Talk:Star Trek (2009 film)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Plot reversions

I have now had my changes reverted three times. Twice, it has been asserted that my grammar is faulty. Where? Point out an example. Instead, the plot has such gems as "both are caught in the event horizon of the black hole, sending them back in time the Narada arrived first".

Important details are omitted. For example, after the Nerada attacks the Kelvin, the plot abruptly jumps to Nero's demand that Robau come aboard, without explaining why Robau would agree. There's no mention of Uhura!

I'm just about ready to wash my hands of this. If you want a substandard, sloppy plot summary, so be it. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Plot sections need to be concise, so every detail is not necessary to include as long as it can still be followed. Fixing grammar is fine, but the text you're adding appears to be too much to consider this concise. --MASEM (t) 22:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

While I'll be the first to acknowledge it's a cheap shot, you shouldn't criticize the plot for being sloppy while you also misspell the name of Nero's ship. It's Narada. I didn't see your edits, but if they did significantly increase the length of the plot (already overly-long) and contained these kinds of errors, whoever reverted them acted appropriately. Might I suggest focusing on improving the current problems while avoiding increasing the length of the summary? Doniago (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Might I suggest you first examine what I added before commenting? Is that too much to ask? My latest version lengthened the summary by about 20 words. While I added what I considered to be necessary, I also took out trivia such as Pike's promotion to admiral. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

"Aim of production" in article summary

This line in the second paragraph is simply not an objective fact. I mean presumably the aim of the production was to make a lot of money. As it is, it sounds like a line from a press release. It makes what might otherwise be a good article and make it sound like the entire article was written by a paramount. The argument made by the reverter was that "we have no reason to think that this was NOT the aim." But neither do we have any reason to NOT think that the aim was any number of things. It must be conceded that this line is speculative and doesn't belong in an allegedly factual article. Unless wikipedia isn't in the fact business. Baxter42 (talk) 03:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Space...the final frontier

The topic for Star Trek is the premise: Space...the final frontier.

Here's how it's played out:

Star Trek: The Original Series: Space...the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan: Space...the final frontier. These are the continuing 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 man has gone before.

Star Trek: The Next Generation: Space...the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its continuing mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no one has gone before.

Star Trek (film): 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.

Is there a comparison for all these premises? AdamDeanHall (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• The phrase has its own Wikipedia entry, which traces its evolution. I'm not sure of the exact title, but it is here. Sir Rhosis (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI Where no man has gone before--Cube lurker (talk) 17:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Sequel?

At what time should we give the sequel its own article? The release date's already set, but I feel like there isn't enough information in the section to merit giving the sequel its own article. I've got a few ideas....

• when pre-production begins
• when acutal filming begins
• announcement of the title
• official release of the main cast
• first trailer
• or we could just play it by ear and when the section gets really, really, really big, we can just create the article then.

Thoughts? cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 02:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Without actually having read it recently, you might be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Future films. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 04:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

With the actors aging four years between films, I'd like to see some sourced-article criticism in the sequel article as to how such a young crew franchise can survive without anyone noticing their aging, like Pine's inevitable heriditary thinning hair. By the third film, third mission they will have aged 8 years in real life (2007 ~4~ 2011 ~4~ 2015 = 8 yrs). 5Q5 (talk) 15:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Novelization

Just a note... The novelization by Alan Dean Foster is not mentioned at all here, and I feel like it should be, even if just briefly. I don't really know anything about it, or what to say about (otherwise I'd add it myself), but it deserves at least a sentence or two. --V2Blast (talk) 04:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Reception section

Probably should receive an edit, as it is utterly lacking in mentioning the fact that it was panned heavily by fans, and that receives no mention I can see. While admittedly, that would entirely be based on personal opinions, the fact is that for the subject at hand, mentioning the existence of a number of fans who disliked elements of the film would be relevant, as parts of the article currently read as if written by the studio (actually, that's a distinct possibility, actually) 24.126.235.171 (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't panned heavily by any fans I actually know outside of the internet, and even on the internet the number of fans panning it seems to be in the vast minority, not the vast majority.

But that's beside the point. Unless you have any reliable sourcing for your information we're talking original research that's inappropriate for inclusion regardless of whether it's true. Doniago (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I concur that we would need reliable sources discussing the fan base panning the film. Are there any that you could provide for evaluation? Erik (talk | contribs) 20:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

What they said. Besides, I could point you to a number of articles noting how most of the fact-based points (as opposed to those that are strictly subjective) the panning fans have raised are demonstrably false. That said, I'd have to do some serious digging through my delicious bookmarks, but I have seen some articles on the film that did cover the idea of a fan controversy for the movie. If I can dig anything up, I'll drop it in here. Millahnna (talk) 00:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Uh, what? There's a whole paragraph on negative criticism of the movie, several of whose authors would probably call themselves fans. If anything, there probably isn't enough positive language quoting the praise the cast earned. Best, Mdiamante (talk) 08:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Should it still be called "Spock's ship" or the "Jellyfish"?

