Talk:Star Trek (2009 film)

Archives
Talk:Star Trek XI/Archive: 2007-01-18

Archive Complete

I just finished archiving this talk page. I didn't move any disscussions from the archive, because they did not appear active. I started at 13:14:40 on 2007-01-18, and finished at 13:53:10 on 2007-01-18. I added a table of archives above. If you have any questions, post here or on my user talk page. --Ashfire908 19:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You were never properly thanked for this. Thanks, Andrew. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BCSWowbagger (talk • contribs) 22:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

GA

Wait until the film is released to nominate it, o and you missed this PLEASE DO NOT NOMINATE FILMS THAT HAVE NOT YET BEEN RELEASED AS DETAILS WITHIN THE ARTICLE MAY CHANGE BEFORE IT IS RELEASED. M3tal H3ad 01:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a copy of what I wrote here We discussed this before in Talk:Harry_Potter_and_the_Order_of_the_Phoenix_(film)#GA_comment (there's also another comment in the section below that) and I also recently put a hidden comment to not include future films, mainly due to their lack of stability as the release date comes closer and there is a fury of new details, plot summaries, box office figures, critical reviews, etc. Also I'd say that this film is not going to be released until 2008, where a lot of details can change, there's a possibility of it being cancelled (highly, highly doubtful, but possible), and the cast changing. I'd wait for it to be released and then renominate it a month or so after the surge of editing dies down when it's released. It looks like a really good article though, so keep up the good work. --Nehrams2020 02:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Fail

Look, it's unstable. I bet when this film is out the article will have radically changed. No sense in nominating it now. Wiki-newbie 21:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Considering that the film is not even guaranteed to be produced, I have to agree. If this article was considered a candidate for GA nomination, then it would give leeway to an FA nomination. This makes no sense, considering that this article is in violation of the crystal ball policy, as there is no definite news that this film will be produced. Even if the film is made, there will be huge changes to the article -- the Storyline and Fan reaction sections are going to be entirely changed when/if the film comes out. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Abrams NOT Directing Trek XI?

http://movies.ign.com/articles/762/762183p1.html New as of February 7th. --Anonymous 11:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Symbol

This article states:

However, beginning in Star Trek: The Motion Picture, the symbol was adopted as the logo for all of Starfleet, and thereafter was used in marketing collateral as a universal symbol of the entire Star Trek franchise.

If I recall, the star fleet personnel on Epsilon IX in The Motion Picture have their own unique uniform symbol, where as in Star Trek II the crew of the USS Reliant have the Enterprise symbol on their uniform. This suggests TWOK, not TMP.--203.6.205.22 00:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

*sigh* We've had this discussion at least six times before. You're right, 203.6.205. The editors have previously agreed on Star Trek II. Somebody must have snuck in and changed it without anyone's noticing. --BCSWowbagger 22:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The argument can be made that most of Starfleet had adopted the Enterprise symbol, with exceptions (Epsilon IX being one). There were plenty of non-Enterprise personnel in ST:TMP wearing the Enterprise symbol. It might also have been that Epsilon IX might not have been operating under Starfleet, but some other agency, be it a scientific agency or whatever. Point is, the symbol's use was not merely confined to Enterprise. --69.205.253.175 14:01, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

Interview

I was reading an interview on StarTrek.com where it said that they are currently planning on "Star Trek" being the title, nothing else. I don't want to move the page to that until somebody else thinks I should. For refference, http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/46176.html. Supergeeky1 00:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

the move

I see that the move has happened, but shouldn't it have been to Star Trek (2008 film) per the WP:NC(F) (and its example: Titanic (1997 film)? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Should probably be Star Trek (film), per the same reasoning. Rockpocket 19:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

True, and redirect both (2008 movie) and (2008 film) to that. Agreed. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Done, and I've fixed double redirects. However there is now a whole lot of links pointing to Star Trek XI, so if anyone fancies trawling through them all.... [1] Rockpocket 19:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The original is entitled Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Adding a note at the front would help matters. Have a look at The Transformers: The Movie and Transformers. WikiNew 19:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Most people already know the first film as "The Motion Picture." Also, I'm going to re-word the first line. "Star Trek is the title of the planned..." It sounds weird to talk about the title in the first line. If anyone doesn't like my re-wording, feel free to rv. Koeho 22:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The moving of this article was premature. The title has yet to be accepted by Paramount; the writers merely stated their intention that it be named Star Trek, with no sub-titles. I think it should be moved back to Star Trek XI until official word of the title is released. --From Andoria with Love 00:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is the closest to an official notice we've received so far. We know that it won't actually be called Star Trek XI, so to just leave it here in the interim is "more correct" than moving it back. It's also less likely to be moved form here than it would be at "XI", so I say let it be. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 00:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the working title of upcoming films should always be used as the article's title until an official announcement from the studio. Not before. The article for the Batman Begins sequel wasn't changed to The Dark Knight until after official announcement from the studio. --CmdrClow 07:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Previous edit

I just saw this on here, and I couldn't help but laugh. This was already reverted.

Shatner also indicated he would play his own Father in the new movie, and that his character would oppose James Kirk's entry into Star Fleet. Patrick Stewart has confirmed that he will play James Kirk's Star Fleet Academy instructor. Stewart said, "I am pleased to be working with Bill Shatner again"

--myselfalso 21:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Star Trek (film) → Star Trek XI — "[T]he working title of upcoming films should always be used as the article's title until an official announcement from the studio." -- Stemonitis 16:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

1. Support It makes sense as there are a lot of Star Trek films and this is rather ambiguous under the current name. Simply south 19:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Support There has been no official studio confirmation in regards to the name of the title. Until an official announcement is made, it would be inappropriate to call this film the rumored title started by the writers. They specifically said it was the title they were hoping for. That is by no means confirmation. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The title for The Dark Knight was only moved from Untitled Batman Begins sequel until after official confirmation through a Warner Bros. press release. Why should different rules apply to this article?--CmdrClow 10:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

