Author Topic: Star Trek Into Darkness - Images, Videos, Discussion, etc (Read 131654 times)

Darran · « **Reply #340 on:** February 21, 2013, 11:29:58 AM »

*************SPOILERS****************

From the art work, I can make an educated guess that Peter Weller is playing Robert April.

Robert April was revealed in the final panel of issue one as a "former captain of the starship enterprise"
In issue 2 it is revealed that twenty years ago Cpt April was believed dead after an away mission but
had in fact staged his own death to breach the prime directive and supply munitions and equipment to
a slave caste on an alien world and thus sparked a civil war.

Aprils Enterprise is depicted as a JJ universe constitution class with some line and colour differences and the bridge is however shown to be a mix of the TOS bridge and the NX-01 bridge. This is not the same ship seen in the 2009 movie as Kirk states "That ship was decommissioned two years ago, I got the new one"

**********End of Spoilers*******************

Killallewoks · « **Reply #341 on:** February 21, 2013, 11:31:13 AM »

Peter Weller is likley to playing Captain Robert April

Shadowknight1 · « **Reply #342 on:** February 21, 2013, 10:38:41 PM »

Wait, so...they're saying there was a Constitution-class Enterprise BEFORE the 1701 in this universe? WHAT?! This makes NO SENSE!

Tuskin38 · « **Reply #343 on:** February 21, 2013, 11:10:20 PM »

Yeah, that was weird, I just read it as well. But there is one character in the comic that.. well just read the text below if you don't mind spoilers, I don't think it will be important to the movie but its comic spoilers.

Mudd is a Female Bajoran. NO alteration of the TIMELINE can change Gender and Species.. quite possible there just happened to be a Bajoran named Mudd, or maybe shes his Wife, she calls herself a business women.

Darkthunder · « **Reply #344 on:** February 22, 2013, 01:35:36 AM »

Doesn't mean it's the same character, does it? Just the same last name...

Joshmaul · « **Reply #345 on:** February 22, 2013, 06:56:56 AM »

Quote from: Shadowknight1 on February 21, 2013, 10:38:41 PM

Wait, so...they're saying there was a Constitution-class Enterprise BEFORE the 1701 in this universe? WHAT?! This makes NO SENSE!

To be fair, the Enterprise in the prime timeline entered service in 2245. Maybe the stem-to-stern refit (i.e. TOS-to-TMP) was ten or fifteen years early? Though thinking on that, it wouldn't account for the size. The JJ-prise is HUGE - it has to be at least the size of a Sovereign, if not bigger. The original Connie was about half the size of a Sov.

Darran · « **Reply #346 on:** February 22, 2013, 07:30:17 AM »

The dialogue in the text specifically states it's not the same ship though. Like I said earlier it's probably an art work mistake. I've also been reading the ongoing series set in the 2009 universe and the 2009 Enterprise is often wrongly depicted as the Prime universe refit

Tuskin38 · « **Reply #347 on:** February 22, 2013, 04:16:56 PM »

Quote from: Darkthunder on February 22, 2013, 01:35:36 AM

Doesn't mean it's the same character, does it? Just the same last name...

Well they have the same occupation.

Maybe she is his wife.

Bones · « **Reply #348 on:** February 22, 2013, 07:25:32 PM »

Quote from: Joshmaul on February 22, 2013, 06:56:56 AM

To be fair, the Enterprise in the prime timeline entered service in 2245. Maybe the stem-to-stern refit (i.e. TOS-to-TMP) was ten or fifteen years early? Though thinking on that, it wouldn't account for the size. The JJ-prise is HUGE - it has to be at least the size of a Sovereign, if not bigger. The original Connie was about half the size of a Sov.

Most of the external scenes shows JJ's Enterprise to be around 300 meters in lenght ;) the best example is the scene where Kirk rides his motorbike to the Enterprise and gazes upon the Enterprise under construction (you can clearly see people around neck and nacelles ;) judging by their size, big-E is around 300 meters... same is when Enterprise encounters Narada and camera pans from viewscreen on the bridge to the ventral part of the saucer, Spocks size vs. the rest of the saucer can easily tell us it's a 300 meters ship ;) so it's rather close to the prime verse canon ;)

Shadowknight1 · « **Reply #349 on:** February 22, 2013, 08:39:30 PM »

I don't care what the comic says, this STILL MAKES NO SENSE! Kirk says April's Enterprise was decommissioned TWO years ago. The Enterprise in the movie had been under construction for at least THREE! And you can't say "Oh, well, it hadn't been named yet" because IT BLOODY WELL HAD BEEN. When the Academy shuttle flies under the Enterprise, you can CLEARLY see NCC-1701 on the warp nacelle. I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. Unless something bad happened to April's ship, then there's no point to there being TWO U.S.S. Enterprises!

