IDW Star Trek Ongoing...

[Christopher]

^ Oh sure! That reference you get! But they couldn't possibly have been referring to Jonathan Archer in the first movie!

Huh? Can we not do this again? There's no point rehashing old debates about the previous movie when we have the ongoing comic and a new movie to talk about.

 

[ATimson]

Spoiler: Into Darkness

Another continuity problem is that the comic ends with Pike assigning Kirk to the Nibiru mission, which -- given the really, really fast warp velocities we see in the Abramsverse -- suggests a much shorter interval between them than one month.

Spoiler: Into Darkness and spinoffs

First off, I'm not certain how fast the warp velocities necessarily are. Yes, they seem to be faster than in the prime universe, but the relatively short trip from Earth to Vulcan still seemed like it took several hours in the first movie.

Anyways, the video game theoretically happens between Countdown to Darkness and Into Darkness - it starts with the Enterprise being diverted by a distress call (versus the normal mission start to Countdown to Darkness), and also ends with a trip to Nibiru. The video game covers 2259.32-2259.33 - if the Mudd comics ended the day beforehand, that would put it 24 days before Into Darkness, close enough to a month in my book.

We don't know how long the Enterprise was at Nibiru, do we?

Of course, other problems call the game's events into question - the Gorn reference in the movie, again the "nobody died" line. But then, the Tribble comics have a stardate about 100 days after the bulk of the movie (and during the refitting period unless I missheard Kirk's speech at the end). I wonder if there were late script changes giving it an earlier date and adding that scene with Pike, or whether this stuff wasn't actually being vetted as strictly as is implied.

 

[The Wormhole]

Well, I've seen the movie, and I noticed something.

Spoiler: Into Darkness

In the scene where Kirk and Pike are arguing and Kirk is defending his record, it's hard to tell since they're talking over each other, but I'm pretty sure Kirk says something like, "How many crewmembers have I lost since I took command? None, that's how many! Not one!" Which would call the canon status of any of the comics where crewmembers died into question.

I also see why Countdown to Darkness referred to the Bajoran woman as Mudd. It's because there was that line in the film about "the K'normian ship we confiscated after the Mudd incident last month." I strongly suspect that the screenwriters intended that to be a reference to Harry Mudd, but for some reason the comics' writer decided to tell a very different story and just grafted on the character name in an awkward way. I mean, why would Kirk refer to the events of CtD as "the Mudd incident" when she was such a peripheral character in the story? Another continuity problem is that the comic ends with Pike assigning Kirk to the Nibiru mission, which -- given the really, really fast warp velocities we see in the Abramsverse -- suggests a much shorter interval between them than one month.

Spoiler: possible explanation, with Countdown to Darkness spoilers

Well, given that the Pike orders Kirk to erase all mention of Captain April and what he did from the Enterprise logs and never speak of it again, those events would have to be referred to as "the Mudd incident" if Kirk were to follow orders. Presumably no orders were issued to forget Mudd exists.

 

[Avro Arrow]

Well, I've seen the movie, and I noticed something.

Spoiler: Into Darkness

In the scene where Kirk and Pike are arguing and Kirk is defending his record, it's hard to tell since they're talking over each other, but I'm pretty sure Kirk says something like, "How many crewmembers have I lost since I took command? None, that's how many! Not one!" Which would call the canon status of any of the comics where crewmembers died into question.

I also see why Countdown to Darkness referred to the Bajoran woman as Mudd. It's because there was that line in the film about "the K'normian ship we confiscated after the Mudd incident last month." I strongly suspect that the screenwriters intended that to be a reference to Harry Mudd, but for some reason the comics' writer decided to tell a very different story and just grafted on the character name in an awkward way. I mean, why would Kirk refer to the events of CtD as "the Mudd incident" when she was such a peripheral character in the story? Another continuity problem is that the comic ends with Pike assigning Kirk to the Nibiru mission, which -- given the really, really fast warp velocities we see in the Abramsverse -- suggests a much shorter interval between them than one month.

