Talk:Star Trek (2009 film)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Reboot?

Although I am assured this is not a franchise reboot, apparently it is meant to be set in a separate time line to the rest of the star trek franchise, maybe this should be mentioned in the article to show it is not a direct prequel to the other films?--92.237.153.26 (talk) 09:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The lead doesn't refer to it as prequel (because this is Kirk before he's captain), sequel (time travelling Spock and Romulans) or reboot (said actions of time travel resulting in canonical divergences), because Abrams has already said this film is classically neither. However, the media constantly refer to this as a prequel because with the exception of John Cho, all the TOS characters are played by actors younger than when the originals started. I don't see the reason for using such jargon if the filmmakers or the media don't, it's just an adaptation of the old show. No one called The Fugitive a reboot of the show. Alientraveller (talk) 11:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

What's making the waters muddied is that the people making the show have also made comments to the effect that the new film is indeed a prequel and is intended to be part of the same continuity as TOS and TNG and the movies. The problem with that, of course, is the lack of visual continuity with bridge and ship designs (it would have been easier had TNG, DS9 and Enterprise not made episodes featuring exact replicas of TOS-era ship and bridge designs). The way I think this will play out is it all depends what happens in the movie. If the time-travel aspect not only affects backstory-related canon, but also issues such as Enterprise having a different design and the bridge now resembling a Mac Store, then I think its place as a prequel will be accepted. If no explanation is offered for the visual changes, then the fanbase will assign it a status no matter what the filmmakers' intentions were. This also applies to other issues, such as how Pike is handled in comparison to the TOS continuity, the presence of Chekov a year early, and the absence of characters like Gary Mitchell. 68.146.62.92 (talk) 15:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Dude get your Trek right. Chekov's not a year early. He's six years early. Unless we accept the notion that he was on the Enterprise during the first season but just not shown. Then he's just five years early. Kirk is five years early. The only characters who are NOT five years early are Spock and Pike. The film depicts Cadet Kirk on the Enterprise. In the previous continuity Kirk doesn't even SMELL the Enterprise until he's served five years on the Farragut. This film depicts the maiden voyage of the USS Enterprise under Captain Pike - an event for which neither Uhura, Chekov, or Sulu was around for. Scotty also wouldn't get a whiff of the Enterprise's engine room until after Pike had given command of the vessel over to the freshly-captained Kirk. The premise of this movie is in direct contradiction with the canon. Not just the details, the PREMISE. But it is all caused by time traveling and the deliberate actions of people who were FROM Picard/Janeway/Sisko's universe. In fact the bridge designs could be considered a result of the time travel very easily. But for that you'll have to read the discussion page on Memory-Alpha. --75.151.116.106 (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, MTV News referred to this film as a reboot here, here, and here, Variety called it a reboot at least once, and Entertainment Weekly also referred to it as such here. I'm a little uncertain myself, as this film is presenting new origin stories for the main characters and, as aforementioned, there are some canonical divergences due to the time travelling Romulans.... Muddied waters indeed. Cliff smith ^talk 20:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, many described Batman Begins as a prequel since the reboot idea was quite unique at the time, but since then the term has been abused to refer to revivals (some have even referred to Wrath of Khan as a reboot now). I mean technically, when anyone takes over a franchise, isn't it a reboot because someone else is writing the story? The filmmakers have really tried to make this as much as a prequel as possible and the time travel, which was there originally so Nimoy could have scenes opposite the young crew, is just an excuse to explain artistic license. Trekkies would assume all the redesigns would be Starfleet advancing its 23rd century technology to combat Nero and his world destroying 24th century ship. Not that there's much to contradict, canonically we previously knew nothing of Kirk's father. As I said before, it's good the article refrains from piegonholing terms. Alientraveller (talk) 21:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, what? Some pretty bold statements there, Alientraveller, that I think need some source citations. Batman Begins is a prequel in the sense that it describes Batman's origin, something no live action film had done recently, but it was also a reboot, since WB was ending the previous franchise begun by Burton and beginning again. How is this ironic, or in any way relevant to the discussion of whether Star Trek (2009) is a reboot? Wrath of Khan is in no way a reboot, since it is a canonical continuation of the same characters and situations as the original series. Who is calling it a reboot? "...technically, when anyone takes over a franchise, isn't it a reboot...?" NO. "The filmmakers have really tried..." Original research? Or are you claiming telepathic abilities now? The rest of that statement doesn't match what the studio has revealed of the plot, that time travelling aliens are trying to change to past to manipulate their future. How is that "just an excuse to explain artistic license"? What does that assertion even mean? Then you state what "trekkies" will "assume"; how do you know what they will do? Do you have a source? As for knowing "nothing of Kirk's father," there were several episodes of the original series that carried information about his father and his brother; we certainly did not know "nothing". From what has been released by the studio and reported by the entertainment media, it appears that quite a lot of previous continuity has been contradicted, but given that this is a story involving time travel, we cannot really know what the situation is until the film is released. Star Trek (2009) is a prequel. It is also a reboot (of the franchise) in the sense that it is going back to the source (the original series) and beginning again. Whether it is also a reboot of the characters, situations, and continuity will only be known once the film is out. 12.233.146.130 (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you put a lot of thought into that. The fact is, the article already notes the filmmakers did not make a reboot as they deemed it disrespectful, nor did they make a prequel as it would lack dramatic tension. For the record, nothing canonical has ever been said about Kirk's dad until now (he still doesn't have a Memory Alpha article) while it was AMC TV that referred to WOK as a reboot in the sense of revival. And Batman Begins was not a prequel. :) Alientraveller (talk) 22:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Having just seen the movie I can conclude that it is a reboot and a prequel, and to an extent a sequel and also an entirely new Star Trek storyline sharing common plot elements with the established canon. So conclude what you want, but we are going to need an entirely new way to describe the timeline/canon. To address this bridge design argument, Abrams updated the ST:TOS original series design it isn't meant to break with previously established plot elements it is just an update. But as I said above it doesn't matter because this film can't be treated the same as Star Trek canon now as it is entirely different. Oh and Batman Begins was a prequel, it was before all other films, regardless of breaking with established canon, it is still a prequel.Benny45boy (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit of each, really... It's a reboot in the sense that it changes much of the back-history and moves forward without much regard for the TOS storylines; it's a prequel because the time-frame in which it occurs predates any of the previous TOS time-frames; and it's a sequel because the events that take place are *entirely* dependant on events that occured within TNG episodes (namely, Spock attempting the mend the relationship between Volcans and Romulans, complete with dialogue references to TOS canon from the future-Spock). To put it as simply as possible, it's a sequel (future Spock from TOS/TNG timeline) that leads into a prequel (prior to previously produced TOS storylines) resulting in a reboot (time travel resulting in a paradox that changes events as we've previously known them).Ruined Saint (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

In a sense, it is a reboot due to new factors being introduced, and it is kind of a prequel due to going back to the very beginning. However, the changes the villain and Old Spock made via way of time travel created a new, revised timeline with some noticeable changes (the fate of planet Vulcan, Spock's mother, etc). The powers that be on the film made it clear they were not going to throw out 40 years of stories and canon, because they said a complete revamp would be disrespectful to Roddenberry and the original cast. Cluebert 11:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It occurs to me that a lot of people are blocking out the recent Enterprise series when they consider a lot of changes that have happened. Through the course of the series they changed the timeline so much that something was bound to be different. Like it or not, Enterprise is canon and I'm pretty sure Archer was even mentioned in the new movie. Dung Beetle 11:22 AM CST, May 22 2009

Yeah, you're right; Archer is mentioned in the movie. I'm pretty sure that Enterprise is canon. Just because the plot device of time travel altered certain aspects of the canon and created a new timeline, it still is the same Star Trek universe. Captain Picard, Worf, and Data will still be born and figure later on, since Next Generation happens years and years later. As of the film's ending, the only one who is aware of that, besides the viewing audience, is the Old Spock himself.

And a number of people online have been saying that Captain Christopher Pike's injury was changed, but considering he was only in a wheelchair and not disfigured, there is a likelihood that this was not what resulted in him becoming dependent on that electric wheelchair with beeps for communicating. Cluebert 11:00 PM EST, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

UK date is the 7th May

Every cinema near me, and I live out in the sticks not London, is saying previews 7th May 2009, so should the UK date be changed to 7th May? As an example The Simpsons Movie has a fixed release of 27th July 2007 but previewed on the 26th and this is the date in the article. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Darrenhusted. Sticks are often releasing early since there is not much partying involved with big releases. I think London is official so should date be listed so. Anyways, I think this should stay as it is. Much love for the New Year! Linguistixuck (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's also getting released in London the same, it is out on the 7th May in the UK. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys, yeah because the film schedules in UK cinemas change on a Thursday it is very common for films which are to be released on the a Friday to preview on the Thursday night. However, although this is common practice, studios still list films with the Friday release date - presumably because they will attract larger audiences. I think that the article should stick with studio on this one and stay 8th may as it is at http://www.startrekmovie.com/releasedates/. --AD^talk 12:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I live in Korea, and the release date here is May 7. It's the same for Europe. It appears that the May 8 date is only for North America. Maybe the release date in the article should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.5.251.16 (talk) 01:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I live in Korea too. I picked up a Star Trek poster from the cinema today. It says it opens May 7 (Thursday). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 04:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Not that it matters now, but I saw the film today and it is the 7th May.81.141.114.181 (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Cast in the infobox

I still don't fully understand what's wrong with listing the main cast in the infobox. --Trogga 03:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Overlength

This article is way too long. It is three times the size the article on Paraguay, and Paraguay is about a whole country, its history, government, politics, demographics, economy! Suggest trimming it accordingly. 168.98.67.11 (talk) 02:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The difference is that Paraguay has sub-articles, so if you merged all the sub-articles back into the main article, it would be longer than this film article. Film articles do not really have sub-articles unless they are super long, and that is not the case with this article. —Erik (talk • contrib) 02:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

If you think this article is a bitch to read, I suggest you wade over to Star Trek: The Motion Picture and feast your eyes on a 13,000 word wall o' text :P --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

13,000 words? That guy has too much time on his hands ;) --Anonymous07921 (talk) 13:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It takes seconds to copy and paste into word and do a word count. It's actually 13,849 words. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is not too long. According to the excellent page size tool:

• File size: 346 kB
• Prose size (including all HTML code): 58 kB
• References (including all HTML code): 207 kB
• Wiki text: 85 kB
• Prose size (text only): 33 kB (5640 words) "readable prose size"
• References (text only): 27 kB

The crucial detail, "readable prose size", falls well within the acceptable limits. For those who are interested, the ST:TMP article is a little too large, according to the guideline:

• Prose size (text only): 75 kB (12586 words) "readable prose size"

That might need to be addressed, but I suspect it's not that big a deal. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, it is a perfect length at the moment. Hopefully a vast plot section will not over-balance it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SGGH (talk • contribs) `

Major film articles are always long before release. I'm sure the regular editors here will condense it in the coming weeks. The archive will save everything. 5Q5 (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see why we should be condensing information. The article is intended to be comprehensive, neglecting no major facts or facets of production. As is, it could do with significant expansion (for example, there's very little about music.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Size of the Enterprise

The Enterprise is listed as beeing 3000 feet long. Are you serious? Almost a kilometer? That's three times the original length.--Dvd-junkie (talk) 16:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If you're trying to criticize the filmmakers for making the ships impressive, then please take it somewhere else, per WP:TALK. If you're asking the editors of the article if we're serious when we wrote down that the Enterprise in the film's timeline is 3000 feet long, then yes, we are, we don't add information from periodicals about the film for laughs. Alientraveller (talk) 23:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Touchy, aren't we? I wasn't aware that asking a question constitutes critcizing ANYBODY. Maybe I should have used the term "certain" instead of "serious" - excuse me for being German! Maybe I should have asked "Is the information canonical (part of the movie)?" After all there have been RIDICULOUSLY contradictory information concerning the size of the old ship (for example: the Enterprise being about 100 decks high). Though I'm certain Wikipedia articles NEVER contain mistakes, I keep asking.--Dvd-junkie (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have just seen the movie. The ship's actual size is never mentioned. But there is no way that the Enterprise is a kilometer long. Just look at the size of the bridge in relationship to the disc. Look at the size of the hangar bay in relation to the secondary hull. The ship seems to be ROUGHLY the same size as the old one. Maybe the person quoted was mistaken or his data are outdated.--Dvd-junkie (talk) 21:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not a forum. This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not idle discussion about who has the biggest spaceship. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? This IS about improving the article, which contains information that is DEBATABLE at best - information that isn't given in the movie, information that is contradictory to what can be SEEN in the movie. It should be noted accordingly or be removed.--Dvd-junkie (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

We don't care about any of that - is the fact reported in a reliable source? Yes. Is the source disputed by another source? no. That's the start and end of the story for us. If you come across another reliable source that disputes the original source then we have something to discuss, otherwise we just don't care (as an encyclopedia). --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

So the movie in itself (WHAT YOU CAN SEE WITH YOUR OWN EYES) is no source you care about (as an encyclopedia)? Interesting point of view! So much for common sense.--Dvd-junkie (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)What you see with your own eyes in the movie is not a reliable source. If they stated in the movie the size of the ship that that could be used as a source for the information. Someone estimating the size of the ship by comparing the size of one part to the rest of the ship is original research and not allowed in the article. A new name 2008 (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

But you can't possibly take everything at face value that's every been printed. How do you account for human error?--Dvd-junkie (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully by having a wide variety of reliable sources to check facts. Either way, we're interested in verifiability, not truth. -Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't take everything at face value. I have been trying to find a reliable source that gives a length but can not find one. That includes finding the one that is quoted as the source for the 3000feet. I have skimmed through all the production notes on the page and have not been able to find where it gives the size at all. I find it dubious as well that it is 3000 ft long since even according to the page on NCC-1701-E, that Enterprise is only 685.7meters long. A new name 2008 (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

"post" is a specialist post-production and effects magazine, it's considered a reliable source for this source of thing - in their latest issue they have a extensive article on the effects process and they note that Another aspect was the daunting scale of the ships. The Enterprise is 3,000 feet long but bad guy Eric Bana's ship is designed to appear a humongous five miles long.. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

As much as you may not like it, we have to use citable sources with verifiable content from credible backgrounds. Just take comfort in knowing that the size of the ship isn't all they messed up. Remember, JJ Abrahm's main selling point in his production of this film is that he never got into Star Trek and was more of a Star Wars fan (where ships are the size of small moons). As unfortunante as it might be, we just have to accept that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.81.60 (talk) 22:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not as much as I dislike the ship being huge - allthough that would be odd for sure -, I just don't believe it, but unfortunately can't prove it. Probably time will tell.--Dvd-junkie (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Having watched the film (yeah, still no verifiable sources), I think the size could be correct--at the very least, it's waaay larger than it used to be. The shuttlebay went from being large enough for two shuttles to handling more than a dozen on racks. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

