Crazy theory about STXI timeline

[doctorwho 03]

First off, I'm one of those people who count TAS as part of the official canon. So when I heard of Captain Pike being in this new movie and no mention of Captain Robert April, I thought 'This movie is screwing with continuity.' After a while, I think I've come up with a possible way to include April and therefore TAS into the setting for STXI.

OK, we know from spoilers floating around the internet that Kirk spends some time at Starfleet Academy before going aboard Enterprise. I don't know if it's been established how many years of Academy training it takes to even set one foot on a starship, but would it be illogical to assume it could take 5 years or so? According to the Star Trek Encyclopedia (which will definately need to be reprinted after this movie comes out ) Captain April is captain of the Big E for a 5 year mission followed by Captain Pike who gets two 5 years missions. Based on that, I'm theorizing that Kirk spends his Academy days during Aprils 5 year mission, then comes aboard the Enterprise during Pikes first 5 year mission at a point before the events in 'The Cage'. After that, Kirk serves aboard the other ships canon says he served on before coming back to the Enterprise as its captain.

So, what do you think of this? We won't know for sure until the movie comes out, but do you think this theory could work or do you think I drank too much Saurian Brandy?

 

[Eric Cheung]

Well, if you take Kirk to be born exactly 300 years after William Shatner, and if Kirk took four years then he'd be the class of 2254, the same year The Cage took place. Supposedly the Enterprise launched in 2245, Kirk would have been 13 (which he obviously wasn't according to the trailer), but this movie does span a lot of time, so maybe the ship was launched in like 2250 or something, when Kirk was a freshman, not long after the bar fight. Or maybe it was later. All I know is I don't think it's neccesarily when the ship was launched.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

I agree in principle with the idea that the Enterprise could have been launched years before this film takes place with April as Captain. I've been saying this for about a year: this film is about the history of the crew, not the history of the Enterprise...

...However, where exactly does the year 2245 for the original launch come from? I have another theory that the ship could have been built right around the early 2250s (say 2253) and April was only the Captain for a very short "shakedown cruise" (maybe for only a few months?) before handing over the ship to Pike.

Is there anything in canon (or even TAS) that precludes this from being the way it happened?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

This movie will pretty surely make Christopher Pike the canonical first captain of the Enterprise.

Which is very cool, as Hunter/Pike was the first actor to portray the ship's captain on "Star Trek"...just as it's rather fitting that Leonard Nimoy will almost certainly be the last member of the original cast to appear in a canonical Trek production, as he was the only member of the original TV series cast to appear in the first pilot.

April was just a few cels in a cartoon that the studio doesn't even count in the canon. Only a very few hardcore fans will ever miss him.

 

[number6]

Only a very few hardcore fans will ever miss him.

Well, one anyway.

 

[milo bloom]

I'll miss him too.

With all the mentions the writers have given to the novels, you'd think they'd want to take advantage of such an interesting character in some way.

 

[SalvorHardin]

I'll miss him too.

With all the mentions the writers have given to the novels, you'd think they'd want to take advantage of such an interesting character in some way.

Personally, I'd rather they take advantage of the limited time a movie offers and focus on the other 10 or so interesting characters that already are in the movie.

No need to add a non-canon, minor character as well.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

I won't exactly "miss" April, nor do I think disavowing the existence of April is a sign of this being a bad film...I just think that there could have been some innocuous way to include April as the canonical first Captain. A little "nod" to the fans is not a bad thing.

 

[SalvorHardin]

I won't exactly "miss" April, nor do I think disavowing the existence of April is a sign of this being a bad film...I just think that there could have been some innocuous way to include April as the canonical first Captain. A little "nod" to the fans is not a bad thing.

A little nod is indeed not a bad thing... But fans, myself included at times, are insatiable.
They want nods about this, nods about that, cameos here, cameos there... A line must be drawn somewhere and fortunately or unfortunately April got the boot it seems.

 

[DaveyNY]

I'll miss him too.

