• 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!

COUNTDOWN TO DARKNESS 5-page preview

The Wormhole said:
EyalM said:
Kirk's line in the comic about getting the new Enterprise can still work, if the refit was extensive enough. Decker claimed the Enterprise to be new in TMP, so why not here?
Click to expand...

Decker's actual line was "this is an almost entirely new Enterprise." He was being metaphorical, not literal.
Click to expand...

And it was mostly part of trying to get Kirk to stop thinking he could just jump back in the center seat like the 2 years since he was last there hadn't happened by reminding him they changed a lot of stuff on the ship.

throwback said:
I do have an issue with the depiction of the USS Archon. It doesn't look anything like a Daedalus-class starship.
Click to expand...

To be fair nothing on screen ever said or showed what a Daedalus-class starship looks like, everyone just assumed the model on Sisko's desk was of a Daedalus-class.
 
That's why I concluded that paragraph by stating that I can live with that inconsistency. I think that it's possible to accept an idea when introduced by someone else, especially when that else is a person of authority, and not question it. The comic presented an alternate version of the Archon that could be as legitmate as the Daedalus-class Archon.
 
Franklin said:
The Wormhole said:
King Daniel said:
It's worth pointing out that the 2245 launch date for the Primeverse Enterprise is conjecture originally from the TNG Technical Manual. AFAIK, it's never been said on-screen. So despite how it was drawn in the comic (and IMO these ship designs can be recast as easily as actors), April's Enterprise and the ship we see in TOS may be one and the same.
Click to expand...

2245 is in the Defiant's database as the Enterprise's launch date, and besides, even if April's and the ship in TOS are the same, why is the Abramsprise 1701?
Click to expand...

True. But when push comes to shove, why should anyone be limited by that date and registry numbers when it's all made up, anyway?

[soap box] This is a bit of a rant, but frankly, what really fries my fish is when REAL history is drastically distorted in a movie (ususally under the guise of "artistic license"). "Lincoln" is a great movie that's pretty true to history, but there's one particular moment that taints the movie for me because it's so wrong. So very wrong that I have pointed it out to my students as (in my opinion) going beyond the artistic license you have to allow in these movies sometimes for brevity and drama.

In the movie, using true artistic license, the voting on the 13th Amendment in the House was done alphabetically by state, even though in reality, the vote was done alphabeticaly by member name. The big deal (overuse of "artistic license") to me was that in the movie, the entire Connecticut delegation votes "no" on the amendment, even though in reality those CT members were abolitionists who supported Lincoln openly and all of them voted FOR the amendment. The makers said they did it the other way to simplify things. Connecticut, starting with "C," is one of the first states to vote, and having them all vote "no" heightened the dramatic tension of the vote.

If real and important historical events in a movie, one that's even trying pretty hard to be as accurate as possible, can be deliberately and drastically distorted for dramatic effect, then what the hell's wrong with retconnnig the date of the construction of a fictional starship in order to tell a story? [/soap box]

Again, sorry for the rant.
Click to expand...

Your rant piqued my curiosity as I did my graduate work on historical feature films and the way they influence the general public's perception of history. Among the things I examined were, of course, the juxtaposition of dramatic emphasis with historical distortions (and the extent to which such distortions pose problems). In the literature, I found two broad points of view on this matter--one where indignation was the norm and one where allowances were made for the format of film that would not be made for more traditional forms of presentation. I began my research with leanings toward the former position but concluded (and have become ever more convinced) the latter position is the way to go.

Now, as to the specific point of the Connecticut vote in Lincoln, I have no serious qualms about the choice (as the dramatic tension was heightened by the choice--even though I knew before viewing the film about Connecticut's actual vote, it did not stand out in the scene as the drama was compelling enough). However, I might have chosen a different tack by not showing Connecticut's vote at all (and omitting a couple of other ones). This would have avoided the factual error and maintained the drama (though others would no doubt have complained that a particular state's vote had been ignored). A similar situation is found in Argo. The dramatically effective action in the airport in the closing act of the film bears little resemblance to reality. Reality, though, would have been rather boring. Dramatic license in service of a commercial feature film was an appropriate option there (as it was in Lincoln).