What you see with your own eyes in the movie is not a reliable source... What? So, for example, let's say we see Spock wearing a blue shirt, but one of the characters in the movie says he is wearing red. Then we need to write that Spock wears red despite the fact that we see him wearing blue? This is ridiculous! Reporting contradictions or mistakes we see in films is not original research. 12.169.52.239 (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

consequences on Wikipages

Hello,

I wondered if he should not be considered an endorsement after this film given the boulverser and the consequences of the film on the characters. The Spock (Leonard Nimoy) and Spock (Quinto) should they not be distinguished by a anota as "Spock STO" and "Spock NST" (new star trek). Same thingsd for other crew of Star trek. I will tell you not to make a spoiler but it will require a change of wiki pages on star trek.--163.5.255.61 (talk) 01:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

What? Alientraveller (talk) 12:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting problem the new film creates. How do you now differentiate the different Kirks, Spocks, etc. in all the Wiki articles? Original series, mirror universe, or reboot/new timeline? 5Q5 (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

By having a subsection. We hardly need new articles for a different iteration of an old character. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The credits identify Leonard Nimoy as playing Spock Prime. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Story section

Isn't the story really short, compared to other Wiki articles? I am always in favor of keeping it trimmed and neat, but this seems more like a small IMDb summary. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 19:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Considering few people have actually seen the movie, what do you expect? It'll flesh itself out soon enough. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

*Slaps own face* Of course, my bad :-D --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 08:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The only reason you could not pull that concept from the movie is that you have learned to love from society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Austinrufener (talk • contribs) 14:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit Embargo

An idea that I have had based on what Memory Alpha is doing, why don't we lock the article completely until Saturday 9th May at say 1300 UTC to allow people to see the movie, and then consider what they are going to write. I say this having just got back from seeing it. Without revealing too much the plot of this film will radically alter the way Star Trek is written about in terms of canon and timelines. So would it not be best for everyone to wait until the world has got a chance to see the film and then edit the article? Just an idea.Benny45boy (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Because we aren't censored, and aren't a fan encyclopedia, unlike Memory Alpha. Readers can skip the plot section if they are worried about being spoiled. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Ha I just posted on your talk wall to ask for an opinion from, got there first! Fair enough it was just an idea, I appreciate we are different from Memory Alpha. Could though we had a prominent spoiler warning to the page?Benny45boy (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You were probably not around when there arose the Great Spoiler Warning Wars of... not really sure, when, come to think of it, but it was probably in 2007. Anyhow, there was a big kerfluffle about the use of {{spoiler}} templates on sections and article heads. The short answer is we ended up with WP:SPOILER. In other words, if the plot contains spoilers, tough luck (readers beware!) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I suppose an encyclopedia is a source of everything so people should expect a plot summary of a film to be posted once it is released. I would start to write a plot summary but I'd probably miss bits out. Thanks for answering my questions promptly!Benny45boy (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Request to delete 2008 redirects

Would someone with the authority (hello any admins?) delete the redirect pages: Star Trek (2008), Star Trek (2008 movie) and Star Trek (2008 film) They are slowing down Wikipedia's search box drop-down options for "Star Trek." Thanks. 5Q5 (talk) 15:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I moved this topic to the top because it is deserves action that is missing being buried in the page. Is there anyone who has experience filling out the delete request templates at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion? Any editor can list these redirects there. 5Q5 (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Ebert

I might just not know much about films, but I'm not sure how 2 1/2 out of 4 is a negative review. I was thinking of changing or removing the line, but since it might come back, I'm going to comment on it here. 146.87.52.51 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC).

Rotten Tomatoes considers 2.5/4 reviews to be "rotten".Tiger Trek (talk) 11:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Still, I think a 2.5 star rating is generally considered 'good but not great'. And if you need a reference, look at the Metacritic page; Ebert's review is listed in green, indicating a favorable review. Whether the review is positive is arguable, but I certainly wouldn't call it negative. tktktk (talk) 03:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Ebert himself considers it a "one thumb down" meaning more negative than positive. Tiger Trek (talk) 08:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Ebert's right. The film is loads of fun but it's Star Trek as if produced by Doc Smith, rather than Roddenberry. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I think its good that this is included - it allows readers to see which critics completely fail at reviewing movies and gives them a better idea of who to avoid when looking for advice on which movies to watch. 92.21.53.63 (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You can't avoid them all and just read Ebert, although yes, it is surprising that he was the only reviewer who actually wrote a helpful review...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:30, May 15, 2009 (UTC)

sources

• Mondello, Bob (2009-05-07). "'Star Trek': That Final Frontier, Boldly Reapproached". National Public Radio. Retrieved 2009-05-08. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |curly= ignored (help) — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
• Turan, Kenneth (2009-05-08). "In New 'Star Trek,' A Successful Personality Splice". National Public Radio. Retrieved 2009-05-08. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |curly= ignored (help) — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not a prequel

Somewhere on this page it should be made clear that THIS FILM IS NOT A PREQUEL - and anyone who doesn't want to know the plot stop reading here. The events of this film do not take place before any events of any previous movie or television series. From "Spock Prime"'s (as he was credited) point of view this all takes place hundreds of years after his youth. And we know for a fact that this does not predate the events of the Original Series because in the film we see Cadet Kirk on board the Enterprise and Captain Pike wheelchair bound before commanding the Enterprise on a five-year mission. In the events of the canon Star Trek universe, Kirk rises to the rank of Lieutenant (or Lieutenant-Commander, I can't recall) on the USS Farragut as a security officer while Pike would conclude his tour of service and become an able-bodied Starfleet instructor until an accident disables him. And, of course, Vulcan never blows up.

Therefore this movie exists in a separate continuity and does not fit the dictionary definition of the prequel: "A literary, dramatic, or cinematic work whose narrative takes place before that of a preexisting work or a sequel." And the narrative does not take place BEFORE a preexisting work. It takes place ALONGSIDE a preexisting work, or from a certain perspective, AFTER a preexisting work. --75.151.116.106 (talk) 18:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that. I got really confused when I saw the movie about this. Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 19:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

J.J Abrams confirmed that the Original Series and various spin-offs are still in canon, but it is the actions of Nero (as well of Spock Prime) that alter the universe into a new universe that is, for the most part, similiar but with a noticeable number of differences. These include Vulcan's fate, a much-earlier death for Amanda Grayson, etc. The writers said that they had to omit Kirk's service aboard the USS Farragut due to time constraints, but they asserted that, even though it wasn't in what ended up on screen, it very well happened. In addition, there were a number of discrepancies with the canon of the Original Series, so it is not unimpossible to consider. Also, Abrams and the writers stated that they wanted to honor the series and the continuity, albeit with the introduction of some changes. Its kind of like the Terminator series' use of time travel. Cluebert 11:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what that hack Abrams says. It doesn't matter in the least. It is not a prequel. That is impossible, because that view doesn't fit in with the established canon (see Star Trek: First Contact). Baxter42 (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it does. We deal with verifiable sources, not your opinion. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"Established canon" does not preclude chronologic diversions. Established facts about these characters hasn't changed except for where Nero's and future-Spock's respective appearances have altered the course of events. Besides, this is a debate for Memory Alpha, not Wikipedia. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 21:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Does this take place in alternative universe?

Leonard_McCoy's Depiction section's last line says that this takes place in an alternative universe. Is this true. and if it is, shouldn't that be mentioned here somewhere? --207.172.203.11 (talk) 17:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

As I recall, somebody in the film described it as an "alternate timeline" fwiw. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

And somebody in our article mentioned that too. At least two times. Tvoz/talk 19:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It is an alternate timeline, it's all to do with quantum physics etc. but essentially when Nero goes through the black hole he goes to another timeline, the TNG and VOY timeline still exits this is essentially a different one to that, thus the backstories of the characters has changed, yet they still all gravitate towards the same point i.e. serving on the Enterprise. Apparantly the TNG episode Parallels gives a good explanation to the whole thing. The main point is though that this film doesn't change what has happened it just creates another storyline. Hope what I have just said makes sense :-P Benny45boy (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

If it is an alternative universe created. So shouldn't that be stated in lead more clearly rather than have the following (taken from second paragraph of lead) "They wanted to be faithful to Star Trek canon, but they also introduced elements of their favorite novels, modified continuity with the time travel storyline, and modernized the production design of the original show.". I haven't seen the movie yet, and from reading that all I understand is that this means that they would change the events in the past and so replacing the previous timeline with this one, I get no hint of a separate universe. --Gman124 ^talk 21:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Gman124 you are right the article doesn't actually make it very clear. When you see this film you have to treat the plot in a separate universe to all the previous Star Trek movies and tv series. This doesn't mean the old canon has been lost, it just means that what is created is another possible timeline that came into creation with Nero/Spocks ship coming through the black hole. The guy below me has it pretty accurate.Benny45boy (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright then. --Gman124 ^talk 21:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Star Trek finally has it RIGHT this time. Going back in time necessarily accesses a parallel universe. Our universe really is made up of multiple parallel universes. That is what quantum interference, the Bell Inequality, and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiments prove. Every time you make a choice, you pick one of many parallel universes. They diverge and reconverge all the time. Learn differential equations, linear algebra, and then quantum mechanics if you really want to understand it. Joseph D. Rudmin 20:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC).

...or alternatively, watch the TNG episode "Parallels". Dave (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually AFAIU parallels universes are only an interpretation of the quantum physics. I'm not a quantum physics (at least - not yet) but as I recall EPR paradox shows the problms of the combination of quantum physics and relativity. With every choice i choose the different universe - yes provided the interpretation is correct - but still it does not imply one can travel through it (Personaly I belive in single world without time travel). Anyway - in SF films they tend to bend laws of physics anyway - see the warp speed (no object with real mass [as in real numbers] should be able to reach c not mentioning crossing it). Uzytkownik (talk) 22:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering if this all couldn't be made much more explicit for the non-Trekkies: a section or perhaps separate article contrasting the personal histories of Pike, Kirk, Spock, etc. in both timelines? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

That could wind up delving dangerously close to original research without any reliable sources to cite which have done the same. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a scene in the film that basically states the whole thing is a new time line. --Jeremy (blah blah) 16:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The scene in question is after Kirk returns to the bridge after the Vulcan sequence completely ends I think, when Uhura finishes Spock's statement about time travel. It's only a matter of time till some RS discuss this, and the implications of this film for the entire franchise. I've seen--but of course can't find it now--RS sources that state this film was "100% canon" and part of the main official Trek timeline. So, because of that, the entire 'live' Trek fictional history is now only, on-screen, what we saw in the Enterprise TV show, this film, and any "left over" time travel trips from the previous shows to points in time before this new film. Which, since they were all "secret missions", are a moot point anyway. Anything after this film is simply gone, as Spock outright said at the end of the film (hence him outing himself to the public and his younger self). The second that they attacked the USS Kelvin, they reset the entire universe--remember the implications of what could happen in First Contact? They actually did it here. A footnote about this, once some RS pick it up if they haven't yet, will be worth noting. Paramount just erased 40 years of pop culture history, in a way. :) rootology (C)(T) 19:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

They only erased it if this Star Trek follows its "one time line to rule them all" mindset. More likely, they'll make this one as an alternate universe with the Prime going about its merry way; however I haven't yet seen any good sources (most likely 'cause they don't want spoilers), so we'll have to wait. Not that it impacts this article that much either way. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Quantum physics is quite a broad science that has yet to be fully understood, and may never be. But in theory, the timeline for TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager and the original ten movies can and still exist. For there could be a parellel timeline in which the "future Spock" would had made it in time to save Romulus negatiting the reason for Nero to seek out revenge on Spock and the Federation. Or even further, the black whole may have never sucked Nero and Spock back in time. Neovu79 (talk) 14:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Considering that Spock Prime still remembers events as they were pre-Nero's Vengence, I would say that 40 years of pop culture is safely tucked away in my DVD collection. ~QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 19:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

In short, yes. It does. First Contact happened, Star Trek Enterprise happened, then this happened then none of TOS, TAS TNG DS9 or Voyager happened. The section in the middle where they spend ten minutes telling each other that Nero's journey has created an alternate timeline is your indication that this happens in an alternate timeline. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well Star Trek Enterprise still proceeds the timeline change so that is canon for both universes. TOS, TNG, DS9, and Voy all happened in the Prime Universe, after these Nero goes back before TOS and creates a different TOS, which means TNG, DS9, and Voy may still happen though if they do they will be somewhat different (VOY especially as Tuvok will probably never be born so Voyager may not get stranded; who knows maybe one of Worfs ancestors were killed in the Klingon fleet of 47 ships). Its somewhat like Sela, she is the daughter of a Alternate Universe Tasha who travelled back in time and to the Prime Universe. --194.106.137.50 (talk) 09:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Canyon in Iowa?

Does anyone know where the shooting of the car Jimmy lost was shot, and/or where it was supposed to be? I don't know of that many canyons in Iowa, and the Whitewater Canyon looks like it is surrounded by trees, not farms. 64.46.22.214 (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I *think* it was a quarry. There were etchings on the edge and alongside the face of the drop off that looked to be carved by man, not nature. Evensong (talk) 11:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Not worth mentioning in the article, but the look of it was a quarry without question. There was a sign on the gate that Kirk smashed through, with writing, so I'm sure if it needs to be it can be settled when the DVD is out. rootology (C)(T) 19:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It was a quarry in Vermont. So its a quarry in the movie. Picture at the link. http://www.timesargus.com/article/20090505/NEWS01/905050325 E.L. Smith Quarry has role in new Star Trek movie

 The E.L. Smith Quarry

Kyle Martel By David Delcore TIMES ARGUS STAFF - Published: May 5, 2009

BARRE TOWN – One of Vermont's most storied quarries – the cavernous E.L. Smith Quarry in Graniteville – will flash forward to the 23rd Century this week when it makes a digitally enhanced cameo appearance in the newest Star Trek movie.

"We finally hit the big screen!" crowed Todd Paton, director of tourism and visitor services at Rock of Ages Corp., which owns the quarry that is featured on one of the trailers for the new movie.

