Talk:Star Trek (2009 film)

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)

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)

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)

Final Poster Is Up

[1] Should this be up instead since it's the final poster? I personally think it's stale and doesn't represent the film as well as the current one. Just a thought. - Enter Movie (talk) 03:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Definitely, as I noted in the previous topic the poster in the article is being used across the world, whereas this one seems to be a US exclusive. Alientraveller (talk) 11:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I also think that the current poster is more representative; no need to change, especially if it's a US exclusive like AT says. —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

We're not meant to use any specific poster, but fair use specifies that we use the image that best represents the subject, which the current poster does much better than the "final poster" (if there is such a thing) does. Rehevkor ✉ 02:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I should point out that all the other films use the US version of the poster art, but that's also in part because it is the most commonly used for home video releases as well. As to the "best represents the subject" bit, there's no such provision under WP:NFC or WP:NFCC. It only requires critical commentary and a clear purpose to use an image for identification purposes. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

As there is no provision regarding a poster to "best represent" a film (and since the previous poster didn't do that, anyway) and since all other movies use the US posters, and since this is an American-made film, I have replaced the UK poster with the US poster. --From Andoria with Love (talk) 05:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't a UK poster, it was the poster being used across the world. Alientraveller (talk) 10:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it was the UK/Australia poster. As you see. Sorry to disappoint, mate. --From Andoria with Love (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe that the currently chosen US poster is very illustrative. Can it be determined that the UK/AUS poster has been proliferated in other territories to qualify as an international poster, or can another American poster be chosen? The "cover art" image should help ease identification of the film for as many readers as possible; this particular one does not accomplish that. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The one that was in the article was also being used in Germany. I strongly insist the illustrative poster be restored considering every other editor here has been in favour of it. Alientraveller (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yah, I'm not going to make a big issue out of this (at least, not bigger than I've already made it, sorry). If the community wants to use the European poster, that's fine. Before you change it, though, I want to say one more thing, which is the same thing I said on your talk page, Alientraveler. As far as "best representing" the movie, the UK poster actually doesn't represent the film that well at all. It features two ships in battle. That's not what the movie is about. The US poster better represents in the movie, with its sleek "warp" design obstructing the view of the Enterprise, giving a sense of the unknown. It also looks like the Enterprise is bursting out from clay or something, making it a good representative of the movie being an origin story dealing with the launch of the ship and the formation of the crew. Also, it looks damn cool, especially as a thumbnail in the infobox there. In my humble opinion, of course. :) --From Andoria with Love (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe for that particular poster, we can find commentary to include it for non-identification purposes? (For example, I included a DVD cover for Fight Club since there was commentary about its appearance.) I don't know how people have reacted to the poster... any coverage by secondary sources about it? —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, based on reactions on blogs and the like, most people are mixed about it. I think what it is is that they didn't "get it". The poster was designed as a nod to one of the posters for Star Trek: The Motion Picture, with the Enterprise obscured to give a sense of rebirth, mystery and the unknown. It was also designed to be eye-catching, which it certainly accomplished, and to increase curiosity in mainstream audiences, who may not know what exactly they are looking at. While I don't think it works as an attempt to lure in wider audiences, I do think it better represents the movie. As for reactions, as I said, it was mixed. I, personally, think it's elegant and nifty. You can see what others think here. --From Andoria with Love (talk) 18:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

My reasoning for using the US is mostly due to all the other films using US covers (admittedly the other films didn't seem to have so many alternate/other market covers that were dramatically different, but work with me here.) NFCC doesn't require "representative" as I think some here are coming to the term, merely something that is used to aid identification and show readers have reached the right place; any of the covers could be used for that purpose. As for reactions... obviously fan comments aren't advisable for use at any time. In terms of actual published content, there's the Trekmovie stuff as well as [2][3][4] that point to the US poster being considered "better" and more "stylish". Not that I would base a poster choice on a buncha' critics per se, but if we're going to get into "evidence".... :P --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the "international" poster because it shows the cast, not just a blurrystylized view of the ship. I think that's what others have been getting at when they've said the poster is more "representative" of the movie: Star Trek has always been primarily about the characters; the ship is simply the backdrop for the story. John Darrow (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the "international" version is preferable. It offers more than the stylized poster. Totally disagree with the comment about the ship. The Enterprise is one of the central characters of the franchise. Who didn't tear-up at the sight of her hull burning up in the atmosphere of the Genesis planet? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

