Preview--IDW's Star trek ongoing #1

[Pauln6]

I certainly hope that more than one woman ends up on the Galileo 7 and an Andorian would get a big thumbs up from me.

Sadly, I'm sure IDW said that the Cover B recruitment poster doesn't relate to the internal story in #3.

How does a romance with Suzie Plakson grab Therin?

Well, Suzie and I have worked together on stage. I have been her MC, and wrote her convention program mini-biography. And an anecdote about Suzie's visit Down Under, which I told to a songwriter, was turned into a song called "Lead Foot Suzie" and released on a CD.

Ok then, I'll flip a coin to see which one is horribly killed seconds after the wedding in the true tradition of old school Star Trek.

I didn't notice the stardate trick - it was probably an error. Some of the original stardates were aired out of order and the comic run might jiggle the order some more so if they revert to the old version and just copy them from the episodes I assume that they will be even more screwed up.

 

[Fer]

I noticed that in the second issue, they reverted to using the classic series stardate system instead of the system used in the the 2009 movie. I'm wondering why they did that, unless it was just a mistake on the part of the writers.

Yeah, I noticed that too. My first thought was "Hey! That should be a lower stardate since this is taking place earlier!" ...Totally forgetting the fact that the movie used the calendar year as the stardate anyway.

Overall, I was disappointed with this issue.

Spoiler: Gary's condition and the ending to issue #2

Since last issue established that Mitchell was dead and something else had taken him over, I was hoping this issue would tell us what that something was. Instead, the major reinterpretation is Spock gives him a nerve pinch in the final battle.

Maybe I got my hopes up to high, but I felt the potential was really there for the story to go into a different direction. But when all was said and done it was pretty much the same as the TV episode with just a few tweaks.

 

[C.E. Evans]

I noticed that in the second issue, they reverted to using the classic series stardate system instead of the system used in the the 2009 movie. I'm wondering why they did that, unless it was just a mistake on the part of the writers.

Personally, I'm inclined to think it was deliberate (the movie style stardate system was used in the first issue). The comic may use the TOS stardate system to avoid trampling over the ones in the next movie.

Issue #3 will probably give us the answer if it was a mistake or intentional.

There is, I suppose, another possibility...