Seems the folks from Paramount Pictures needed a sheer cliff to add a little extra drama to an exciting car chase scene featuring a pre-captain version of one James T. Kirk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.219.241.10 (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Release Date Europe

What is the use of listing seperately all European regions where the film was released on May 7th? I could add Austria and France and Italy as well but why don't we just put Europe there, or at least most of the European Union? --Dtschenz (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:FilmRelease, the only release dates which should be in the infobox are the dates the film was released in majority English-speaking countries only. Cliff smith ^talk 04:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

References to other Star Trek Movies / Series

Wouldn't it be nice to add some crossreferences to other movies episodes like when kirk bumps his head like scotty or when the redshirt dies when they try to take out the device nero's ship "hooks" to vulcan ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.245.35.199 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Unless cited, such material would be WP:OR. Beyond that, given that these are such minor, passing references, they'd be little more than unencyclopedic trivia. --EEMIV (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Plot summary

This plot summary has taken on a life of its own. I recommend that editors involved with this aspect of the article familiarize themselves with WP:PLOTSUM before contributing. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

After thinking about it, I think the plot summary told in the frame of reference of Amb. Spock/Nero, instead of in the movie order, will make it shorter (only need to talk about the future parts once). There's probably still more to trim. --MASEM (t) 05:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

At this point, I think the plot summary is sufficiently small enough to warrant removing the plot tag Toad of Steel (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

As it is over 700 words the tag cannot be removed. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

{{fact}} please? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:FILMPLOT, "Plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words and should not exceed 900 words unless there is a specific reason, such as a very complicated plot". This Plot as of this moment is 832. It needs to lose around 150 words, then all characters need to have actor wikilinks added in parentheses afterwards. You may also wish to read the film MOS. In fact there is a link to MOS:FILMPLOT in the plot tag, that is why I tag long plots, so that editors can follow the links and read up on guidelines. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

832 < 900? Since this plot involves the almost complete reconstitution of a 30+ year old franchise and the complicated time travel tropes that cause it, I should imagine this film would qualify as "very complicated", and yet it still doesn't break the 900-word upper-limit guideline. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no hard limit to plot summaries; it is a matter to guide them to stay concise, which is why we'd like them 500-700 words. As pd thor states, this is a bit more complicated with time travel, but given all the improvements to help tighten it up, it's probably at the "right" length to accurately outline the movie without fluffing it too much. --MASEM (t) 18:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The plot itself in not complicated. Its structure is linear and the time travel is given as expository chunks. The preference to to limit plots to below 700 words. Changing the tense helps, and dropping verbose sentences helps. E.g. no need to call the ship "The older Spock's" when Vuclan will do, no need for "in the year" when we have a wikilink to Stardate. Why "full-time" captain, why mention Pike is in a wheel chair, why describe at length the Titan plot when you can reduce it to "ambush"? However short the plot summary gets it can always go a few words shorter. How about this; A Romulan mining captain, Nero, seeks revenge for the destruction of Romulus. He travels back in time to destroy Vulcan, as he blames Ambassador Spock. A future version of Spock meets a young Cadet Kirk and encourages him to take command of the Enterprise. With the help of Chekov and Scott they ambush the Romulan ship and destroy it. Kirk is promoted to captain and takes command of the Enterprise with Spock as his first officer.. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure there's probably a word here or there that can be removed, but again, 700 words is not a hard limit, just one to be aware of. If this was at 1200 words (which I would not be surprised as of Friday or Saturday night), that's a problem, but 850 is much less of one. We also need to be very clear; because we have two Spocks running around, we need to use the odd extra word to establish which one in context, as one example of having to keep clarity on this. We've already removed some looser plot points (Uhura/Spock love, for example) that don't immediately impact the movie. --MASEM (t) 23:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Metacritic in external links section

For some reason when you click on Metacritic in the external links section you get this:

Unfortunately, the page you were looking for no longer exists at this location. If you want to point fingers, it's probably our fault.

That's despite the fact that it seems to work at this link above:

The film also holds a score of 84 as of May 8, 2009 on the review aggregator website Metacritic, ranking fifth of film releases in 2009 to date.

I tried fixing it, but nothing worked, it still came up blank. Does anybody no how to properly link to it in the external links section? Did metacritic change the location of movie at there site or something?annoynmous 05:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

writing issues

"Dr. McCoy manages to bring Kirk on board the USS Enterprise as his attending physician" The syntax of this sentence is wrong. As written, it means that Kirk is McCoy’s physician.

Star Trek doesn’t use teleporters, it uses transporters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.249.3.142 (talk) 12:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Pike was paralysed?

The plot summary says at the end that Pike was left paralysed. Is this stated anywhere, or just someone's assumption because Pike is seen in a wheelchair?

When Kirk rescues him, Kirk (and later McCoy in the transporter room) is helping Pike along but it seems quite clear to me that Pike's legs are moving. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.198.199 (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I've addressed it in the article. --EEMIV (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Good, not only was the reason for the wheelchair not mentioned, the slug removal wasn't either. We can assume it is still in there and not caught by doctors just as easy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.190.4.245 (talk) 19:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Tagline

Hey all, just a quick note about the tagline used in this film. It is not the from The Original Series, but from The Next Generation. Here are the various taglines that have been used over the years:

TOS -

Space, the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise; her five-year mission, to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life-forms and new civilizations; to boldly go where no man has gone before.

ST II -

Space, the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise; her continuing mission, to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life-forms and new civilizations; to boldly go where no man has gone before.

ST VI -

Space, the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise; her continuing mission, to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life-forms and new civilizations; to boldly go where no one has gone before.

TNG-

Space, the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise; her ongoing mission, to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life-forms and new civilizations; to boldly go where no one has gone before.

Someone keeps stating that the tagline was used in both TOS and TNG, a minor fact, but a fact all the same. The continued addition of this is incorrect.

--Jeremy (blah blah) 20:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but did you not see the word "modified" earlier in the sentence? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I did, the but in TOS it wasn't modified. Check the grammar of the sentence, it states the modified tagline used in the TOS and TNG. That is factually incorrect the way it is worded. --Jeremy (blah blah) 20:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

That's not what the sentence means. It means that the tagline used in the movie was a modified version of the one used in the original series. In fact, all the other versions are irrelevant. Only the TOS version is relevant. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You need to review your grammar. We can not rewrite the rules of the English language, the wording says what it says and you cannot change that. It is not open to interpretation. If you want to say it, take the time to word it properly. Match your subject and verb tense, make it a compound sentence if you need to, but do it right. You cannot will it correct, you must work at it until it says what you want it to say. --Jeremy (blah blah) 21:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? You need to check that attitude at the door before entering Wikipedia. The tagline evolved from the opening credits of the original Star Trek series. All versions of it came from that first version. That's the way it is, and that's how it should be described. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

No; Yes it did, and yes it can, but you need to do it right. I did, since you wouldn't. --Jeremy (blah blah) 21:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Your last change works too. Much better, I like that. --Jeremy (blah blah) 21:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Jeremy, some your tagline quotes are incorrect. WP even have a page about it: Where no man has gone before. Briefly, only ST II used "her" and "ongoing" and also inserted a couple of other words; TOS used "its five-year", while TNG used "its continuing" and "no one" instead of "no man". Thus, Spock's quote in this film fully matches none of the prior taglines. John Darrow (talk) 21:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

References to the other series

There are both inter-universe (i.e. "Are you out of your Vulcan mind?") and outer-universe (What happened to Admiral Archer's pet beagle) in the film. Would a section on these be OR? SGGH ^ping! 20:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but it needs to be sourced properly, no blogs or other fan wikis allowed.--Jeremy (blah blah) 20:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's try not to ask the same questions repeatedly. --EEMIV (talk) 20:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I personally only saw this one cause of my post above... --Jeremy (blah blah) 20:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's not add it all together. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 15:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Problem solved: top of the "writing" section I've included:

For references of the movie within the Star Trek universe, see the related article at memory-alpha.

--Loodog (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, I've been rebuffed. I give up and am taking this page off my watchlist. Deal with countless reiterations of explaining "No, in-world refs is trivia that is appropriate to Star Trek wiki, not here." by yourselves.--Loodog (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally Loodog's decision seems valid to me. SGGH ^ping! 22:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Scotty

"Pegg was the only actor who did not audition: Abrams just sent him an e-mail asking if he wanted to play the part." Fascinating... do we know WHY?--Knulclunk (talk) 03:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

They worked together on MI3. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The article currently states that Paul McGillion auditioned for the role of Scotty. So what's the deal here? Did they audition a few people but, when none of them were deemed right, then just gave it to Pegg, because that seems a little contradictory, somehow, to go through auditions then give it to a different actor without seeing their take on the character. Did McGillion really audition, or was it just wishful thinking by fans that linked him to the role at all? Anyone able to shed any light on this? --Tailkinker (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure Pegg stated in a promo interview (with Jo Whiley on BBC Radio 1 I think, or maybe even Friday Night with Jonathan Ross) that the director did literally just phone him up and ask him if he wanted it, i.e. without an audition or anything. Pegg sort of said he was a bit freaked out by that, and said he would have to think about it, but when the director said 'fair do's', maybe next time then', he said yes. MickMacNee (talk) 12:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

In any buisness you can audition for a job, but if the right man becomes available, why interview him when you know hes going to get the job? Its just buisness practice69.157.68.28 (talk) 01:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Request to delete

"Neil Brimelow thought the movie was terrible and that it copied the plot from the the last Star Trek movie "Nemesis".[161]"

Who is Neil Brimelow and why is this relevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.76.121 (talk) 08:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

some guy with a blog and it's not - so I removed it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Telescopes

From the article:

When the shoot ended, Abrams gave the cast small boxes containing little telescopes, which allowed them to read the name of each constellation it was pointed at.

What exactly are these telescopes? (And where can I buy one?) Rwflammang (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't say in the interview. Alientraveller (talk) 11:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Questions about the movie

The article says that the galaxy is threatened by a supernova. Why would the galaxy be threatened by 1 supernova? We've had those before here and no one was killed. 206.47.141.21 (talk) 15:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Doniago (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Spock specifically says "galaxy". Perhaps it was a special supernova, but in any case the article should reflect what is stated in the film. just64helpin (talk) 00:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Concur that galaxy is specified. If you're looking for an explanation, the words "Orci" and "Kurtzman" might give you a hint :) Steve ^{T • C} 22:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The effect of this particular supernova is also explained in the prequel comics, Star Trek: Countdown. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Actual Trekkie/Trekker reception

Is there anywhere that discusses what the major trek fans thought of this film? I know there is a satirical Onion piece in the reception section but I think putting in what trekkies reaction to this film would complete the reception section. The most interesting man in the world (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I would guess that fan reaction is not relevant, nor interesting, to anyone other than the fans, and this is not Memory Alpha. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

There's a tad about fan reaction via coverage at TrekMovie, but I would be hesitant to apply one (notable) fansite's experiences to the whole spectrum. As far as I know, I haven't seen reliable sources talk about it. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Given the fact that this is a reboot/rape/whatever (depending on the point of view) I would say that fan reaction is very relevant. This is taking something that has created a fanbase and has changed it based on someone else's interpretation. There are plenty of cases of "reception" on wiki, why not also put the one that has been a constant through the rest of the life of the series? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.190.4.245 (talk) 20:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• Why Is The Media Trying To Make Star Trek Fans Look Like Naysaying Dorks? Might implement this. Alientraveller (talk) 11:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • hehe, "straw nerd"... that explains the phenomenon very well... there should be something about this phenomenon somewhere in the article... Toad of Steel (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/trekkies_bash_new_star_trek_film —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaadddaaammm (talk • contribs) 20:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Since io9 is a blog, I'm not sure it meets our reliable source criterion. The author might meet WP:SPS, though. Has her work appeared anywhere else? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion and/or merger: Red matter (Star Trek)

The related article Red matter (Star Trek) has been nominated for deletion. You can follow and contribute to the discussion at:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red matter (Star Trek).--Loodog (talk) 23:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

There is now also a proposal to merge it into this article. i'm not sure how i feel about that; long-term i expect "red matter" is going to turn up in more trek stories. it's already there in the comic series lead-up to this film. i don't favour outright deletion either, but is there maybe a better article to merge it into? Lx 121 (talk) 12:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles? Doniago (talk) 13:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a great idea - I'd suggest going ahead and doing that now in advance of the articles' likely retargeting. –xeno ^talk 13:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems like the best place. I am surprised there's no mythos glossary for Trek (as best as I could search) as another possible target. --MASEM (t) 13:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Box Office - "adjusted and unadjusted for inflation"

It seems this wants to make it sound like unadjusted for inflation was an important thing, but given the nature of inflation - isn't this statement always true? (Save for time travelling.)Skore de (talk) 20:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

"The Future Begins"

According to a fair few timesheets and cinemas here in Australia (along with one actual reel box/35mm reel I saw in the projector room, the movie seems to have the alternate name "Star Trek: The Future Begins", i thought this was just a tagline? Should this be mentioned at all? - 121.44.154.115 (talk) 09:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It's just a tagline, and WP:MOSFILMS is clear on their general exclusion. Alientraveller (talk) 11:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Novelization

Should there be an article on the novelization as we have Star Trek: The Motion Picture's novelization and a review by TrekMovie.com?--DrWho42 (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd cite WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS that we should merge that novel's article. Alientraveller (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the novelization the New York Times bestseller list: Star Trek adaptation makes New York Times Bestseller List.--DrWho42 (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Trekmovie.com sources

There have been something along the line of six hojillion interviews and such at Trekmovie.com over the past two weeks which have been rife with material to mine for this article. Has anybody been culling this veritable treasure trove of information for inclusion, or was there some determination about Trekmovie.com's reliability I haven't seen? Or ... has it just not been done, and I'm arguing for my own bold action? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 05:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Didn't really find much in a lot of TrekMovie.com's interviews with the cast while promoting the film, but any interview with Orci and Kurtzman is always brilliant and implemented by yours truly. Alientraveller (talk) 21:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

If a Verifiable source can be found.....

Please address the issue I brought up; again its a major departure and I, as a consumer, deserve to know why after 50 years of being just as strong as humans, suddenly Romulans are blessed with Vulcan-like strength.

67.148.120.100 (talk) 19:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)stardingo747

It's called "artistic licence". Darrenhusted (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Same reason they don't have those silly v-ridges: the film ignores the previous depictions of Romulans as Klingon lookalikes and made them emotional, violent Vulcans again. Alientraveller (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, sorry about that; I was barely paying attention to the film so I watched it again. The reason Nero's henchman easily picked up Kirk by the neck towards the end of the movie, is the same reason Kirk was getting beat up in that fight sequence right before planet Vulcan blows up; those particular Romulans, were simply strong and burly from years of heavy labor. Nero operated a mining vessel, and regardless of time period, regardless of technology, you still have to get your hands dirty as it is heavy labor. Yeah, yeah, you'd think that in the future they'd have some sort of "robot" but you can not violate the laws of physics. No matter how advanced the technology, some things will remain back breaking. Nero and his henchmen were physically strong because they were "blue collar" Romulans. I started editing all over the place regarding that subject, hey, sorry. This is why I keep this kind of stuff in discussion pages; I leave articles alone, because I do not always know my facts. No artistic license, or plot hole issues; it was simply what Nero and company did for a living.

67.148.120.100 (talk) 00:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)stardingo747

Response to "This is Not a Prequel"

I responded to the person who posted "this is not a prequel" with irrelevant information, so I deleted it. I was NOT deleting someone else's content, just my own. STOP ACCUSING ME OF VANDALISM ALREADY. I reserve the right to delete my own commentary if I feel it is not relevant to the discussion of the topic.

