Replay to the letters Edit

Hello. Great job. I did not expect this on a Wednesday. This is a great story. Thanks! The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

What?--31dot 21:19, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

Article Length Edit

I have reason to believe that this article is either unnecessarily long, or needs to hide some of the sections upon opening. My reason for this opinion is two-fold. 1) The film's synopsis reads like a word-for-word description of every event in the film, and 2) just going to the page made my browser slow to a crawl and it was largely unresponsive when trying to navigate the article.-- 03:23, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

This has been mentioned a few times over the last couple of months, thought nothing has come of it yet. - Archduk3 04:59, January 26, 2010 (UTC)
Honestly, I think we can start by culling down the "Quotes" section. Feels like I'm reading a script of the entire movie. I don't think we need the whole argument between McCoy and Spock after he maroons Kirk on Delta Vega.--Obey the Fist!! 14:43, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
I had the same thought. Somebody needs to do some weeding.Blair2009 15:04, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
Okay guys, I just started doing some "weeding"; I have already removed some quotes which (to me) are obviously not that MEMORABLE. I have done each one in a separate edit so far, so that whoever has a good reason won't have any problems reverting specific edits Mongoosedog 11:20, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the quotes need to be cut down, but the summaries of each act need lots of trimming! This is THE LONGEST article on here. --Trip Endres 13:25, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
Quotes for deletion -
*"Spock, you are fully capable of deciding your own destiny. The question you face is: which path will you choose? This is something only you can decide."

- Sarek, to a young Spock after getting in a fistfight with his classmates

  • "I suffer from aviophobia. It means fear of dying in something that flies!"

- Leonard McCoy

  • "Back home we got a saying: If you're gonna ride in the Kentucky Derby, you don't leave your prize stallion in the stable."

"A curious metaphor, Doctor, as a stallion must first be broken before it can reach its potential." "My God, man - you could at least act like it was a hard decision!" - Leonard McCoy and Spock

  • "If crew morale is better served by my roaming the halls weeping, I will gladly defer to your medical expertise."

(Spock walks away as Sarek comes onto the bridge) "Green blooded hobgoblin!"

- Spock and Leonard McCoy, arguing about the decision to throw James Kirk off the ship
actually we should just combine those last two
*"Come with me - cupcake!"

- Enterprise security officer (the onetime barroom brawl instigator), arresting Kirk

  • "I sure hope you know what you're doing... captain."

"So do I." - Nyota Uhura and James Kirk, after he takes the captain's chair

  • "Are you afraid or aren't you?"

"I will not allow you to lecture me about the merits of emotion..." "Then why don't you stop me?" - James Kirk and Spock

  • "What is it like not to feel anger? Or heartbreak? Or the need to stop at nothing to avenge the death of the woman who gave birth to you?"

- James Kirk, provoking Spock to show he is emotionally compromised and unfit for command

  • "Your species is even weaker than I expected - you can't even speak!...What?"

"I got your gun!" - Ayel and Captain James Kirk

  • "Spock, do yourself a favor: put aside logic, do what feels right."
- Spock Prime, advising Spock
Sorry for the formatting. OtF out!--Obey the Fist!! 14:07, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
Most of those are excellent quotes!-- 01:35, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

Removed Edit

  • In "The Menagerie, Part I", Commodore Mendez tells Kirk that Pike is "about his age," although in this film, Pike is much closer to the age of Kirk's father. Even accounting for the diversion in the timeline, the age gap should not have widened significantly.

Nitpick. - Archduk3 19:33, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

nitpick? blatant discontinuity. one of a long list. the movie is clearly non-canon. 05:56, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
"blatant discontinuity." In other words, a nitpick. And yes, the movie is officially canon. Also remember this Pike had a different life than the Pike we knew. Anything could have happened to him to account for his older appearance. By the way, I love how some fans cry "non-canon" when there is even the smallest discrepancy. By their logic, most Star Trek episodes and and all the films are non-canon. There are hundreds of apparent continuity issues out there - between shows and even between episodes of the same shows. It doesn't make them non-canon, it just means you have to do something called "thinking" to come up with in-universe explanations. You don't need to be spoon-fed every bit of information; you are capable (I hope) of thinking for yourself. Engage your brain! --From Andoria with Love 06:29, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
Regardless of the kind of life Pike had post split, his age stays the same and there is no reason for him to look 25 years older than Kirk. Certainly the laws of physics do not change because of Nero's incursion. While your point about not pointing out every tiny discrepancy here on MA is true, this is hardly an issue of picking on "the smallest discrepancies",As another admin recently pointed out, mentioning these is not a nit pick; not when they are obvious like that. @ anon: I would just avoid trying to fit this movie into the rest of Star Trek pre and post split, science or continuity wise, as it is full of such discrepancies, plot holes and magic bullets. It will only result in such debates as this where people yell at each other based on differing opinions about the movie, pretending the proverbial pink elephant is not in the room and all is good. But for the record, this is not nit-pick regardless. Also Shran, there is no need to be so rude and condescending towards the anon. – Distantlycharmed 08:58, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

