Countdown To Darkness Comic- Connections and Theories

[DKDetective]

http://www.startrek.com/article/countdown-to-darkness-continues Comic #2 preview. More with April. He's supposed to be dead. Kirk mentions an Enterprise mission 20 years prior. So its not a matter of him being some kind of captain during construction.
http://www.startrek.com/article/countdown-to-darkness-continues

April's ship was an earlier Enterprise that was decomissioned.

Good job on calling that, Redhawk. I really had hoped you were wrong, no offence. They are messing with continuity too much now. I hate this trend that Star Trek Enterprise started of creating famous Starfleet ships named Enterprise before Kirk's NCC-1701. It completely undermines the whole rationale of later Enterprises being numbered NCC-1701 B,C,D,E, etc. Or the fact that the gallery of Enterprise models on the D and E jump from the Space Shuttle Enterprise to Kirk's Constitution-class NCC-1701. This is really undermining my faith in the current stewards of the franchise, at least in terms of maintaining any form of consistency or continuity.

 

[redhawk23]

No one ever said that Aprils Enterprise was a 1701. There have been many ships in many different series of ships named Enterprise even in our own history and modern times. The lettering is used due to the storied history of the 1701.

 

[DKDetective]

No one ever said that Aprils Enterprise was a 1701. There have been many ships in many different series of ships named Enterprise even in our own history and modern times. The lettering is used due to the storied history of the 1701.

I'm not complaining that the April's Enterprise is an NCC-1701. I'm complaining that the rationale for future Enterprises being numbered 1701 becomes less logical, the more Starfleet ships named Enterprise that are added before Kirk's, especially given the storied history of ships like Archer's NX-01 and it now appears April's Enterprise (the dates given suggest it had a career of at least 16 years). Why not number them all NX-01 A,B,C,D, etc.? For crying out loud, it was the ship of the man who became one of the founding fathers of the Federation and one if its first presidents, all on the basis of his historic command of that ship.

Moreover, the manner in which the future galleries of Enterprise models jumps from the aircraft carrier and space shuttle to Kirk's Enterprise NCC-1701 suggests there were no important ships named Enterprise in the intervening period. All of this revised history makes Kirk's Enterprise seem less noteworthy and befitting of each following Federation flagship bearing its name and registry number. Yes, I know this is an alternate timeline, but given the dates given in the comic, it makes little sense for April's Enterprise to be a product of the changed timeline. They should have just made this a complete reboot, it would have been more honest.

 

[marvelrobbins]

They don't want Trekkers pissed off that Is why they went with alternate reality.And It's clear they make up rules for this as they go along.

Just treak the films as totally reboot.They don't care about fitting dates.Hell according to J.J. abrams maybe the events of enterprise never happened so April's enterprise Is only starfleet preKirk enterprise.

 

[SuBe]

April's Enterprise IS the same Enterprise from TOS. Look at the shape of the ship, look at the picture of the Bridge. The original launch date of the NCC-1701 Enterprise was 2245. In TOS, Kirk took command of the Enterprise in 2265, but in ST2009, he took command 2258, a whole 7 years before he was supposed to.

Now, Spock was supposed to be on Pike's crew 15 years prior to serving with Kirk (per "The Menagerie"). That means that April was supposed to have the Enterprise for 1 5-year mission, then turn it over the Pike, Pike had the Enterprise until 2265 when Kirk took over, but in the ST2009 timeline, he took it over after earlier. Due to Nero, the Original Enterprise 1701 was decommissioned into Pike's 3rd 5-year mission. So, he had only 1, and into his second he oversaw the development of the "New and Improved" Constitution Class Enterprise that is MUCH larger than the Original 1701.

Perhaps the person that would have come up with the new naming convention died or was replaced, or shifted over to another field and the A, B, C, etc convention was lost.

Look at the design of the ship and of the bridge, while not exactly like Kirk's TOS Bridge, it is a lot closer than the the 2009 movie has.

The ship look more similar. The Transport room (not pictured) looks closer. It's not 100% the same design, but it is far closer than what we got in the movie.

 

[redhawk23]

I'm not complaining that the April's Enterprise is an NCC-1701. I'm complaining that the rationale for future Enterprises being numbered 1701 becomes less logical, the more Starfleet ships named Enterprise that are added before Kirk's, especially given the storied history of ships like Archer's NX-01 and it now appears April's Enterprise (the dates given suggest it had a career of at least 16 years). Why not number them all NX-01 A,B,C,D, etc.? For crying out loud, it was the ship of the man who became one of the founding fathers of the Federation and one if its first presidents, all on the basis of his historic command of that ship.

Moreover, the manner in which the future galleries of Enterprise models jumps from the aircraft carrier and space shuttle to Kirk's Enterprise NCC-1701 suggests there were no important ships named Enterprise in the intervening period. All of this revised history makes Kirk's Enterprise seem less noteworthy and befitting of each following Federation flagship bearing its name and registry number. Yes, I know this is an alternate timeline, but given the dates given in the comic, it makes little sense for April's Enterprise to be a product of the changed timeline. They should have just made this a complete reboot, it would have been more honest.

I get your point, but NX is reserved for experimental craft, similar to how we just us X for planes before they are fully adopted and put into production.

The Enterprise has ALWAYS been the latest in a long line of ships called Enterprise given the fact that it is a storied name even in real history, and then even in the old films there were drawings on the walls of old Enterprises.

A major part of the letter designation is the Enterprise A was built as a new Enterprise to be used by the same crew. And once that lettering designation was started it was kept.

And really theres a degree to which nitpicking kind of goes beyond necessary. They threw everyone a bone with the whole alternate timeline thing. It got Nimoy into the movie and worked as a decent set up. If it complicates things, just role with it at this point.

 

[Compi716]

Anybody else think that Captain April looks sort of like Brent Spiner?

 

[redhawk23]

This comic ended up being pretty useless in terms of being a set up for Into Darkness.

 

[DarKush]

^
Agreed, but I thought the story was alright. I liked seeing April and the Klingons, even though I didn't like the new Klingon ships and I think those Klingon masks are stupid.

I don't think Countdown into Darkness was as good as the original Countdown, which did a lot to establish Nero's backstory. With CtD, they wanted to be so mysterious about John Harrison that they couldn't do that.

And Harrison's appearance on the last page just felt tacked on.

 

[redhawk23]

Exactly. This story could have been done in the existing star trek comic series. Also, I was not at all a fan of the art work.