67.148.120.100 (talk) 00:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)stardingo747

Beastie Boys song in Movie

I want to add the fact that the Beastie boys song "Sabotage" is heard in the movie during the car driving scene. But another user reverted my edit because he said I did it wrong. Help me out. How can we properly add this information????

THANKS!!!

Caffeine USA (talk) 00:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

See WP:PROVEIT and WP:RS - if you can find a reliable source stating it is in the soundtrack, it pretty much can't be removed. Has to be reliable - newspaper, official soundtrack, no blogs or web fora. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't think the information is notable enough to be included. The song was used. That's it. Not more, no less. No need for inclusion. --HELLØ ŦHERE 00:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, what about the fact that I heard to song with my own ears during the movie??? I want to include this information because several people in other forums have asked "what was that song?" JpGrB, please don't delete stuff -- let's try to improve the informaton rather than delete it. thanks for your cooperation.

Caffeine USA (talk) 00:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm annoyed my entry was deleted again. Please, let's improve the article rather than jsut deleting stuff. Can anyone help me find a suitable source for this??? I'd like to put it back in, but I fear the other user will start an edit war. Caffeine USA (talk) 00:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You're not a reliable source. I heard it too, but if challenged, it's up to you to verify. Also, that's only the first step. As JpGrB points out, how does it help the page? It's not like it's a major plot point, strongly affects the story or was even mentioned by the characters. There's a lot of stuff that happened in the movie, but we don't include all of it.

Actually, it takes 2 to edit war, so per WP:BRD, it's up to you to convince other editors. I don't really see mentioning the song as improving the article. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It has no point to the plot as WLU pointed out. It really has no place in the development or creative aspect of the film. I don't believe there is a reason. If a forum asks, they can answer it there. If someone who made the film mentions it (with some importance) in an interview, then it can be added. Something along the lines of "I liked that song", by some actor, not notable. But if Abrams or another producer, editor, etc. mentions something such as "I thought the song would fit perfectly with the scene, so I wrote the group and they were thrilled", that's perfect. But to say it was there, not enough. --HELLØ ŦHERE 00:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm currently reading an article which mentions the song and how it was thought to be a dig at Shatner. Abrams says no and the reason it was chosen is because he "digs" it. There ya go. --HELLØ ŦHERE 02:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I am in agreement, the song is not notable, and should be left out. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Proper Citation Consensus; Airtrax Sidewinder apearance in the movie.

Hello, I would like to know your opinion about adding this contribution to the end of the 1st paragraph in the Design section.

"So was an Airtrax Sidewinder omni-directional wheeled forklift.Tom Andel (2009-05-12). "Star Trek reinvented, but not lift trucks". Modern Materials Handling."

Been discussing this with Rehevkor who undid my second post. (Alientraveller undid my first post cause i forgot to add a cite, my bad). An explanation on why I think this is proper citation is given below:

Modern Material Handling is actually a trade magazine and the author of the "blog article" is a columnist there on material handling (fork-lifts). http://www.mmh.com/info/CA6297013.html

• The wikipedia reliable sources explanation is at best broad here, quote "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources). IMHO this is proper sourcing, considering Tom Andel can be considered a reliable publisher (http://www.mmh.com/blogger/2837.html) by his credentials. It satisfies author credibility (his credentials) and publishing credibility since its a trade magazine.

My intention of adding the line, was to add a support fact, that the item was used in the movie. As a support to the general idea the paragraph was trying to convey in "Design". Were the movie authors are trying to convey a sense of future, which is actually already here.

Since then, I've found a couple of supporting webpages which might be used as a cite.

http://www.treknews.de/treknews/newspro-treknews/static/12267620815510.php a German Trekkie news group

http://img.trekmovie.com/images/st09/trailer2analysis/074.jpg Googled image query. (The airtrax logo and forklift in the background; the webpage containing this picture is http://trekmovie.com/2008/11/19/trekmovie-star-trek-trailer-analysis/

http://www.joinstarfleetacademy.com/ Nokia/Verizon promotional website once loaded click on "starfleet shuttles" (notice: there is no wording here, but the background has an Airtrax forklift with logo, the letters are upside down though.... reads: xartria from top to bottom)

Comments welcome Alexlamf (talk) 01:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

As with the Beastie Boys comment, mere appearance isn't really enough, nor is a reliable source. Whereas the aptera prototype car is meant to be futuristic, that's just a scissorlift, not particular futuristic, not really relevant to the plot or mood. A note from someone in the scissorlift industry isn't really enough, it'd need a note from the set designers (Church, Page or Eaves for instance) saying it was important and why. Otherwise, it just looks like free advertising that clutters up the page without really adding much of substance. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

And then, it is not the scissorlift/forklift what's innovative/futuristic, it is its omnidirectional wheels, and that during the movie it was doing just what omniwheels are supposed to do, that is moving sideways http://www.airtrax.com/ There is no reference note for the Aptera from the designers on why they used it there either. And if an argument is made on the basis of product placement within an encyclopedia article, well, there are plenty in this movie. Alexlamf (talk) 02:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

All the more reason not to note every single one, just the ones that a reliable source (from the movie crew) discuss as notable. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This adds nothing to the article, all the sources above fail to meet RS, you would need a source from those involved in the movie not fansites and blogs. Otherwise this is not notable. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Product Placement

While there is mention of marketing partners, the article doesn't address the in-film product placement (Nokia, Budweiser), which, I believe, is a departure from the entire history of the franchise. There has to be a notable source somewhere that covers this. . . Skyraider (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Nokia and Budweiser respectively provided the communicator prop and engineering sets. Noted. Alientraveller (talk) 11:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Walter Koenig: Did he refuse to play Chekov or what was the matter?

I think the reader is also interested on this. Why doesn't Koenig appear on the cast list and had to be "replaced" by another actor? Did he refuse himself? (health reasons or whatever...) Or did the director not want him to play that role? These are very interesting questions, and I think once anybody here is able to answer them competently enough, they should not be missing in the article. my 2c -andy 92.229.187.161 (talk) 00:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Koenig is 72 years old, frankly not suited to playing the 17 year-old Chekov. As for why his role wasn't included in the same vein as Spock's; Chekov would be 142 years old at the time of Spock's mission to Romulus. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 00:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a fantastic answer, thank you very much! And yes, I did not consider the "time warp" where they need Chekov as a young lad...that's because I haven't watched the movie yet (but I'm on it) -andy 92.229.132.141 (talk) 16:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Remove the damn plot

Someone is too pedantic here. This article is well researched but has a readability of nil. This is, because, or so the author seems to think, you have, to have, a bloody comma, after every, second word. Put on a clean drool bib and start again.

The plot section is basically a description of the entire scenario. not a synopsis, as it should be! I bet there are plenty of fans who are registered users, so please can someone remove the plot? It isn't nice to spoil it for everyone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.54.217.211 (talk) 17:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored for spoilers. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

What plot?

The many fans who are registered, or non-registered, readers will just have to exhibit self-control and not read what is written here, or in the reviews, until they see the film. And why haven't they seen it yet? It has been open in New York for almost 20 hours. Tvoz/talk 19:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you really sure there is zero existence of a spoiler tag for situations like these? If I recall correctly, they have been used on articles before.Kuahmel (talk) 04:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the plot needs to be better written than this. DonSlice 17:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DonSlice (talk • contribs)

Though I agree with pd_THOR, I can also see where the anon is coming from. Do we have a spoiler template similar to those used to close requests in images for upload? MacMed^talk_stalk 01:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

However, what pd_THOR said is not his personal opinion, but Wikipedia policy. "Articles on the Internet sometimes feature a "spoiler warning" to alert readers to spoilers in the text, which they may then choose to avoid reading. Wikipedia has previously included such warnings in some articles on works of fiction. However, since it is generally expected that the subjects of our articles will be covered in detail, such warnings are considered unnecessary. Therefore, Wikipedia no longer carries spoiler warnings, except for the content disclaimer and section headings (such as "Plot" or "Ending") which imply the presence of spoilers." (From WP:SPOILER) ~QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 08:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

more info about production

I have found a great source about the creation of special effects on star trek: http://features.cgsociety.org/story_custom.php?story_id=5071 please, if someone has the time, filter the information and add any missing to the production section. I'm sure it boosts our cover on the topic.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

sources

• http://news.cnet.com/8301-13772_3-10237193-52.html — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 01:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

quotation from huffington post

it was shortened so don't remove it again. it's very important. currently, section doesn't give any weight to the fact that some fans at least feel strongly against the new franchise. Please review WP:NPOV and WP:RS. there is no undue weight as the quote is very shortened. Please review also WP:OWN. 216.165.2.157 (talk) 05:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't tell other editors not to remove stuff and accuse them of OWN. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

length

dvd-junkie (talk · contribs) has replaced two reliable sources for the Enterprise's length of 3000 metres with a third (presumably) reliable source saying 2357 metres (although one of the previous sources citing 3000 was left in). Which should we keep and how should this be phrased? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually I replaced a single source (www.postmagazine.com). 3000 feet is a neat round number, isn't it? Sounds like an approximation, however, 2357 seems a more precise statement. www.experience-the-enterprise.com seems to suggest that the ship is approximatelay 2500 feet long, but because of technical problems I haven't been able to access that information.--Dvd-junkie (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the rub is we don't know which is more accurate. We just report what reliable sources provide us, to assume one over another is original research; I can make the argument that 3000 seems more likely because of its simplicity. Either way, we can't make such determinations for ourselves.

I'm not saying CGSociety is more or less reliable than Post magazine, but if they both are (and I find the latter to be, at least) then we should simply note both and the discrepancies therein. FWIW, the notes reference (which you left in) also stated 3000 feet last I checked, and it's sourced to the official website. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say "accurate", I said "precise". But you are probably right, that we should note the discrepancies. Did you have the opportunity to check The Enterprise Experience?--Dvd-junkie (talk) 03:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I found the following remarks (http://www.studiodaily.com/filmandvideo/currentissue/Reinventing-Star-Treks-VFX_10905.html): "Although it stayed true to form, the Enterprise grew from 1300 feet to 2000 feet in length for this film...For Holcomb, the scale of the work was most challenging. 'The Narada was six miles long and the Enterprise is 2000 feet.'" This is a quote from Memory Alpha: "The Enterprise Tour gives the dimensions as: Length 2500 feet [760 meters]; Saucer Diameter 1100 feet [340 meters]; Ship Height 625 feet [190 meters]."--Dvd-junkie (talk) 12:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted someone to add some few things appropriately

Um, guys can you put in the part where the captain in the beginning accepts to talk to Nero for a ceasefire but is killed. I don't know the real captain's (USS Kelvin) name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.29.140.139 (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The captain's name is Robau. But more important than Captain Robau being killed is George Kirk's death that changes the timeline.--Dvd-junkie (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's Kirk's death that has the most impact on Jim Kirk's history, but the attack on and destruction of the entire ship also causes some changes (i.e. the Enterprise launching later than usual, early knowledge of what the Romulans look like, etc.) However, these changes were not directly addressed in the movie, whereas the impact of George Kirk's death is a major focal point of the movie. So, you're right, his death is more important, but that's not the only thing that changes the timeline. --From Andoria with Love (talk) 05:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Fans' reception after release is lacking

In "Reception" section, there are ratings and reviews by some famous critics, but there is nothing about what do Star Trek fans think about the film, after it has been released. --93.139.112.83 (talk) 10:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Because "fans" are not special. And how do you define them, those who watched TOS, TAS, TNG DS9, VOY, ENT? Those who have seen every film, those who dress up, those who speak Klingon? I have to break it to you, no one cares what the "fans" think. The film has a $200m domestic take and is the biggest film of the year, it's obvious that someone likes this film. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I like that. "...no one cares what the 'fans' think." I'm sure if there was a huge outcry and "fans" were picketing movie theaters, it would appear here. As it is, there is no "news worthy" information about what the fans think, so there is no information to add. --MadDawg2552 (talk) 20:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you looking for something like that to be included? --193.198.17.211 (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

For All You "Alternate Universe People"

Here is a TNG episode you may find useful;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallels_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation)

If you watch that episode first, it makes the new movie easier to understand; in that episode Data explains EVERYTHING. Its all there people; now please, just track it down, watch it, and please be quiet about "but time this" but "alternate" that alright? It would be useful if the article itself would provide a link to that episode, though I doubt Wikipedia is that flexible. 67.148.120.124 (talk) 10:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)stardingo747

Well, it's not neccessary, because the movie explains itself. ~QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 18:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Look man I know its not BUT, so many people have spammed the discussion page with "alternate universe" crap the content had to be deleted. "But its not cannon! It doesn't make sense! WAH!!! WAAAH!" Well, they can always watch that episode and you get TWO explanations; one from the TNG series and another from the movie! I know the movie explains itself but some Trekies are so over-analytical that without a "background source" from the series, they get ticked off and will complain anyway. That TNG episode is "proof" that the movie's plot is "justified." Hopefully the link will prevent any further spamming; just trying to be helpfull. 67.148.120.124 (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)stardingo747

This ain't a forum, and when users endlessly spam with questions they are told the same thing. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I know that; however when you see a question repeated over and over, that means that perhaps the article could use some revision, perhaps maybe SUGGEST they visit the "parallels" TNG episode page? Wikipedia has rules I know, but some flexibility is in order. The article is pretty concise and detailed though, easily one of the best on Wikipedia. Still, a VERY QUICK reference to the "parallels" TNG episode won't hurt it any will it? I mean I only see two choices here; you make a quick reference to that episode, or constantly go through the trouble of having to delete material on this page. So many people are confused about the plot, they deserve a reference to the TNG episode "Parallels." It would not require a drastic overhaul either, just a VERY SHORT reference, a "side note" thing. Perhaps a quote from Data from the episode? You know, the part where he talks about parallel realities? Most people turn to Wikipedia in such cases forums are not good places to obtain info on entertainment; I've read in Forums before, that Metal Gear Solid IV is coming out the Xbox 360. Now there is an MGS game coming out for it, but its NOT IV. Wikipedia is unreliable regarding information in terms of the credentials of the writers, but its not unreliable in terms of sources that can be tracked down. Most people use the service, to trace this material or that. Once you have read this most recent message you can delete all this content, except the link to the TNG episode, please leave that if you feel it does no harm. I don't care if other people read this or not, just listen to my suggestion. 67.148.120.124 (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)stardingo747

Comparing Star Trek and its storyline to "Parallels" would be original research and synthesis on our part, which is expressly disallowed. If a reliable, third-party source makes the same comparisons or elabourations, that's potentially includable, but not until. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 04:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

As it happens, I have a third-party source for that comparison: http://www.startrekonline.com/startrek_xi - Atfyfe (talk) 05:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