I've had my edits reverted a few times, and the person who reverted it said I should discuss it here. (I'm what you call a newcomer) I know for a fact that Spock's ship is named the Jellyfish, even though it is not mentioned in the film, (source) but I'm not sure whether to name the ship or not. Naming it would sound better (I think) but I'm not sure if it is needed. Please provide feedback. Thanks.

Stevie011--Stevie011 (talk) 02:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Can't the name be considered "non-canon"? It was only mentioned in the prequel comic that I know of. Was the film novelised, was it mentioned in that? Either way, do you have any sources other than Memory Alpha? Open wikis are not reliable and cannot be used as sources. Rehevkor ✉ 02:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Memory Alpha links to their source for the information (from concept drawings and I believe it was an official source). I still think it would be confusing in the context of the plot section, myself. Is this something we could mention elsewhere in the article? I seems like something that might fit in a production/development type of topic. Millahnna (talk) 02:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It can be put somewhere else in the article. I heard the the Blu-Ray DVD had some sort of description of the ship and the name Jellyfish, I'm not sure. I'll have to research if it is canon or non-canon. Anyway, thanks for the feedback. Stevie011--Stevie011 (talk) 02:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The Official Star Trek site says that the ship is named Jellyfish on the dossier list, so it can be assumed that is is canon.Official Star Trek site

Stevie011--Stevie011 (talk) 03:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Plot section

The point of plot summaries on Wikipedia is to describe the basic plot; content that "goes far beyond merely identifying their basic outline" could be a copyright violation, or at the very least confusing. To casual readers, more concise summaries are often more helpful because they are more accessible. Do we need to know that it takes Nero two minutes to kill Robau? How does that affect our understanding of the rest of the text? Answer: it doesn't. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that in general the longer version is better, as was noted by the editor, it helps with explanation of why things happen, and does not significantly increase the length. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Some of the "whys" answered by the most recent round of edits are not necessary. Why Jim is named such falls under the purview of "duplicating the emotional impact of the film" (loosely paraphrased from the what not to do portion of WP:FILMPLOT) to my mind and is an unneeded detail. However, I think that inclusion of finding out the stardate being a trigger to Nero going off the rails is not a bad detail to include. That is something that actually drives the plot. I could go either way on the human mother handicap detail; likewise with Spock being the programmer for the test. Shifting Pike's torture to the next paragraph I thought was a good change; better text flow. Detailing HOW Kirk forces Spock to acknowledge his emotional state is unnecessary. Programming the ships to collide I thought was a good change but the resulting sentence could use some tweaking for text flow.

Put another way, I find the edits currently involved in what will soon be an edit war to be mixed but not all bad. There were some good structural changes and a few details I agree would clear up some plot related confusion. Some of the specifics of more emotional character things don't need to be kept, however. I say restore the edits and tweak them. They really don't add that much length and will add even less if we pull the stuff that bugs me. That's just me though. Anyone else? Millahnna (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect Plot

"Kirk convinces Pike to stop in mid-flight, thereby evading a trap" - this is not correct according to what I saw. Pike decided to raise shields, which he wouldn't have ordinarily done on a rescue mission. There was never any order to stop the ship. Jlodman (talk) 01:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't argue whether he would have raised shields or not, but I just checked and you're right, Pike does not stop prior to arriving at Vulcan as prescribed. — Fourthords | =/\= | 06:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Disagreement regarding "Reception"

The text under Reception has undergone several revisions, from: "film received acclaim" to "film was well-received" to "the film was very well-received" "the film earned near universal (sic) acclaim", etc. Whether or not something is seems confusing to you is not proper criteria for inclusion in an encyclopedic article. I looked back as far as 2009-11-07 [[1]] and the paragraph begins: "As of 16 November 2009, the film holds a 95% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes".

I don't have time to read every film article in WP; I don't know who does. The important thing is that I've read the Manual of Style and as many of the other policy/guideline documents I can find and I clean up articles based on the WP rules. I suggest you do the same, starting with WP:NPOV, WP:WEASEL, WP:PROMO, WP:V, WP:N, etc.

Honestly, I don't agree with everything in the MOS but guess what? It's not my website and I don't get to make the rules (see WP:OWN). I either follow the rules, campaign to change the rules, or get the hell out and go elsewhere.

I dare say this applies to you, too. If you continue to insert qualitative or judgmental language into the article, we'll get some administrators in here to sort it out. I'm not willing to edit-war with you, nor am I willing to ignore the rules we're all supposed to follow.