Spoiler: Into Darkness reference from Christopher's post

I haven't seen the movie yet, but... they referenced K'Normians? Wow, I'm actually impressed they would make such an obscure reference!

 

[Christopher]

Spoiler: Into Darkness and spinoffs

First off, I'm not certain how fast the warp velocities necessarily are. Yes, they seem to be faster than in the prime universe, but the relatively short trip from Earth to Vulcan still seemed like it took several hours in the first movie.

In the first movie, there were clear indications that more time passed than it appeared, yes. But here,

Spoiler: STID

there was a pretty continuous sequence of dialogue and action from the moment the ship jumped into warp from the Neutral Zone to Carol going to the bridge to warn Kirk about the Vengeance to the Vengeance blowing the ship out of warp right near Earth. I don't think there's any space there to insert a gap of hours.

Anyways, the video game theoretically happens between Countdown to Darkness and Into Darkness - it starts with the Enterprise being diverted by a distress call (versus the normal mission start to Countdown to Darkness), and also ends with a trip to Nibiru. The video game covers 2259.32-2259.33 - if the Mudd comics ended the day beforehand, that would put it 24 days before Into Darkness, close enough to a month in my book.

That would account for it.

I wonder if there were late script changes giving it an earlier date and adding that scene with Pike, or whether this stuff wasn't actually being vetted as strictly as is implied.

I wouldn't be surprised if the comics writer is just given a list of details and plot points to tie into but isn't necessarily told what significance they'll have in the movie, given how secretive Abrams has been. And there may also be a list of things to avoid contradicting, but they may not think of every last detail. I know from experience how hard it can be to keep every last continuity detail straight between different works.

Spoiler: possible explanation, with Countdown to Darkness spoilers

Well, given that the Pike orders Kirk to erase all mention of Captain April and what he did from the Enterprise logs and never speak of it again, those events would have to be referred to as "the Mudd incident" if Kirk were to follow orders. Presumably no orders were issued to forget Mudd exists.

Yeah, I had that same thought myself. But it's a stretch, and I don't think it's what the movie's writers had in mind.

 

[Fer]

Well, I've seen the movie, and I noticed something.

Spoiler: Into Darkness

In the scene where Kirk and Pike are arguing and Kirk is defending his record, it's hard to tell since they're talking over each other, but I'm pretty sure Kirk says something like, "How many crewmembers have I lost since I took command? None, that's how many! Not one!" Which would call the canon status of any of the comics where crewmembers died into question.

I also see why Countdown to Darkness referred to the Bajoran woman as Mudd. It's because there was that line in the film about "the K'normian ship we confiscated after the Mudd incident last month." I strongly suspect that the screenwriters intended that to be a reference to Harry Mudd, but for some reason the comics' writer decided to tell a very different story and just grafted on the character name in an awkward way. I mean, why would Kirk refer to the events of CtD as "the Mudd incident" when she was such a peripheral character in the story? Another continuity problem is that the comic ends with Pike assigning Kirk to the Nibiru mission, which -- given the really, really fast warp velocities we see in the Abramsverse -- suggests a much shorter interval between them than one month.

Spoiler: Into Darkness / Comic Book spoiler

I seem to recall we'd been noticing that no one has died in the comics-- not even in the comics version of "The Apple!"

 

[sulfur]

The cover page for #21 was redone earlier this week, and 21-23 are currently titled:

Star Trek After Darkness.

 

[Christopher]

Spoiler: Into Darkness / Comic Book spoiler

I seem to recall we'd been noticing that no one has died in the comics-- not even in the comics version of "The Apple!"

Really? Not even in the "Where No Man" and "Galileo Seven" adaptations?

 

[bullethead]

Spoiler: Into Darkness / Comic Book spoiler

I seem to recall we'd been noticing that no one has died in the comics-- not even in the comics version of "The Apple!"

