Star Trek Into Darkness - Part 4

Discussion in 'Misc. Films' started by Thread Manager, Jan 24, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Thread Manager Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    0
    Likes Received:
    3
    This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]449943[/split]
     
  2. Thread Manager Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    0
    Likes Received:
    3
    This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]396767[/split]
     
  3. redhawk23 Wrestlin'

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2008
    Messages:
    17,137
    Likes Received:
    295
    Its kind of sad that basically all media appearances for this film will now be hijacked by star wars questions .

    New Thread!
    [​IMG]
     
    #3 redhawk23, Jan 24, 2013
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2013
  4. psylockolussus Merry Mutant

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2004
    Messages:
    47,780
    Likes Received:
    4,398
    Well at least this movie would get more hype now the director of Star Trek 2 is directing Star Wars 7.
     
  5. The Squirrel Le Rongeur

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    17,780
    Likes Received:
    16
    Star Trek 12. :o
     
  6. redhawk23 Wrestlin'

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2008
    Messages:
    17,137
    Likes Received:
    295
    Damn straight.
     
  7. Picard Sisko Prepare to be Assimilated

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    17,944
    Likes Received:
    0
    What I love about the 2009 film is that its both a sequel, prequel, and reboot all rolled into one.

    Its a sequel because Spock and Nero come from the original timeline AFTER the events of Nemesis.

    Its a prequel because it has younger versions of the original cast members, and shows how they come together in this version.

    Its a reboot because its now an alternate timeline and they could go in any direction they want to go in. Total freedom.

    So in a way, the 2009 film was Star Trek 11, and we are now waiting for Star Trek 12.
     
  8. Soapy Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    17,919
    Likes Received:
    3
    While I'm not crazy about the reboot, I do think it's awesome, borderline genius even, how they were able to to do all of that stuff with one story in one movie.
     
  9. redhawk23 Wrestlin'

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2008
    Messages:
    17,137
    Likes Received:
    295
    So as I posted in the comic thread, there is some kind of crazy stuff in the lead in comic for this film.

    Possible spoilers.

    In the comic, Robert April, who non cannon sources have long listed as the first captain of the Enterprise shows up. The comic book rendering of April has more than just a passing resemblance to actor Nolan North who has an unspecified role in the film.
    [​IMG][​IMG]
     
  10. Doc Ock The Spider-Totem Awakens

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2009
    Messages:
    8,853
    Likes Received:
    6
    Yeah, I can't stand the idea of it being called Star Trek 2. Its not really Star Trek 2. Although I say Doctor Who Series 7 all the time...
     
  11. Iceman Daffy Duck Vs The Joker

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    165,686
    Likes Received:
    44,119
    Yeah, Star Trek needs more awareness outside US & this will help it get that.
     
  12. wobbly Occasional Scribbler

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    10,416
    Likes Received:
    664
    Interesting. ...Since April was the 1st captain of the original TOS era Enterprise, and he was Captain for it's first decade of service before Pike took over, they may be using that to explain why the Abrams ship was built later and made it's maiden voyage under Pike (and is obviously different in size & design).

    Perhaps the TOS era ship we all know did still exist in this new timeline (though it would still have been built after Kirk's birth), but it was destroyed while under April's command. With that and other ripples from Nero's interference with the past the original 'Constitution Class' design was discarded in favour of the Abram's one (maybe).
     
  13. DarkKnight88 Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    8,733
    Likes Received:
    5,650
    It's funny that they call this Star Trek 2 and the next one Star Trek 3 when in reality they're still part of the same timeline but the next James Bond is called Bond 24 and Skyfall was known as Bond 23 before it got its name when it probably should've been called Bond 3 since it was a new timeline. My head just exploded. :oldrazz:
     
  14. redhawk23 Wrestlin'

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2008
    Messages:
    17,137
    Likes Received:
    295
    From what I've heard around the Star Trek BBS boards, originally the Kelvin destruction in the first film was originally pitched as the destruction of the classic enterprise we all know and love but the studio put a hard smackdown on that idea.
     
  15. Dark Raven It's not about what you deserve...

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Messages:
    60,334
    Likes Received:
    8,335
    And a good thing too. That could've been perceived as a slap in the face or giving the middle finger by fans.
     
  16. RetrogradeOrbit Do I look like I'm joking?

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    5,483
    Likes Received:
    1,879
    If that`s true, then I think that was the best call by any studio ever in the history of Mankind... :)
     
  17. Chris B Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2002
    Messages:
    4,154
    Likes Received:
    131
    Was the original canon ever clear on whether another Enterprise was ever in service between the NX-01 and NCC-1701? Maybe that could be the case here, and even if there wasn't, this being an alternate timeline could allow them to establish there having been one in this universe.
     
  18. wobbly Occasional Scribbler

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    10,416
    Likes Received:
    664
    I don't think there's any in canon reference to an inbetween ship from the NX-01 to the NCC-1701, though there's a lot of time there (about 80 years or so) so there could well have been.