This is not the proper venue for advertising or promotion. It's not Memory Alpha, either; I have an account there, too, and I assure you the rules are different. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 20:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

While I agree with you on the content, you might find you attract more support when you don't act condescending. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I know some films do include a line along the lines of "the film received positive/negative or mixed reviews." And on many articles it seems to work just fine to leave the line. But on several articles I watch, when the peacockery in said has gotten too out of hand, consensus has decided to skip the line entirely and just go straight to the aggregate totals. That also seems to work fine. In this case I would be fine with either "mostly positive reviews" or leaving the line out entirely. The movie WAS very well received in general in amongst reviewers but that's obvious by the aggregate totals. Millahnna (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, y'all, If I came across sounding high-and-mighty earlier, I apologize; such was not my intent. I have a problem with leading or judgmental words in places that are supposed to be objectively reporting facts. Lately, I've been trying to keep the pro- and anti-nuclear apologists from trashing a few of the "Atomic Whatever" pages, which--given current events--ain't easy.

I believe it's safe to say, of virtually every films, album, TV show, etc., that someone thinks it's great and someone thinks it sucks. While I expect Variety or People to report "The new blockbuster, 'Blowed Up', opened to mixed reviews...", that really doesn't tell us much. When I go to an encyclopedia, I expect to see hard numbers or nothing at all.

There are P.R. companies whom people (and companies) pay to polish their public image wherever possible; others just have a point to prove or an axe to grind. Personally, I find that behavior rather disingenuous and I believe Wikipedia's rules are designed, in part, to make that sort of stuff a little more difficult. I like to help out where I can.

It doesn't make one iota of difference but, for the record: I loved the movie and saw it three times in the theatre. I bought the DVD (and the BD) and can't wait for the sequel to see how a KGB/GRU assassin (Karl Urban, from "Bourne") makes out as the new McCoy!

Perhaps we should go with Millahnna's suggestion and just report the numbers. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 00:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Spock's "disadvantage"

While I would like to see "slight" replaced with a different word, Spock's mother really was mentioned in this scene, although it certainly does seem to be a slap in the face, casting aspersions on his heritage:

00:18:50 MINISTER: "It is truly remarkable, Spock, that you have achieved so much, despite your disadvantage."
00:19:01 SPOCK: "If you would clarify, Minister; to what disadvantage are you referring?"
00:19:06 MINISTER: "Your human mother."

After this exchange, Spock declines the appointment being offered him.

Thought it would be good to have this in the Talk archive for later use. I'll bet it comes up again... — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 01:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

human capitalization

I realize we don't capitalize "human" across Wikipedia, but in this article (and others concerning other alien species) when "Romulan", "Vulcan", "Orion", "Klingon", and possibly others are all capitalized, it seems out of place for "human"—another species of equitable standing as the others—to be lowercase. Any thoughts? — Fourthords | =/\= | 22:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I'm with you on this! I understand the context that you're referring to and I do capitalize "Human"/"Humans" accordingly, along with "Earth" et cetera. I don't know why other people don't get it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeoStarDragon1 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Improving the lead

I find the second half of this final sentence in the first paragraph to be awkwardly constructed:

• The alternate timeline was created in an effort to free the film and the franchise from established continuity constraints while simultaneously preserving the original continuity via the utilization of the alternate timeline plot idea.

Not only is the grammar clumsy, the meaning is not clear. I suggest replacing the phrase "preserving the original continuity..." with something like "preserving original story elements." Also, try to avoid phrases like "via the utilization of" and not repeat "alternate timeline" within the same sentence. -Anon98 98.92.186.254 (talk) 07:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with your first concern given that "preserving the original continuity (i.e. timeline)" was precisely what they were doing. I agree with your second point though, and suggest the following-

• • The alternate timeline was created in an effort to free the film and the franchise from established continuity constraints while preserving the original continuity.

Cheers. Doniago (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Reception - The Acclaim from critics

