Talk:Star Trek (2009 film)

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2

J. Michael Straczynski's reboot

A J. Michael Straczynski interview with AMC here discusses his 2004 reboot proposal when Paramount had little interest in reviving the series (a year before they called Orci and accepted his prequel idea). It also links the treatment co-written by Bryce Zabel. Should we include it here, or place in the main ST article? Alientraveller (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The main Star Trek article, I think. It has some similarities with this, but it's been explicitly stated that they're different beasts, and that the one didn't influence the other. Of course, JMS has been told that before. Steve ^{T • C} 18:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I knew you'd respond ;) This information is now in the main article. Alientraveller (talk) 19:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

New images

Well, the curtain has been lifted :D [1] I've placed a couple of images which should have been released earlier this year (darn release delay). I've chosen a couple, one of which I'll admit is purely identification and not critical commentary, but will eventually replace once an unwatermarked version of the whole bridge image is released. Any comments? Alientraveller (talk) 22:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Possible factual error

The article still says Rachel Nichols plays an Orion; I thought it has been revealed that she does not. She plays a redheaded cadet, which means she's not playing a green-haired Orion. 68.146.25.241 (talk) 22:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

She's playing an Orion cadet with red hair. Half-human? We'll see, but that's what's sourced. Alientraveller (talk) 22:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Ownership issues

It's quite apparent that User:Alientraveller feels this is his own personal tribute page to the Star Trek film, rather than an encylopedia article, as edit summaries such as "altered lead because this has to respect the feel of the movie" reveal. What complete dribble! If I wanted to read fansite crap, I'd join a fansite. If someone else wishes to tackle the ownership issue, let me know, and I'll participate. Until then, I'm de-watchlisting the article, and the talk page, so I won't be responding to any comments here. Any poop left on my talk page will be deleted. Enjoy your fiefdom Alien, whlie it lasts. - BillCJ (talk) 23:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that was uncivil. For reference, these were the edit summaries. [2][3] Pray tell, what part of WP:OWN, WP:V, WP:LEAD, and WP:WIAFA have I violated? Alientraveller (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Will a Vulcan nerve pinch be required here? GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Lead

I don't plan on getting too involved but a quick scan shows me the entire second paragraph of the lead here feels like (a) it should be down in the development section; and (b) is a pile of original research. Where is the evidence for odd fan-like statements like "between Trekkies like Orci and Lindelof, and casual fans like Abrams"? That kind of language doesn't belong here. The whole bit about "treading the line between being faithful to Star Trek canon", "modernizing the production design", etc. is just totally inappropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

As someone who is pretty much cold to the whole Star Trek thing, I don't really see any problem with that paragraph, except perhaps the word "treaded". Looie496 (talk) 01:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

If it's because it's unsourced, it's because it summarises information already in the article. I've copyedited to be more formal, because it's difficult to tread the line (there, I said it) between that and enjoyable reading. Better or worse? Alientraveller (talk) 08:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems better now but I still wonder if it wouldn't be better without the entire paragraph, shift Development up, then cast and then filming, etc. It would remove the duplication and would be in a sort of chronological order. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

New release date.

User:Dvp7 has found the following two sites which list a new release date.

• One.
• Two. --HELLØ ŦHERE 23:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Phaser design note

This may be an error in one of the sources cited (I realize I'm nitpicking, here!), but the original ORIGINAL phasers were not the "boxy" ones described. They were indeed trigger-and-handle weapons with barrels (as pictured in "The Cage" and "Where No Man Has Gone Before"), and the new phasers may be based on the ones we saw early in the classic series. Request permission to edit. 64.221.15.66 (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I will remove that bit about where they're modelled/changed from, because the filmmakers have not indicated yet whether they have been taking inspiration from the pilots as well as the show itself. Alientraveller (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(old) Spock Finally

At last we see Spock (old one that is). The recent external link added (which I think needs to be slightly fixed so its not a direct link to the trailer) includes old spock in the footage. I don't see any additional new footage, the only thing removed is the last cut, whats his name's "our wait is over" is replaced with spock giving the "live long and prosper" along with the vulcan salute. Paramounts trailer page is still giving the older one for trailer 2, I don't see thier download section to provide a cleaner external link for the new footage trailer. edit: this[4] seems to be where they originate, all links pointing directly to paramount's servers. Knowledgeum :  Talk  22:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Other uses

The disambigation link at the top is useful as it shows others to what other films are out there. They may confuse this film with a previous one. Simply south (talk) 22:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The only one that people could get confused with is The Motion Picture, which is already linked. Linking to the disambig page is not needed, mainly because that doesnt link to any of the other films (except TMP which is already linked). Knowledgeum :  Talk  22:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Knowledgeum; the hatnote for the 1979 film is the only one that is needed for the top of the article. The article footer has several Star Trek templates that can show the reader where to go from this article. I don't think it's that big of a deal. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Kirk driving

A lot of editors have been reverting Koelpien's addition of noting how in Star Trek canon Kirk couldn't drive a normal car until he visited the gangster world. Now this is why we need reliable sources to not just note facts, but whether they are even relevant. This is a movie that starts with a villain going back in time and blowing up Kirk's dad's ship. The article notes the filmmakers looked at every deviation they made very carefully. The fact is, if Kirk's dad dies and he has to live with an abusive, alcoholic uncle, then why wouldn't he learn to drive a car to escape? In fact, he does a terrible job of driving it and sends it off a cliff. The reader can just assume it was an oversight (not being able to drive a car is not mentioned Kirk's Memory Alpha page) or a deliberate decision what with the rewrites created by the time travel story. Why single this one out? There are some other "errors" in the film, which the reader can also presume were intentional or not, but might never be explained beyond time travel giving Abrams and co. creative license and not get bogged down in fictitious timelines. Alientraveller (talk) 13:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not even a good point - the drive systems in a 1930s car are entirely different from those of a 1960s car. On the wider point, it's the sort of detail that would concern memory alpha not us - it's just not the sort of material we care about - otherwise where does it stop? --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the key phrase is "time travel". So, just because a character may not know something in the "original" time line, doesn't mean that that character might not know it in the altered time line. Plus, everything Alien said. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 14:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Does it matter if he couldn't properly drive a car in "A Piece of the Action"? He could have simply forgotten.... Dave (talk) 01:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Polish accents?

"Yelchin decided to carry on Walter Koenig's speech patterns of replacing "v"s with "w"s, although he and Abrams noted this was a trait more common of Polish accents than Russian ones"

I agree that it's unlikely for a Russian to replace "v"s with "w"s for the simple reason that Russian does not have the "w" sound, but why would it be "a trait more common of Polish accents"? Polish has both sounds (written 'w' and 'ł', respectively), so why would a Polish speaker replace "v"s with "w"s?