Kind of an interesting video. It's short, so check it out.
The Forgotten Enterprise (Pre-1701 - Robert April)
- Thread starter PixelMagic
- Start date
I get that the comics wanted to squeeze Robert April and an Alex Marcus backstory in there somewhere, but squeezing another Enterprise into the Kelvin timeline doesn't really work, IMO.
IIRC, it's already been confirmed that due to miscommunication or some sort of mistake somewhere, the artist just drew the regular Kelvin-timeline Enterprise NCC-1701 in that panel not realizing it was supposed to be April's ship. The comics make a lot of art goofs, just notice how often 24th century LCARS computer displays are seen, even on alien ships!
It could, theoretically. The Okudachron puts the launch of NCC-1701 in 2245, while the first movie shows the Kelvinprise under construction by 2255. It could be that a previous ship was launched in '45 -- or maybe a few years earlier because the Narada attack in '33 prompted Starfleet to accelerate its shipbuilding -- and lost sometime before '55, which I think is what the Countdown to Darkness miniseries shows. I really don't think it's what the filmmakers had in mind, but it more or less fits.
Heh. If we want to interpret the ship in the comic as being a predecessor to Pike's/Kirk's NCC-1701, we should invent a rationale for why "April's ship" also has the exact registry number NCC-1701 (on p.41, uppermost panel). Or then we could just accept that the comic only shows one ship, Kirk's, in a series of classic establishing shots ("Yes, the ship is still in orbit while the main characters talk talk talk down on the planet").
No problem with an additional Enterprise or two in the Kelvin timeline, of course. Anything built or (re)named after 2233 ought to be fine. And Starfleet might be in need of an excuse for naming their Newest Flagship the Enterprise, after apparently having made no use of the name since 2161; a heroic "filler" ship might fit the bill.
Timo Saloniemi
No problem with an additional Enterprise or two in the Kelvin timeline, of course. Anything built or (re)named after 2233 ought to be fine. And Starfleet might be in need of an excuse for naming their Newest Flagship the Enterprise, after apparently having made no use of the name since 2161; a heroic "filler" ship might fit the bill.
Timo Saloniemi
It's the War Enterprise.
"Real" or not, Captain April's Enterprise, with those "straighter" nacelle pylons, those simplified nacelles and those basic lines and curves, is absolutely beautiful!
Last edited:
So it actually was supposed to be April's Enterprise? Last I heard it was just a misconception that people thought it was his ship.
One would assume that was the intent, they show the ship while April talking about his ship, and then the next frame is the bridge of April's ship. One would assume the intent would be to show the ship's exterior. I at least have an easier time believing someone messed up and drew the wrong ship than they always intended to show the wrong ship there.
Of the two panels showing a ship overlaid on April's exposition, the first would serve the obvious dramatic role of showing what April is telling: "The ship arrived, the events began". The second panel would equally obviously show Marcus sailing away on the ship and leaving April behind, as narrated by April at the time.
So the dramatic call for an "old" ship is there. It's just that the ship is not the old one, or even a halfhearted attempt at such: the first time around, it's merely identical to the Pike/Kirk ship, but the second panel actually shows NCC-1701 on the nacelle - amusingly in a comic where the unambiguous Pike/Kirk ship mostly remains utterly unlabeled.
Timo Saloniemi
So the dramatic call for an "old" ship is there. It's just that the ship is not the old one, or even a halfhearted attempt at such: the first time around, it's merely identical to the Pike/Kirk ship, but the second panel actually shows NCC-1701 on the nacelle - amusingly in a comic where the unambiguous Pike/Kirk ship mostly remains utterly unlabeled.
Timo Saloniemi
It's worse than that, it was the TMP refit 1701, but with NCC-1701-D written on the hull. Seriously, I'm not even making that up. There was another issue where the characters were actually slapping their chest insignia for communications, like they were wearing 24th century comm badges.
"Real" or not, Captain April's Enterprise, with those "straighter" nacelle pylons, those simplified nacelles and those basic lines and curves, is absolutely beautiful!
The best way, IMHO, to interpret these panels is that while April starts to tell his story about his Enterprise, we're still seeing the nuEnt exterior because Kirk, McCoy, and April are still in the present as April is telling the story. It's only in the next panel that we see the interior of April's Enterprise's bridge (but no exterior accompanying shot) that we're now seeing events from the past. It's incredibly awkward and probably not the intent, but I'd take that explanation over the ship being identical to the nuEnt right down to the registry number.
That seems ridiculously unlikely--why would they have three Enterprises in rapid succession and not introduce the -A, -B, -C, etc., lettering? I can't believe you would venture such a dumb theory. Why bother?
TC
Why lettering? It's not a real-world thing at all. Ships with the same name often follow each other in quick succession. Although often a name also gets retired for a while if a loss makes it appear jinxed...
Certainly the comics exist solely for the fun of a balancing act where the writers want to change as much about the Trek universe as they dare while still retelling TOS stories. Juggling incidental ships such as the number of Enterprises is right down that alley.
Timo Saloniemi
Certainly the comics exist solely for the fun of a balancing act where the writers want to change as much about the Trek universe as they dare while still retelling TOS stories. Juggling incidental ships such as the number of Enterprises is right down that alley.
Timo Saloniemi
Real-world US aircraft carriers:
USS Enterprise (CV-6)
USS Enterprise (CVN-65)
USS Enterprise (CVN-80)
No bloody A, B, C, D or E.
USS Enterprise (CV-6)
USS Enterprise (CVN-65)
USS Enterprise (CVN-80)
No bloody A, B, C, D or E.
You do know no other Starfleet ship does the lettering at the end of the registry besides the Enterprises, right?
Yeah, but even so, two different ships should not both be NCC-1701. The whole purpose of registry numbers is to be unique. They don't go with the names, they go with the ships (which is why the letter-suffix tradition is ridiculous).
Well, it's easy to write off April's ship being NCC-1701 as just artist's mistake and assume it really had a different registry.
Similar threads
