible USS Vengeance why hasn't the same tech been equipped on board regular starships? (Maybe then the Enterprise could actually survive a movie lol).

-I really feel sorry for the alternate reality Kirk. By 2263 he has already lost two crews, his ship, his dad and if Star Trek 4 is like its predecessors, hundreds more crewmen. Prime Universe James Kirk had a record of very few losses and was known for this even as far ahead as the early 2290's. Poor alternate reality Kirk has a long way to go in his storied career, but who knows how many more losses he'll have to endure...

 

[Timo]

A minor detail:

-Krall/Balthazar Edison mentioned in Beyond that after everything he had done and the millions that were lost in the wars with the Xindi and Romulans, the Federation and Starfleet were now "breaking bread with the enemy." To an extent, I felt almost bad for him. The MACOS weren't even thanked for the incredible losses they incurred, and really…was it all for nothing, since Federation citizens - especially humans and Starfleet officers - die by the boatload with no punishment for those responsible?

We never hear of the MACO force suffering losses of any sort, beyond whatever happened to a select few of the handful of troopers aboard Archer's ship in ENT Seasons 3 and 4. Indeed, we have no indication they ever faced the Romulans, or that Edison faced either the Romulans or the Xindi.

There isn't an explicit reason to thank the MACO for anything much. From what we actually see and hear, they were more a liability than an asset to Earth or the Federation: Archer already had a fighting force aboard that might have taken care of S3 and S4, and the only MACO contribution beyond that is Edison's high treason.

I wonder if Kirk was court martialed for the loss of the Enterprise in STB? (We know that a court martial is standard practice whenever a ship is lost...)

But perhaps only for a certain value of "loss"? Only the Picard/Stargazer incident ever explicitly involved a court martial, and Picard's actions did appear especially iffy there (after all, his ship did end up in enemy hands more or less intact!).

[q/ote]Of course there's some wiggle room regarding exactly how many crewmembers were killed off during the film. But we see in STB that the Franklin, which surely can't handle more than a few dozen personnel (since it appears to be of a lesser design than the NX-01, which itself only accommodated about 80 crewmembers) could handle all the Enterprise survivors, so I think it's safe to assume that there were a significant amount of casualties.[/quote

I'd consider the technical specs of the Franklin fairly irrelevant to the issue. After all, a mere runabout can carry sixty or more people in a tight spot (DS9 "Siege" trilogy, both the part where Li Nalas is rescued from the prison camp and the part where all the Feds are evacuated from DS9). There's physically enough space aboard the Franklin to rescue hundreds, as evidenced by the set design; even if the life support system will fail from the strain eventually, our heroes won't have to deal with "eventually" within the confines of the plot.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Balok's Decoy]

A minor detail:



We never hear of the MACO force suffering losses of any sort, beyond whatever happened to a select few of the handful of troopers aboard Archer's ship in ENT Seasons 3 and 4. Indeed, we have no indication they ever faced the Romulans, or that Edison faced either the Romulans or the Xindi.

At the end of Beyond in that air circulating chamber, Edison says that he fought in the Romulan and Xindi wars.

 

[The Wormhole]

but it would be interesting to see if Starfleet ever instituted formal proceedings against him. And if not, why didn't they.

I'm sure the fact that he saved Yorktown might have been enough to wave away any proceedings that would usually have taken place.

 

[Timo]

At the end of Beyond in that air circulating chamber, Edison says that he fought in the Romulan and Xindi wars.

Does he really? I thought he just said that the Romulans and the Xindi were eeevil aliens who once hurt Earth, and that it was a damn shame that his new job didn't entail mowing them down. No personal involvement was specified. Or even MACO involvement IIRC.

I guess Santa will have to settle this one. The DVD is out, now isn't it?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Balok's Decoy]

Does he really? I thought he just said that the Romulans and the Xindi were eeevil aliens who once hurt Earth, and that it was a damn shame that his new job didn't entail mowing them down. No personal involvement was specified. Or even MACO involvement IIRC.

I guess Santa will have to settle this one. The DVD is out, now isn't it?

Timo Saloniemi

He does:
"I fought for humanity! Lost millions to the Xindi and Romulan wars. And for what? For the Federation? To sit me in a Captain's chair and break bread with the enemy!"

And in an earlier scene Scotty explains Edison's history fighting wars before Starfleet was officially formed. Then when Starfleet was established when the wars were over, they gave Edison the Franklin because he was a war hero. That's like Krall's whole backstory and arc -- an angry veteran abandoned and betrayed by the institutions he fought for.

 

[Timo]

...But Balt "lower than Captain" Edison "lost millions"? I doubt this was any sort of a personal or under-my-command loss. And by extension not a MACO thing, either. Just generic war losses.

I guess this can be read at least three different ways. Edison fought in both the wars; Edison fought in one of them; Edison fought in neither of them, but did fight elsewhere. Since we never hear of any "Xindi War" in ENT, but the Romulan War is known to exist, the second interpretation sounds the most appealing, but I guess there could have been a Xindi War separate from Archer's adventures at some point.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Balok's Decoy]

...But Balt "lower than Captain" Edison "lost millions"? I doubt this was any sort of a personal or under-my-command loss. And by extension not a MACO thing, either. Just generic war losses.