Really? Not even in the "Where No Man" and "Galileo Seven" adaptations?

Kelso shot himself in the head with a phaser, which pokes a big hole in that statement.

 

[Sto-Vo-Kory]

Spoiler: Into Darkness / Comic Book spoiler

I seem to recall we'd been noticing that no one has died in the comics-- not even in the comics version of "The Apple!"

Really? Not even in the "Where No Man" and "Galileo Seven" adaptations?

Eight or so died in the Gary Mitchell issues and they brought one corpse back with them in Galileo 7.

Could the first few issues have occurred after the the events of STiD?

Also

Spoiler: STiD movie

perhaps Kirk was fudging his stats in his argument to Pike to better make his case for his command style and decisions. He also claimed to have been winning the fight in the bar scene from the 09 film not long before/after his "not one death" assertion. Clearly he sprinkles hyperbole into his debates with the admiral and we can safely question his "perfect" record claim as perhaps another example of this.

 

[ATimson]

Could the first few issues have occurred after the the events of STiD?

Plot-wise I think it's possible. The stardates are jacked up in them anyways...

I suspect (though I don't remember for sure) that you'd have to overlook Main Engineering changing back to its 2009 incarnation after the events of Into Darkness, though.

 

[Christopher]

I suspect (though I don't remember for sure) that you'd have to overlook Main Engineering changing back to its 2009 incarnation after the events of Into Darkness, though.

They did use the same brewery for some of the Engineering scenes in STID. They just added location shooting at Livermore Labs for the actual warp core (as well as for a loading platform in the hangar bay, apparently).

Anyway, the comics are full of art-reference errors -- the wrong version of the Enterprise or the wrong phaser design or what-have-you -- so it's best not to take the visuals too literally. Which is a habit that fans of DC's first TOS series also had to learn, since its artists had a very idiosyncratic way of drawing the ship interiors.

 

[ATimson]

They did use the same brewery for some of the Engineering scenes in STID. They just added location shooting at Livermore Labs for the actual warp core (as well as for a loading platform in the hangar bay, apparently).

True (the "communications vats" being one that stood out); I don't think we saw the area that had housed the warp cores (plural) in the last movie in STID, however.

Anyway, the comics are full of art-reference errors -- the wrong version of the Enterprise or the wrong phaser design or what-have-you -- so it's best not to take the visuals too literally.

True. I keep trying to forget those, and succeeding.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Spoiler: Into Darkness / Comic Book spoiler

I seem to recall we'd been noticing that no one has died in the comics-- not even in the comics version of "The Apple!"

Really? Not even in the "Where No Man" and "Galileo Seven" adaptations?

Eight or so died in the Gary Mitchell issues and they brought one corpse back with them in Galileo 7.

Could the first few issues have occurred after the the events of STiD?

Galileo 7 was referenced in Countdown to Darkness so that had to have happened before STID, and Scotty was complaining about the Enterprise's damage from the blackhole not being properly repaired at the start of the Where No Man Has Gone Before adaption.

 

[Tommunist]

The Trek Collective's article on upcoming IDW comics shows a suggested event timeline for the comics: 2256: #20 - Red Level Down

2257:
#18 - Uhura origins
#19 - Scotty origins

2258:
2009 movie
#15 and #16 - Mirrored
#1 and #2 - Where No Man Has Gone Before
#3 and #4 - The Galileo Seven
#5 and #6 - Operation: Annihilate
#7 and #8 - Vulcan's Vengeance
#9 and #10 - The Return of the Archons
#17 - McCoy origins
#13 - The Redshirt's Tale
#14 - Keenser origins

2259:
#11 and #12 - The Truth About Tribbles!
Countdown to Darkness
#21, #22, and #23 - After Darkness

So, no matter how you slice it, you can't reconcile some of the details of STiD with the comics. Nothing new.