If you look on more or less every single film page on Wikipedia you will see that it has the reviews. It will say what it's score on Metacritic is, score on Rotten Tomatoes. If it's 26% on Rotten Tomatoes and negative reviews on Metacritic then it means the film has recieved generally negative reviews. If it has got 80% on Rotten Tomates and Generally Positive reviews on Metacritic then it gets postive reviews. The reception from critics mostly always has the shorten downed first sentance. "the film has recieved mostly negative reviews" or "while some aspects of the film's reception from critics are positive, it has a mostly overall negative reception" or just simplty "the film has recieved critical acclaim". When it has "acclaim", "mixed" or "negative" those are the rounded up reviews from mostly all critics in the world and if they all agree on it. If mostly all critics don't like the film it gets negative reviews obviously, but if high praise then critical acclaim or something similar. Now I see no point why me writing "the film has recieved near universal acclaim" or "the film has recieved critical acclaim" a problem because the 2009 film Star Trek is no different from any other film on Wikipedia. Look at Toy Story 3's page "Toy Story 3 has received near universal critical acclaim". It has got acclaim from mostly all of the critics in the world and that is why that line is there, "near universal acclaim", not complete, but "near". Star Trek has got "near universal acclaim" too, not "universal", just "near" because of the vast majority of positive reviews worldwide. The Dark Knight got about the same ammount of great reviews along with Raiders of the Lost Ark which recieved "highly positive reviews". Those film examples I have gave have all recieved about the same ammount of great reviews from film critics. "Critical acclaim" or "mixed reviews" or "critically panned" is an opinion, but it's from all of the critics all together. It's like in Maths, when you round numbers up. You round all of the great reviews for a film or bad reviews for a film you either get "acclaimed" or "panned".

So please tell me, why it is such a problem that I cannot after trying three times that "near universal acclaim" or "critical acclaim" cannot be put on this article? Please tell me why it isn't being deleted UncleBubba and C.Fred. And UncleBubba, why is it so important that everything on the article can't have any new wording or a new sentance and have to be kept the same because it has been like that and I quote "as far back as Nov 2009". Please tell me your reasons why because this is Wikipedia, and on another film I could probably add it in and no one would mind and that film could be as much as a mainstream and popular film that Star Trek is. Please give me the reasons otherwise Wikipedia's policys are very contradicting or you just class the Star Trek page as "your page" and like to keep it that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlr6 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you read the above thread yet, where we are already discussing this? Because some of your points are addressed there. When this phrasing becomes problematic on a particular article, from what I've seen so far the normal thing to do is just lead with the aggregate scores. Also, you should probably take a look at WP:OTHERSTUFF. Just because it's done that way on many articles doesn't mean it needs to be on all of them, or that, in fact, it isn't flat out done wrong in some cases. Lots of articles have with/and/as next actors' names in infoboxes. And every last one of those articles are wrong in doing so. Personally, I wouldn't have a problem, in this case, with leaving a line that just says positive. To anyone reading the whole section, the fact that it was VERY positive would be obvious. But really, given that, it's kind of redundant. Millahnna (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Charlr6: I believe I explained myself pretty well in the section above. Please read it because I don't want to bore everyone by repeating myself here. Regarding your accusations of "ownership", of course I don't WP:OWN the article; I've never claimed any such thing.

Statements can be objective ("The temperature outside is 70° F.") or they can be subjective ("It's pretty warm outside."). While both statements may be arguably true, the former is objective (and therefore encyclopedic) and the latter is not. Why? Because the qualitative statement (it's pretty warm) tells only what the speaker/author feels. I may agree that 70° F. is warm; my wife, on the other hand, would tell me "it's freezing!" and reach for a sweater.

Same thing with these reviews. What is "near-universal acclaim?" "Mostly positive"? "Generally good?" "Generally disappointing?" "Horrible?" If we value accuracy, we must define the terms we use because, if we don't, they will mean different things to different people. (And we--as editors--score an "Epic Fail" for confusing our readers.)

Folks that are far smarter than I decided, a long time ago, that it was better to simply present the facts and leave the interpretation to the reader.

If you want to continue this discussion, please do so above; having one conversation running in two places is confusing. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 00:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Charlr6, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't really a valid reason to add, remove, or retain anything. The problem with using Metacritic's scores as a benchmark for overall reception is that they are not necessarily using a representative sample, and their "acclaim" rating is based entirely on scores that in the case of most movies, they make up. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

So, seems like on Reception it says "Near universal-critical acclaim". Contradictions anyone?--Charlr6 (talk) 15:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, someone stuck it back into the article without discussing it and nobody caught 'em. Damn, that's annoying! The bottom line is that one should expect to see hyperbole and flowery adjectives in a press release or a brochure, but not in an encyclopedia. Thanks for pointing it out; I'll pull the language, once again, shortly. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 00:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised you didn't notice. You seemed to notice when I originally put it in eight months ago. But as we are talking on here I just thought I'd say (not have a go) that even though reviews are peoples opinions, mostly everybody gave this film praise so thats why it should get "near universal acclaim" because that means mostly everybody enjoyed the film. Mostly everybody dislikes *thinks of a movie people don't like and received bad reviews*, well critics don't like The Butterfly Effect but audiences do, so that would get "received negative reviews by movie critics but a cult following by the film audience. But Sex and the City 2, that got bad reviews, so did New Moon and Breaking Dawn Part 1 (Twilight and Eclipse got mixed). So that would have written on those films pages, received negative reviews. That will be because the film got highly bad reviews, yes it is people opinions but most people don't like the film, hence "negative reviews". Star Trek however earned praise from most critics around the world, so many critics gave it good reviews that it gets "universal critical acclaim", that is because most people like it. Think of it like a chart, you have the negative side and the positive side. Then whoever is in one of sides more it is more negative or positive. If there is an equal amount of people in both it would be mixed. --Charlr6 (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's the problem: Define "near universal". Is that larger than "glowing"? Better than "positive"? By how much? (See above, where it's better written.)

