Star Trek Ongoing IDW After Darkness Question

[BlueMetroid]

The end of Into Darkness takes place a year after the events of the rest of the movie, yet in the first issue of After Darkness (12 I think?) they're talking about events in the film as if they just recently happened. Am I missing something? Can anyone shed any light on this? Do some of the comics take place during that year timespan?

 

[Christopher]

^I think it's the writer of the comic who missed something. It goes to show how difficult it is to keep an ongoing tie-in consistent with an ongoing screen production.

It's possible that the line in the movie about a year elapsing before the closing scene was added late in post-production; I think the novelization doesn't include it. So maybe the change was made too late for the comics to acknowledge it.

 

[F. King Daniel]

^According to the extras on the Best Buy version of Into Darkness, the one year gap was indeed added in post-production. I assume the comic was written or plotted prior to the change.

 

[BlueMetroid]

Ah, that makes much more sense! I thought I overlooked a stardate or detail somewhere...

 

[The Wormhole]

Personally, I thought Chris Pine's delivery of the line in the movie made it vague if he was referring to that final scene being a year after the main story of the movie or if he was talking about first taking command of the Enterprise a year earlier.

EG, the way the line is meant to be is this:

We are here today to rechristen the USS Enterprise, and to honor those who lost their lives nearly one year ago. When Christopher Pike first gave me his ship, he had me recite the captain's oath.

However, in my opinion, Pine's delivery of the line made it sound like this:

"We are here today to rechristen the USS Enterprise, and to honor those who lost their lives. Nearly one year ago, when Christopher Pike first gave me his ship, he had me recite the captain's oath."

 

[Christopher]

^Maybe, but it's logical that a significant amount of time must have passed. The Enterprise was half-destroyed, and would've needed extensive repairs. Indeed, it had clearly undergone some changes to its impulse engines and warp nacelles in the final scene. That's why the filmmakers added the "one year ago" reference -- because they realized the final scene only made sense if there was a big time gap preceding it.

 

[The Wormhole]

Oh, I agree the final scene is one year later. I'm just saying Pine's delivery of the line kind of muddles the matter a bit.

 

[Christopher]

I didn't find it confusing. I just don't think a speaker would end a sentence with "those who lost their lives" without some kind of followup to specify where, when, or how. After all, lots of people have lost their lives at various times, so some degree of specificity is called for. So it was clear to me that "nearly one year ago" modified that, regardless of his delivery.

 

[Noddy]

Will the comics address the problem of Enterprise's super-fast return to Earth from Qo'noS? I think that is in need of being explained.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Will the comics address the problem of Enterprise's super-fast return to Earth from Qo'noS? I think that is in need of being explained.

Gosh, maybe some future tie-in comic or novel writer will toss in a line or an in-joke explaining it. Then thousands of fans will spend countless words arguing for and against that clever/lazy explanation. And suggest better ones.

Why does everything need to be explained?

 

[Noddy]

Will the comics address the problem of Enterprise's super-fast return to Earth from Qo'noS? I think that is in need of being explained.

Gosh, maybe some future tie-in comic or novel writer will toss in a line or an in-joke explaining it. Then thousands of fans will spend countless words arguing for and against that clever/lazy explanation. And suggest better ones.

Why does everything need to be explained?

Because that part of the film was stupid and diminishes its respectability?

 

[Christopher]

Will the comics address the problem of Enterprise's super-fast return to Earth from Qo'noS? I think that is in need of being explained.

I like to assume the battle took a lot longer than shown, that there was a lengthy pursuit between the first salvo and the ship being knocked out of warp. That's really the only place you could fit in more.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Noddy needs to read this. Abrams' people likely simply decided that for their movies, warp speed was going to be more like it was in STV than in Voyager. If you get too invested in nitpicking and needing to explain away discrepancies, you'll lose sight of enjoying what's in front of you.

 

[Noddy]

That, or it was something to do with the Vengeance's advanced warp drive. It was highly experimental, after all, we don't know what it was capable of.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I like to assume the battle took a lot longer than shown, that there was a lengthy pursuit between the first salvo and the ship being knocked out of warp.

And if it was "The Star Trek Hobbit: The Desolation of Harrison and Marcus", we'd still be in that cinema.

 

[Noddy]

Will the comics address the problem of Enterprise's super-fast return to Earth from Qo'noS? I think that is in need of being explained.

I like to assume the battle took a lot longer than shown, that there was a lengthy pursuit between the first salvo and the ship being knocked out of warp. That's really the only place you could fit in more.

So why did Marcus stop blasting the crap out of Enterprise until it was approaching Earth?

 

[Noddy]

The film clearly shows Enterprise exiting warp space immediately after the Vengeance's first strike. There simply isn't room for a long pursuit.

 

[bbailey861]

Will the comics address the problem of Enterprise's super-fast return to Earth from Qo'noS? I think that is in need of being explained.

Gosh, maybe some future tie-in comic or novel writer will toss in a line or an in-joke explaining it. Then thousands of fans will spend countless words arguing for and against that clever/lazy explanation. And suggest better ones.

Why does everything need to be explained?

Because that part of the film was stupid and diminishes its respectability?

Sorry, that is just not true.

 

[Noddy]

Gosh, maybe some future tie-in comic or novel writer will toss in a line or an in-joke explaining it. Then thousands of fans will spend countless words arguing for and against that clever/lazy explanation. And suggest better ones.

Why does everything need to be explained?

Because that part of the film was stupid and diminishes its respectability?

Sorry, that is just not true.

I beg to differ.

It would have worked better, IMO, if the final battle hadn't taken place in Earth's vicinity, but maybe approaching the edge of Klingon space. Of course, that way, Khan wouldn't have crashed the Vengeance into Starfleet Headquarters, and Spock wouldn't have chased him through San Francisco.

 

[JD]

All of Trek is incredibly inconsistent when it comes to travel times, so it's kind of unfair to single that one instance out.