IDW Star Trek Ongoing...

[Daddy Todd]

I don't want to interrupt the nonstop "Zahra" thread, but I wanted to say that I thought #31 was a step up from the last 2-parter. OK, so "I, Enterprise" doesn't have anything much like a plot yet, but the "origin of 0317" (that was his name, right? I could go check, but I'm too lazy...) was involving. I give it as thumb up.

 

[Pauln6]

I think 2-parter origin stories work well because they have a focus. The previous story would have been fine if it had been followed up by an actual 3 or 4 part story. It will be interesting to see where they go with 0718 longer term. I hope it heralds the introduction of a few more alien crewmen over time as well.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I'm curious, if he's unique as the comic says, why is he named Science Officer 0718? When I saw the name in the movie credits (so much for GATT2000) I must admit it made me think AU Starfleet is operating some kind of Universal Soldier program.

 

[shapeshifter]

'He' is the 718th prototype in a line dating back to Dr Soong's work first imagined in prison at the conclusion of Enterprise's The Augments?

 

[Pauln6]

He might just be the 718th crewman.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Maybe he served on USS Biddeford and named himself after its registry number?

 

[DarthPipes]

Have they actually begun the five-year mission yet in the series?

 

[Therin of Andor]

Have they actually begun the five-year mission yet in the series?

Yes, but this two-parter is (mostly?) a flashback to Science Officer 0718's origins.

 

[Cadet49]

Why the one year jump ahead to 2261?

Why have the comics suddenly jumped ahead by a year, to 2261, when we only got two story lines in 2260 (After Darkness and the Gorn colony story)... The Khitomer Conflict starts at Stardate 2261.147 (If the 147 represents days into the year from Jan 1, that would be around May 27 ... The Gorn colony mission of the previous issue was on Stardate 2260.115 (Which would be April 25, 2260, since there are 31 days in January, 28 in Feb, 31 in March, then add 25 days to make the 115) - why did the story jump ahead almost a year? Was there a reason that anyone can see, plot-wise?

 

[F. King Daniel]

Didn't the comics initially ignore the one year jump at the end of ID (which was added in post production)? Perhaps they're just compensating for that at last.

 

[Christopher]

But STID ended in 2260, after most of the film occurring in 2259.

As I recall, the comics haven't been in consistent chronological order anyway. They've jumped around a fair bit.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

But STID ended in 2260, after most of the film occurring in 2259.

As I recall, the comics haven't been in consistent chronological order anyway. They've jumped around a fair bit.

Plus it's not like the star date system generation confusion on when things take place is a new thing.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I rarely bother to dwell on Stardates or distances between spacial landmarks. It's not why I enjoy Star Trek.

 

[JD]

I haven't read read the comics in question but as a general rule, I agree with Therein here. Trying to analyze that stuff in Trek just seems to lead to even more confusion.

 

[The Wormhole]

^^That logic might hold in the previous Treks where the stardates generally are random numbers (despite the 24th century's attempt to try to add consistency to them). But since the stardates in the Abramsverse are basically just the Earth calendar year, it does make that sort of thing stick out a bit more.

 

[Pauln6]

^^That logic might hold in the previous Treks where the stardates generally are random numbers (despite the 24th century's attempt to try to add consistency to them). But since the stardates in the Abramsverse are basically just the Earth calendar year, it does make that sort of thing stick out a bit more.

Which is an odd decision in itself. You can just visualise some money man in a office: "What's the crazy numbers? Change 'em so everybody can understand." It does seem like a shame when some of the innovation of the sixties show gets stomped on by modern ignorance.

Although it would not be hard to have a Trek calendar in the cloud upon which the writers could add each mission on a date, I think we'd probably realise that the realistically most of the time the ship would just be travelling in between star systems.

 

[Markonian]

Although it would not be hard to have a Trek calendar in the cloud upon which the writers could add each mission on a date, I think we'd probably realise that the realistically most of the time the ship would just be travelling in between star systems.

At least the 24th century stardates can be determined easily with the Stardate Calculator. The 23rd century ones, however, most likely don't make any sense whatsoever.

 

[Christopher]

At least the 24th century stardates can be determined easily with the Stardate Calculate.

Except that what date information we can extract from actual onscreen evidence doesn't actually correspond to what that calculator's stardates suggest -- for instance, the stardate of the First Contact Day celebration according to VGR. No matter how much we try to pretend there's a consistent pattern to any given stardate system, there really isn't. Even the new movie stardates don't quite add up -- it's generally accepted that Kirk was born on March 22 (same as Shatner), and was maybe born just a week or two early in the Abramsverse (since he was born on the ship instead of on Earth), but the cited stardate was 2233.04, which by the alleged Abramsverse scheme would be January 4, 2233.

 

[Stevil2001]

A lot of things in Star Trek are "generally accepted" that aren't remotely true.

 

[ClayinCA]

A lot of things in Star Trek are "generally accepted" that aren't remotely true.

I generally accept that.