The point is that this is not a review site, nor is it a newspaper. A statement like, "It was hot as Hell in New York that day" is not encyclopedic, while "It reached 98 degrees in New York that day" is. I don't know why anyone (other than an agent or P.R. house employee) would want to do this to these articles.

I didn't notice it because I was occupied elsewhere. Sorry. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 00:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Haha, that's ok. I was only teasing when I said I was surprised you didn't notice. I can kind of see what you mean, but why don't you go and edit most pages on Wikipedia where it says "critical acclaim" or "critically panned". I'm not saying that like a "oh so if you are so perfect why don't you go and do it" sort of way or like someone might say "he was a terrible actor in that play" and then someone would go "well why don't you go play that character". I'm not saying it like that. And I know Wikipedia isn't a review site, and if it isn't a review site then maybe "reception" articles don't need to be that long. It doesn't need Roger Ebert's opinion written on it and people from the New York Times or something. But if it's not a review site then should it need a "reception" part anyway? The public would like to know when looking what films reviews are like. If you say "good" or "bad" for reviews they might not really know what it means. They might want to know if the good part means it is really good or just average. Or for the bad part is it Return of the Jedi bad (as in not as good as the previous two films, I'm not saying ROTJ is a bad film) or New Moon bad where mostly everybody hates it. Everyone should know what "acclaim" and "panned" means more than they would know what "critical" means. But if you wrote in the reception "The film earned acclaim by film critics" then they would understand more wouldn't they? Very positive sounds better than just positive. So the audience would see the "very" and think it must be better than a film that just gets positive reviews.

But maybe as most articles on novels, movies, games or television programmes feature what it's reception has been like (Grand Theft Auto 4 received critical acclaim or Jack & Jill was panned by critics) the writers on those article boards are more right and you are wrong? I'm not saying that to be an ass, I'm not. It's just most articles say what the reception has been but you believe it should just say if it was good or bad so maybe as most articles say what it is then you are wrong in this case? Like I said, I don't want to sound like an ass. I'm just trying to friendly see if you can take into consideration what I'm saying and how the other articles are. I hope you get what I'm saying. --Charlr6 (talk) 00:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

GAN proposal

I am currently cleaning up the article, which has a few errors in its prose (particularly in the reception section) and referencing. I would like to see the article become a good article, as it is overall a concise and well-referenced article. —DAP388 (talk) 01:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

FA Push

I am considering that we should take this article to Featured status if we can. There are a few things we still need to do:

• Lead section - looks good, but can be expanded to four paragraphs if needed
• Plot section - looks good as well, covers the basic detail and is below the 700-word count.
• Cast section - well done, covers the casting history
• Production section - also covers all aspects from beginning to end, such as design and music
• Release and reception sections - covers all aspects, such as the critical reception and box office revenues
• Sources - Rotten Tomatoes is a work published by Flixster, Box Office Mojo is published by Internet Movie Database and Variety is published by Reed Business Information, so the publishers should be included there.

Anyone interested are welcome to assist. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It's definitely can make it there, but I would also add that the references need a little bit more work. That will probably keep it from reaching FA status. I will help. —DAP388 (talk) 01:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, then. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I really wish I could help out more, but I'm strapped for time. My thoughts, however, are that the reception section could use a bit of some rewriting. There's lots of similar phrasing (how many times can one use "opined"? Switch out some verbs!) and it doesn't seem to cover all the aspects of the film. I generally try and create a paragraph with overall sentiments and then break it down with actors, effects, music or production quality, story, etc. Based on what's already in there, whether it was "a good Trek film or no" could be its own paragraph as well, based on what sources are presented.

Other thoughts: given the length of the article, I'd say split the lead into four paragraphs: the second details writing, preproduction, casting or whatnot, and the third details actual production and post work.

I feel like compared to the rest of the article, the Effects and Music/Sound sections really could use some more beefing up.

Finally, I know this is a pain in the ass but trust me given my experience with FACs that it's helpful: archive every link. Archive.org probably has most of these now, but you can manually cite them using webcitation.org for the rest. Assuring there's no linkrot is a great service and helps make sure all challengeable material is properly backed up.