A source which starts "Posted by Rekhan"? What you have is a page on a fansite. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It's the news forum for the Star Trek Online game. Not a mere fansite. Certainly enough to back up a mere comparison between "parallels" and the movie. But I don't edit this page, so I leave this debate in other's hands. I just happened to have find this. - Atfyfe (talk) 19:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

A news forum? For an Online game! From a person using an alias, could you highlight the section of this where a pseudonymous post on a forum is counted as reliable? Darrenhusted (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Would this help? --193.198.17.211 (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Story Problem

Not a place to discuss how much you liked or disliked the plot
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I liked everything about this movie except one glaring hole in the plot. Imagine that your planet is destroyed and you are cast back in time. Would you "plot revenge against the Vulcans because one Vulcan was late in the rescue" or would you "use your newly granted time to either speed up the previously failed rescue" or "begin an orderly evacuation of your about-to-be-destroyed planet"? The choice of the revenge option was most illogical (remember that the Romulans and Vulcans are related). Sci-fi stories and movies are supposed to be more intelligent than this. Now I realize that this reboot was meant to place Star Trek in a new universe so that more stories are to follow (eg. here, Spock gets the women rather than Kirk; here, without Captain Pike doesn't experiencing a delta ray accident so the mission to Talos IV presumably never happens; here, with Spock's mother dying early, Spock's relationship with his father is much warmer). But this new marketing objective doesn't hide the hole in the plot. --Neilrieck (talk) 11:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Romulans are passionate not logical. This Nero guy was preoccupied by rage more than rational thinking. Wait a minute, I thought this page was supposed to talk about the article not look for plot holes? Arthur Fonzarelli (talk) 17:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Yes indeed and it's covered in the film in the dialogue, nero states (when talking to pike) that he plans to destroy the federation and *then* save the empire. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Irrationality on the part of a character is not a plot hole - it's a character trait. As said above, Romulans (though related to Vulcans), are not under the emotion-suppressed training that Vulcans are, and are not bound to logic any more than the Humans. If every character did every logical thing in every story, there would be many fewer conflicts and thus many fewer stories. Also, as said above, the talk page is about improving the article, not pointing out personal opinion on the subject matter. ~QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 19:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC) I wanted to discuss this problem in the wikipedia article but didn't want to ruin the movie for people who have not yet seen it (yes I could have added SPOILER notices but that sometimes will introduce even more pissed-off comments. :-) --Neilrieck (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC) I don't know what you mean by "I wanted to discuss this problem in the wikipedia article but didn't want to ruin the movie", how "discuss it in the article"? And as Wikipedia is not censored then adding a spoiler is considered vandalism, so you could not have added a spoiler warning. So do you have any suggestions for improvements to the article? Darrenhusted (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC) We have no problem with discussion of article problems, but we cannot comment on perceived story problems, as editors. If there was never any intent on adding commentary to the article about the story, then this thread would have been better off on a message board. ~QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 07:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

There is another big plot hole... Why didn't Nero destroy the shuttle pods in the opening battle? If he thought it was too evil of an act to commit, then why didn't Kirk's dad just get in the shuttle pod with his wife? I know the pods aren't built for a lot of people, but they won't explode with one extra person in them. Yes, I know this doesn't have much to do with the article, but it is very important, and I bet someone knows the answer. The plot summary could be edited a bit to clear up this confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.182.25.250 (talk) 03:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Why didn't they do the things you described? It wasn't written that way. In any case, it doesn't improve the article to ask these questions, so it's not important. Thank you. ~QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 22:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

People with issues about the plot of the movie might find this TNG episode helpfull http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallels_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation) That particular TNG episode proves, more or less, the new movie was well justified plot wise. I find it kind of funny that no one has mentioned it. 67.148.120.124 (talk) 10:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)stardingo747

Not that it is important but Captain Kirk rammed Nero's ship with the USS Kelvin my guess would be he did so to force Nero to do repairs instead of perusing the shuttle craft. Sexybobo1 (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe Captain Kirk was on his way to the Pod to join his wife when the auto pilot failed, thus forcing Kirk to make a decision on accomplishing his mission ramming Neros vessel or fleeing with everyone else. I missed the reason on why it was important to ram Nero's vessel but my guess he was covering for the fleeing shuttle pods in some way —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.29.187 (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Because his ship was clearly badly damaged after the Kelvin rammed it. Look closer at the ship as the shuttle pods fly away, it's clearly illustrated. 192.155.58.192 (talk) 16:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

They could have used time travel to go back and beam him out of the ship before the impact. Actually, they still could do it in the sequel. Kirk gets to pal around with a father about the same age.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.48.167 (talk) 15:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Canon Question...

So the 2009 film established a new timeline due to time travel. However, this means that all Star Trek media that took place before the original series chronologically (Star Trek: Enterprise, Star Trek: First Contact) should still be canon as they occur before the change in the time line.

However, both of those previous projects relied on numerous time travel story lines with interference from the future time line in Next Generation and later directly resulting in events that lead into the original Star Trek series. So, isn't impossible for a new time line to be established since it would have prevented the situation that allowed the new time line to even occur (e.g., since the movie makes a new time line, then the events of TNG and later do not occur in the same way, in that they couldn't have then interfered in Enterprise or First Contact which were responsible retroactively for many of the events in the original series)?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.34.219 (talk • contribs)

See the conversations above and remember to avoid fainting keep repeating, it's only a movie, only a movie, only a movie. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Well the above does show just how messed up the movie's premise is but given the three years of how to royally FUBAR what little continuity Star Trek had we got in Star Trek: Enterprise with the whole Temporal Cold War thing there really wasn't much left to work with. Then you have the Temporal Prime Directive and Temporal Accords which mean either Captain Braxton of the 29th century or Daniels' backers of the 31st should have showed up and given Nero a major smackdown before he was able to do anything.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Really, there are other places for this discussion. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Planet of the Apes (Burton), Timecop, Back to the Future, et al. explore time as fluid and changeable. Niven wrote All the Myriad Ways, and I remember a couple of short stories that all explore time as fluid and changeable. Current rational theory insists that time cannot be changed, even if time travel were possible. Azimov believed that time travel is possible but only in one direction. It is only in fiction that time can be changed, and even Star Trek (1966) changed time so often, that each episode could be considered taking place in different timelines. Starfleet changes names often enough, the Enterprise arrowhead becomes the Fleet Patch, one episode ends before it even begins, etc. Even ST IV had an altered future after Kirk & co. save the whales. Miraculously, the Big E -A appears, and we're all one big happy fleet again. So: it's just a movie. Cheers!

Sentence in second paragraph speculating on aims of production

So, let me see if I have this straight (and assuming good faith), when you reach a certain level on wikipedia, you no longer have to bother to explain why you make a reversion? The sentence is speculative, hearsay, and not objectively verifiable as factual, although it is written that way. Its claims (or rather, the comments of people involved in the film) are well described in the body of the main article. As an apparently objectively true statement in the second paragraph, however, and residing around a number of (presumably) objectively true and verifiable statements regarding production dates, release dates, and the like, it has no place. It is more editorial than factual. Baxter42 (talk) 21:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about the lead? If so most of the lead is referenced later in the article. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for moving this topic down, as I'm obviously new here. --- Yes, when I fixed the second paragraph to make it look more like an encyclopedia entry, it was reverted without comment by an admin. The second sentence in the second paragraph, which begins: "The production's aim ...", as it stands now, and especially in the middle of a bunch of objectively true statements regarding dates, sounds like a line from a press release. We don't know what the production's aim was, but presumably it was to make a lot of money. Anything other than that is speculation and not factual. Unlike reports of what people claimed their intent was, which are appropriate in the body of the article, an objective statement stating what the "production's aims" were doesn't belong in the sixth sentence of an allegedly factual encyclopedia entry. At a minimum, the qualifier "According to the producers ..." should be added.Baxter42 (talk) (subsequently edited for clarity Baxter42 (talk) 00:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC))

Wikipedia is like Dungeons and Dragons. The higher the level of Wikipodians, the more god like and hard to kill they are, upsetting the balance of the game... . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.49.126 (talk) 13:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Alternate timeline

To put this in the simplest terms the alternate timeline is covered here. Anything else without sourcing is original research or not reliable. [1] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Direct sourcing for Alternate Reality can be found [[2]]. I suggest that we add this source behind the wording to allay aany further arguements of non sourcing.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Protected

I have protected the article for a few days in order for the edit war to calm down and to give people a chance to come up with sources for the alternate wordings. Theresa Knott | token threats 14:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there is only one person attempting to push a change through and has exceeded 3RR and not made a single edit to this talk page. Not sure that protection is appropriate when removing the one participant would be just as effective in ending the edit war. –xeno^talk

Well yes but he has claimed that the phrase that he was replacing was also unsourced and I saw no sources added just reverting. There has been very little attempt at discussion here, and that isn't only one persons fault. Theresa Knott | token threats 14:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe there has been dialog at user talk pages with little to no effect. I understand you're trying to save the person an entry in their clean block log, but protection because one person refuses to wait for consensus for their suggested changes hardly seems appropriate. Jmho. I would reccomend leaving a stern "final final warning" that the editor stop making these changes until the talk page discussion here runs its course, unprotect, and block if they don't heed the warning. –xeno^talk 14:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The editor has had several final warnings, and nearly passed through 3RR yesterday for a different edit. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

That is incorrect, please see [[3]] it says it in the title. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Is that ref in the article? I can't find it. Theresa Knott | token threats 14:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No, but see the below exchange, especially at 14:38. This source is. Note also the editor was blocked for 24 hours. –xeno^talk 14:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

In addition the wikilink to parallel universe is an accurate explaination of what happened in the film. Whereas the link Shimon was linking to describes a superpower which is not accurate to the events in the film. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this helps, but I know usually, and in this case in particular case, the lead has no sources and is just used to summarize sourced material which can be found later in the article. Upon looking through the article I found one other mention of the "alternate reality" phrasing. It is sourced, the article is here, it is also ref 160. JJ Abrams, the director, seemingly uses the phrase "alternate reality", which seems to be what it should be called. Also, in any case, the fact that the article has been changed back to "alternate reality" numerous times (and in the past touched up by this and mentioned on this talk page above) there seems to be a consensus that that's what should be there. --HELLØ ŦHERE 14:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

@H.ia.b., why isn't that source in the article? –xeno^talk 14:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I would say because it deals more with the sequel, which isn't mentioned on this page. The discussions on that particular topic happened a while ago. --HELLØ ŦHERE 14:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

kk. I see your comments at 14:38 alleviate Theresa's concern that the 'alternate reality' term was unsourced in any case. –xeno^talk 14:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I found the source in the already available sources. I thought it was added but I've never seen that he claimed it was unsourced.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Also in the first article there was a paragraph that states "As those who've seen the film know, Abrams' new "Star Trek" establishes an alternate timeline for the series' key characters — one that veers off course when the USS Kelvin is attacked in the film's opening scene, killing James T. Kirk's father and causing the future Enterprise captain to be born in space. Other events in the film also similarly impact the young "Trek" characters, resulting in wholly new story lines." so the above was just a secondary article to support the term in which it was used in the title. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I have unprotected the page. Please add your source in. Theresa Knott | token threats 14:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

One of the ultimate problems I see hapening is this: The now blocked user continued to only change the opening paragraph. We have added the sources to the body, and I'm not necessarily a fan of sources in the lead, but we may have to. I would say we should talk it out first though. --HELLØ ŦHERE 15:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see any problem with having a source in the lead paragraph.Theresa Knott | token threats 17:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I sourced the opening paragraph. this should preclude any other claims alternate reality is original research and unsourced.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think it's needed in the lead. I will, however, be changing it slightly. I do believe that this sentence explains my reasoning for it not being the lead-

“ Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. ”

That is taken from WP:LEAD, and it is somewhat unneeded to have it, when it's sourced twice later on in the article. But, as I said, I will leave it, but slightly be changing it too. --HELLØ ŦHERE 09:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

For God's Sake people....

Wikipedia is not a forum, any issues regarding the plot, its ALL explained, in this TNG episode, I'm sure you can track it down on youtube, or some other video site somewhere, and if Hulu decides to run it someday you can always hulu it;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallels_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation)

The plot of the new movie, is well justified, even in the Star Trek cannon; Data explains in the episode that there are literally an endless number of timelines, one of which, Kirk becomes captain while in Star Fleet academy. The "standard" Kirk, the original series one, became Captain at the age of 26, by the time he was 32, he got command of the Enterprise. This Kirk though became captain while younger because well, Nero kind of forced the circumstances.

Okay I'm starting to sound like a forum so I'll get to the point; because of the episode "parallels" Star Trek writers can do whatever the hell they want regarding the chain of events, in no way shape or form, does the alternate reality of the movie interfere with the more traditional cannon, you can still make a TNG movie without any confusion involved. I really wish people would shut up about that. The article needs no modification; it just seems that some Trekies have very short memories.

67.148.120.58 (talk)stardingo747 —Preceding undated comment added 05:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC).

Reboot

Sources Classifying as a reboot [[4]] [[http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1611010/20090511/story.jhtml [[5]]/Disc_AnnouncemenOfficial_Star_Trek_Blu-ray_Box_Art_Revealed/3426 [[6]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

They're mistaking different continuity with a reboot. It's not a reboot, end of. Rehevkor ✉ 17:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest reading the articles. They do not refer to the time continuity in this manner but rather the fact that they were rebooting a defunct movie series with a new storyline. Unfortunately it seems to be a quite widespread problem. I fail to see any relevant policies that would limit the insertion it is a reboot as several media sources are classifying it as such. I would cite for Example the recent remake of Superman. This was considered a series reboot, further precedences would the Incredible Hulk Movies recently made. They are rebooting poorly made or poorly revenued films in hopes of bringing it back to financial life. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Per this discussion in February, is it not a reboot. For a start no one seems to be able to pin down exactly what a reboot is or isn't, and as the term is too fuzzy to be used, and understood by the casual reader, then it is best left out. As for sources provided by HiaB, all they do is put reboot in the title of the article and never explain in any detail what they mean. When Planet of the Apes (2001) came out Tim Burton and WB used "re-imagining" very specifically, so that can be used on the article, and its meaning explained. As no one from Paramount, or Bad Robot, have used the term reboot then there is no justification, or accompanying explanation, that can be put in this article. Just adding the word says nothing about the film, and does not help the reader understand what the film is about. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

What policy are you basing this on? You can't seem to answer that one simple question. We have multiple sources that classify it as a reboot. Without a policy that confirms your pov thatit has to be verified by the creative I'd be happy to see it. If not I intend to revert it back this evening. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Common sense and years and years of similar experiences tell us that no one but the original creator of a film (or story of any kind) knows what it was meant to be, to mean, and all the stuff like that. Therefore, the only source who can tell us reliably what the producers intentions were are the producers themselves. Unless, of course, you find a telepath. BAPACop (converse) 21:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Can we not write outsiders' classification of the film as a reboot in a sentence? "Critics called Abrams's Star Trek a reboot of the (film) franchise"? It should be noted that the creators of a literary work do not always have the last say in defining the intent of their creation; read intentional fallacy to see what I mean. For example, the author of Fahrenheit 451 intended for his work to be criticism of television as media, but the work is instead popularly perceived as anti-reading. Just food for thought. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 21:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I no problem with a sentence somewhere, but starting the page with Star Trek is a reboot is the wrong way to do this. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Source 70 addresses pre-release reluctance why they weren't classifying as a Reboot at that time. Orci states because it would inherently give away part of their story. This is pre-release. All media outlets are callign it a reboot of the franchise. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

But since the film came out no one involved with the production ever called it that, and it's not like they didn't do any media. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you blew your arguement with your talkpage comment that you don't like my sources. That is personal I am basing them off what the site allows per wp:rs maybe you should do the same... Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

They're not RS, the mentions don't pin down what the headline writers mean by reboot, they mention it in passing and give no analysis. And the word is "argument". Darrenhusted (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I should probably point out the dictionary definition of a reboot, from here:

"Hence, “reboot” has the connotation of starting a process over again."

