• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Announcing STAR TREK: DTI and other CLB news

Well, I'm glad there's a copyediting process. Today, while doing one more editing pass on the DTI manuscript, I discovered something that I and everyone else involved somehow managed to miss despite multiple passes through the book: A scene begins saying that Character A only knows Character B by reputation and has never met him, and then three paragraphs later has Character A telling Character B, "We've met." What's more, later in the book, I elaborate on that first meeting. This is a hazard of making stuff up as you go. Sometimes you change your mind about something along the way, and if you're not careful, you can forget to change what you wrote at the start. I don't think I've ever had it happen within three paragraphs, though.

The thing is, even with multiple eyes going over a manuscript time after time, there are a heck of a lot of words and ideas in there, and it's hard to catch every one. Usually one person will catch what someone else missed, but sometimes something slips by everyone. Anyway, I finally caught it and it's fixed.

I also found another subtle inconsistency arising from a similar cause, a matter of timing, but on reflection I decided it was fine the way it is. After all, not every character in the book necessarily experiences events in the same order. ;)

Take it as a compliment that it took this long to catch it. It means the story is so engaging and well written that it's been sucking the readers in so deeply that they just skip right on by the inconsistency. :D
 
It's rumoured that in an early version of the STXI story, the Kelvin was the Enterprise and Captain Robau was Robert April. Paramount supposedly decreed that the Enterprise cannot be blown up in the first movie.

Yeah but that's only for the TOS Enterprise you can only blow that up in the third movie but, if it's the TNG Enterprise you can blow it up (well half of it and crash the other half) in the first movie it shows up in.

Well, there is the issue of Nero emerging from that alleged black hole a good twelve years before the TOS Enterprise was even built...

And we know this how, exactly? The only source of info we have as to the exact date that the TOS Enterprise was built is fanon, isn't it? Nothing official. So if they invent a new date, it wouldn't be contradicting anything.
 
And we know this how, exactly? The only source of info we have as to the exact date that the TOS Enterprise was built is fanon, isn't it? Nothing official. So if they invent a new date, it wouldn't be contradicting anything.

Well, except that the movie has the Enterprise under construction in 2255 and launching in 2258, but "The Cage" takes place 13 years before "The Menagerie," or 2254. So while it's true that the actual date of the Prime-universe E's construction is not definitively established, we do know that the Abramsverse E was built an absolute minimum of 4 years later.

Not that that's difficult to rationalize, though. The attack on the Kelvin by a super-advanced, seemingly Romulan ship could easily have prompted Starfleet to adjust its priorities, to put existing plans on hold and redesign future classes to be bigger and tougher, thus delaying their construction.
 
the movie has the Enterprise under construction in 2255 and launching in 2258, but "The Cage" takes place 13 years before "The Menagerie," or 2254.

Who knows how old the ship is in "The Cage"? They never said anything about the age of the ship in that episode. It could be twenty years old even then.
 
But my point is, "The Cage" proved that the Prime Enterprise was in service before the Abramsverse Enterprise was. We don't know how much earlier the Prime version was built, but we know beyond a doubt that it was built no less than four years earlier, probably more.
 
But my point is, "The Cage" proved that the Prime Enterprise was in service before the Abramsverse Enterprise was. We don't know how much earlier the Prime version was built, but we know beyond a doubt that it was built no less than four years earlier, probably more.

But where is it established that "The Cage" takes place in 2254? I didn't find anything on Memory Alpha about it.
 
"The Cage" is stated in "The Menagerie" to take place 13 years before the frame of the episode. "The Menagerie" is in the latter half of the first season, which is generally accepted to be 2267. We don't know that for an absolute canonical fact, but we do know canonically (from Voyager: "Q2") that the 5-year mission ended in 2270, so the late first season would pretty much have to be within a year of 2267.

In any case, the two canonical data points cited here establish that it's impossible for "The Cage" to have taken place as late as 2258, because that would put "The Menagerie" in 2271 or later.
 