1. Oppose as Star Trek is the film's working title, as cited in the article. To move would be in violation of WP:ATT and be false information. Alientraveller 19:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose, but for the rather weak reason that I hate seeing the kind of rename war that took place with the Battlestar Galactica articles. Star Trek does appear to be the most quoted working title (and perhaps the real title), despite the lack of confirmation on startrek.com. -- Scjessey 21:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Weak oppose. Star Trek appears to be the film's current working title, but we don't have official confirmation. Star Trek XI was the working title before that, per IMdB, if nothing else. And it will probably be moved again, anyway. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Whats the point? In time there will be official confirmation of the final title, until then we can debate the "officiality" of working titles all we want. Might as well save us all the time and effort of jumping from placeholder to placeholder and make the move - should we need to - when an official statement is made. Rockpocket 22:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
5. Strongly oppose. Star Trek is the film's current working title. The writers want it to be called Star Trek - if they want it, then they're running with the Star Trek title for the moment. Which makes it the working title. This doesn't mean that it will still be called Star Trek when it's released, however, but that's no reason to change it back to Star Trek XI. The next Star Trek movie is not going to be called Star Trek XI. It would be simply shocking if it was.
   I think it's not worth moving it again. But, IMDB even calls it Star Trek. Their title says Star Trek (2008).Just keep it here until the official title is released. For what it's worth, the official poster doesn't have a title on it. Heck, you could even move this to untitled Star Trek film. --myselfalso 22:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose. It's been called Star Trek by the trade paper Variety, and IGN says, "The plan is to simply call the film Star Trek -- with no subtitles, Roman numerals, or colons anywhere in the name." Not only does it seem to be the working title, it may very well be the permanent title. I don't believe that Star Trek XI has been anything but a placeholder name. Correct me if I'm wrong, but even so, the recency of Star Trek beats out Star Trek XI in terms of titling. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose; without a reliable source for Star Trek XI as the working title, we do have them for "Star Trek". — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

• Is there a WP:RS for Star Trek XI being the working title? Or is it simply a widely accepted placeholder? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• IMDB calls it such [2]. --Stemonitis 17:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• IMDB also calls the movie Star Trek (2008). --myselfalso 22:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The working title is Star Trek according to the writers. Alientraveller 17:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• I would not rely on IMDb as the authority for official titling. The site has the Superman Returns sequel as Superman: The Man of Steel, which IGN says was reported as a rumor by IESB.net, with "no comment" from the studio. One of the most recent authoritative citations in Variety does not acknowledge this so-called title, only calling it a sequel to Superman Returns. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Result

With the general consensus against moving the article to Star Trek XI, the matter is hereby closed. The article will remain at Star Trek (film). —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't over until the five days are up. Process is important. The majority is unlikely to change, but making decisions out of process opens up the possibility of claims of bias and unfairness. Let it run its course. --Stemonitis 08:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 17:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Citation for use

• Gustav Leao (2007-04-18). ".J. Abrams Confirms James T. Kirk in Star Trek XI, Movie Will Respect Canon". TrekWeb. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

He also says the script is done. Alientraveller 20:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

the link to source six is no longer functioning. the referenced article has moved.

Tom Cruise

Isn't there speculation that Tom Cruise may be taking on the main role? That link is my citation, i believe this should be added to the article, in fact, i was quite surprised it wasn't... ~Tresmius~

Transformers Trailer

In the beginning of the Transformers movie, there is a preview featuring a bunch of kids in a building in the middle of a city at a going-away party for another kid. They are rudely interrupted by a strange noise, a massive explosion viewed from the roof, and debris from said explosion raining meteorically from the sky. The trailer ends by displaying the date 01/18/08 and the name J.J. Abrams, so I can only assume it is for this movie. I would add this info to the wiki page, but I am rather inexperienced at it.

~Kyle~

Yeah I saw the same thing and it didnt state the name of the movie, but it seemed like a Borg attack in the trailor. -Gwag

It's not for this movie, but rather for some other flick ostensibly about some disaster -- Godzilla? the Care Bears? -- and told from the POV of survivors and whatnot. If for no other reason, it's way too early for it to be Trek, seeing as how there's not even been any announcements about casting, nothing filmed, etc. etc. --EEMeltonIV 04:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Its Cloverfield. Monster attack not Borg. 128.227.43.42 01:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Time for another move vote?

Paramount still hasn't officially announced the title of the film. We have a reputable source cited in the article stating that so far only the writers have used the title Star Trek for the film, and this in fact contradicts the introduction and the title of the article. I think we should have another vote to discuss whether this article should, once again, be moved back to either Star Trek XI or Star Trek 11 until such a time that an official title is given to the movie. It's still being widely referred to as Trek XI. 68.146.8.46 12:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I really think this says it all:

First things first: From the sound of it, fans can rest assured that subtitles about undiscovered countries and insurrections are a thing of the past. Kurtzman and Orci told MTV that their film is titled, quite simply, "Star Trek." "That's the intended title. I don't think we want to put any colons or anything on it," Orci said. (source)

I see no point in getting into another title debate. Even if Star Trek does not end up being the final title, it is not really doing any harm having this article so named. -- Scjessey 13:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Headline

• SDCC 07: Abrams Talks Trek —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Up The Academy?

There seems to be rumors aplenty that this movie will be set during Kirk & Spock's days at Starfleet Academy. What's the best way to address those rumors here, not to mention the fact that they weren't at SA together? Ttenchantr 04:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere, unless the rumors can be cited to a notable, reliable source -- the kind that usually take the form of press releases and news conferences with people connected with the production, at which point they aren't so much rumors as, ya know, news ;-) --EEMeltonIV 04:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

-Yeah if this movie takes place at the Academy, they should name this movie "Star Trek: 90210" 75.15.192.42 05:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

News & rumors: Alternate timelines / Uhura

Quote: "Actress Zoe Saldana (Haven) has reportedly been offered the role of USS Enterprise communications officer Lieutenant Uhura in JJ Abrams' "Star Trek" movie. [via IGN] According to TrekMovie, "the deal is not yet final and one outstanding issue may be related to her schedule starring in the James Cameron sci-fi mega movie 'Avatar' which is still in production. Sources indicate that 'Avatar' will be doing location shooting starting in October and 'Star Trek' is slated to start shooting in November." The site points out that Saldana has a connection to J.J. Abrams "as she was in two episodes in the recent ABC series 'Six Degrees' produced by Abrams and fellow 'Star Trek' producer Bryan Burk." Meanwhile, AICN claims that the plot for the new "Trek" film deals with alternate timelines. A group of Romulans will reportedly go back in time to kill off James T. Kirk, and the elder Spock must do what he can to prevent that incident and change the timelines back." (from http://www.worstpreviews.com/headline.php?id=5620&count=0) Eickenberg 16:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Blah, blah, who gives a care about some made up rumour? Alientraveller 16:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I would definitely wait on the AICN story, since AICN has a bad track record and that plot sounds insane, but TrekMovie.com has been, by far, the most reliable advance source for news about this movie. If Tony Pascale says Zoe Saldana was offered the part, it's almost certainly true. Which is why it was then reported at TrekToday, IGN, and TrekWeb. At the very least, the story should be mentioned. --BCSWowbagger 19:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Move?