Define what "about <your> age" means with a hard number when Kirk was the "youngest captain in the fleet's history at that time" and people live well past 100 years old. Also, while your at it, place an age on Steve Martin 30 years ago based on his picture then. Hell, guess the age of presidents on before and after photos. Bet most would look much older after being president than the 4 to 8 years that elapsed. Anyway, since this note can't even pass the first two criteria as spelled out at the policy, it is a nitpick, per policy. - Archduk3 09:29, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

This is not about guessing age based on pictures and naming exact numbers or how the Steve Martins and Tom Cruises of the world today have aged. This is about common sense and the fact that in this move, Pike, even if he lives to be 200, has not only the looks but also rank and experience of someone older, and by decades older, than Kirk. Kirk (prime) was not middle aged or a couple of decades older when he met Pike in The Menagerie so it stands to reason that - regardless of when Kirk (alt) became captain in this movie, that fact still has not changed and they are both still "about the same age". But in this movie, Pike clearly speaks to Kirk as someone who is older, as his mentor and experienced superior officer, not his age-peer. And "about your age" means exactly that - give or take a few years, not decades. You seriously need a definition of that line? Of course the head-in-the-sand approach and trying to explain such discrepancies away with completely unrelated examples of real life is possible as well, which is I guess what is being done here. – Distantlycharmed 09:51, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

DC, lets do some math since your emotionally fueled outbursts missed the point yet again. In 2265, Kirk assumes command of the Enterprise as the youngest captain ever at age 32 (2265-2233=32). Pike is in command of the Enterprise in 2254, meaning that at that time he was at least 33. Therefore, they must be at least 12 years between Pike and Kirk (2254-33=2221, 2233-2221=12). So in the movie, Kirk in the bar at 22 (2255-2233=22) is getting advice from someone who is 34 at least. Wow, that is a noteworthy "big contradiction" to "established facts". - Archduk3 10:53, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