Once the above is addressed, I suggest going for a peer review. If you ping me then, I'll try and go at the prose and clean it up a bit; I noticed places where the tense is wonky from release dates changing and whatnot, and some moderately clunky prose that just needs smoothing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Time

My DVD clocks 121 min. instead of the 127 min. as stated here is there a different version or is this normal ? In fact most of my DVd's are at leased 5 min. shorter than stated on the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.173.93 (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking at your IP, you appear to be in Europe. If so, are you using PAL format DVDs? There is (was?) an issue wherein films - which are typically shot at 24 frames per second - are directly transferred to PAL's 25 frames-per-second format without compensating. (Meaning, each second of PAL run time uses 25 frames of the film's run time, speeding up the playback on video by approximately 4%.) You might find this web site useful. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Blu-Rays and DVDs also have a difference in the running time as well, so that might add to it. There is usually a 5 minute difference between a dvd version of a film and a blu-ray one. Charlr6 (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

"I just noticed something..."

That kid that is hitch-hiking in the beginning of the film is the "cupcake" guy. He's the one the give the knock-out punch to Jim, and ultimately arrests him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironywrit (talk • contribs) 01:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

No he isn't. He is supposed to be George Samuel Kirk, James Kirk's brother. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Error removed

Since this is a GA article, and since IPs tend to have their edits reverted by bots, I'll reiterate a change I just made to the article. In the "Development" section it mentions Roddenberry in 1968 talked about plans for a prequel film. But it then makes the erroneous statement that Star Trek: Phase II and the later Star Trek TMP were based on this plan. This is clearly wrong, as the book on the making of Phase II clearly indicates the TV series was always intended to be a continuation of the original series, and TMP of course continued from there. So I have removed this statement from the article. If a bot puts it back, could someone please remove it again? Thanks. (If by chance I'm wrong and Phase II actually was at one point a prequel, then this fact needs a proper source for verification.) 70.72.211.35 (talk) 22:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Additions to Plot Summery

Added some minor lines to the plot. Shouldn't clutter it. The fact, that Nero is looking for Spock is importent, since it is also the first time, the character is mentioned in the movie. Also it did not really come across, that actually decades pass between the eopening and the actual story. Now, the transition should be clearer. 91.19.238.196 (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

That's fair enough. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Plot

This is a Good article which had a plot tag on it. I shortened the plot in line with this tag, otherwise it will fall foul of the "focus" criteria for Good articles. Apparently it was a hack job, so if someone else wants to fix it then they should do so, not just revert back to version that will most likely see a reassessment conducted. AIRcorn (talk) 05:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Its a bit long, at just under 800 words, but there's really not too much I can see to remove and accurately describe the film. My concern with the edited version is it didn't even mention a lead character at all, among other key details left out. I honestly also think we can leave out the references. The words "space jump" are taken directly from the film, and are linked to the appropriate Wikipedia article, so the confusion that once existed over the exact detail that lead to the refs (found in archive 3) is not particularly relevant.oknazevad (talk) 14:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be some details that are not really important for someone to get a good idea of the plot. For example one removal objected to was changing

• "After a bar fight involving friends of Uhura, a Starfleet cadet, Kirk meets Captain Christopher Pike, who encourages him to enlist in Starfleet Academy, where he meets and befriends the cynical doctor Leonard McCoy."

to

• "After a bar fight Kirk meets Captain Christopher Pike, who encourages him to enlist in Starfleet Academy, where he meets and befriends the cynical doctor Leonard McCoy"

Now why is it important to mention Uhura by name, she doesn't come up in the plot summary again. If she plays an important part n the plot other than having friends in a bar fight then that should be mentioned. If she doesn't then the name drop is not needed.

Actually looking at the whole article it goes into too much detail in most sections. I am thinking that even with a reduced plot it will still fail the focus criteria.

FWIW I agree about the reference in the plot section. If something needs to be referenced for to clarify a plot point it should be presented somewhere else in the article. AIRcorn (talk) 05:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

If there's a question as to why Uhura is mentioned, it seems pretty clear that you haven't seen the film. Of course, the plot section does fail to mention her again, but if anything that tells me that it fails to sufficiently convey her importance. However, the coverage of her in the cast section does a good job, without overburdening the plot section. oknazevad (talk) 21:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen the film, which I think makes me a good judge of the quality of the plot as I have no preconceived knowledge. Basically everything I know about the plot at the moment comes from this article. You have hit the nail on the head though, if she is important to the plot then she should get more of a mention than the abstract having friends in a bar fight. AIRcorn (talk) 23:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Now that it's been a few years

And passions have cooled, perhaps a section on criticism could be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.174.80 (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