I guess this can be read at least three different ways. Edison fought in both the wars; Edison fought in one of them; Edison fought in neither of them, but did fight elsewhere. Since we never hear of any "Xindi War" in ENT, but the Romulan War is known to exist, the second interpretation sounds the most appealing, but I guess there could have been a Xindi War separate from Archer's adventures at some point.

Timo Saloniemi

No, Scotty says in a previous scene that he was part of MACO and fought in those wars. Pegg and Doug Jung have talked about making him a part of MACO and those wars being his backstory and legitimizing his point of view: http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Krall.

 

[Timo]

There's a somewhat mangled transcript at http://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/movie_script.php?movie=star-trek-beyond and it doesn't seem to show Scotty specifying the wars in which Edison fought. Kirk later says Edison won "the war", supporting the idea that just one should suffice. After all, again, there's no Xindi War.

I wonder... What is the real phrasing of that sentence that reads "We lost millions in the Xindi and Romulan wars"? Perhaps "We lost millions to the Xindi; in the Romulan War" or something like that?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Balok's Decoy]

There's a somewhat mangled transcript at http://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/movie_script.php?movie=star-trek-beyond and it doesn't seem to show Scotty specifying the wars in which Edison fought. Kirk later says Edison won "the war", supporting the idea that just one should suffice. After all, again, there's no Xindi War.

I wonder... What is the real phrasing of that sentence that reads "We lost millions in the Xindi and Romulan wars"? Perhaps "We lost millions to the Xindi; in the Romulan War" or something like that?

Timo Saloniemi

IMDB just has it as "Lost millions to the Xindi and Romulan wars." He doesn't need to say the precise words "I lost millions to the Xindi and Romulan wars when I was captain during that time period." I mean, it's clear he's saying he fought in those wars.

EDIT: And when Kirk says "You won the war," he's just speaking broadly, about War as a concept. Krall never stopped fighting those wars, even after they'd been won. He's still haunted by them and resents the Federation's peaceful nature.

 

[Timo]

But we have two impossibilities before breakfast there already: Edison can't have lost millions personally (even a General would be hard pressed to do that), and there's no good place in the timeline for a Xindi War.

The thing can be read as there having been losses to the Xindi and a war with the Romulans, with Edison only participating in "the war", singular, that Kirk credits him with winning. This would help keep the timeline straight - but it might be too much finesse to burden on two guys out of their breath uttering fragments of dialogue at each other.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Kemaiku]

He was incoherent at the time, he seems to emotionally break just before he utters the line about millions lost, as in how many humans died overall in both. We only see him participating in the Earth Romulan war personally.

The Sphere Builders live in another universe, and were only able to physically enter the Trek universe in the 26th century after the Spheres had converted enough space. They communicated with the 22nd century to make this happen, so any change to the timeline would not affect them, we know Enterprise happened as it did even in the Kelvin timeline, so the Xindi War still happened.

So 7 million still died in the initial attack, and Enterprise losing a third of her crew in the Expanse.

The Enterprise novels cover the losses in the Romulan War, with Coridan alone losing millions to the kamikazi antimatter strike on their planet. Eidson was likely remembering receiving the dispatches every day reading the new casualty reports.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

But we have two impossibilities before breakfast there already: Edison can't have lost millions personally (even a General would be hard pressed to do that), and there's no good place in the timeline for a Xindi War.

The thing can be read as there having been losses to the Xindi and a war with the Romulans, with Edison only participating in "the war", singular, that Kirk credits him with winning. This would help keep the timeline straight - but it might be too much finesse to burden on two guys out of their breath uttering fragments of dialogue at each other.

Timo Saloniemi

Well that's the thing, this isn't a recounting of specific dates and times. He's talking about the sacrifices he and others made for the Federation. I don't remember Scotty's precise words when he's reading off Edison's dossier, but I can look tonight. In any case, he fought in at least one. When he says "Lost millions to the Xindi and Romulan wars," I think he's using the royal we -- as in, We Who Fought in those Wars. And he's tied to all those millions, regardless of whether he was their direct CO. When people come back from war, they often say "we" to mean "the Army" or "the Navy," what have you.

 

[Timo]

That I guess is the only point of contention here: whether he or the MACO lost folks in the war, or whether mankind did. "Millions" is already covered by the civilian victims of the Xindi attack, after all.

Edison is angry at the UFP being friends with murderous alien scum. It isn't actually required that he be one of their victims, directly or indirectly.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Balok's Decoy]

That I guess is the only point of contention here: whether he or the MACO lost folks in the war, or whether mankind did. "Millions" is already covered by the civilian victims of the Xindi attack, after all.

Edison is angry at the UFP being friends with murderous alien scum. It isn't actually required that he be one of their victims, directly or indirectly.

Timo Saloniemi

He was part of MACO, so the answer is both of them, concurrently, lost millions.