With all the mentions the writers have given to the novels, you'd think they'd want to take advantage of such an interesting character in some way.

Personally, I'd rather they take advantage of the limited time a movie offers and focus on the other 10 or so interesting characters that already are in the movie.

No need to add a non-canon, minor character as well.

Personally, I hope They Do take a second or two to just mention Capt. April in a conversation during the movie.

Just because it would show that JJ & Company really do give a "rats ass" about those of US that have kept Trek Alive through all its incarnations for the last 40 years!

Call it what you will, wankery or whatever, but it would certainly be a nice gesture on Their part.

And it wouldn't hurt a thing.

 

[Eric Cheung]

...However, where exactly does the year 2245 for the original launch come from? I have another theory that the ship could have been built right around the early 2250s (say 2253) and April was only the Captain for a very short "shakedown cruise" (maybe for only a few months?) before handing over the ship to Pike.

Is there anything in canon (or even TAS) that precludes this from being the way it happened?

Upon doing further research it doesn't appear to have been said anywhere other than perhaps The Counter-Clock Incident. But even then, I doubt they mentioned the year, since most people assumed Trek took place in the early 23rd century until dates were given in TNG.

I agree, that's certainly a way to have it both ways. April could have been a designer or, as depicted in Final Frontier, a visionary who came up with the concept for what this ship was supposed to be all about. His captaincy of the Enterprise could have been merely a formality. And that's in the universe as we know it.

This is all just theoretical discussion. Whether this is officially a canon reboot or not, for all intents and purposes it is. So the point is kind of moot. There will probably not be a Robert April in this version of Trek. It might have been nice, but it's perfectly fine that he's not in it.

 

[Kelso]

Well, I think the Enterprise will launch when Kirk is 25-30 years old (just after he finishes a 3 year stint at the academy) and Pike will captain the ship for only one mission before Kirk takes over full-time at the end of the film.

 

[Irishman]

I won't exactly "miss" April, nor do I think disavowing the existence of April is a sign of this being a bad film...I just think that there could have been some innocuous way to include April as the canonical first Captain. A little "nod" to the fans is not a bad thing.

We fans were given lots of nods already.

SF HQ that is VERY reminescent of the FJ design from the Tech Manual. How much more geek pron can you get?

The hero ship is still recognizable as the Enterprise in form. (IE - saucer shape primary hull with a secondary engineering/hangar hull with 2 long thin warp engines connected via pylons to the secondary hull.

Christopher Pike is a nod.

Kirk from Iowa is a nod.

Spock from Vulcan and still looking like a Vulcan is a nod

Chekov being Russian is a nod

Uhura being African is a nod

Scotty being Scottish is a nod

Primary color uniform tops with black pants is a nod

Do I need to keep going?

How many nods do you need before you're satisfied? Enough to make it look like a head-banger?

 

[Soar_Dude]

April was just a few cels in a cartoon that the studio doesn't even count in the canon. Only a very few hardcore fans will ever miss him.

How do you figure that when they used the robot freighters from TAS in Remastered?

Soar Dude

 

[gastrof]

April was just a few cels in a cartoon that the studio doesn't even count in the canon. Only a very few hardcore fans will ever miss him.

How do you figure that when they used the robot freighters from TAS in Remastered?

Soar Dude

To be honest, just having ships onscreen in live action Trek that look like ships seen in TAS doesn't canonize all of TAS. Just the one element.

As a "change NOTHING!!!" fan, who also recognizes TAS isn't canon, I can sort of accept April being excluded from the timeline, but I also wish he'd been included. It just feels right.

Also, it butchers the timeline worse than the movie can explain. From the destruction of the Kelvin on, all the various changes from what we know as TOS cn be blamed on the Romulans.

Problem?

I can't see how the destruction of the Kelvin causes the Enterprise to be built during Kirk's teens or 20's.

I don't have my Compendium handy, so don't know how the period April was the E's captain matches up with Kirk's lifetime. I'd still have to guess she gets built "late" in the movie, too late for April to have been her commander for even a day.