What type of criticism? We have a critical reception section. If you're talking about the outlash from long-time fans of Star Trek upset at the timeline change, we'd need reliable sources to identify that aspect. --MASEM (t) 19:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If the topic's notable enough (moreso than other films), then there may be room for it. However, it'd need to be honed and sculpted before it gets agreed by all and put into the article. If you feel you could write and cite something, create an account, and do it in your sandbox. Invite other editors, and we can get it up to spec without it causing undue stress on the article. However, I personally don't think there's anywhere near enough to warrant it. Fan dissatisfaction is covered suitably, but it's not anything major. drewmunn talk 19:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

"The film acts as a prequel/reboot"

I saw that Mlpearc reverted an good faith edit of an IP of "208.39.168.42" about how that IP put "The film acts as a prequel/reboot" at the top of the page and it should be discussed before hand. I thought that this was quite interesting and surprised it wasn't mentioned already. As the film does act, and it's obvious in the film so we don't need to reference much with it being this. You could watch all of the Original Series to follow Spock's life and then he goes back in time to Star Trek (2010). But like I said, we don't need tons and tons of articles confirming it being a prequel and reboot as it is both at the same time and like I said it's obvious in the film.

But I just thought I'd come onto here and just say we should mention it and then everyone else (or whoever is reading this and is interesting in commenting on the issue) but that's all I was going to say. Star Trek does act as a prequel and reboot to the original established timeline. We could even mention that Star Trek: Enterprise's timeline is still canon and hasn't changed, while The Original Series, Next Generation, Voyager and Deep Space Nine have all changed from what we saw on TV because of the time-travel and how Nero destroyed Vulcan. But all the evidence is in the film with it being a reboot and prequel at the same time.

INFACT, we could even go as far to say it's a prequel, reboot and sequel. Think of that like this...

Prequel - Takes place before The Original Series Sequel - Sequel to Original Spock's life (and his life is The Original Series from the 60s and the spin-offs he appeared in) Reboot - The timeline is changing so it can go in any direction as Nero has changed history for revenge.Charlr6 (talk) 09:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

well it can't be a prequel as it is set in different/alternate reality than original series, as about sequel, well, there was a six movies after original series, so it have to be a sequel to the movie not series. Vilnisr ^{T | C} 10:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

It can still be a prequel because it is based before the main continuity (except ST: Enterprise), but that's where the sequel part came in as it's a sequel for Spock's life story. But the reboot/prequel part is the interesting part.

The film is a prequel, a true prequel until Nero comes back and changes continuity. If he didn't come back, it would follow the same continuity. But when Nero destroys Vulcan, thats a major change in history. I do see what you mean how it is set in a different/alternate reality, but that's only because the past has changed. I'm happy for it to be either one of them, haha.

Sorry I forgot about the movie series, I thought it would be kind of obvious what I meant. But I do know it would be based after the movie series for Spock's life.Charlr6 (talk) 11:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Neither a prequel nor a reboot once a reboot ignores the previous entries and a prequel is placed before the previous entries. 189.81.87.232 (talk) 01:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Sequel Section

Recently tried to give the sequel section a badly needed haircut as it had many issues with sentence tense and information that was now simply incorrect because information was added 2-3 yrs ago and then never touched. On top of that, the section makes a somewhat extensive look at the first sequel, start of casting, etc which seems to be of the trivial nature when there is already a Wiki page on the sequel. There is also a major Wiki linking issue, not only here but on the whole page, as many names are linked eventhough they are linked already above. Because of this I deleted the most egregious sentences and made other corrections but was reverted. Here is my suggested section content:

The film's major cast members signed on for two sequels.[173] Abrams and Burk signed to produce and Abrams signed to direct the first sequel[174][175], but will return only as producer of the third movie due to commitments to direct Star Wars: Episode VII.[183][184] When speaking on the alternate reality[3] established in the 2009 film, Abrams commented that it would be "ridiculous to not be open" to ideas like resurrecting William Shatner's James T. Kirk or recasting Khan Noonien Singh.[4] Orci and Kurtzman explained the dilemma for the sequel was whether to pit the crew against another villain, or to have an "exploration sci-fi plot where the unknown and nature itself is somehow an adversary".[176][177] The sequel, Star Trek Into Darkness[181] starring Benedict Cumberbatch as Khan, was released on May 16, 2013.[182]

A third film is now in development. Orci is attached to script the third Star Trek film, but Kurtzman is no longer involved.[185]

Seems pretty benign to me, but what do I know... Some of the sentence order or grammar probably needs to be tweaked, but this essentially shows what I think should be deleted (and added). Please comment as appropriate. Ckruschke (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Looks pretty good to me. The main thrust, that many of the details are now unneeded as the Into Darkness has its own article (and was released some time ago) is patently true. I might rearrange it to mention the Into Darkness title and release sooner, and trim a few more details specifically about the plot development of the sequel, which is more appropriate for that article. Something like this:

The film's major cast members signed on for two sequels as part of their original deals.[173] Abrams and Burk signed to produce and Abrams signed to direct the first sequel[174][175]. The sequel, Star Trek Into Darkness[181] starring Benedict Cumberbatch as Khan, was released on May 16, 2013.[182]

A third film is now in development. Orci is attached to script the third Star Trek film, but Kurtzman is no longer involved.[185] Abrams will return only as producer of the third movie due to commitments to direct Star Wars: Episode VII.[183][184]

Keep it short and sweet, as there is a better article for the details, as you note. oknazevad (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed - I was trying to be polite in my edit, but your edit seems much better IMO.