In that sense, the new movie can be considered a reboot in the real world, seeing as Abrams and others are restarting the series from the beginning, with new actors, etc., etc. That has been stated by Abrams, and it falls under the definition of a "reboot" in the strictest sense: though he has not actually said the word reboot, he has given statements which can be evaluated to be an equivalent.

Remember, the term "reboot" has no connection to the plot of the movie, rather to the franchise as a whole, and has absolutely nothing to do with Star Trek's in-universe continuity, merely it's existence in the real world. BAPACop (converse) 21:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

A well thought response. I am not suggesting that it messes with Star Trek continuity just the fact that this is a resurrection of formerly defunct movie franchise. As stated on User:Darrenhusted page, I fully intend to change the opening to reflect that this was a reboot of the Star Trek franchise.I have not done so yet as I am currently at work and a listing of my sourcings for reboot is on my home pc. As stated though if you can come up with a more valid arguement of You don't like my sources that is backed by policy, I will refrain. Please Consider that Entertainment Weekly, MTv and other 3rd party media outlets are considered reliable on the rest of wiki so no reason they shouldn't here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's see what Wikipedia has to say, shall we? It holds that a reboot is "a discarding of much or even all previous continuity in the series, to start anew." The fact that this film explicitly stems from and continues previous continuity (not to mention its featuring two actors associated reprising roles from that canon) clearly disqualified it from being a reboot per this definition. Also see how the Batman Begins infobox does not say "preceded by Batman and Robin", whereas Trek XI's infobox says "preceded by Nemesis". Due to the inexact usage of terms such as "reboot", "prequel" and others by the entertainment media, let's at least keep Wikipedia consistent, shall we? Best, Mdiamante (talk) 04:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I love when people kick their own butts in their arguements. Batman would therefore be a continuation of the batman series as well and we no longer would be able to classify it as a reboot either. The language was modified to indicate that the media is the people that are classifying the film as a reboot of the Star Trek franchise. Whether or not you personally disagree is non-sequiter as it is published in several reliable sources that conforms with Wikipedias standard of inclusion. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

Hate to disagree but it would be a reboot. 1 Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC) 2 Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC) apologies on that. I will instead leave a note reminding you that you are close to violating the 3rr policy. I will ask for a third party comment as the term reboot can be found on several reliable sources classifying as a reboot. Please point me to a policy that says the director has to name the film a reboot? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC) I have asked Julian Colton to help adress, my comments can be found at 3 Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC) As mentioned above, I have been asked to weigh in here. I'm not going to comment on the merits of the reverts, but edit warring is obviously unacceptable. Darrenhusted, as you're close to breaking the 3RR, I suggest taking a step back for a while and having a calm discussion on the article's talk page. Thank you. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC) I already said that I was going to the talk page at 16:14. [4], a full 14 minutes before Hell in a Bucket posted at your page. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Its the main problem of your insistence that it has to be coined as a reboot by abrams or creative team. As exhibited above and the sources added to Star Trek there is a consensus in reliable media that it is a reboot. Is there a specific policy you are basing your claims on? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC) None of the "reliable sources" do anything other than use reboot in passing, none of them explain what is meant by that, they just use it as lazy shorthand. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC) As I just stasted on the talkpage. If you can't back your position through a specific policy I will gather every source thatcalls it a Reboot even if it means 15 sources in the lead and will add tonite. If you can show me the relevant policy that says a creative team or producer/director has to term it that way then I won't. Until then you have no valid defense other then a personal objection. So far I've backed my claims with sources can you do the same for yours? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC) I don't like any of your sources, and this is now on the talk page so leave others to comment. Nothing has changed since February. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC) I did not add that star trek was a reboot in the opener per your talk page comment. I did however label it as "the eleventh film based on the Star Trek franchise and reboots the main characters of the original Star Trek television series, who are portrayed by a new cast." I see you have no objections to using the term reboot somewhere within the article so I wanted to seeif you had a place you'd like to see it instead or a different phrasing? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC) So would you say the phrasing above is ok with what you are trying to achieve? I am trying to make sure your view and mine will be represented in a fair manner. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

If it's true, why can't we add it later in the reception area? I very much agree with certain sides stated. It is a continuation and a reboot. Hence the fact that it's in an alternate universe (or whatever they're calling it). But, I agree that the aim of the producers is what should come into play. All others are how people receive it. If one receive it as a reboot, fine, if another receives it as a continuation, that's fine. But let's add it to reception. The lead seems fine without it's mentioning, because, overall, it is a continuation. That's how and why they can have Nimoy. But, all of that is just my opinion. Hope some of this helps. --HELLØ ŦHERE 19:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) All of you, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy against edit warring, particularly the three-revert rule. Whether or not this information is included will not cause Wikipedia to come tumbling down. I ask both parties to desist and focus on discussing the issue at hand. It helps to revert oneself in an act of good faith, too. My $0.02: "reboot" may very well apply to the general notion of moving forward with new feature films after a long hiatus and not necessarily relate to the storylines. Thoughts? Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 19:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, one of the major problems is that it seems (including my two reverts) that it's HiaB against the rest. I agree that it should be included, but I don't feel the need for it in the lead. It's opinions of reviewers, which, normally goes into a reception section. I also don't understand how 7 years is a "long hiatus", especially considering the difference between the original Trek and TNG. --HELLØ ŦHERE 19:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I've made several reverts, and have asked for discussion on this page each time, but HiaB, as one can see above, only replied with sarcasm instead of good-faith debate. The fact remains that by Wikipedia's own definition, this film is not a reboot. Now, it is true that "reboot" is a problematic and vague term, and some reliable sources have indeed called it one. But that is an opinion and subjective interpretation, and reboot/continuity issues are discussed in the film's "Writing" section. The intro paragraphs prominently note the recasting of characters and the "alternate reality" of the film, so taking sides in a "reboot" debate would not be in the best interests of encyclopedic neutrality. That said, if HiaB wanted to propose language concerning this interpretation in the "reception" section, that might well be appropriate. His edit warring, however, has not been helpful. Best, Mdiamante (talk) 23:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I'll do it to save time: I formally propose placing the section about sources concerning it being a reboot in the "Reception" section, and that is should be phrased to make clear that the sources consider it a reboot, but that Wikipedia is not making that decision. BAPACop (converse) 00:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Holy fucking shit people. You are reccoemending the same thing I had. READ THIS. "It is the eleventh film based on the Star Trek and is widely considered by the outside media as a reboot" How fucking hard is it to read what you are reverting? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Calm down. People aren't apposed to this. Just how you introduce it, it seems. Just wait it out and wait on a consensus on this issue. Rehevkor ✉ 02:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Just slightly frustrating when people don't use their eyes. Reboot had been removed from the lead sentence and quantified as a media considered reboot while acknowledging part of the series of Star Trek Movies. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

sources

For anybody with access to SciFi Now: http://trekmovie.com/2009/10/06/star-trek-movie-make-up-secrets-revealed/ — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 12:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed Preceded by Nemesis.

I removed this blurb because it is not in the same series. The movies are set in the same universe and time dimension however the events of Nemesis hasn't happened yet. If you also note the movies quit numbering them after Star Trek 6 The Undiscovered Country. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep them out-of-universe, sequencing the Star Trek productions as they are released. The article clearly outlines that this film is not a continuation of previous films' storyline, so mentioning Nemesis should not be problematic. It's just the last Star Trek feature film before this one. To use fictional detail as the criteria seems unnecessary. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 23:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I very much agree. It's a series of films produced, not necessarily a continuation of films in chronological order. --HELLØ ŦHERE 00:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

HiaB, there are story elements of this film (the destruction of Romulus, Spock's mission) that continue and proceed from the events of Nemesis. Thus this film is preceded by that one, and it is not a reboot, per my reasoning above. Please discuss this further before simply reverting to your preference before a consensus is reached. Best, Mdiamante (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC).

I swear to christ some of the logic used here is so mind boggling it's laughable. Lets ask it this way and use your own arguemnt. Where did Abrams or Orci say this was a continuation of Nemisis. The main objection of the term reboot is that it wasn't classified as such by the creative team. I'd love to see your sources that prove this gem. If you people can't be smart at least be consistent. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying that, other than title, this has no connection to other Star Trek films? That's what the preceded by line indicates: the film in the series released before this one. Note, for instance, that Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi is followed by Episode I. Timeline isn't the key; release order is. —C.Fred (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

NOt at all I'm just pointing out the fallacy in the arguement above that Batman begins is a reboot because it's infobox doesn't say preceded by Batman and Robin. It was. There is a double standard here. If you want to enforce something fine but make sure it's consistent. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay... The preceded by box refers to the franchise rather than continuity in this case. So having Star Trek Nemesis in that position is correct. Wikipedia's definition of a reboot is different that the dictionary definition, and that's fine, but there's still one problem. As long as the sentence is phrased to state that sources consider it a reboot, what's the problem? There shouldn't be one. Personally, I find the phrasing of the lead a little awkward if the reboot is mentioned, anyway. But if we put this in the Reception section, we're okay, right? Any problem with just doing that? BAPACop (converse) 22:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

So you are saying that Star Trek is not part of the Star Trek film series? Everybody outside Wikipedia (and possibly Trekdom) would simply scratch his head at this notion. You should doubt your perspective. --193.254.155.48 (talk) 14:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I recently read over the Batman Begins arguments for removing batman and robin. I disagree with their logic, however, even if one were to accept that logic, arguing that this is a complete reboot is not exactly true. Leonard Nemoy and the main villain, Nero come from the original universe from a time period after Nemesis. Hence while this is an alternate universe, the original universe does exist. This therefore isn't a true reboot, but more like a prequel in an alternate universe. Thus, we should put the proceeding tag back on. Oldag07 (talk) 14:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

History section

Recent edits on this page seem to make sense for me. The whole paragraph about a supernova threatening the entire galaxy, while chronologically accurate, does not reflect the gist of the film. I feel that plot points as they appear in the movie would make sense.

This is what i suggest: Remove the first paragraph. Than:

On Delta Vega, Kirk encounters Ambassador Spock (stranded by Nero to watch the destruction of Vulcan). Through a mind meld, Kirk learns that in the year 2387, the galaxy is threatened by an unusually volatile supernova. Spock piloted a ship carrying "red matter", creating an artificial black hole to consume the supernova. Before Spock completes his mission, the supernova destroys the planet Romulus. Captain Nero of the Romulan mining ship Narada attempts to exact revenge on Spock, whom he blames for the destruction of his homeworld and its inhabitants, including his wife and unborn child. Both ships, however, are pulled in to the black hole's event horizon and travel into the past. The Narada arrives first, 154 years in the past. Its arrival is preceded by what looks like a lightning storm in space. Spock arrives 25 years later in the timeline (but seconds later for him), where he is captured by Nero and marooned on the planet Delta Vega so that he can witness the destruction of Vulcan, as retribution for Spock's failure to save Romulus.

The elder Spock insists that Kirk must become captain of the Enterprise to set things straight. The two travel on foot through the freezing cold to a nearby Starfleet outpost where they meet Montgomery Scott. The elder Spock uses technology invented by Scott in his alternate universe and beams Kirk and Scott aboard the Enterprise. Once aboard, Kirk deliberately enrages Spock (the younger) to force him to acknowledge that he is emotionally compromised, thereby forfeiting command which then passes to Kirk.

Thoughts???? Oldag07 (talk) 04:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the current manner in which the two timelines are presented. Interjecting them as you're suggesting takes the reader from one narrative to another and the back the the first; this is an easy recipe for casual reader confusion, in fact, even though I'm intimately familiar with the film's plot and it's progression, reading the same is much more convoluted. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 04:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Wil Wheaton's involvement

Wil Wheaton posted in his blog yesterday that he did all the voice work for the Romulans in this. [7]. It would be nice to have additional backing for this to confirm before inclusion. --MASEM (t) 18:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It is also stated on the DVD's commentary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.128.207 (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Poster: DVD image suggestion

I would have just done this anyway, but given the fairly lengthy discussion in the archives about whether to use the US poster vs the international poster, perhaps its better to put it to discussion first.

With the DVD release comes a new image, which essentially blends aspects of both the international and US posters. Given the discussion about the posters previously, it struck me that this might be a good compromise solution to using either international or US posters; I'm given the impression that this is the artwork used for worldwide DVD release. It (obviously) covers home release of the film as well. Plus, its more minimalist approach to information on it probably makes it more consistent style-wise with the straight artwork images used by other Star Trek film articles, and it doesn't have "Coming soon" written on it, which to me always seems sloppy for us to have on artwork after release of the media concerned. Just throwing it out there, really. -- Sabre (talk) 01:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes but its not the poster the poster belong there not the DVD image some posters are the DVD cover but most aren't so I think that image doesn't belong there we use the release posters but thats me we should wait for others to comment The Movie Master 1 (talk) 02:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Excessive dependence on a fansite

Although Star Trek (film) as a whole isn't a {{one source}} problem, I think it's a problem for it to be so dependent on trekmovie.com, a WordPress-based fansite. A quick pass through the article finds that roughly a quarter of the citations are taken from that website. As http://trekmovie.com/about/ notes, trekmovie.com was "founded by Anthony Pascale, a Trek fan since childhood" (who seems to be the sole owner) and lists an un-credentialed "staff" that for all I know are the ones who end up contributing to the article and thus drive web traffic to their Gorilla Nation-represented site. It's great to see an emphasis on the use of references, but the excessive dependence of the article on trekmovie.com means it loses some credibility. 67.100.126.221 (talk) 11:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, trekmovie.com has close ties to the filmmakers, writers and production staff of Star Trek. Writer Roberto Orci can even be seen posting to that site on the DVD of the film. Determining what is and isn't a reliable source on the web and with regard to fan sites is sometimes a nebulous matter, but in this case I'd suggest that trekmovie.com is roughly equivalent to Starlog magazine in the 1970s: founded and run by fans, yes, but run to a professional standard and with a good reputation. WP:RS doesn't require a news source's staff to be credentialed; all it requires is that the source have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In the context of Star Trek fandom (and specifically this film), trekmovie.com has that reputation. I don't see why interviews with production personnel on that site shouldn't be regarded as reliable sources. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm always wary of advertisement-supported fansites, even the ones that develop ties with those involved in a film franchise. They can appear to become unpaid extensions of the studio or producer's marketing organization. Anything Star Trek-related, with its own wikiproject, is bound to get detailed attention from editors, and the ST-related sites they frequent will no doubt provide the impetus for their contributions. Those interested in making this a good article might consider googling for more mainstream or old school web sources for alternate sources for the tidbits that they want to add. Now that the DVD is out, a clearly-authoritative and verifiable source are the DVD commentary tracks and extras, which can be used with {{cite video}} to replace existing as well as new references. Thanks. 68.165.77.71 (talk) 00:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Pegg the only actor who didn't audition?