    However, the constitution class (original 1701 design) was said to have been in service for 40 years before the TOS 5 year mission. I don't think it was ever stated on film though, so that's up in the air as far as canon goes, however if we were to assume that is correct then that design of ship would have existed at the time Nero came back.

    And afaik the only references for Robert April came from the animated series, which confirmed he was the 1st captain of the original 1701 before Pike (not a different ship, the same one)

    I think Roddenbury stated he accepted that bit of the cartoon was canon himself (Robert April was the original name he wanted to use for the Pilot episode before changing it to Christopher Pike), but from memory I can't I recall if the April name was ever used in any series or film, so they can play that one as they wish I guess.

    Anyways, with the comic confirming April did command a ship called Enterprise, that does give them the opportunity to explain why the Abrams 1701 is rather different than the TOS one. Would actually be neat if they showed us the original design in action, if only briefly.
     
  19. Chris B Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2002
    Messages:
    4,154
    Likes Received:
    131
    This would be a bit of a retcon, but maybe they could say that the ship was actually undergoing a major refitting during Kirk's years at the Academy instead of being built for the first time as the film suggested?

    Though I'll admit it would be a tall order to pull that off convicingly.
     
  20. wobbly Occasional Scribbler

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    10,416
    Likes Received:
    664
    Yeah, I don't think they can get away with having the new ship as a 're-fit' of the old one. It's more than twice the size for starters (it's about the same length as TNG's Enterprise E).

    Maybe it will be that the original TOS NCC-1701 was lost/destroyed while under April's command, and when they built the new one they simply kept the same registry number.
     
  21. Dark Raven It's not about what you deserve...

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Messages:
    60,334
    Likes Received:
    8,335
    I don't think there will be any "original" TOS NCC-1701 in this continuity. The one we're seeing which is a lot bigger IS the same "original" Enterprise. It's just that, in this altered timeline, things have developed differently because Nero travelled back and upset things. When the Kelvin was destroyed, that changed continuity. The Enterprise was therefore constructed on a larger scale and with a different interior design than it would have been had the Nero incident not occurred.
     
  22. wobbly Occasional Scribbler

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    10,416
    Likes Received:
    664
    Maybe, but I wonder why they'd throw Robert April into the mix now as that only convolutes matters for the reasons I noted: The TOS 'Constitution Class' design was already in service before Nero came back in time (in the original timeline the Enterprise itself that used that design, that April was first to captain, I think would have been built when Kirk was in his teens).

    The new Enterprise was being built when he enrols at the academy, which is presumably later than he did in the original timeline due to not having his Dad around (so while he took a shortcut to the Captain's seat in the new timeline, he is not vastly younger than when took the chair in the original one). This would place the new ships construction a good few years after the TOS one was built, which we now know did have a predecessor in this new timeline.

    So just what Enterprise did Robert April Captain in this new timeline? We know it was called Enterprise, the TOS design was in service prior to Nero's interference, but that's it atm.

    So I dunno. It seems a bit redundant to use him at all if not to fill in the questions as to what changed things to make the new ship so different. His ship might end up being different than anything we know, or it might be the one we know very well.

    Will have to wait & see atm.
     
  23. Kane52630 SILVER SHAMROCK USER

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Messages:
    105,909
    Likes Received:
    20,768
    Inside Look at J.J. Abrams' Star Trek Into Darkness

    https://www.facebook.com/Esurance/app_131772983653777
     
  24. (SUPERMAN) Registered

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2010
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ok let’s get the Timeline straight, so here it goes

    Prime Timeline Enterprise NX-01 Launch - 2151 - Decommissioned - 2161
    Alternative Timeline Enterprise NX-01 Launch - 2151 - Decommissioned - 2161

    Alternative Timeline James T Kirk DOB - 2233
    Prime Timeline James T Kirk DOB - 2233

    Alternative Timeline Enterprise 1701 Launch - 2258
    Prime Timeline Enterprise 1701 Launch - 2245

    The prime timeline Enterprise 1701 was launched 12 years after Kirk’s birth so was not in service when Nero appeared and the NX-01 Enterprise was Decommissioned 72 years before Kirk was born and at this time we don’t know of any other ship named Enterprise that was in service between the dates above, so what Enterprise April claims to have commanded is still a mystery and it will be interesting to find out what they’re doing with this story line and how much it plays into the movie.
     
  25. wobbly Occasional Scribbler

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    10,416
    Likes Received:
    664
    Those dates seem correct to me, and as you say the Enterprise April captained in the new timeline, and when he commanded it, is a mystery atm, however what I'm saying is the TOS design (not the NCC-1701 Enterprise, but it's design) was in service when Nero arrived: Starfleet was using that design for about 40 years or so before the TOS 5 year mission (not sure if this ever was stated on film though), which dates it back to around 2220-2225, so it is possible Aprils ship did use that same design.

    If they do use it I would guess they will change the number though.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"