If that's the case, tho', how in the world does the Romulan's temporal incursion cause THIS?

The only thing I can think of is that maybe the Enteprise we know existed at the time the Kelvin was destroyed, and was immediately scrapped in favor of a new one (with the same registration number) being built, or she was ABOUT to be built, and those plans got scrapped, the ship not being built until years later, with better tech than the Kelvin had.

This would leave April driving a bus or something, I guess.

 

[DaveyNY]

I won't exactly "miss" April, nor do I think disavowing the existence of April is a sign of this being a bad film...I just think that there could have been some innocuous way to include April as the canonical first Captain. A little "nod" to the fans is not a bad thing.

We fans were given lots of nods already.

SF HQ that is VERY reminiscent of the FJ design from the Tech Manual. How much more geek pron can you get?

The hero ship is still recognizable as the Enterprise in form. (IE - saucer shape primary hull with a secondary engineering/hangar hull with 2 long thin warp engines connected via pylons to the secondary hull.

Christopher Pike is a nod.

Kirk from Iowa is a nod.

Spock from Vulcan and still looking like a Vulcan is a nod

Chekov being Russian is a nod

Uhura being African is a nod

Scotty being Scottish is a nod

Primary color uniform tops with black pants is a nod

Do I need to keep going?

How many nods do you need before you're satisfied? Enough to make it look like a head-banger?

Well... IMHO.... the only thing you've listed above that would count as a NOD, would be Star Fleet HQ looking like a FJ design.

All the rest of the list ARE STAR TREK at it's core.

If ya change any or all of those items why the Hell would ya bother to call the movie STAR TREK?!

I've understood that design changes were inevitable from the get go and I guess in order to make the movie more interesting some kind of Mcguffin would have to have been used (Time Travel) in order to keep the audience guessing.

But, like the old saying goes....
"Don't throw the baby out with the dirty bath water."

In other words...
Bringing in a new audience to Trek is great, but don't alienate it's core audience just to get that new one.

From the little bit WE've seen so far, in my opinion, it appears that JJ and Company are attempting to walk that Very Thin, Tightrope Line to accomplish what nobody else has done in many years, in essence Please Both the Old and the New.

I have my fingers crossed that They succeed.

My feeling is that by adding Many MINOR NOD's to Trek, They might be throwing a carrot to those of 'US' who would be the most disenfranchised by the MAJOR CHANGES.

And again in my opinion, the more NOD's to OLD TREK I see in the movie, the happier I'll be to accept the New Changes.

It'll be like moving out of a one bedroom apartment I've lived in for 20 years or more, into a brand-spankin' new, two bedroom condo...

I'm damn sure gonna take with me all my belonging's so that even though I'm in a totally new setting, I'll still have memento's and personal effects to make me feel as comfortable as possible with my new surroundings.

Probably eventually I'll come around to the changes and begin to let go of old thing's, but I sure as Hell don't wanna be forced to give them up in one fell swoop!

 

[btflash]

I won't exactly "miss" April, nor do I think disavowing the existence of April is a sign of this being a bad film...I just think that there could have been some innocuous way to include April as the canonical first Captain. A little "nod" to the fans is not a bad thing.

do we indeed know with certainty that there will be no one portraying april in this film?

 

[Eric Cheung]

I hear it's Shatner as April.

 

[Red Ranger]

People,

It doesn't really bug me all that much that Captain April isn't in this film. Frankly, the fact that there's a Captain Pike is the best homage to the genesis of ST.

And isn't it true that since TAS isn't considered canon, neither is Robert April? I think having yet another captain before Pike muddies things up. There are some folks who don't even know about Captain Pike, who appeared in the original series, let alone a character never depicted in live action. After all, April was just (a) a proposed name in a script and (b) a character in a cartoon.

I agree with Irishman that we fans have gotten plenty of nods and homages to TOS. Let it go!

Red Ranger

 

[btflash]

I hear it's Shatner as April.

well , at least that would get him in the film.