An editor cites http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/features/Simon-Pegg-interview.5204545.jp as evidence that Pegg is the only cast member who never auditioned. Yes, scotsman.com says that, but WP:COMMON sense would question that source's accuracy. Is it plausible to think Leonard Nimoy auditioned? Nimoy's comment here and here seems to confirm the obvious. I'd also be surprised to learn that Tyler Perry or Winona Ryder auditioned, given their small roles and established careers. It's much easier to believe that Pegg is the only cast members playing a major character from the Enterprise crew who didn't audition. I think more than one source is needed to confirm the statement from the scotsman.com interview. 68.165.77.71 (talk) 01:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right, but it's a question of how to phrase it. Pegg was the only new cast member who never auditioned? Only recasting? Common sense says Nimoy didn't have to audition for his part—or he did audition, if you count the one 40+ years ago. —C.Fred (talk) 02:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

You may have a point if Nimroy wasn't the only one to not audition. However it is currently sourced to what seems to be a reliable source, so further clarification would be needed, so have tagged it as such. Not sure the best way to approach it. Rehevkor ✉

According to this from telegraph.co.uk, "Abrams went to Leonard Nimoy whose emotionless Spock was one of the mainstays of the original series and six of the movies. He offered him a small but important role in the movie and showed him footage of 31-year-old Zachary Quinto, one of the ensemble cast of the TV series Heroes, whom Abrams had chosen as the young Spock. "We knew if he said no we were screwed," Abrams says, "because the story is about Spock. We knew Leonard was going to be the key thing for this story to work because the fans of Trek are so passionate and so vocal that if we didn't get this movie blessed by someone from the original Trek they would probably reject it sight unseen." Since this is more evidence that Nimoy didn't audition, I'm going to change the article to so that scotsman.com is simply used to document that Pegg was offered the role by email. 72.244.203.210 (talk) 10:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC).

It's pretty clear what it meant, and this change is utterly pointless tbh. MickMacNee (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Anything on how this film BREAKS Star Trek continuity on how Time Travel works?

Any good Star Trek fan knows this film breaks the continuity on how time travel works in the Star Trek universe.

The City on the Edge of Forever, Tomorrow is Yesterday, Star Trek: First Contact, Past Tense (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine), The Visitor, Time and Again (Star Trek: Voyager), Future's End, Before and After (Star Trek: Voyager), Year of Hell (Star Trek: Voyager), Timeless (Star Trek: Voyager), Relativity (Star Trek: Voyager), Endgame (Star Trek: Voyager) and 10 plus episodes of Enterprise and its Temporal Cold War all say this movie has NO IDEA what it is talking about and "Parallels" (TNG) explains how Many World Theory works in the ST universe which is again contrary with the explanation we are given in the movie.

Given that under Bell's Theorem Superluminous (read Faster Than Light Communications) and Many World Theory are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE things you have to take some liberty with the Quantum Physics to make things work in what in the end is a FICTIONAL universe that has BOTH. To this end you have to keep the physics consistent and the movie does a major fail in that regard especially with it established by canon going all the way back to the original series some 40 years ago.

With all this does anyone know of a reliable source who points this out?--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what all this has to do with the article. Are you advocating the inclusion of something to the effect of, "This movie contradicts time travel theory as established in previous Trek productions," with a reliable source cited? Doniago (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

They deliberately wiped out the history, so they could reboot the series. They said this. And a star going supernova, somehow causing everything it touched to explode, as it spread out, destined to destroy the entire galaxy, is enough ridiculousness to convince most not to take anything seriously from a scientific standpoint. Dream Focus 21:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

To Doniago--yes that is exactly what I am advocating. To Dream Focus--actually it is unclear just what they did. The writer has claimed that everything in the film occurs in an alternate time line--not realizing this basiclly gives the TNG episode "Parallels" the middle finger.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how the fact that this movie disregards previous time travel theories in Trek is necessarily relevant and/or notable to the general population, but if there's a reliable source discussing it, perhaps it merits inclusion. Also, given that "Parallels" specifically established the existence of alternate timelines, how does this movie contradict it? It's entirely possible that an Enterprise-D from the Trek '09 'verse could have shown up among those shown in "Parallels"...but again, without reliable sourcing this is, to my mind, not material that should be included. Doniago (talk) 03:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

We would need a reliable expert or two to actually comment on the change in time travel theory to include it; we can't state it ourselves (that would be Original Research --MASEM (t) 03:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

References

The list of references is getting pretty long and it looks like it is past time to organize them into the {{reflist}} template. I am only suggesting this because I don't believe that a split will be made. -- allen四names 04:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? As far as I can tell every reference is an inline citation and in the reflist. Rehevkor ✉ 04:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The text of the references can be enclosed in the reflist template. I will make an edit to demonstrate how. -- allen四names 04:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done by this edit. -- allen四names 04:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I see, I wasn't aware you could do that. I'm not sure how this will improve anything, however. Rehevkor ✉ 05:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It may not improve anything, but it can help find duplicate references that are hard to find in the current format, provided the list within the reflist template is organized properly. -- allen四names 05:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

refTools has a limited ref checking function, and it found no duplicate refs. It found a few duplicate ref names however (fixed), there are also a lot of refs that don't use a cite template. Rehevkor ✉ 15:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how good refTools is at finding duplicate references but I will take your word for it. -- allen四names 19:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said, it's limited. Rehevkor ✉ 19:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Plot Summary

I've been asked to come on here to discuss my "major changes" to the plot summary I've contributed. I have edited the summary to better conform to WP:PLOT and also to help the summary make more sense. The version now on the page would be confusing to new readers or non Trek fans considering it doesn't ease the reader into the summary but instead introduces and explains plot points before they are needed. It also leaves out or fudges key points and points out minor points which is not indicative to a good summary. Granted, I have added about 50 words and that can be polished.

The purpose of Wikipedia is to improve articles and wiki states that articles are constantly changing and are never really final. The editors who simply undo my revisions without copy editing or contributing assume the plot summary is final. I will continue to redo my revisions until a better version of the current summary is proposed or mine is edited properly. I have not changed any facts or information about what happens in the summary, I simply tweaked a few things and rearranged it to read better, an edit that warrants copy-editing, not simply reversion. (Deftonesderrick (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC))

Back when this movie first came out, the plot was presented in the chronological order you have re-edited to. We found this made it bulkier because you had to introduce the Romulans' presence twice as well as some of the confusion on their search for Spock. Reordering to put it into elder Spock's POV made the plot easier to explain, even if that broke the sequence with the movie, and thus trimmed the words. We are allowed to break the order of scenes if it makes the plot more concise and easier to understand. The reordered version also establishes better that the story is based on the original TOS timeline but eventually altered by the time travel effects, instead of bringing that up in the middle as it is now. --MASEM (t) 18:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually yes, the consensus was to make it out of order as, even though it seems odd, it was easier to explain. --HELLØ ŦHERE 18:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, well, where is this discussion and concensus? I did not see it on the talk page, so I think I can't be faulted for not knowing. I digress...

The argument that people need to know it's based on TOS timeline/alternate timeline is moot considering that would make the summary read more in-universe, as it does with the original edit. The other argument about the TOS reasoning is, if the movie is a reboot, then it doesn't matter if the summary better explains that it's the TOS timeline since more people will read the article who know little to nothing about Star Trek and it's our job to link them to TOS for more information. The article is about the JJ Abrams movie, not TOS. The summary should explain events better and not the universe in which it exists in.

Also, putting into Spock's POV, as far as an encyclopedic article is concerned, would confuse the reader more, especially if they were getting information about the movie and the way it's plotted. Meaning, if it's in Spock's POV, then people will think the movie is in Spock's POV. I understand we have the means and the freedom to change the order of events, but the way it's laid out originally, like I said before, would confuse people since it sounds very in-universe. We don't necessarily have to keep my version but my argument is that the original isn't any better. (Deftonesderrick (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC))

I've tweaked my edit to be the same length (appx. 830 words) as the old one. (Deftonesderrick (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC))

The plot as it right now is rather poorly written. I'm going to take some work from the now deleted/redirected article for Nero, and copy that over in its place, at least at the start. [8] Much better writing there. Dream Focus 02:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, as you can see a couple sections above, we had a decent, consensus plot, but someone changed it and continued to do so. --HELLØ ŦHERE 02:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean. [9] So we just need to agree to revert the one bad editor, and put it back the way it was then. I'll read through the above section and discuss it there. Dream Focus 02:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• So, three editors against the changes Deftonesderrick made, and no one for them but him? Consensus seems to be to put it back the other way. It is far better how it was, it easier to understand what is going on. We are reading a plot summary, not a screenplay or play by play. The method that conveys the information most coherently should be done. Dream Focus 02:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

First, I opened this topic due to the simple undoing that was going on in the history page and not offering real criticism or feedback which I wasn't getting on the history page. I rewrote the summary based on my knowledge of WP:PLOT and the several other summaries I've edited, created, and revised which have led them to be accepted or revised again to sound even better. I proposed the change due to problems I saw based on showing it to several people who, upon watching the movie and then reading the summary, found it confusing and poorly edited. Those people found it to jump around far more than a simplified summary should and I edited based on that feedback. Putting the information about the future timeline at the beginning with no basis for comparison makes it sound out of context and seem like it's extra information, which could be simplified by having it be somewhere else. It introduces old concepts and continuity without giving it any frame of reference beforehand. Second, I only changed the order of events as they were written and did not, in fact, add anymore than what already was written that would justify it being called a "screenplay or play by play" which it is not even close to being. I actually cut several misc. things and tightened it up. Granted I added a lot on my first attempt but cut it down significantly, getting back to near the original word count. If you want to tackle actually doing a third edit I would be game, since that is what I offered anyone to do from the beginning, because I still see flaws in the way the original is written. If we're to coherently convey the story as it is filmed so as not to confuse people who have never seen a Star Trek film/television series I think the events should follow more of a linear flow. I know we can jump around and WP:PLOT encourages this but I offer the opinion that if both summaries don't work than a third needs to be written. (Deftonesderrick (talk) 07:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC))

I took the opportunity to read the Nero article and I agree that that sounds better, which I think could apply to an overall third edit to make it all sound like that instead of my edit (which, I'll add, has been reedited by several people since my contribution). Also, and this has bugged me since typing this, I feel like at least saying I was doing my edits in good faith, which no one has, would have been appreciated instead of saying it's simply bad. I only want to help, elevate the article back to good status, and generate renewed interest so we can do that. I don't want an editor war or flame war, I only want what's best for the article and the people who read it. I understand the difficulty with an article like this since it's a unique reboot that also adds in old continuity as well. (Deftonesderrick (talk) 08:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC))

I know it will probably be rejected outright but I've taken the current edit, with several new editor contributions, and reduced it from 906 words to 702. It tightens things up much more and gets rid of a lot of detail that both previous versions had. (Deftonesderrick (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC))

Why would you do that? You don't destroy content simply because of size. Size is never a concern here. [10] You eliminated the reason why Spock choose Star Fleet instead of a Vulcan university, and other important plot items explaining how they all ended up coming together. Will others please give their opinions please? Should the content be included or not? Dream Focus 21:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILMPLOT While I don't believe in "destroy"'ing content, I do believe this is a good guideline, though I wouldn't say it should be strictly enforced at all times. In any case, personally I don't think why Spock chooses Starfleet is essential to a plot summary of the film. I haven't looked at the current summary yet, so I can't speak to other "important plot items", but if they're on the same level then I feel they shouldn't be included precisely because size is a concern. Doniago (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Remember that we can "sneak" any character-specific details into the characters section if they don't have great impact on the plot. The reasons for Spock joining Starfleet over the Vulcan Academy is one such thing; similarly, the plot now has no mention of Uhura and Chekov, though both has significant, but not standalone, roles in the overall plot - those roles can be outlined there. (this is in contrast to the mention of Sulu on the drilling platform, which was a major plot element) --MASEM (t) 21:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Size is a concern when it come to film plot summaries. WP:PLOT outlines that a summary should be "between 400 and 700 words" and only complex plot outlines should be longer. Star Trek has time travel but it's no more complicated than any other movie (JJ did a great job making it easy to understand), not like, say, Smokin' Aces... which we've had a hard time cutting down since there is about 5 separate stories within the central plot. Ultimately, I agree with the last two comments. While Spock's reasoning is important, it is better suited for a character profile. If Spock had stayed on Vulcan instead of going to Starfleet, that would have been a major plot point to maybe consider adding to the summary since this would be a major change for the character (as ST history shows). Masem has the right idea with the examples he outlined. Extra details (like Spock motivations for joining Starfleet) should be relegated to character profiles. (Deftonesderrick (talk) 23:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC))

I do agree that the plot is difficult for non-Trekkies to understand in its current state. It needs to be better summarized, not lengthened. Timmerja (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Deleted scenes

Before I proceed any further, should the deleted scenes be mentioned in this article? Areaseven (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Its about the film(DVD version included), and thus should be included. Dream Focus 02:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

After much deliberation, I've added a Deleted scenes section. Please make any necessary edits if possible. Thanks. - Areaseven (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Shatner's cameo

The article talks about how Shatner didnt want to do a cameo, etc.. But shouldn't it also be noted that Shatner claims to have received no such offer? The source is his official youtube channel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzOs4WEutQ8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.75.231.96 (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

diving in

There seems to be some contention between editors as to whether the action taking place 53-54 minutes into the film is an "orbital skydive" or a "space skydive". (a) We already have an article on such an act; on Wikipedia we call it "space diving"; (b) in the film, Pike refers to it as a "space jump". I've edited the article to wikilink the article we have while using the same terminology as the film itself. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 06:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. The original reference on this page said "orbital skydive", which I turned to "space skydive", as wikipedia calls it. The ships and characters in the movie weren't in orbit- they were hovering at a relatively low altitude. If they were in orbit, they wouldn't fall, but "space walk". I don't yet have my home copy of the movie, but "space jump" is also a technically acceptable term since it doesn't mention them being in orbit, and better still if that is the term used in the movie. If a reference is desired, this technicality is confirmed in the "Bad Astronomy" review of this film, http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/05/08/ba-review-star-trek/ Carves (talk) 06:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe CNN and a interview with the cast covers this...[[11]], specifically "Abrams: We had this gimmick of this tether that's holding this drill between this ship that's in orbit and this drill that's above the planet. I'd never seen people sky diving passing something!" Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

There are now thre sources to that term. A wiki link to space diving might be appropriate. I screwed that part up though....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hell in a bucket: Most people think "in orbit" has the same meaning as "in space", but sounds less 1950s sci fi. Common usage has these terms as synonomous, but they aren't. Even technically knowledgable people slip up sometimes. For instance, I was working with some other engineers at Edwards Air Force Base when SpacShipOne launched. A friend posted a picture of the spaceplane landing on his blog, with the caption "here it is returning from orbit". When I reminded him that spaceship one was only capable of brief, suborbital flight he slapped his forhead and said "oops- that was dumb" and changed it. Point being, if you can find references- particularly from people not knowledgable about space, it doesn't change the fact the jump wasn't from orbit.