If the statement "he is about your age" is true, then 12 years is the max that is between them. Does Pike in this movie look like he was 34 years old to you - by any stretch of the imagination - or are you gonna recite me how it might be possible he had some disease that just makes him look older even though he is in his chipper 30s actually? Let's say he is 45 (made up), that means there is 23 years between them, which makes the statement "about your age" false. And, none of this still accounts for the nearly 25-30 years age gap that is obviously between them in the movie. Pike here is not "about [Kirk's] age". So yes, no matter how you twist and turn it, there is a serious continuity error here, such as a middle aged man being estimated to be in his 30s or alternately "close to Kirk's age". We point out such things all the time - in background or continuity section - such as when they decided Chakotay's homeworld to be Dorvan V (in novels) but his birthdate was not consistent with the settlement date of the colony. – Distantlycharmed 17:58, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
The point that is being missed is that even if this was considered a non-nitpick, the movie article would not be the place to put this information. It's terribly lazy to just dump all sorts of real and perceived "continuity errors" on the episode or movie pages. We're an encyclopedia, so if something is wrong with a specific "object", it should be noted on the page about that object, and not some random other page that just happens to be at hand. So, find a phrasing that is not nitpicky and put it where it actually belongs, and we all might be cool with that. -- Cid Highwind 18:12, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm not aware of the location of this note. I assumed it was removed from the background or continuity section - where it belongs in the first place. Clearly no one put this in the middle of the article summary, did they? – Distantlycharmed 18:18, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
No, it does not belong there. That's what we're trying to tell you, that's what the "no-nitpicks" guideline states - and the reasoning of not wanting any lazy "info dumps" is actually a good part of what brought up this guideline in the first place. If it is valid information that one Pike definitely has to be older than the other one (or whatever the valid info derived from this turns out to be), then it should be mentioned on one of the Pike articles and not here. -- Cid Highwind 18:30, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
Look, I dont care where you mention it, that is a mere technicality. It would certainly not be out of place to mention it here, since it is happening in the movie but if someone wants to paste it over to the Pike article, fine. It was removed from this page as nit-pick, not indicating that it should be moved or that it belongs to another page. It was just removed. Period. So I assumeed that it would be considered a nit-pick everywhere, not just here. So no, this is certainly not what you've been trying to tell me. What you've been trying to tell me is that it is nit-pick regardless of location. Anyway, so the anon thinks it belongs here and you think it doesnt, there is no need to assume (not that you did) he is an idiot woh cant think for himself, simply because the location of the note was missed. I tried to explain that such discrepancies are valid to be mentioned and they have been in the past. As long as they are pointed out in a non-judgmental, neutral tone I dont see why they should be removed. Either way, as I pointed out to the anon, it might just be best to drop it and thus save himself and everyone else the time and effort trying to make sense of this movie by coming here and posting and arguing every discrepancy, as clearly that kind of dissenting attitude will be immediately blocked and struck down here - with insults if necessary. So, let's just take this with a (gigantic) grain of salt and forget about trying to intelligently (force)-incorporate it into the rest of established canon. – Distantlycharmed 19:33, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
I could point out where you go wrong again - but if you consider that rule to be a "mere technicality", then that would just be more words wasted on someone who apparently does not even want to listen. So, yeah, let's just stop this discussion and wait for the next problem to arise. -- Cid Highwind 21:16, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
Yup. Agreed. Thanks for proving my point. – Distantlycharmed 21:20, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
So are other people going to chime in on this or should I just move the note to the Pike article? – Distantlycharmed 00:23, December 19, 2010 (UTC)
Skimming this discussion, the consensus so far seems to be against having the note anywhere, as it is a nitpick. --31dot 00:31, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Continuity notes Edit

These would need citations to be put back. - Archduk3 21:20, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

  • The "Darmok" episode of the Next Generation establishes that are multiply uses of Darmok for example. Also the Vulcans wouldn't name a planet in their system Delta Vega, it's probably the Starfleet designation of the outpost just applied to the planet as a whole for simplicity.

At best, this is original research. - Archduk3 18:37, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

Black hole Edit

How close is the black hole created near the end of the film to Earth? In any case, wouldn't it have an effect on Earth's orbit? 15:36, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Obviously not, since Earth isn't a frozen wasteland at the end of the movie. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:49, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
Its called a plot hole... Though then the real question is: WHERE THE HELL IS BRAXTON?! --Ictiv 13:03, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
Spock warps off in the Jellyfish, and then the Narada warps after to follow him, remember? -- 14:11, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Kirk's Hearing/Promotion Room Edit

Was it mentioned in the script at all, what the name of the room (or perhaps a known real world equivalent of it is known) where Kirk's hearing and later promotion took place?--Terran Officer 21:37, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

According to the copy I have it was called "Academy Council Chambers" but that's not necessarily accurate. — Morder (talk) 21:40, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

More to add to continuity Edit

According to there are a heck of alot more continuities (or easter eggs) between the movie and TOS. Check out: scrp;; tp" More Star Trek Easter Eggs. As well as: Saurian brandy Can we add more of those to the Article, for example the brandy, or the Vulcan school and its similarities to Voyage Home, or kolinahr foreshadowing, or the fact we see Admiral Komack on the dias, etc. etc. There should be far more added, but I'm not confident which ones are appropriate or not. I would appreciate help sorting through these two links and picking what's acceptable. Cheers. --Brumagnus 01:37, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of continuity. Why is Chris Pine, in that scene where he and Quinto transfer over to the Narada, hold his phaser (if in fact that is what he is holding) like it was a Magnum 47? His entire pose and how he approaches the platform and the way he holds the gun is like they do in detective movies or Die Hard or something. I have never seen anyone in Star Trek hold a phaser like that or strike that "police movie" pose. I wonder if that is just maybe a production mistake or if maybe what he is holding is not a phaser gun.– Distantlycharmed 19:27, November 21, 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe it was intentional given that the entire movie is premised on an alternate reality and a reboot? People standing a certain way is hardly a continuity error... 08:05, December 3, 2010 (UTC)

