IDW'S Star Trek #2

[MatthiasRussell]

I for one see no need to redo classic scifi.

Then why did they make the 2009 movie at all?

That's been my feeling for the last few years. Needing to reinvent the franchise doesn't mean they had to go back to the basics, it just means they needed a change of franchise leadership.

The potential readership of these comics are probably the more devoted fans who have watched and loved TOS and probably don't care for this repackaging.

Sales of previous IDW comics show that "the more devoted fans who have watched and loved TOS" you mention didn't care enough for IDW's previous TOS, TNG or DS9 comics either.

What did sell extremely well for IDW were any comics related to the JJ Abrams-directed movie: "Countdown", "Spock Reflections", "Nero", and the film's adaptation in comic form. IIRC, IDW said the new comic tie-ins to the movie would be a mix of "what if"-type retellings of TOS and new material. Sales will inform them of which direction is best worth pursuing.

I think what made those earlier comics good was 1) Some of them helped ST09 make sense and 2) They had better writing at the beginning. The later comics suffered from poor writership and little content. I loved the NF comic especially because I think Peter David is both a good Trek and comic writer.

 

[Christopher]

For those who are pissed they're doing remakes, I think it's worth keeping in mind that the stories are going to be a mix of new stories and remakes, and we don't even know yet what the proprotions of each will be.

And I'm not sure the "remakes" really will be remakes. The impression I got from the news releases is that these might be very different takes on concepts, characters, or elements from TOS episodes. For instance, maybe in this version of the Gary Mitchell story, the edge of the galaxy isn't involved at all, and it's a different kind of story about Gary Mitchell getting godlike powers from a different source, and maybe with a different outcome. At least, that's the impression I got, that they aren't retelling the specific episodes so much as approaching the premises of those episodes from new angles. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but we just won't know until they actually come out.

 

[MatthiasRussell]

Well, let me ask this: do the writers IDW is using have Trek backgrounds? Do any of the trek authors have any interest in working for IDW?

 

[F. King Daniel]

Well, let me ask this: do the writers IDW is using have Trek backgrounds? Do any of the trek authors have any interest in working for IDW?

If we left Trek to the people with "Trek backgrounds", we'd never have gotten Wrath of Khan.

 

[Christopher]

Well, let me ask this: do the writers IDW is using have Trek backgrounds?

The ongoing Abramsverse comic is from the same writers who did Countdown and Nero.

 

[Therin of Andor]

do the writers IDW is using have Trek backgrounds?

Gee, since when has that guaranteed solid storytelling?

Do any of the trek authors have any interest in working for IDW?

I recall Andy Mangels tried to get a pitching session for many months, then when he did pitch, IDW seemingly had no interest.

KRAD has done a few with them. Ian Edginton did something. Bob Greenberger's "Captain's Log" story on Garrett got canned.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Well, let me ask this: do the writers IDW is using have Trek backgrounds?

The ongoing Abramsverse comic is from the same writers who did Countdown and Nero.

And the Film Adaptation.

 

[MatthiasRussell]

Well, let me ask this: do the writers IDW is using have Trek backgrounds?

The ongoing Abramsverse comic is from the same writers who did Countdown and Nero.

Hmm, well, there may be hope for them yet. But I for one am happy to stick with the prime universe. When IDW wants to publish quality stories in that realm again, they'll have my patronage.

 

[The Wormhole]

So, let's see if I got things right here. In the Abramsverse, everyone looks completely different than they do in the Prime Universe. In some cases, intentionally so, like Chekov sho was in fact born earlier in the Abramsverse than in the Prime. Starfleet is comletely different, different ship designs, different uniforms, and so on. And yet, despite all the differences, Gary Mitchell looks exactly the same between the two universes? And apparentally, suffers the exact same fate? Jeez, what are the chances of that?

 

[Christopher]

So, let's see if I got things right here. In the Abramsverse, everyone looks completely different than they do in the Prime Universe.

No, they don't. Remember, Spock Prime recognized Kirk and Scotty on sight. The actors playing the characters look different, just as the different actors playing Saavik or Zefram Cochrane or Tora Ziyal or Kahless or Surak or DaiMon Bok looked different, but the characters who exist in the hypothetical reality that the actors are dramatizing for us look the same.

Starfleet is comletely different, different ship designs, different uniforms, and so on.

Because the Narada's incursion in 2233 prompted Starfleet to reconsider its shipbuilding priorities, and reverse-engineering the Kelvin's scans of its advanced technology allowed them to make some advances of their own. Thus, 25 years later, Starfleet technology looks somewhat different. (Although the primary hull of the new timeline's Enterprise looks strikingly similar to that of the refit Enterprise from 15 years later in the Prime timeline, despite being twice as big.

 

[BillJ]

I think the cover shown is pretty lazy and I hope it's not indicative of the quality of the work on the inside. Or else this is going to be a fairly short-lived series.

 

[MatthiasRussell]

So, let's see if I got things right here. In the Abramsverse, everyone looks completely different than they do in the Prime Universe.