I'll explain what "orbit" is. At it's most basic, to orbit is to travel around something. The ships were clearly not traveling around the planet, but keeping station over a fixed point (this is also doable from geosyncronys orbit, too, but they'd have to be many, many times the diameter of the planet high to be in geo, and they were clearly relatively close to the surface). There is gravity in space. If there was a very tall mountain or tower that went as high as the space station, and you stood on that mountain, you'd way close to as much as you weigh at sea level. If you jumped off, you'd fall like a stone. The way spacecraft keep from falling to the ground is by achieving orbit. Just like the person jumping off the 150 mile tall tower, the space station is in a total free fall. The difference is that instead of being stationary over a fixed point over the ground, the space station is moving horizontally at over 17,000 mph! It's traveling so fast that the curvurature of the earth drops out from under it at EXACTLY the same speed that it's falling, keeping it's altitude constant. When a space walker steps out of the ISS, he is also going 17,000 mph, and is in orbit and thus avoids falling to the ground, despite the relatively close proximity to the Earth. Do you see the difference? Jump off a fixed point, you fall; jump off an orbital point, and you just float there relative to the point you just jumped from (although in realty, both you and the point you jumped from are also in free fall as the stationary jumper is- you both just have to great a horizontal velocity to hit the ground. If someone was to jump from the ISS just as it passed someone jumping from a 150 mile tall tower, the ISS jumper would appear to fly by the tower at the blazing speed of 17,000 mph. Both jumpers would (at first) descend the length of the tower at the same speed, but after 20 seconds the ISS jumper would be almost 100 miles down range, while the tower jumper would be falling right next to the tower, as on the movie. 100 miles down range, the earth would've curved down enough that the ISS jumper is just as high above the ground as when he fist "jumped", even though his hight relative to the tower has descended just as much as the tower jumper. In fact, he can keep "falling" until he's on the other side of the earth- about 8500 miles BELOW the top of the tower!

Regarding your references: 14, 15 are just someone thinking "orbital" is a more technical word with the same meaning as "in space close to a planet". I explained above why this is a common slip-up. Repeating an error does not make it true, even on wikipedia. 16 claims they'd burn up in the atmosphere if they "jumped" from orbit, as on the right stuff. That's true- but they missed the point that the didn't, and couldn't, jump from orbit. Reentry from a great high, rather from orbit, is much easier. Reentry from orbit means converting the kinetic energy of your 17,000 mph speed to heat. This is done by firing a retro rocket just a little bit to lower your orbital velocity enough so you aren't going fast enough for the horizon to drop out from under you as quickly as you're falling. Eventually, you contact the atmosphere, and the rest of the 17,000 mph is changed from kinetic to thermal energy via friction with the error. Jumping off the tower, the only energy that needs to be bled off as heat is however fast you accelerate to before contacting the atmosphere. This is why spaceshipone does not experience significant thermal loads on reentry, and does not need significant heat shielding, and also why such a jump is doable in nothing more than a ruggidized pressure suit. Reference 17 & 18 are about an inflatable heat shield being developed by NASA for ease of storage and packaging purposes. The movie was only mentioned to try to make the articles more interesting. Such a shield COULD be used for reentry from orbital velocity (with a rocket engine to provide a retro-burn), and the movie was the closest thing to that most people are familier with, but what was depicted in the movie was not a "jump" from orbital velocity.

As if all that wasn't enough, it wasn't called an "orbital dive" in the movie- it was called the more accurate "space jump" (although even if they had called it an "orbital dive", the description still wouldn't match what was depicted).

As such, I propose all references to "orbital dive" or "orbital skydive" be changed to "space jump", with a link to the page on space skydiving. If you still want to change it back to "orbital" and you didn't understand my explanation above, please educate yourself on what it means to be in orbit and provide a justification here. 207.114.168.126 (talk) 15:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:TLDR Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not an easy concept, so it takes some space, and I read and refuted all 5 of your references. You really need to understand what "orbital" means, and how common it is to misuse the word. Finding 5 instances of people misusing the word doesn't make it true, and if you need specifics, read my "too long" post above.

Also, the movie referred to it as a "space jump"- not an "orbital dive" since it WASN'T an orbital dive. Carves (talk) 16:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah that may be how it is in the "real world" in the trek world that is sourced it is orbital skydive. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this back and forth editing and undoing needs to stop. We need to come to a consensus as a whole on which one to use, other wise I propose a whole new wording be chosen such as, "Pike agrees, promoting Spock to captain and Kirk to first officer. En route to the Narada, Kirk and Hikaru Sulu jump from the ship to the planet below and onto the drilling platform, disabling it." I believe both versions have their merits and arguing a small detail such as this is irrelevant to the plot synopsis. Information that details word/dialogue choices and the like should be in the production section anyway. (Deftonesderrick (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC))

We have several sources stating Orbital Dive. I have no objections to the link to a space jump but the sources aare there to put in the orbital part. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with "space dive" or "space skydive" or "jump", which would be the "real world" terms, or "space jump", which is the movie term. The term "orbital jump" or "orbital dive" is only used by people OUTSIDE the movie who do not understand space & orbits, and also don't remember what term used in the movie.Carves (talk) 17:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Right JJ Abrams is outside the movie and you are soo much more on the inside. This arguement has ben held before, we did the same crap for repoot and parellel universe. Like I say policy says it has to be sourced. I've done so from 5. It doesn't matter what you believe it matters what can be proved and sourced. Read the policies...Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Why are you against calling it what it was called in the movie- espeically of reality reflects this as accurate? Also, on wikipedia, how do we deal with the myriad of inaccurate sources found on the internet? I could come up with references explaining this isn't orbital, and the movie would back this up, but then I'd be referencing something no longer in the page. Carves (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The sources would count though. You can't c herry pick about the policy. When would a blog be more credible then a CNN report? You can only say what is in the real world. Respond to the policy....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You are using the logical fallacy "argument from authority". It doesn't matter who says something- only what's true. I'm sure I could find sources saying Chewbacca is in Star Trek, and you'd be hard pressed to find a source saying he isn't, but that doesn't make something true. Fortunately, what is true here is both true in reality and in the fictional world of the movie. I explained the problems with your sources in my too long to read post. CNN only mentioned the movie for entertainment and illustrative purposes- not to explain the movie. Discover magazie is the source. Just use the term used in the movie, rather than the term used by some people talking ABOUT the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carves (talk • contribs) 17:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

not here my friend. I opened this thread to discuss your behavior and noncompliance of policy.[[12]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Since JJ Abrams specifically refers to "Space Jump" in the CNN reference above, and they clearly weren't orbiting when they jumped, I think we can just go with that. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if others reading this would go to the thread Hell in a bucket started and weighed in. If you download the script, you'll see it is called "space jump" in the movie, and the shuttle they jump out of is said to be hovering, not orbiting. Nevertheless, hiab insists if he can find enough outside references that mistakingly say the jump was from orbit, it'll change both reality and the script. The pertinent parts of the script are as follows... "The shuttle GLIDES to a hover, 60,000 FEET ABOVE THE DRILL" & "Mr. Kirk, Mr. Sulu and Mr. Olson will space-jump from the shuttle." As I mentioned earlier, the ship & divers were hovering over a stationary point on the planet- not orbiting. As Thor mentioned, the phrase used in the movie is the perfectly accurate "space jump"- not the inaccurate "orbital dive". Nevertheless, HIAB has me at my edit limit by reverting to the older, less accurate wiki. Carves (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Fully protected

Fully protected for three days. Please seek out new life and new civilizations..., er, I mean, seek out dispute resolution, as needed. :P Cirt (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

So, apparently, we're the WGA now?

I didn't think we went by the WGA rules on Wikipedia. Even Template:Infobox film says, and I quote:

Some films are based on previously produced or published material, such as books, plays, articles, old screenplays etc. When this is the case, list the writer(s) of the film first (while placing Screenplay in parenthesis either next to or under the name), then list the source material writer(s) in a similar fashion. Some films also divide writers between screenplay and story. When this is the case, list the writers credited with writing the screenplay first.

As this is the case, shouldn't we list Gene Roddenberry in the infobox, as it previously was, even though it isn't in the credits of the film. I know of one example of a film, The Hangover, the director did several uncredited re-writes, and he and another person are listed in the infobox, even though the on screen credits do not reflect this. It also seems to be the same as when we put something such as "executive producer" credits in the "produced by" section. It isn't always the same. JJ Abrams, the director/producer of this film, is an "executive producer" on LOSt, but he has no involvement in it. I think Roddenberry should be included again in the infobox, per the infobox template page, and previous Wikipedia consensus's. --HELLØ ŦHERE 20:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

We should. Rehevkor ✉ 20:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• I've switched it to the actual onscreen credit: "Based on Star Trek created by Gene Roddenberry" This should be sufficient. It is derived from his work. Sir Rhosis (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it seems three people agree it should be the other way. I think this is the basis for some consensus. --HELLØ ŦHERE 23:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Why should we list Roddenberry in the infobox? It's a switch from what was done in prior films. I've got no problem listing him the text of the article; I'm just not sure he needs to be in the infobox. —C.Fred (talk) 00:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, The editor who removed it here also removed Roddenberry from Nemesis, and several others I believe. --HELLØ ŦHERE 00:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I have an opinion subordinate to the discussion: The way the credit reads now "Gene Roddenberry (franchise)" fundamentally mis-predicates the term "franchise". "Franchise" is predicated of the studio, Paramount, not of the author, Roddenberry. "Franchise" fundamentally implies a money-making machine, not a work of art, and can only be predicated of those machines that produce that profit. There are, I note, several terms that work in its place in a case like this, words like "continuity" or "story-line" or "universe" or "based on", whatever is appropriate in the case. All of these words are descriptive of a work of art, as opposed to a dynamic and corporate industrial complex. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 01:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, we used to have it say "characters", and I discussed that point with someone else, as that's what it says on such pages as films in the Halloween franchise. But another editor insisted on "franchise" over "characters" as 'the Batman films have it this way and they are a better basis for such things'. I always thought it was better with "characters", which we could possibly change it back to. --HELLØ ŦHERE 01:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

To my mind, it's all about predication: Once you're talking about Paramount or whatever conglomerate produced the Batman films, you can say "franchise" all you want. As long as an author's work is what is being referenced the word makes no sense, consider how silly this looks: "The Gene Roddenberry Franchise". Gene Roddenberry was a man. He farted and sneezed like the rest of us. I've not found any man or woman who was a franchise, though some may claim it anyway, they might think they are PEACOCKing, but they're really just making themselves look silly. We can try out the term in other contexts to see how it looks, but I doubt we'd find one where it works, like say predicating a person of the McDonald's franchise or something like that. The mis-predication here is as bad as calling Michael Dell a computer. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 02:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I agree that franchise should not be used. Another editor suggested to model it after the Batman films. I say we switch back to "characters" under Mr. Roddenberry's name. We always used to use "characters", then another editor came along and made mention that Roddenberry did more than create the characters. I say we switch it back to "characters". --HELLØ ŦHERE 20:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Has the NONcanonal way time travel is used in this movie been explained?

Until this movie Star Trek always showed time travel as chaining the present you came from (see "City on the Edge of Forever", "Tomorrow is Yesterday", "Time and Again", "Future's End", "Before and After", "Endgame" and Enterprise's Temporal Cold War for examples). Has it every been explain why this form of time travel worked different from all the versions that had been shown before and if so what was it?--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe it has been discussed but please see archives 1, 2, and 3. But, I do believe this is a forum-type question, doesn't necessarily pertain to the film production or otherwise, unless specifically stated by the reviewers or members of the production crew. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a forum. But as I said, the previous talk page archives might be able to help answer your question. --HELLØ ŦHERE 10:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Very scrubbed article; needs serious rework for WP and encyclopaedic standards

This article reads like a clandestine docuvertisement for the movie. Enormous amount of production information of a harmless and trivial nature, all cleanly cited and providing an illusory air of objectivity and information. Without having anything to back it up by my own impressions, it has a strong feel of having been rigorously scrubbed by someone protecting their interests. I was disheartened by this article, because it shows what Wikipedia can be turned into be dedicated and disingenuous editors (conceivably such with vested interests and financial support, as corporations could provide): neutered, and a tool. I don't think this is a controversial or unrealistic tool, given that it was one of WP's most read articles for a period of time, and as such an important channel for opinion control.

Could the article perhaps be reworked into a more concise fashion? The superlative plenitude of production factlets should be reined in heavily since they actually inundate the reader and distract as well as detract from an encyclopaedic presentation of the film, and I was struck by the lack of sections treating fanbase reactions given that (1) the industry side was well represented with awards and pre-emptive passages about the benefits of rebooting, (2) that Star Trek is characterised as much by the fan base as by the media itself, and that (3) a reboot and breaking of canon in a franchise as significant as Star Trek (and TOS in particular) must have created an enormous reaction in Trekkie/Trekker circles. Miqademus (talk) 01:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that there is a serious COI problem with the article? That it has been edited by persons related to the studio and other production companies?

With regards the "superlative plenitude of production factlets", if something has been mentioned in a reliable third party source, it's usually worth mentioning in the article.

There is a cited reception section, within which are plenty of reviews from again, reliable sources. If there was an enormous reaction in fan circles, we would know from reliable thid party sources, do you have any? Alastairward (talk) 15:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem with there being a lot of in depth information? If something is factually correct and cited correctly why should it not be included in the article. Removing such information or cutting it down would detract from the article IMHO, such information might be permanently lost in the depths of the internet were that to be the case. TomGibsonUK (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)