...and once again, DC, please stop adding this kind of personal commentary. I don't know why this is a hard concept for you to learn. --OuroborosCobra talk 08:57, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
Wait a minute, this is a continuity/clarification etc question for me. I dont care if you dont see it as that. Maybe I am even using the wrong term, maybe it is not continuity but something else, it eludes me at the moment, but you get the picture. I wonder why he isholding the phaser like a 21st century gun. How you hold a phaser has nothing to do with an alternate timeline. Is it a production error or is it just not a phaser he is holding? That was my question.– Distantlycharmed 21:44, December 3, 2010 (UTC)

Vulcan interior location Edit

Does anyone know where the interior shots of the Vulcan Science Academy and other Vulcan interiors (such as the scene with young Spock and Sarek) were filmed? I was watching the second season of True Blood, and I think that the building used as the Fellowship of the Sun's church was the same location, but I can't find any confirmation of that. However, the architecture is very distinctive. Anyone know the name of the location? —Josiah Rowe 01:12, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Ah — according to filming locations, it's the SkyRose Chapel in Rose Hills Memorial Park, Whittier CA. This site identifies the same location as the one used for True Blood. Would it be appropriate to add a note to that effect to the "Sets and locations" section? —Josiah Rowe 00:01, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

The place should be noted. There's no reason to list any other show done there. If we do that, what's to say that we shouldn't list every show that was filmed there then? -- sulfur 00:09, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it makes sense not to note it here. But if there was an article page for the location, I suppose that the use in True Blood could be noted there, like the uses of the Brandeis-Bardin Institute in other series are noted on that page. —Josiah Rowe 00:27, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. Feel free to write an article about the location, and note its other uses. :) -- sulfur 00:37, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

Done. :) —Josiah Rowe 03:33, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

Quotes section... Edit

does the quote section really have to be that long? it seems abit excessive if im honest.....although i dont know what to cut it down to, though, i still recommend that this part of the article be trimmed a little bit XNERZHULx 17:33, January 3, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah the quote section is in bad format, entire paragraphs are rewritten, trying to pass as memorable "quotes" and in general it seems like every other line in the movie appears to be a memorable quote - which defeats the whole purpose. Trim and reduce and stop this whole retelling of entire freaking dialogs. This is memorable quotes not memorable sections, paragraphs and conversations. – Distantlycharmed 19:03, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
i may cut out a few, some are just backline dialog. XNERZHULx 19:06, January 3, 2011 (UTC)

I have cut out some unneeded quotes, does anyone else believe there are some unsavoury or non-memorable quotes which need sorting? XNERZHULx 19:17, January 3, 2011 (UTC)

I removed some additional stuff that hardly qualifies as quotes. I think MA needs to have a section on explaining to people what a quote is (not kidding) and what distinguishes a memorable quote from just any line uttered and also how to express that in the memorable quote section. People add wads of dialog because one sentence there was funny or memorable and then you got like 5 lines of text to "make the point". – Distantlycharmed 19:45, January 3, 2011 (UTC)

it seems it. Most of this was dialog, not memorable quotes. Someone will have to shout at the admins about it XNERZHULx 19:47, January 3, 2011 (UTC)

MA:QUOTE. And while you're at it, Help:Talk pages. -- sulfur 19:49, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
Apparently no one got the "memo" on that one cause many articles have this problem. – Distantlycharmed 19:52, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
Cleanup is a work in progress. It isn't instantaneous. -- sulfur 19:54, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
agreed. and apparently, DistantlyCharmed, no-one did get that memo, or this would not have happened, especially not this badly. Cleanup underway. However, lets not go mad. Edit responsibly, since some people's thoughts as a memorable quote will be different. Just delete the quotes which aren't either pivitol moments on the article at hand, or are full blown dialog which dont appear to have any meaning in this article XNERZHULx 20:00, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
Removed the following passages per MA:QUOTE:

"I am not our father. There are so few Vulcans left. We cannot afford to ignore each other."
"Then why did you send Kirk aboard, when you alone could have explained the truth?"
"Because you needed each other. I could not deprive you of the revelation of all that you could accomplish together, of a friendship that will define you both in ways you cannot yet realize."

- Spock meeting Spock Prime for the first time

"How did you persuade him to keep your secret?"
"He inferred that universe-ending paradoxes would ensue should he break his promise."
"You lied."
"Oh, I... I implied."
"A gamble."
"An act of faith. One I hope you will repeat in your future at Starfleet."