Darkthunder · « **Reply #350 on:** February 22, 2013, 08:54:51 PM »

Kirks Enterprise was under construction in 2255. It may very well have been named already then, with the then-existing "Enterprise" being scheduled for decommissioning upon the completion of the new Enterprise. 3 years later, we see the completed new Enterprise, that doesn't mean it was completed on that specific day. Most ships go through a "shakedown cruise" of about a year or so, and not necessarily with the same crew that eventually is assigned to the commissioned ship.

Fan-fiction for the Enterprise-E, suggests that Captain Bateson (Kelsey Grammer, in the Cause and Effect episode) was in command of the Enterprise during it's shakedown, prior to Picard and crew being assigned to it in First Contact.

In any case, anything that is written in a comic should be taken with a heavy dose of salt. But I see no contradiction in there existing a decommissioned Enterprise in 2257, when the new Enterprise was eventually commissioned by 2258.

Shadowknight1 · « **Reply #351 on:** February 22, 2013, 11:08:53 PM »

If you say so. I see no reason for there to be another Constitution-class Enterprise prior to the 1701. It really seems like they just pulled this out of their asses to say that even in this universe, Robert April commanded an Enterprise.

Tuskin38 · « **Reply #352 on:** February 23, 2013, 02:03:54 AM »

Comic isn't canon anyways, just ignore it.

Joshmaul · « **Reply #353 on:** February 23, 2013, 06:54:46 AM »

And it's suspect that a perfectly good ship gets scrapped after ten years of service. (This can also be applied to the NX-01 and the 1701-A.) The original 1701 lasted for four DECADES, for pity's sake. The only other ships - that we know of - that didn't last longer than 10-15 years, besides the NX-01 and the A, were all destroyed (1701-C at Narendra after 12-ish, 1701-D at Veridian after about...seven? Eight?). The 1701-B got the shittiest start, leaving spacedock without a medical staff, a tractor beam, or torpedoes, and an untried captain, and most literature has it going at least two decades into the 24th century.

Nighthawk · « **Reply #354 on:** February 23, 2013, 07:38:07 AM »

Quote from: Shadowknight1 on February 22, 2013, 08:39:30 PM

And you can't say "Oh, well, it hadn't been named yet" because IT BLOODY WELL HAD BEEN.

April's Enterprise might have not been NCC1701, and Kirk might have seen an NCC1701 not yet named Enterprise.

IF April's Enterprise was short-lived, they might have not seen any good reason to build an Ent-A just yet

Defiant anyone?.... NX74205, destroyed, and reinstated NCC75633 USS Sao Paulo, renamed USS Defiant.

captain_obvious · « **Reply #355 on:** February 23, 2013, 11:09:12 AM »

As I recall, the practice of having a new ship being built with a certain name while an older ship of the same name still in service is not unprecedented.
Wolf 359 for example. TWO different ships, both called "Melbourne". 1, and old Excelsior class that was just about to be decommissioned while her replacement a nebula class which had just been finished but not completely crewed was dragged in to the makeshift task force with dock workers filling in the gaps.

It may well be that April's Enterprise was a member of an older class of ship the the Constellation was also a member of. Maybe.

Darkthunder · « **Reply #356 on:** February 23, 2013, 11:24:07 AM »

USS Prometheus exists in 2 simultaneous copies as well... the Nebula Class USS Prometheus (seen in DS9), and the Prometheus Class USS Prometheus (seen in VOY), both episodes take place around the same time, with no indication that the Nebula Class version was destroyed before the new one was seen.

Tuskin38 · « **Reply #357 on:** February 23, 2013, 02:23:37 PM »

Quote from: Nighthawk on February 23, 2013, 07:38:07 AM

Defiant anyone?.... NX74205, destroyed, and reinstated NCC75633 USS Sao Paulo, renamed USS Defiant.

From what I know, they guys wanted to Add an -A but that would require making new FX shots and modifying the model, but they didn't want to spend the money on that little detail.

FarShot · « **Reply #358 on:** February 23, 2013, 03:16:02 PM »

And last but not least, we're all basing our arguments on 20th century vessel naming practices and what little we've seen on screen. Both terrible ways to speculate how much military matters may have changed in several hundred years.

Shadowknight1 · « **Reply #359 on:** February 23, 2013, 09:58:37 PM »

I still think that if they were going to make April's ship an Enterprise, it should've been a different class completely. Or give him command of the Constitution. I don't think fans would have thrown a fit if April didn't command the Enterprise. Honestly, this thing about the comic bothers me even more than Mudd apparently being a Bajoran woman. She could simply have the same last name, could be his wife, who knows.

In other news, be on the lookout for this in the Hot Wheels aisle in stores. This is from the same line as the Batmobiles and other stuff, so this is likely to be 10 bucks at the most. Probably not very big, but if you want a nu-verse Enterprise that's affordable? Why not?

News:

Author Topic: Star Trek Into Darkness - Images, Videos, Discussion, etc (Read 131654 times)