Talk:Star Trek (2009 film)

This is not a prequel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UK date is the 7th May

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cast in the infobox

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

Overlength

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Size of the Enterprise

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

consequences on Wikipages

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

Story section

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

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

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

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

Edit Embargo

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

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

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

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

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

Ebert

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sources

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

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)

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

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

Does this take place in alternative universe?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canyon in Iowa?

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

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

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

Release Date Europe

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

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

References to other Star Trek Movies / Series

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

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

Plot summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Metacritic in external links section

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

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

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

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

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

writing issues

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

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

Pike was paralysed?

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

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

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

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

Tagline

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

TOS -

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

ST II -

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

ST VI -

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

TNG-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References to the other series

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scotty

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

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

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

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

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

Request to delete

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

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

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

Telescopes

From the article:

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

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

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

Questions about the movie

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

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

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

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

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

Actual Trekkie/Trekker reception

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Box Office - "adjusted and unadjusted for inflation"

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

Product Placement

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

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

"The Future Begins"

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

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

Novelization

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

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

Trekmovie.com sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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