- Spock and Spock Prime

"In the face of extinction, it is only logical that I resign my Starfleet commission and help rebuild our race."
"And, yet, you can be in two places at once. I urge you to remain in Starfleet. I have already located a suitable planet in which to establish a Vulcan colony. Spock, in this case, do yourself a favor: Put aside logic. Do what feels right. Since my customary farewell would appear oddly self-serving, I shall simply say... Good luck."

- Spock and Spock Prime--31dot 11:59, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

Severe canonical flaws? Edit

Shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere in this article that this movie, if watched from the "old" canonical point of view, makes some severe (trek-)scientific flaws and even has some contradictions in itself? During various episodes of Voyager and Enterprise it is shown that the Federation monitors the timeline from the 29th and 31st centuries, correcting temporal incursions and anomalies when detected. And something like Nero's incursion is something I'm sure they wouldn't miss, plus the destruction of Romulus is something Braxton (or his Lieutenant, you get the picture) and Daniels would most certainly prevent. And even though I know that complaining about the new movie (which I don't) won't bring back the "old" Star Trek, this timeline thing seems like a very huge incursion and therefore should be mentioned somewhere in the article. Next thing, the movie states that the timeline is altered from the moment the Narada came through the black hole and attacked the Kelvin - so this means up to that point prime continuity still counts. Since this is the case, then why are the Kelvin crewmembers wearing the Enterprise's mission patch on their uniforms? Carrying on, how can Nero's incursion change the known (and from the film's explanation still counting) design of the uniforms, ships, shuttles and rooms (especially the bridge and engineering) onboard the Kelvin? And how does Nero's incursion alter the laws of physics so that traveling at Warp looks a hell lot more like Star Wars' hyper space then like Warp used to look like? As I said, it won't bring back Star Trek as we knew it, but I think it's definitely worth mentioning. smintili 03:30, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this has been discussed to death- the simple answer is that the new movie is a different reality, not a different timeline. Uhura said as much. We also don't get into speculation about why certain events were not prevented by time travelers. We have also seen many different warp effects within the original timeline, so that is not unprecedented.--31dot 03:34, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

If it has been discussed "to death", then why don't mention it? This is a Star Trek wiki, and if Star Trek from "The Cage" up to "These Are the Voyages..." is called the "prime" reality and Star Trek XI the "alternate" reality, then as long as the prime reality stays the prime reality, it should be treated as such. In this case, these things should be mentioned (just noticed another flaw in the movie: during the mind meld, Spock "Prime" says he had little time after the supernova. But, as his history is untouched by Nero's incursion, he could have just made the sun-slingshot timetravel from Assignment Earh, Star Trek IV etc. and saved Romulus. Okay, that's speculative, but still a flaw.), as the new movie is just one movie against 10 others plus 717 TV episodes of established continuity. Also, if Star Trek XI establishes a new reality, then having articles about episodes like "Year of Hell" is pointless, since all of Annorax' incursions are also different realities and did not happen. Quite illogical ;) smintili 03:55, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

We don't mention it because you are wrong. See MA:CANON. - Archduk3 03:59, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
{edit conflict)Our personal discussions about it are not encyclopedic as such discussion is our personal opinions, which is outside the purview of this site. If you have authoritative discussions from Trek staff, that might be another matter. Again, we do not engage in speculation or nitpicking about why time travel was not employed to save Romulus, as one could make that argument about any aspect of Star Trek. Why wasn't time travel used to prevent the Dominion War? The Borg invasions? And so on. Year of Hell is not pointless, as we do have information from the different timelines, including the eliminated ones. That's because our POV of articles in omniscient. --31dot 04:02, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

After reading the MA:CANON thoghrougly, I still don't see why this isn't mentioned or why I am "wrong". I admit, part of it is speculation, and I know from my participation in the German MA that MA's purpose isn't to gather speculations from us fans. Yet, I still am convinced that it should be mentioned at least in one small sentence that this movie doesn't fit in. And besides, we do have the information from Annorax' different timelines, but we also have the information from the Prime and the alternate timeline. Maybe we're talking at cross-purposes here, but from what you have written I do not get your point, and I still don't see why I'm wrong and why this shouldn't be mentioned. smintili 04:10, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