No, they don't. Remember, Spock Prime recognized Kirk and Scotty on sight. The actors playing the characters look different, just as the different actors playing Saavik or Zefram Cochrane or Tora Ziyal or Kahless or Surak or DaiMon Bok looked different, but the characters who exist in the hypothetical reality that the actors are dramatizing for us look the same.

Starfleet is comletely different, different ship designs, different uniforms, and so on.

Because the Narada's incursion in 2233 prompted Starfleet to reconsider its shipbuilding priorities, and reverse-engineering the Kelvin's scans of its advanced technology allowed them to make some advances of their own. Thus, 25 years later, Starfleet technology looks somewhat different. (Although the primary hull of the new timeline's Enterprise looks strikingly similar to that of the refit Enterprise from 15 years later in the Prime timeline, despite being twice as big.

I don't think they could have casted that movie any better. Though I didn't care too much for the movie and HATED the Enterprise, I loved the cast.

As for the Enterprise, the Enterprise was already aged by the time Kirk got to her, she wasn't a "new flagship". How many years in advance of the movie events were Constitutions in operation? A shipyard in Iowa? Really!?! Also, it would take many, many years to design a ship of that size and then build it. I don't think 20 years would have seen such massive changes in design and technology. Also, I think the ship was just ugly. Give it a simple neck, thicken the secondary hull, and straighten the nacelle pylons and I would like it. To me the classic enterprise is an icon; I feel it was taken so far away from the ideals of Matt Jefferies to be nearly sacrilege.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I think the cover shown is pretty lazy and I hope it's not indicative of the quality of the work on the inside.

Well, from past ST mini-series, there are often three or four different covers (sometimes photo covers) and the internal artists are often responsible for only one of the multiple covers' art.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Thus, 25 years later, Starfleet technology looks slightly different

Does it? Or has the look of the 23rd century merely been "recast" in the same way Kirk and Spock were?

In another thread a few weeks ago elsewhere on TBBS, someone was complaining that the Romulan bird-of-prey seen in "Minefield" looked 'too advanced' compared to the one from "Balance of Terror" 100 pretend years later. I say they're meant to represent the same design of ship. Same thing here with the uniforms and characters and even super megalopolis San Fransisco in STXI vs. the look of TOS and the early movies.

Although there are meant to be changes in the timelinene (Enterprise was built later, it's bigger etc), I don't think the look is meant to be as different to TOS as it seems.

 

[F. King Daniel]

How many years in advance of the movie's events were the Constututions in operation?

In Prime Trek, the Enterprise launched in 2245. In STXI, it was delayed until 2258.

sacrelige.

 

[Christopher]

As for the Enterprise, the Enterprise was already aged by the time Kirk got to her, she wasn't a "new flagship".

In the Prime history, yes. The whole idea here is that it's a different, altered timeline, so the specific events can go differently even while the characters are essentially the same.

Thus, 25 years later, Starfleet technology looks slightly different

Does it? Or has the look of the 23rd century merely been "recast" in the same way Kirk and Spock were?

That's a perfect explanation for the look of the Kelvin, or of NX-01 in Enterprise. What we're seeing is a dramatic representation of a hypothetical reality, and if the sets and equipment look more advanced in a later production, it's because the methods used to simulate them are more advanced. But when it comes to the Abramsverse Enterprise, the film's writers have proposed the explanation I gave as an in-universe justification for why the ship is so different. It is an actual part of the intended backstory here, even if it's just subtextual.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

I for one see no need to redo classic scifi.

Then why did they make the 2009 movie at all?

That's been my feeling for the last few years. Needing to reinvent the franchise doesn't mean they had to go back to the basics, it just means they needed a change of franchise leadership.

It was inevitable that Paramount would return to the Kirk/Spock era, whether in a straight-up recasting in the original continuity or a total reboot.

The reason was pretty simple. When you ask someone on the street what Star Trek is, the vast majority of the public is going to say "Kirk and Spock" or something relating to the original series. The 24th-century series don't have the same nostalgic pull. Add to that Hollywood's love of nostalgia projects (which makes total business sense -- it's easier to sell audiences on a familiar concept than a new one), and a return to the 23rd-century was going to happen. It was simply a matter of time -- and possibly a regime change.

 

[Stevil2001]

Sales of previous IDW comics show that "the more devoted fans who have watched and loved TOS" you mention didn't care enough for IDW's previous TOS, TNG or DS9 comics either.

What did sell extremely well for IDW were any comics related to the JJ Abrams-directed movie: "Countdown", "Spock Reflections", "Nero", and the film's adaptation in comic form.

Not really, not always. The worst-selling issue of Wrath of Khan sold around 8,300 copies, whereas the best-selling issue of the new film adaptation sold around 6,400. And here I was sneering at IDW's timely choice of publishing a Khan tie-in.

 

[Greg Cox]

Well, let me ask this: do the writers IDW is using have Trek backgrounds? Do any of the trek authors have any interest in working for IDW?

If we left Trek to the people with "Trek backgrounds", we'd never have gotten Wrath of Khan.

Bingo!

 

[F. King Daniel]

I just noticed that that's Tobias Richter's Enterprise on the front of issue 2. I hope they pay him!