In my work, I concluded that rather than gleefully nitpick historical feature films for flaws and factual errors (as many historians do--and in so doing come to resemble some of the more strident Trek purists), using such deviations from the historical record as starting points for discussions, and having students analyze why such deviations are there, make for a more fruitful exercise. So while a horrible history film like The Patriot can easily be dismissed as full of nonsense, that's too easy a path to follow (and it is a hollow discussion). I've found it to be an effective lesson in how popular cultural representations of historical events often reveal a great deal about the present, even as they distort (more or less heavily) the past.

Ok. Probably too much off topic. So, what was the topic again? :lol:

Oh yeah--April's Enterprise? Don't really care how it is depicted in a comic book. Is that the right answer?
 
When I watch a historical drama, I check the history behind the film. So, I suppose that these films are encouraging me to learn more about history.
 
If there are other Federation starships, or any starship for that matter, in the movie, I doubt that it will look like the hero ship. That whole thing about confusing the audience.
 
How's this for bizarre - Trekmovie.com's Anthony Pascale is in the Countdown to Darkness credits, but any comment mentioning this on their site is being deleted. I only know because of some people deliberately misspelling his name to avoid the find-and-delete script. I wonder why?

(although it does explain why he was so desperately pushing Bob Orci to declare the comics canon a few months ago. Poor guy needs to learn that canon isn't everything.)
 
King Daniel said:
How's this for bizarre - Trekmovie.com's Anthony Pascale is in the Countdown to Darkness credits, but any comment mentioning this on their site is being deleted. I only know because of some people deliberately misspelling his name to avoid the find-and-delete script. I wonder why?

(although it does explain why he was so desperately pushing Bob Orci to declare the comics canon a few months ago. Poor guy needs to learn that canon isn't everything.)
Click to expand...

Nice to know everyone has an ulterior motive. :lol:
 
King Daniel said:
How's this for bizarre - Trekmovie.com's Anthony Pascale is in the Countdown to Darkness credits, but any comment mentioning this on their site is being deleted. I only know because of some people deliberately misspelling his name to avoid the find-and-delete script. I wonder why?

(although it does explain why he was so desperately pushing Bob Orci to declare the comics canon a few months ago. Poor guy needs to learn that canon isn't everything.)
Click to expand...

On Comicvine, he's listed as a creative consultant, which could mean about anything. The link is below. On the page, his name is on the left under "Creators Credits." Click on any of the person's names, and you get their titles.

http://www.comicvine.com/star-trek-countdown-to-darkness/49-56122/
 
King Daniel said:
How's this for bizarre - Trekmovie.com's Anthony Pascale is in the Countdown to Darkness credits, but any comment mentioning this on their site is being deleted. I only know because of some people deliberately misspelling his name to avoid the find-and-delete script. I wonder why?

(although it does explain why he was so desperately pushing Bob Orci to declare the comics canon a few months ago. Poor guy needs to learn that canon isn't everything.)
Click to expand...



This is inferring a lot.
 
I wonder why he's trying to keep it under wraps? Maybe so he doesn't get the fanrage from every incorrectly drawn Enterprise or inexplicable continuity-shredding plot twist?
 
My Name Is Legion said:
King Daniel said:
How's this for bizarre - Trekmovie.com's Anthony Pascale is in the Countdown to Darkness credits, but any comment mentioning this on their site is being deleted. I only know because of some people deliberately misspelling his name to avoid the find-and-delete script. I wonder why?

(although it does explain why he was so desperately pushing Bob Orci to declare the comics canon a few months ago. Poor guy needs to learn that canon isn't everything.)
Click to expand...



This is inferring a lot.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Not only that, Mr. Pascale has been a supporter of including the comics and whatever else members of the Supreme Court are involved in since Countdown came out in 2009. Though, it is absolutely true that canon isn't everything.
 
King Daniel said:
I wonder why he's trying to keep it under wraps? Maybe so he doesn't get the fanrage from every incorrectly drawn Enterprise or inexplicable continuity-shredding plot twist?
Click to expand...

Tell me how the automatic delete function works - does it only delete posts referencing Anthony's name in the context of the comic, or does it delete all posts referencing the name?
 
So what if Anthony has his hand in the till
Good for him. I had many good Times there back when it was a site about TOS remastered and was basically me, Bailey, Spockboy and a few other

Anyway more importantly,

Is Khan's ship going to be the original (April's Connieish) Enterprise..?
Am I the only one who thinks that's beyond fcking cool?
Remember in one of the leaked there is a ship with a very. Connie looking nacelle going into some space hanger
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top