But my point is, "The Cage" proved that the Prime Enterprise was in service before the Abramsverse Enterprise was.

So? All that means is that it IS possible that the TOS Enterprise could have been in service when Nero emerged from the black hole. If it had been that ship, and not the Kelvin, which was destroyed, it wouldn't violate a stitch of continuity.
 
So? All that means is that it IS possible that the TOS Enterprise could have been in service when Nero emerged from the black hole. If it had been that ship, and not the Kelvin, which was destroyed, it wouldn't violate a stitch of continuity.

Is that what we were talking about? I was responding to a suggestion that both Enterprises might've been built at the same time.
 
Well, since the very first scene in the movie is of the Kelvin moving in to examine the time warp that's already opened, it is in an alternate timeline from start to finish. What you're trying to assert is the premise that it was already an alternate timeline well before the start of the movie -- and you should know by now that you'll never get most of the rest of us to agree with that. And this isn't the thread or the forum for dredging up that argument again anyway.
 
In what seems to be a futile effort to get this thread back on topic, is there any way I can get hold of a copy of "Home is Where the Hub is"?

I was in a financially difficult place a few weeks ago I could not spare the money to buy a copy of the magazine, but I have a little extra at the moment and I want to spend it on something worthwhile.
 
Here in Cincinnati, the Public Library carries back issues of Analog. You could check your local libraries to see if they have it.
 
So? All that means is that it IS possible that the TOS Enterprise could have been in service when Nero emerged from the black hole. If it had been that ship, and not the Kelvin, which was destroyed, it wouldn't violate a stitch of continuity.

Is that what we were talking about? I was responding to a suggestion that both Enterprises might've been built at the same time.

Really? I must have missed that. I don't think *that* could possibly be true.

OTOH, I definitely LOVE the original idea of the TOS Enterprise being in place of the Kelvin (as the ship that's destroyed in the opening scene). I don't really know why they'd change that. :shrug:

I mean, why would Paramount possibly care about destroying an Enterprise? They've done it before. If they can destroy the Ent-D to replace it with the E, then they could have done the same thing here as well. It's not like anyone could seriously believe that the ST XI version could possibly be the same ship from TOS anyway.
 
I mean, why would Paramount possibly care about destroying an Enterprise? They've done it before.

I'm not sure why you're attributing that decision to "Paramount." "Paramount" did not write the movie. Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman did, and they presumably made that decision on the basis of what they felt made for a better film.
 
I mean, why would Paramount possibly care about destroying an Enterprise? They've done it before.

I'm not sure why you're attributing that decision to "Paramount." "Paramount" did not write the movie. Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman did, and they presumably made that decision on the basis of what they felt made for a better film.

Over at Trekmovie, Orci mentioned that they originally wanted to destroy the Enterprise commanded by April, and "Paramount" said NO, "they" did not want to see a ship named Enterprise getting destroyed in that film.
 
I mean, why would Paramount possibly care about destroying an Enterprise? They've done it before.

I'm not sure why you're attributing that decision to "Paramount." "Paramount" did not write the movie. Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman did, and they presumably made that decision on the basis of what they felt made for a better film.

Over at Trekmovie, Orci mentioned that they originally wanted to destroy the Enterprise commanded by April, and "Paramount" said NO, "they" did not want to see a ship named Enterprise getting destroyed in that film.

Ah, fair enough; I missed that bit.

I would presume that Paramount didn't want an Enterprise destroyed because they wanted ST09 to feel like a beginning, not an end -- to feel like a new start, not a destruction and replacement. That would just be my guess, though.
 
If anyone's interested, I just e-mailed the revised copyedited manuscript for DTI back to my editor. I fixed a number of mistakes that hadn't already been fixed, added a bit more material here and there, and tightened up some paragraphs here and there to balance the additions (well, partly -- I added more than I trimmed).
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top