So you guys would rather have the generic action movie poster with faces slapped on it rather than the original, nifty-looking poster with the image that is actually being used by Paramount to promote the movie? (see, for example, the cover for the soundtrack). Well, okay then. It could be worse, I guess; at least it won't be that horrible Spanish poster with the beam striking San Francisco Bay or that senseless Japanese poster with flames all around. But I really think we should use the poster that originates from the country where the film was made, as was done with the other Trek movies. But, whatever. By the way, John Darrow, you're right, Star Trek has always been about the characters, but that poster doesn't use the characters as the focal point; the eye is drawn to the Narada (Nero's ship), which is attacking the Enterprise. That poster is promoting a space battle, with Kirk, Spock and Uhura thrown into the top background and Sulu and Chekov randomly placed at the right. Basically, the poster is saying "We've got starships fighting each other... but there are people in here, too!" The franchise's goal (and that of the movie) is to present an optimistic future of humanity and to highlight our sense of wonder and curiosity. The final US poster represents this best. The international poster shows a more pessimistic view, showing a United Federation starship being pummeled by some space monstrosity. But... whatever. If it's the generic, less intriguing poster you guys want, that's up to you. Ok, I'm done ranting now. :) --From College with Love

As a side note, can we please take care when reverting, to only revert the actual edits needing to be reversed? Almost every change in this poster back-and-forth also caught (without any notice in the summary) two other unrelated edits, one of which was a bot edit fixing a link to a foreign language WP article! John Darrow (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yah, sorry about that, that was totally my bad. I reverted my revert of one of the bots, I didn't realize there was another. Anyway, I agree with Der Wohltempierte Fuchs; the US poster is better and more stylist. *AND* it better represents the movie, IMO. :) --From Andoria with Love (talk) 19:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

---

Okay, so File:Star_Trek_US_poster.jpg is currently up for deletion. Before it is deleted, I must ask, is there any way it can be incorporated into the article? It is the primary poster for the film, after all. Perhaps have two posters in the infobox, or have a gallery of the various posters like we have on MA? Not sure if you do that on Wikipedia or not. Just throwing out some suggestions before the pic goes bye-bye. --From Andoria with Love (talk) 03:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Surprise Premier in Austin, TX

The movie was premiered last night in Austin. Trekmovie.com has broke the story. I think it should be included in this article. SChaos1701 (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Is really?

I have been reverted saying about IDO coupon. Sorry to have been so hasty! Do you know if there is source saying is IDO coupon for Start Trek Europe? Linguistixuck (talk) 00:12, 10 April 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)

File:Trekneroship.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Trekneroship.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The bridge picture has also been listed for deletion: fortunately I highly doubt either pic will be deleted unless people can actually upload better images. Alientraveller (talk) 22:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

That discussion is here, for others' reference. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

ARG?

Is the (ongoing) Star Trek ARG/Alternate Reality Game/Viral marketing for this film that recently started notable..? Ayries (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It's discussed in length on TrekMovie.com, but they aren't a great indicator of importance. I would say a line would be merited. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested improvements

This article needs a plot section. What is the film about?

If people want to wait until after the movie is released, that's ok, but don't wait too long. Nohars (talk) 04:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Read the first paragraph. Alientraveller (talk) 10:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Not much negativ in the article

I don't see much negative facts against this movie. I thought this was a encyclopedia which required both sides of an argument to be heard, which means not be partial to any part when writing an article. It suppose to be neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Regge Brother2 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

What are you thinking about - reviews? please be specific. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

We don't force negative facts into an article. Sometimes a film can be fairly well-received, resulting in little negative comments about it. The film has yet to come out fully, so the reception section has yet to be shaped. I imagine that the online reviews will be replaced with more professional print reviews, so it will depend on the consensus. We do not include negative comments for the sake of being negative; it depends on due weight. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

While I may joke that perhaps our thread was started by a disgruntled Trekker upset by the film's praise among British and Australian press, the trade papers and the fans, I may add that I have been writing up the film's reception section in my sandbox, and it does focus a lot on the positive reviews' criticisms: the end result is that hopefully Bob Orci will read it and get a full picture of what viewers will want improved in the sequel. :) Alientraveller (talk) 22:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Btw, there is negativity in the article. Michael Kaplan felt the original Starfleet uniforms weren't sophisticated enough and had the Starfleet symbol embroided on them; Abrams hates bluescreen; Roger Guyett didn't like how the original ship didn't have enough moving parts; and the writers felt many of the captains apart from Kirk in the other films came across as patsies. :P Alientraveller (talk) 22:22, 25 April 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Remove the damn plot

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)

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)

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 in 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)

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)

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)

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)