It's not the size of the ship, it's the motion of the subspace.
Countdown to Darkness - Review and Discussion
- Thread starter JD
- Start date
It's not the size of the ship, it's the motion of the subspace.
Thanks for that, KD. Shame we didn't catch that NX style ship onscreen back in 2009. I'd have loved to have seen it, even as a painting in the background of shot. I've followed the link, and again from Trekmovie to Ain'titcool, but encountered problems with the images due to my browser. I assume they were just shots outside filming extras in and around the building dressed as Starfleet Academy.
I believe the pics were taken down by Paramount not long after leaking online. I remember they were shots of the outside of the library, with loads of cadets standing around on the grass and one or two pics of Chris Pine in the red uniform.
^ Is the "JJ refit" version of the NX class the same as the Doug Drexler refit? The one with the secondary hull?
IIRC, it didn't have the secondary hull, just an Abramsprise look in terms of components (especially the nacelles).
Right ship, but there's a picture of it intact later in the issue.
Fascinating. It's possible that unseen NX-01ish set decoration, or a photo of it, ended up in IDW's hands and was used as a reference. Or maybe they just bashed together the series and movie Enterprises to make their USS Archon.
IIRC, a series-faithful hologram of the NX-01 appeared in young Jim Kirk's room in a prior issue.
IIRC, a series-faithful hologram of the NX-01 appeared in young Jim Kirk's room in a prior issue.
Thanks for posting the pic! It doesn't quite match the description of the modified-NX supposedly seen during filming of the movie (no gun in place of the deflector, no fins protruding from beneath the nacelles) but it's very interesting to see nonetheless. Either a second generation NX-class (with design features that would be recycled in the AU Enterprise but forgotten in Prime), or more likely just a slight reimagining. That looks like Drexler's secondary hull, but instead of being beneath the saucer it's protruding from the rear of it.
Or it's just an artist's impression that shouldn't be taken too literally. Lots of Trek comics have given us rather eccentric depictions of various Starfleet vessels. The first issue of DC's first Trek comic made the TWOK-era Enterprise's shuttlebay look like a transparent prism-shaped window of some sort. The recurring Surak in that series looked variously like the Oberth-class ship it was supposed to be, a miniature Excelsior-class ship, and an indistinct slab cluttered with radar dishes and other technological greebles. And then there's the Mirror Universe issue of the IDW Ongoing series that showed the TMP Enterprise in place of the Abrams version, and in another panel used the 1701-A registry (or was it B?) by mistake.
So as a rule, I'd say it's best not to sweat the details when it comes to comic-book portrayals of Trek ships.
So as a rule, I'd say it's best not to sweat the details when it comes to comic-book portrayals of Trek ships.
Hey, I did say it was most likely slightly reimagined - as in, that artist's version of the NX-class.
And it was "1701-D" on the registry, written on a very unique saucer
And it was "1701-D" on the registry, written on a very unique saucer
^But my point is that artists in Trek comics can make assumptions that don't mesh with the universe or with authorial intent. The artist may just have been thinking "I need to make this look Abramsy" and not realized that the timelines didn't diverge until 2233, so that anything earlier would've been the same as in the Prime continuity. In short, I'd just chalk it up to an art error rather than concocting excuses for how those nacelles could've existed in the 2160s.
Written on a recognizable saucer, off-center.And it was "1701-D" on the registry, written on a very unique saucer
(I wouldn't call the movie-era saucer "very unique" - the Abramsverse one is very similar except for the bridge dome structure, I thought.)
It does look a bit weird to see an NX with Abrams nacelles.
Guess this would add more fuel to the fire that the Abramsverse isn't just an alternate timeline, but an entire alternate universe to begin with... as would this:
Guess this would add more fuel to the fire that the Abramsverse isn't just an alternate timeline, but an entire alternate universe to begin with... as would this:
the depiction of Landru being completely incompatible with the way the TOS episode showed him
^I haven't read the "Archons" adaptation yet, but from what I gather, that could be more a case of what we thought we knew being wrong, rather than the facts actually being different.
And again, it's worth remembering that the comics are not canonical, according to Roberto Orci himself.
And again, it's worth remembering that the comics are not canonical, according to Roberto Orci himself.
Similar threads