I know this was brought up before, but I don't think it was ever put to a vote unless I'm mistaken: Should this article perhaps be moved to "Star Trek (2008 film)"? I'm aware that the original film was technically called "Star Trek: The Motion Picture," but I think not specifying the year in the title could very easily be confusing to someone unfamiliar with the series. I think the status of this as a new updated version is worth emphasizing, even if there has technically never been a film with its exact title. Look at, for instance, the article for The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003 film). The "(2003 film)" is not *technically* necessary, since the original is actually called The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (Chain Saw instead of Chainsaw). I think the "(2003 film)" is appropriate there, because it establishes it as a version adapted from something earlier. This is obviously also the case for the new "Star Trek," and I think calling the article simply "Star Trek (film)" could instead make it seem like it is THE Star Trek film. --DanyaRomulus 21:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the disambiguation link suffices in linking the reader to the appropriate film. Transformers (film) does this just fine, linking to The Transformers: The Movie at the top. I really don't think this is a major issue to pursue. Another issue to note is that not everyone will type Star Trek (film), they'd type Star Trek and follow the disambiguation link there. As for the TCM issue, it does not seem to work for me. It should be either The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974) / The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003) or The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974 film) / The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003 film). Of course, that's a discussion to take place elsewhere. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you Erik that someone searching for this film's page will be able to find it, but that isn't my point. We can redirect people to the correct page and then title the page whatever we want, but I think getting the page's name as right as possible is important, and I do think my suggestion would be more correct. Every time I see "Star Trek (film)" I imagine someone new to it thinking, "okay, there is the whole Star Trek media enterprise, and then this is THE film based on that." "Star Trek (2008 film)" would, in my opinion, be much more representative of what this film is. Does anyone else have any thoughts? Could we put it to a vote? --DanyaRomulus 03:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Support Move - I agree with the proposed move to Star Trek (2008 film). With the year, it removes any ambiguity in regards to which film is in view. - BillCJ 05:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - simplicity is preferable, and indeed, required. There's nothing wrong with the current location, which conforms to naming guidelines without masses of disambiguation required. Steve ^{T • C} 21:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Should have been listed on WP:RM before discussion, but I don't see the need for the move. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose because it's simply not necessary. Star Trek: The Motion Picture clearly uses the subtitle, and like with Transformers (film) and The Transformers: The Movie, there is no issue with their locations. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. As noted with the title, there is no ambiguity about the title. If it's really an issue, we can always add For the 1979 film, see Star Trek: The Motion Picture at the top of the article. —C.Fred (talk) 22:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed After spending about 10 minutes trying to fiqure out where this page was I found it through another wiki page. Thinking that "Star Trek (Film)" was for the first movie. A number of other people have had the same trouble as well --MattyC3350 08:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

In which case, why would moving it help? Star Trek (2008 film) redirects to here in any case. Steve ^{T • C} 08:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Right. If you couldn't find it with the redirect, then it really sounds like you're neutral on this move and/or favor another title. —C.Fred (talk) 16:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Shatner is back

I'm really too tired right now to follow up on this and incorporate it appropriately but I came across this most recent story on Shatner being lined up for a small cameo:

http://www.newswatch50.com/entertainment/story.aspx?content_id=930c34c8-fdb4-4522-887e-226b30dfd056

Hope it's useful. Pyroponce 10:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Shatner's already denied the rumors. (http://trekweb.com/articles/2007/10/19/William-Shatner-Says-He-is-Not.shtml) Aatrek 03:31, 19 October 2007 (EST)

Casting information in the Cast list section

(copying a comment on my talk page to respond to it in a more centralized area) EvilCouch 17:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at various articles like Jurassic Park or Batman Begins that many articles manage information on casting this way. Alientraveller 17:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

But there are many more than either completely omit casting information or separate them from the cast list to prevent cluttering it up with extraneous data. How about a compromise? Keep and continue to revise the casting information, but do it below the actual cast list, (e.g. Batman (1989 film)#Cast, Batman Returns#Cast, etc). EvilCouch 17:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur with EC. In this case, there is so MUCH speculation, that the Main cast list is so long and cluttered it's difficult to read. - BillCJ 17:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

And I have done as such for those who were not cast. But note the entries will fill up come the film's release when we know why those actors were cast. Alientraveller 17:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I should have thought that one of Kirk's oldest friends, Lt. Gary Mitchell, would be cast in the movie, and perhaps also Lee Kelso. Mark Piper should also show up. And possibly Finnegan the prankster, too. GBC (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Further citation

Unsure whether this information is notable enough to be included, so I'll take the coward's way out and let someone else decide:

• "Hunt for 'odd' Star Trek extras". BBC News Online. 2007-11-07. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

– Steve ^{T • C} 15:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Casting calls aren't notable. However, this might help the Vulcan article, to understand the producers' perceptions of what a Vulcan is. Alientraveller 15:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this casting call might be more notable (especially getting coverage where many films' casting calls don't). I agree with Alientraveller; I think it could be worked in with what the filmmakers intend to develop. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was the fact that it had received some coverage over those which don't which made me pause to consider it. It also received some coverage on the nationally-broadcast Today programme this morning, which IIRC went into a smidgeon more detail than this article. Is the fact that it's an open casting session unusual in of itself? Steve ^{T • C} 16:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Spock's mother