Maybe MisterShiney who reverted a similar edit can chime in. It appeared to me that the only reason he gave was Wikipedia:GA which of course doesn't mean ALL CHANGES need to goto Talk and/or the page shall never change and is moot if the content is "wrong" like the above was in several places. Either way, I welcome more comments. Ckruschke (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Another Edit Reverted

I made a recent major "housekeeping" edit to the page in which I deleted uneeded extra spaces, ensured that actors/directors/etc were referred to by there last name after the first mention, and also cleaned up the Wiki linking per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#What generally should not be linked as there were many actors/words that were linked many many times. Note that the MOS says "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." and thus a second Wiki link is only optional if it serves the page (let alone the third, fourth, fifth, etc, etc) but it is by no means necessary.

Nevertheless, Jojhutton reverted my entire edit based upon his POV about Wiki linking (saying the additional Wiki links were "vital"). Not only is this opinion not backed up by the MOS, but my Wiki edits were only a portion of the total edit and he reverted the whole thing. I've placed a note on his page requesting he restore my changes, rather than I revert his revert and create an edit war, but I thought I'd put a similar post here. Bottomline is my edit was very benign and should have never been reverted. I'm assuming Good Faith here and simply guess that Jojhutton didn't realize the extent of my edit or for some reason chose not to engage me on Wiki linking methodology instead of reverting alot of hard work that helped the page and had nothing to do with linking. So, if we need to have a discussion about which actors/words should be Wiki linked a second time, then I'm happy to have that and would even make the changes. Ckruschke (talk) 15:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

First off it's not "my" POV, it's a generally accepted practice. In fact lots if other editors share this POV. So many that we no longer call it a POV, but we call it consensus. Having multiple wiki links within an article is not against guidelines. Words can be re linked if inside infoboxes or within lists, such as cast lists. Or in tables. Or any other place where they may be appropriate to the understanding of the topic. Readers usually get frustrated when they have to search for links. Remember that links appear in Wikipedia in order to enhance the readers experience and to help navigate Wikipedia more easily. Slavishly adhering to the "one link" rule tends to make Wikipedia less useful to use.

Second, it's not other editors jobs to fix your mistakes. If you are going to make a large edit and change lots of information in a single edit, it's your job to do it correct. Just because your edit made good changes doesn't mean that your edit isn't a candidate for reverting. If you have an issue with it, you should have made the same changes over multiple edits so that each change would stand on its own. That's what I do and what many others do as well. Taking a half an hour to complete one edit is a bit much. You are lucky nobody edited the article during that time or you would have had an edit conflict. JOJ ^Hutton 17:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Honestly I am somewhat aghast that POV that may be shared by others is being used to justify your opinion. I obviously know the intent for Wiki linking, but there is a fine line between helping readers goto similar pages and over-linking and this page falls in that latter category. Besides, if the MOS so obviously needs a rewrite for its Wiki linking std's, then it would seem logical that "lots" of editors would propose a change because without writing rules, Wikipedia would become what "the rest of the world" accuses it of - a collection of trivial crap that anyone can change based on to their own whims and desires. Note - I'm not saying that allowing 2nd or 3rd Wiki linking on a page is going to lead to anarchy and bedlam, but its like anything else - you open the door for one thing and after that where do you close it? This was why the MOS was written in the first place.

However, I am continuing to assume Good Faith and I'll simply redo my edits in snippets to allow you to review them at a slower pace. Yours - Ckruschke (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

At a glance the linking appears to me to be overkill, but that is at a glance. DonIago (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I left in a second instance of every Wiki link I saw per JOJ's request above. Whether his personal preference serves a purpose or is overkill is kind of a moot point as far as I'm concerned. I'm not interested in an edit war with anyone and am satisfied that the overlinking problem is greatly reduced after my edits on the 11th.Ckruschke (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Corporare Headquarters listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Corporare Headquarters. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. 70.51.203.69 (talk) 08:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Star Trek (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5tYCgPFpr?url=http://www.bfca.org/ccawards/2009.php to http://www.bfca.org/ccawards/2009.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)