What excites me is the fact that there will be a John Harrison mini-series later this year, and the Gorn will appear in the comic, which will hopeully bridge the gap to the video game.

 

[ATimson]

The Trek Collective's article on upcoming IDW comics shows a suggested event timeline for the comics:

The "Tribbles" story has a 2259 stardate, but the one given is during Into Darkness, so it's rather obviously wrong. I think late 2258 (after the McCoy story, before The Redshirt's Tale) is probably better.

(#17 is the last comic with a stardate, taking place on 2258.247, with #10 being shortly beforehand on 2258.241. My assumption is that #11-14 plus Countdown to Darkness, not being flashbacks, all occur in order sometime after #10/#17 and before the video game on 2259.32.)

What excites me is the fact that there will be a John Harrison mini-series later this year, and the Gorn will appear in the comic, which will hopeully bridge the gap to the video game.

Some details in the video game are hard to reconcile with Into Darkness itself. I wonder if (solicitation aside) they'll end up just ignoring the game entirely.

 

[Fer]

Spoiler: Into Darkness / Comic Book spoiler

I seem to recall we'd been noticing that no one has died in the comics-- not even in the comics version of "The Apple!"

Really? Not even in the "Where No Man" and "Galileo Seven" adaptations?

Eight or so died in the Gary Mitchell issues and they brought one corpse back with them in Galileo 7.

Could the first few issues have occurred after the the events of STiD?

Also

Spoiler: STiD movie

perhaps Kirk was fudging his stats in his argument to Pike to better make his case for his command style and decisions. He also claimed to have been winning the fight in the bar scene from the 09 film not long before/after his "not one death" assertion. Clearly he sprinkles hyperbole into his debates with the admiral and we can safely question his "perfect" record claim as perhaps another example of this.

I stand corrected.

 

[Christopher]

Spoiler: Comics and STID

I suppose the "Galileo Seven" death could be reconciled with Kirk's line since it technically happened under Spock's command. But the WNM adaptation is harder to reconcile.

 

[Sto-Vo-Kory]

Spoiler: Comics and STID

I suppose the "Galileo Seven" death could be reconciled with Kirk's line since it technically happened under Spock's command. But the WNM adaptation is harder to reconcile.

The first two issues are hardest for me to reconcile, too. They may have to be removed from my personal continuity, which wouldn't be a horrible thing as they feel "off" style-wise and story-wise from the issues that follow anyway.

 

[Nightowl1701]

Well, I've seen the movie, and I noticed something.

Spoiler: Into Darkness

In the scene where Kirk and Pike are arguing and Kirk is defending his record, it's hard to tell since they're talking over each other, but I'm pretty sure Kirk says something like, "How many crewmembers have I lost since I took command? None, that's how many! Not one!" Which would call the canon status of any of the comics where crewmembers died into question.

I also see why Countdown to Darkness referred to the Bajoran woman as Mudd. It's because there was that line in the film about "the K'normian ship we confiscated after the Mudd incident last month." I strongly suspect that the screenwriters intended that to be a reference to Harry Mudd, but for some reason the comics' writer decided to tell a very different story and just grafted on the character name in an awkward way. I mean, why would Kirk refer to the events of CtD as "the Mudd incident" when she was such a peripheral character in the story? Another continuity problem is that the comic ends with Pike assigning Kirk to the Nibiru mission, which -- given the really, really fast warp velocities we see in the Abramsverse -- suggests a much shorter interval between them than one month.

Are we sure we heard what we thought we heard? The Alan Dean Foster novelization renders that scene as follows:

Spoiler: Still SPOILERS, I guess...

PIKE: You were supposed to survey a planet—not alter its destiny. You violated a dozen Starfleet regulations, and almost got everyone under your command killed!
KIRK: Except I didn’t. You know how many crewmembers I’ve lost since—
PIKE: That’s your problem. You think you’re infallible. You think you can’t make a mistake. There’s a pattern with you, that rules are for other people.