Just need to clarify a correction I just made. Variety clearly states that Winona Ryder is playing Spock's Vulcan mother. This of course jars with Trek history, since his mother is established as Amanda Grayson, who is human. Otherwise, Spock would not be half-human, which is kind of fundamental to the character. So, either Variety is wrong or they're radically revising the Spock character. However, since Dark Horizons lists Ryder as playing Amanda Grayson, my guess is that Variety is simply wrong, so I've changed the reference.Dwtray2007 15:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

STARTREK.COM confirms that it is indeed Amanda Grayson being played Ryder. -- Scjessey 15:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I have also removed the "Spock's human mother" description (again), because it is excessive detail. The provided link to Amanda Grayson offers more than enough detail for who the character is. -- Scjessey 18:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Three words is not "excessive detail". It's acceptable to briefly describe the character, especially if the character is not renowned like Spock himself or Kirk. Actually, all entries should have brief descriptions based on the existing citations for this film's storyline, complemented by real-world context whenever possible. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

There isn't much real-world detail on the actual cast members so far, but I do agree noting Grayson is Spock's mum is fine. Not many people, including myself, know that. Alientraveller 19:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

What about brief descriptions for Spock and Kirk? We can't assume that the readership will always be familiar with these characters. Is there anything we can note about the characters, such as Spock being a Vulcan (with the appropriate wiki-link)? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that'd be ok. I'm not too familiar with the original Trek though: Kirk's captain and Bones the doctor, but how much of their occupations did the crew stick to? This is a prequel too. Alientraveller 19:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That was my concern, too. I was looking at the citations for the castings, but there's not much detail about their backgrounds in this particular film. I suppose we'll let it be to avoid speculation, though an item like "Spock's mother" is already covered. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

"Prequel Concept"

I don't believe it is right for the article to say "The prequel concept raises questions of whether the movie might modify continuity." Clearly it is not a true prequel as the parts with Nimoy would have to take place well after the timeframe of TOS. Obviously details are hazy at the moment but I think it's pretty clear this whole potential rebooted franchise is not going to serve simply as a prequel to TOS. I will change this unless anyone objects. --DanyaRomulus 18:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Scenes with Nimoy would take place well after his last appearance on TNG. Alientraveller 18:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Long after TOS, certainly, but not necessarily after TNG; if it's only a brief appearance, they might X3 him. Steve ^{T • C} 19:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that's unlikely, the reason Stewart and McKellen had that done to them is because they wanted them to play younger roles obviously, but what would be the point of having Nimoy in the film if that's what they wanted to do? Since Quinto is already there as young Spock. In any case though, Orci has gone on record saying it should *not* be considered a prequel:

TrekMovie.com: You guys have resisting labels for this film such as remake, reboot, etc….even prequel. Prequel has a pretty basic definition so what is wrong with calling it that?

Roberto Orci: But yet it is not entirely accurate. In some senses it is a prequel, but the word I would use, which is how Damon [Lindelof] describes it, is a re-invigoration or re-vitalization.

(http://trekmovie.com/2007/10/08/interview-orci-talks-casting-characters-canon-and-more/)

I'm going to change it to something more ambiguous, citing that interview. --DanyaRomulus 01:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Reaction?

I would suggest renaming the Reaction section, as there is not any feedback from Star Trek fans. (I suspect that such content was not verifiable, and the topic shifted to what the filmmakers intend for the fan base.) Any thoughts on a rename? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe "A New Direction" or something similar? (Aatrek - 05:29, 06 December 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to have a "Reaction" section for something that hasn't been released yet, anyway. The way some in the fanbase are reacting on the message boards, "Controversy" could almost be a viable header, but as you say WP:V is an issue until the media starts reporting about mass protests or something. I don't really have a good suggestion for a new name, but I agree with renaming it as the current title is inaccurate. 68.146.41.232 (talk) 03:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Not all of the reactions were controversial, and they were reactions to the fact that a new film was being made, so from that point of view the title fits okay, and "reactions to a new film being filmed" is a bit long winded. We could just have "response" --SGGH ^speak! 17:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Tyler Perry casting= NOT just a rumor!

People--why all of a sudden are we scrutinizing casting news this way? The news originally came from UGO, I don't what that is, but it was confirmed by trekmovie.com. Anyone who's been following this film knows that Anthony Pascale and trekmovie.com are the most reliable source there is for it! I've been reading it since before the casting began, they have reported on every casting decision and gotten the scoop on about half of them, and not ONCE have they been wrong or had to retract or anything like that. Go read their archives if you don't believe me. Several of the castmembers are already cited to trekmovie.com (from articles that don't have explicit confirming quotes from the filmmakers or actors themselves) and no one had a problem with that then, and there shouldn't be any one now. DanyaRomulus (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Tyler Perry

Please take the time to carefully read the trekmovie.com article-- it is not just reporting on UGO's unconfirmed rumor:

"UGO is reporting that actor/writer/director Tyler Perry will appear in JJ Abrams new Star Trek film and TrekMovie.com can confirm this report."

As in, trekmovie.com, which I have said before in the previous section is clearly the most reliable source for news on this film, has confirmed it with their sources within the production. We have relied on trekmovie.com as the sole source of a casting report before (Paul McGillion and Jennifer Morrison, to name two, are cited to trekmovie.com from articles with no other source) and I don't see why we're scrutinizing Perry when we didn't for them. Look, to be honest I personally hate Tyler Perry and can't believe he's going to be in it, but if trekmovie.com says he is then I think the record shows he definitely is, and it's wrong of us to withhold information when we clearly have it. DanyaRomulus (talk) 19:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

While I have the utmost faith in trekmovie.com and personally believe that anything confirmed by that site is, indeed fact (since it is), I believe in this line of work everything is considered rumor unless officially confirmed by the studio or by a named individual or group working on the project. As I said, though, if trekmovie.com says it's confirmed, you can bet your life it's fact. For what it's worth though, the Tyler Perry story has since been confirmed by The Hollywood Reporter. [3] --From Andoria with Love (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Cast list vs. table

