If this Film Started Out Showing April in Command...

[Cary L. Brown]

To that end, if there is a scene of the construction of the Enterprise, it must be important in some way. So, my guess is we'll see Captain Pike there, not Robert April.

Well, two things:

1) We have no reason to think that the scenes we see in the trailer are in the film. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it's highly unlikely that we will. The point of the trailer was not to tell a story... it was to capture people's interest in a "gotcha" moment... get the audience excited about something mysterious, then at the last moment spring it on them... "oh yeah, this thing you're already getting excited about... it's Star Trek."

It's been quite successful in that regard. But there's if it were in the film, that purpose (which it seems to be custom-crafted for!) would not be served... would it? So... what STORYTELLING purpose would this sequence serve in the film? I can't imagine any... except to make the fans go "ooooooooo" and the rest of the audience go "zzzzzzzzzzzz."

2) Ships under construction are not typically under the command of whoever is going to command the ship once launched. This was handled quite nicely on Babylon 5... with Babylon 4.

Generally speaking, in REALITY, a line officer isn't assigned to command a military unit or a naval vessel unless that unit is already constituted and operational.

SO... during the time that the ship was under construction, it wouldn't have HAD a captain. At most, it would have had an "officer in charge of construction" who's job would most closely approximate that of a contractor if you were talking about house construction. Another officer associated with the construction yard would be assigned during the testing/shakedown phase, and only once the ship was operational would the "line commander" be assigned.

That's in reality. Of course, as far as I know, the construction of the 1701 might be assigned to Jimmy Kirk as an after-school project in this movie!

People will have to draw their conclusions from that. It's very true that it's not important for this movie to take the time to establish that Pike was the first captain of the Enterprise or not. But I think it will be apparent he was. April is Captain Dunsel here. Superfluous. Not needed for the story.

Which is exactly my point about any "launching" sequence... pointless for storytelling purposes... and not something that would be a "positive" for anyone but the most hardcore trek-geek types (like all of us).

If the scene is there... it'd only be there for the "hardcore." And those are the very people who'd care about whether or not it was under Pike or April (or Winters or whoever else).

His inclusion, just to set any record straight, would be confusing unless he had some other role in the movie. And, the name April is on no cast list.

Which is the reason I conclude that the first time we see "Enterprise," she'll be an operational starship, under the command of Pike.

It can go three ways. (1) it's established beyond reasonable doubt that Pike was first, or (2) there could be a throwaway line in the movie that mentions something about April without taking extra effort or being there for pure exposition -- one of those "nuggets," or (3) the question is left open.

I think that, by far, the only reasonable choice is #3. To do ANYTHING else, positive or negative, would serve no useful purpose except to make the "intense" fan base happy, or unhappy. Nobody else will give a flying #@$*!

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

...We know that we'll see Pike (only because we know who's been cast as Pike). There's no reason, in-film, to state that he's "the first captain" or "the second captain" or the "ten bazillionth captain" of the ship. Only that, at the time we see him, he's the captain...

...To that end, if there is a scene of the construction of the Enterprise, it must be important in some way. So, my guess is we'll see Captain Pike there, not Robert April. People will have to draw their conclusions from that...

My guess is if there is an Enterprise construction and/or launch scene, we will see April (even though his character is not in the cast list - yet), or we will see NO captain, just as if we were detached spectators at any shipyard watching some ocean-going ship being launched.

I think they will go out of their way NOT to crown Pike as the first Captain.

Eh.

It'll be a Trek movie, and we shall go.

Yes indeed, but what fun is it if we can't argue about meaningless details and unimportant characters?

 

[shapeshifter]

"zzzzzzzzzzzz."

...Oh crap, I just had an "Admiral Bill" flashback. Please don't put psychological ST.Com triggers in posts!

Other than that, you make allot of logical sense.

 

[M'Sharak]

^

 

[Franklin]

So... what STORYTELLING purpose would this sequence serve in the film? I can't imagine any... except to make the fans go "ooooooooo" and the rest of the audience go "zzzzzzzzzzzz."

Well, I was thinking of nothing more than something like a, "Paging Dr. Sandy Zober. Dr. Sandy Zober," moment, like in TVH. Kinda funny for those who get it, but it means nothing otherwise and does nothing to affect the tempo of the story. Unless I'm not remembering what all I've read correctly, there are some "fans will get it" references in the movie. This would just be one of them.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

So... what STORYTELLING purpose would this sequence serve in the film? I can't imagine any... except to make the fans go "ooooooooo" and the rest of the audience go "zzzzzzzzzzzz."

It's like a Pixar family film with a slightly risqué double entedre joke that the parents get, but the children don't even notice.

Not every Star Trek "in-reference" will be even noticed by the non-fans. It won't make them go "zzzzzzzzz" because they won't even realize it's there.

So there is a Captain named April, or some crewman named Mr. Leslie...people have to be named something, so why not name a guy "Mr. Leslie" instead of "Mr. Smith".

(by the way, I'm not advocating including Mr. Leslie in the film...it was just an example. Mr. Brent, on the other hand NEEDS to be in this )

 

[archeryguy1701]

The point is this: If Abrams includes a scene such as this -- say only 5 minutes of screen time -- and make it fit in smoothly with the rest of the film, do you think it would help the undecided/doubtful fan look more favorably upon the rest of the film.

If a random appearance by a random character turns out to be all that's needed to make some people happy, I may cry myself to sleep. Personally, I think if the movie is enjoyable to watch, then they can put anyone they want in it... but the names of the characters aren't going to make me enjoy it any more or less.

 

[Jarrott2]

Kevin Riley, Finnegan, Ruth, Dr. Janice Lester

 

[Therin of Andor]

That's something I've never been able to truly work out, so the continuity is either a bit fluid, or the "20 years" mentioned aren't Earth years.

The draft script (and Starlog's movie magazine synopsis) said "... 40 years old", but since the film was celebrating the approach of ST's 20th anniversary, they went with "20". The 20 years can be massaged to refer to most of the ship's components being 20 years old, assuming the ship was revamped considerably after Pike (and before Kirk's 5YM).

 

[chrinFinity]

That's something I've never been able to truly work out, so the continuity is either a bit fluid, or the "20 years" mentioned aren't Earth years.

The draft script (and Starlog's movie magazine synopsis) said "... 40 years old", but since the film was celebrating the approach of ST's 20th anniversary, they went with "20". The 20 years can be massaged to refer to most of the ship's components being 20 years old, assuming the ship was revamped considerably after Pike (and before Kirk's 5YM).

I always figured that admiral douchebag picked a number out of thin air, or else confused the Enterprise's age with the age of some other ship, and that Kirk simply chose not to correct him because if wouldn't have helped his case.