I changed the cast list to a table yesterday and found it reverted back. I'm switching it back again until further discussion has been made about it. I feel that aesthetically it doesn't make much difference either way (although I prefer the table a little bit), but the main advantage of the table is consistency. Every Star Trek movie (except for VI and Nemesis) currently use the table format, so this puts the information more in line with the usual method. Also, as the cast list grows and grows, it does make it a little easier to read and discourages random information from being placed in the list. (Speaking of, should you choose to revert it to a list again, at least please keep the notes about Quinto and the ears separate from the cast list.) --Roger McCoy/រ៉ាចើ (talk) 01:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

One other benefit to the table is that it can be made sortable. The problem is, actors would be sorted by first name, as the list is written right now. I do think, though, that with a long list, and with people looking for specific characters, that the table is more readable. I say keep it in table format. —C.Fred (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that the table format should be used. The format has become more and more obsolete, in my experience, for a couple of reasons: It's not easy to work with the coding, and the setup is limiting for the addition of prose, which is encouraged at WP:MOSFILM#Cast and crew information. With a simple list setup, it's easier to maintain and expand. It may not look like much now, but it can grow with ease, as opposed to a table. Another item to remember: It's hard to determine what roles are discriminate enough to mention before a film comes out, so there can be some overkill in compiling the roles. It's likely to be trimmed or re-formatted later when we can see what the major roles are. We already link to IMDb, so a full cast list is provided there. On Wikipedia, I think it's more and more the goal to provide substantial cast information. Look at most recent Good and Featured Articles about films -- this is usually the case, where articles on previous Star Trek films may not have that reviewed acceptance from the community. This film is trying something new compared to previous films; why not have its article do the same? :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Erik's reasons for not having a table. I find them very dificult to work with, and make it hard to individualize each entry, as some names may need more info than others. Tables also make it dificult for newer editors to add info, which as a new film this page will attract many. In addition, a table makes it harder to reformat the section if several changes are needed. Note: the guideline "Be bold - Revert - Discuss" needs to be practiced here: Once removed, the table should have stayed off, and the discussion begun at that point. I've not followed this guideline well in the past, but I am endevoring to do so now, or I would have already removed the table myself. Finally, if consistency is really needed between this page and the other ST films, then I have no problem beginning discussions to remove the tables from those pages! - BillCJ (talk) 05:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

My feeling is that the table is a dated format for presenting a cast. Most modern films documented in Wikipedia use a simple unordered list in the fashion used in other revisions of the article. I would be happy to see the back of the table format, which I find cumbersome and inappropriate (tables are for tabulated data, not lists). -- Scjessey (talk) 05:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

All right; I'll concede even if I do think the other format's a little harder on the eyes. I'm removing the table format, but keeping the other changes. --Roger McCoy/រ៉ាចើ (talk) 06:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem from me. Btw, if the consensus swings toward the table in the next few days, I won't oppose it going back in. - BillCJ (talk) 06:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Trekkies Against Torture

The IP 68.127.106.99 and user Paulpazymino, likely to be the same editor, have persisted today in adding a small-scale petition about "Trekkies Against Torture" in the article. This petition has no verifiable independent coverage and does not warrant inclusion, being insignificant. If coverage does emerge, we can hold discussion about including mention of the petition. In the meantime, its existence in the article is inappropriate and not neutral. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Would you care to do the honors this time? Pairadox (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I've done so, and the editor is e-mailing me. I'm explaining why the mention is not appropriate -- if it were, then I could start my own petition boycotting any issue in Star Trek. It's clearly not verifiable. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

“ Since the section is on "reaction" whether or not there are many links on Google does not de-legitimize the fact that it is a true REACTION to the film. I am a human rights advocate with over 10 years experience working against torture. As someone working with Amnesty International for all that time, we do not consider Google links to verify what are legitimate reactions to government abuses. If 100 people sign a letter to the president of Colombia, that is a legitimate reaction which will produce a response. The fact that the time and thought has gone into this website is a legitimate reaction. It is not a simple a comment posted on a blog somewhere, but its own legitimate campaign. Your reaction seems overly defensive and unfair. Please reconsider your response. ”

This was from an e-mail from the editor. In response to him in the public eye of the community, such petitions are not legitimate if they do not receive verifiable coverage from reliable sources. Under this guise, anyone can start their own petition, get a few friends to sign it, and include it in the Wikipedia article, declaring its importance. The petition has been reverted by four separate editors: [4], [5], [6], and [7]. There is no basis for including this information. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Not legitimate under Wikipedia criteria. Whether or not it's legitimate outside Wikipedia is not an issue we even need address. Pairadox (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to know why you would say that starting a petition about any issue in Star Trek is not a legitimate reaction? You COULD start such a petition - for example if you were opposed to the ides of having new actors portray original series characters. Would this not be a legitimate reaction? Because this letter to Abrams is regarding torture you seems to be acting as if it were "political". Fighting against torture is not political nor does it have any party affiliation. Also Star Trek itself has a long history of fans (even small groups) making impact on the franchise and that makes listing information about this web site even more appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulpazymino (talk • contribs) 23:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly it. Anyone could start a petition or any kind of organization about this film or any other film or any topic in the world. To ensure that the information that is included on Wikipedia, we use secondary sources to verify that primary sources such as this petition are important. There's been no such coverage about the petition in question. It's not a political matter at all -- it's a matter of whether added information fits Wikipedia criteria, as Pairadox stated. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Paulpazymino, I don't think you're getting the point that Wikipedia has certain policies and guidelines in place that determine what is appropriate for inclusion in the articles. You have not demonstrated that this petition rises to that level, simple as that. I suggest you review the policies and guidelines that are now available from links on your talk page, if you haven't already. Pairadox (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Starting the petition is a legitimate reaction, yes. Starting the petition is not a notable reaction. If the petition gets significant third-party coverage (e.g. newspaper stories), then we can consider how best to include it into the article. As of right now, it absolutely should stay out of the article, because not only is it not notable, but without independent sources, it's also not verifiable. —C.Fred (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I would caution against citing WP:N in this case, as it only applies to entire article subjects. WP:V is the primary reason why this petition doesn't warrant mention. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Paulpazymino: and how many signatures need to be on the letter for Wikipedia to consider it verifiable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulpazymino (talk • contribs) 00:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

As many as it takes for a secondary source such as a newspaper (most likely not a Star Trek fan site) to notice the petition. Wikipedia doesn't determine the importance of issues; it only reports on the issues that have been reported on the outside as important. That's why one can't write a Wikipedia article about him or herself on their own merit. My suggestion is to promote the petition elsewhere, and if it gets the attention of a secondary source, we can discuss its inclusion here on the talk page. By the way, to leave a signature, type four tildes (~) after your comment. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not about a number of signatures; it's about coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Even when/if this occurs, care has to be taken that undue weight is not given to it (e.g. should the petition receive coverage in just one local newspaper, this may still not warrant its inclusion in this article). Best regards, Steve ^{T • C} 00:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so when you hear mention of it on The Colbert Report, I will assume that is a strong enough source. Paulpazymino (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Paulpazymino

That can be debatable. :) You may want to take a look at WP:SPS to understand what kind of coverage would merit mention. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Since this whole "torture" nonsense is irrelevant to this article, I do not foresee it actually being kept in the article. This is an encyclopedia; to be frank, nobody cares what a small vocal group thinks should or should not be in the movie except for that small vocal group, and that's just not enough to keep it in the article. If this were Memory Alpha, the page would have been protected by now and the promoter/vandal blocked. --From Andoria with Love (talk) 03:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Relax. The situation is already defused; there's no need to involve personal opinion at this point. If the petition for whatever reason had verifiable coverage, it wouldn't matter if we thought it was silly or not. In the meantime, cooler heads have (so far) prevailed, and we can all go back to level-headed editing. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, my apologies then, I thought this was still on-going. Didn't bother to look at the time of the last comment. I withdraw my remarks. --From Andoria with Love (talk) 12:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your $0.02, anyhow. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Anytime. :) --From Andoria with Love (talk) 08:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Wil Wheaton

The issue with the Wil Wheaton thing isn't really reliable sources. (His casting has been reported in several reliable sources.) The issue is that he was cast in Star Trek: The Tour, not Star Trek (the movie). --Roger McCoy/រ៉ាចើ (talk) 03:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Title

I've seen the teaser trailer, and it confirms that the title of the film is just "Star Trek". It might not be necessary, but I added it as a reference anyway. Given the nature of this production, it's one of those things were it's possible someone might dispute the title, so it doesn't hurt to have the extra reference. Once we get closer to the release date, I don't think we'll actually need such references anymore. But since it's still in production, I don't see the harm. 23skidoo (talk) 15:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Where did you find a teaser trailer? I did a search, but came up with only fan made trailers. Could you post a link, please? QuasiAbstract (talk) 15:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the only trailer's I found were on YouTube and none were official. Paramount doesn't have one, and if there was one, they definitely should have it. I'm removing the non-link reference to the trailer for now. If we get an reference to the official trailer that's not YouTube, let's put it back in. QuasiAbstract (talk) 16:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The trailer was attached to Cloverfield, and was titled simply "Star Trek". This is not to say that its a working title, and wont be appended or changed later. Remember that Cloverfield itself, another Abrams film, was originally announced via a trailer with no title at all. Monhaued (talk) 05:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The trailer is also available at the official website, http://www.paramount.com/startrek. -- KookyMan (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The trailer is now also available on Yahoo, http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1809752801/trailer --Beagley (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Cast List

As long as we are going to list the cast alphabetically as shown in the teaser trailer (which I think makes sense to do so it matches official stuff), then we need to include the words "With" & "And" in the billings for Eric Bana AND Leonard Nimoy. These are not throw away words. They are there to denote they they are integral parts that are set apart from an alphabetized cast. So my point is if we're going to make this look like the movie, let's do it rightObriensg1 (talk) 05:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

We're an encylopedia , not a movie poster. "With" and "And" are not usually included in lists on WP. - BillCJ (talk) 06:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

But they can be and are on many pages. Let's try to get it accurate. I can understand if it was the "Generations" page and somebody wanted to put in "And William Shatner as Captain James. T. Kirk". We don't need character names even if they are there. 3-4 letter words shouldn't make a difference though. If not, put the names alphabetically because without "With" & "And", that's where they belong.Obriensg1 (talk) 05:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

"Other articles are doing it" is not a good reason for inclusion. We should be as encyclopedic as possible, no matter what other articles have done. QuasiAbstract (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Star Trek Teaser

I think that maybe the Star Trek Teaser released with "Cloverfield" should at least have a breif discription about what happenes in it. As this will most likely be the only "Offical" trailer realised for Star Trek for a few months now (being released at the end of this year). Your right there is nothing in the trailer to suggest what the film is going to be about, but it still is the Offical Trailer! --MattyC3350 (talk) 08:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I just can't see what encyclopedic use the description will be to anyone. The usual practice for film articles on Wikipedia is not to describe the events in the trailer, simply because there is no overall context and they don't provide any useful information. It might be nice for fans, but I'm sure there are plenty of places where a description can be found. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 08:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It's also probably a losing fight to keep it out, so if people insist on it's presence perhaps it could be referenced to a reliable source rather than just based on personal observation. Pairadox (talk) 09:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds fair enough then. I just thought that sooner or latter something is going to have to populate the "Marketing" paragraph of the film. Maybe just a note that there has been a trailer released but as yet does not give any insight as to what the setting of the film is going to be about. Take it easy --MattyC3350 (talk) 09:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that the information is not notable. This is a trailer, and the first public revelation of aspects of the film. Of course it's notable. (Is the trailer for Psycho not notable?). Obviously we can't have speculation, but to say the trailer shows workmen doing some sort of construction work on the NCC-1701 is accurate and fair. Whether it's being done on earth or somewhere else, or if this depicts the actual construction of the ship -- that has to wait until more information is available. But for now to describe the trailer is perfectly fair. 23skidoo (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The pure description of the trailer is certainly not notable enough for inclusion, but the real-world context other editors have added (and which has since been removed) may have some merit, perhaps more appropriately deployed in the production or development sections. Here's a quick rewrite:

The teaser depicts the Enterprise being built on Earth, which Roberto Orci acknowledged would cause debates among fans regarding canon. Explaining that the concept came from their own creative licence and the precedent set in Star Trek novels, he said that the idea that some things have to be constructed in space is normally associated with "flimsy" objects which have to be delicately assembled and would not normally be required to enter a gravity well. He said that this did not apply to the Enterprise because of the artificial gravity employed on the ship and its requirement for sustaining warp speed, and therefore the calibration of the ship's machinery would be best done in the exact gravity well which is to be simulated. The voices of the 1960s which play over the trailer were intended to link the film to the present day; John F. Kennedy in particular was chosen because of similarities with the character of James T. Kirk and because he is seen to have "kicked off" the space race. Orci explained that "If we do indeed have a Federation, I think Kennedy’s words will be inscribed in there someplace."

Might be a bit much, but that's what this discussion page is for. Fire away. Steve ^{T • C} 09:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It almost feels like the teaser description is longer than the teaser itself. QuasiAbstract (talk) 09:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Though the information could be split between sections; no need for it all to appear in the same place. The description and reasoning behind the Enterprise's construction may be bona fide production information, and could go in that section, leaving the "linking to the present day" stuff in the marketing section. Steve ^{T • C} 09:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I could see that. I wasn't quite seeing the point in the great detail that seemed to be part of the description. If we make a quick note about the trailer by itself, and dump the rest of the usable information in marketing, it would make a lot more sense and be much more encylopedic. QuasiAbstract (talk) 09:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That was a fantastic rewrite Steve. Yes, I know it's unusual to have so much info on a trailer, but I know this one is an immediate classic like Psycho. It's its own mini-film. We don't even know if the footage will be in the film, so for now, keep it in the trailer as to why they had the Enterprise on Earth. Alientraveller (talk) 10:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Relationship with canon

Not thrilled with the new section title (or it's focus). Isn't it a bit... fannish? Pairadox (talk) 12:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Truth is, the article could do with expanding and rearranging. All that info should be in a "Writing" section. Alientraveller (talk) 12:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I seem to recall that Gene Roddenberry's book "The Making of Star Trek" stated that the Enterprise was constructed in the shipyards at San Fransisco, so it would seem odd that this would be controversial. I think more controversial is that the ship is a hybrid non-canonical design ("Star Trek the Motion Picture" primary hull with 1960's style engine nacelles). This breaks completely with Enterprise, Deep Space Nine, and Classic Trek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.201.193 (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Kirk speaks (spoilers)

In an Entertainment Weekly interview, Chris Pine revealed he has scenes opposite Leonard Nimoy. Can someone make head or toe of this? Are the rumours of the film being a time-travel movie now verifiable? Alientraveller (talk) 12:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No :) It could be a dream sequence or an alternate universe; it's all speculation until something is directly said. Pairadox (talk) 12:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I suppose we can direct people to this topic if someone wants to include it. Until there is more context to what Pine said, it shouldn't be included in the article. Alientraveller (talk) 12:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Title is now "Under Construction"?

Looking at the site http://www.paramount.com/startrek/ gives me the impression that the film is to be titled "Under Construction". Is that the case? Can anyone else confirm or refute this with another source? If the name is changed, this article would probably have to be moved, so... Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 22:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

From what I can tell the film is clearly called Star Trek, Under Construction appears to be more of a tagline. Rehevkor (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) That looks like it's just a tag line. The very next scene is the first credit screen, and it has "Star Trek" in quotes in the center on the screen where the title usually goes. We'd need a lot more than an apparant tag line to change the title. - BillCJ (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I was kind of wondering. I'd set up a redirect from Under Construction to Star Trek (film), but there's already an album article and a full disambiguation page for "Under Construction". I wonder if a link on the disambig and a redirect from Star Trek: Under Construction would be appropriate, though... Just to avoid any other confused editors like me. :) Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 04:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Spencer Daniels

From the revert: "Re-adding Spencer Daniels; the IMDb resume service *is* reliable since it can only be edited by the actor or his publicist. Please do a little research before removing info.)"

Already have. 1. IMDb is a dubious source. As Wikipedia:Citing IMDb says, "Users are not compelled to submit any sourcing for their submissions (in most cases; adding a new title usually requires one). Editors do not identify which user is submitting the data, making it impossible to evaluate the reliability of a user's submissions. The mechanism of editorial oversight and fact-checking is unclear." 2. The resume you're referring to at [8] says:

"IMDb is not responsible for the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this page, which have been supplied by a third party and have not been screened or verified."

It also incorrectly cites the movie title as Star Trek XI. (Doesn't prove it wrong, but it certainly doesn't bode well for the accuracy of the information overall.)

3. IMDb's own listings don't show him as being in the movie:

• http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1638022/
• http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0796366/

While it is certainly possible that the information is correct, we need this information from at least a reasonably verifiable source to back this up.

When I originally reverted the edit, I also submitted the source to TrekMovie.com to investigate, since they seem to have fairly reliable sources and obviously have a vested interest in having the most updated information. I have not heard back at this time. This doesn't rule anything out, but, again, let's make sure the information is correct before adding it. --Roger McCoy/រ៉ាចើ (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; it doesn't hurt to wait and see. If the information is indeed accurate, well, then we'll have learned something new, and this resume service can be investigated for verifiability further. Steve ^{T • C} 00:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur; it is a complete falsehood that only the actor and his publicist are able to edit the relevant entry on IMDb. IMDb is like a guarded wiki -- the information is user-submitted, and "gatekeepers" approve the information. The process is not set up to require reliable sources like Wikipedia, and for many upcoming films, there is a lot of questionable information that can become mistakenly added to IMDb (or Wikipedia, but at least we can verify the sources to remove any inaccuracies). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'm guessing that the information is *probably* right. Even though the actor's official web site doesn't list it on his resume (http://www.spencerdaniels.tv/resume.html) or his project list (http://www.spencerdaniels.tv/projects.html), his links page (http://www.spencerdaniels.tv/links.html) has a specific link to his Memory Alpha article. All the same, let's hold off until we have a definite news article. --Roger McCoy/រ៉ាចើ (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay... well, the IMDb resume service, unlike IMDb pages, can be edited only be the subject of the resume or his/her publicist/agent. It is separate from the actual IMDb listings. The reason IMDb cannot guarantee the accuracy of the resume is the same reason they can't guarantee the accuracy on any part of their site: namely, human error (for example, the person who added the Trek film typed it as Star Trek XI). The resume, however, is the actor's official. Just fyi. :) --From Andoria with Love (talk) 06:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should take this over to the Wikiproject Films talk page to discuss the verifiability of this further. Should it be confirmed that this particular information on the IMDB can only be added to by the actor or an official representative of the actor in question, and thus deemed a reliable source by the community, it could be a useful tool. Steve ^{T • C} 08:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, as far as this article is concerned, it seems to be a moot point. TrekMovie has confirmed the information. Still might be interesting to get a ruling for future uses and update Wikipedia:Citing IMDb if necessary. --Roger McCoy/រ៉ាចើ (talk) 01:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If no-one else has by then, I'll bring it up at the appropriate place when I get the chance later today. Best regards, Steve ^{T • C} 07:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I hate to say I told you so, but... :-D --From Andoria with Love (talk) 07:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Video game

If a better source than the FiringSquad news site can be found, feel free to replace the citation re: Bethesda announcing it isn't doing a Star Trek 08 game. 23skidoo (talk) 23:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Viral campaign - NCC-1701.com

• I've updated the reference to "alternate reality game", to "viral marketing website" since at the moment it's not yet known what will come of the website. The ARG term is tossed around quite liberally recently, so unless it turns eventually into what Abrams did with Cloverfield, at the very least, it shouldn't be considered an ARG. Here's to hoping JJ does pay the same attention to this campaign that he did for Cloverfield! --Thebruce0 (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "viral marketing website" is more appropriate, but moving the link to the site and adding a link to a fan wiki is not. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"Retcon"

I have to agree with the anonymous user who removed the term "retcon". While I know what it means, and I'm sure a lot of other Internet-savvy users know what it means, I think it hurts the credibility and professionalism of the article to use neologisms that won't appear in (almost) any dictionary.

(Incidentally, I don't have as much of an issue with the term "reboot", which was also removed.)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/retcon http://www.thefreedictionary.com/retcon

--Roger McCoy/រ៉ាចើ (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"RETCON" is an increasingly prevalent acronym (more of a portmanteau than a neologism) which is in the Free Dictionary (see retcon). There has been explosion in reimagined, rebooted and retconned work over the last few years and the term "retcon" is 20 years old. The film, television and printed media industries readily use the term, and since this is an article about a film it makes sense to include it. In this instance, Robert Orci was specifically asked if the new film would fall under one of these categories, so it would seem to be appropriate for the term to be in the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem using either retcon or reboot (and if there's a concern over whether the two words are understood, then they can be wikilinked accordingly). Obviously the use of the words shouldn't be in the context of any speculation about the film on behalf of the article writers, but if there is sourced comment on the issues by people like Orci and Abrams, then it's a disservice not to include it. We're not writing a professional encyclopedia. Brittanica has people paid tons of money to do that. We're an Internet encyclopedia. 23skidoo (talk) 13:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that's no excuse not to make WP as high quality and for as wide a readership as possible. At the very least, the use of the term retcon should be linked to its article so that non-savvy readers are only a click away from discovering its meaning. — Loadmaster (talk) 16:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It is already linked as you describe, so there shouldn't be any problem at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Giacchino and Cloverfield

I have to disagree with Alientraveller's comment that the following line:

Michael Giacchino, the composer for several other Abrams projects, including MI:3, Lost, Alias , and Cloverfield has confirmed that he will score Star Trek.

... was "very misleading".

Abrams did not direct Cloverfield and the film did not feature an original score, bar closing credits

This is true, but Cloverfield was very much an Abrams project whether he directed or not. (In fact, in my experience his name is far more associated with the project than the actual director's name.) This is no more misleading than referring to The Empire Strikes Back or Raiders of the Lost Ark as "George Lucas projects".

Also, Giacchino was the composer for Cloverfield, regardless of the minimalist nature of the score. Although Ottawa4ever has modified it to "Cloverfield (end score)", I really don't think this clarification was necessary. It seems like it's being said to distinguish it form the other music in the film, which obviously isn't necessary. --Roger McCoy/រ៉ាចើ (talk) 04:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's at all important. Cloverfield was a project Giacchino had little involvement in. Alientraveller (talk) 13:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that the "importance" of it is pretty arbitrary, but I think it's odd to include every single Abrams/Giacchino collaboration except one. I also don't think it's appropriate for you to keep removing the change when it's been supported by at least 2-3 other Wikipedians (depending on the identity of the anonymous IP address) based on such an arbitrary distinction. --Roger McCoy/រ៉ាចើ (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

How about we just make the issue ambiguous and say something like "several other Abrams projects in film and television"? We can revise the article Michael Giacchino to clarify the degree of his involvement. Just suggesting this to make it a non-issue. We have no indication that specifics of their collaboration are that relevant to this particular film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

NEW external link

Hi, I've added a link to a British blog, run by an official Star Trek Webmaster which is charting the release of the new film, currently has some behind the scenes photos (courtest JFX online), videos (courtest Fox Channel 11 LA) and some official content and materials. startrek-movie.co.uk Cheers. Filthish (talk) 13:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

"official Star Trek Webmaster"? Rehevkor (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Paramount/JJ Abrams are placing a huge emphasis on viral marketing and are therefore operating an official Star Trek Webmaster program to disseminate and control news and materials. trek webmaster program webmasters must pass an initial vetting and their sites are regularly checked to ensure they are upto standard Filthish (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Filming Location March 2008

They are filming in March 2008 at California State University - Northridge (during our Spring Break). They're using the exterior of the Oviatt Library as some sort of starfleet office building. They started setting stuff up today. :) 76.95.162.174 (talk) 06:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info but we need photos, videos, interviews - some kind of proof. If you do get anything you can send it to me, I'll put it on my blog and maybe we can use that as evidence. Please send any evidence or the web address of evidence to leytonjay [at] googlemail.com. cheers Filthish (talk) 11:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sets and Props

The movie is supposed to take place on the Enterprise, prior to the original series.

Will the sets and props resemble those of the series?