You haven't mentioned anything yet that can be explained away with one sentence, so there is no contradiction per our canon policy. Mentioning those things would just be nitpicking then. Also, MA/EN does not gather speculation as a rule, we leave that up to the reader. - Archduk3 04:21, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

Is that a typing mistake? "You haven't mentioned anything yet that can be explained away with one sentence" Because if I haven't mentioned anything that can be explained with one sentence, then I think all the more that these things should be mentioned. And as I said, I won't start to gather speculations and write them down, that's neither my wish nor MA's purpose. And at least the mission patch on the Kelvin's crew uniforms are a big enough and unexplainable mistake to be worth mentioning. Plus the movies itself doesn't offer any explanation, so I can only assume the designers put Enterprise's mission patch on Kelvin's uniforms so that new viewers won't be confused. smintili 04:32, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the Kelvin assignment patch is a perfect example of why this is unencyclopedic nitpicking. Nowhere that I know of is it actually stated in canon that all ships have to have their own assignment patch in the 23rd century. In fact all we have is witnessing that practice over a very small period in the 2260s, by 2272 even the appearance of that practice had seemingly fallen into disuse. Even during the era of the USS Enterprise, that practice was by no means universal. The USS Ariel used the same assignment patch, after all. Also, who is to say that assignment patches weren't reused later on after a ship was retired? The USS Kelvin that we saw was at least 12 years before the prime universe Enterprise entered service. For all we know, the Kelvin was retired, and its patch reused for the Enterprise. There isn't a violation of canon going on here, only a violation of what we might like to believe. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:45, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's just nonsense. We know perfectly well that usually every ship has its own assignment patch, from 2151 up until 2273, when Starfleet adopts the Enterprise's patch as their logo. Even the mirror universe does that (and has its own assignment patches, as seen on Mirror universe NX-01's MACOs and the NX-09). I don't mean to sound insulting or not wanting to accept what you say, but so far I haven't heard one thing that could explain why Enterprise's mission patch appears on the Kelvin uniforms if prime continuity is valid up until Nero's time travel. And besides, taking the Ariel as an example is not really convincing, since MA/en's own article states "The USS prefix was not on screen, but the crew were definitely with Starfleet, and therefore the Ariel is likely a Starfleet vessel." Isn't that a bit speculative and therefore questionable? Again, I don't want to appear mean or defiant, but I think this is just bending the rules to avoid a bigger discussion about MA itself. I just want to hear one sound explanation why this shouldn't be mentioned. The patch is something where J.J. Abrams and his team just made a mistake by choice, so new watchers wouldn't be confused (as I said earlier). smintili 13:25, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

The fact remains that we don't nitpick or post our personal speculation about why things are the way there are. If you choose not to believe the explanation Cobra wrote, that is your choice, but it is that debate which is not permitted in articles.--31dot 13:46, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
Production decisions are noteworthy, especially if an explanation is given. I think the production rationale for the patches is already mentioned here on MA somewhere, but if not it should be along with a citation.--31dot 13:48, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

And what makes the patch mistake nitpicking? I don't have to speculate to see it on Kelvin's uniforms, I can only speculate why Abrams and his team put it there. But that it is there is a fact and a mistake. smintili 16:46, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

First off, you are mixing up assignment patches and mission patches. They aren't the same thing, so what's going on in Enterprise is not applicable. Second off, you've chosen to ignore things like the USS Ariel having the same assignment patch. Third off, you are clinging to a supposed policy (no two ships have the same assignment patch) that was never actually stated in canon, merely assumed to be true by the fans. You know what that makes this? Not an issue of canon, since you are ignoring canon, but an issue of what you, personally, want to believe or not believe. Given that, I'm going to ask you to end this conversation, and should it continue ask an administrator to do so. This has nothing to do with canon, and only your personal ax to grind with Abrams. I couldn't care less whether you like him or the movie or not, but it is a waste of this talk page. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:19, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

Ok, you know what? Forget it, if you don't want to mention this, then blow it, I think it's worth mentioning and correct, and I still don't see why I'm supposed to be wrong, I don't mean to insult anyone and I just thought this is a Star Trek wiki, and not a "We write only what we want to be true about Star Trek"-page. All I asked for was a sound, bullet-proof canonical explanation for this wrong assignment patch, and all I got was "You speculate", "Your assumption is wrong", etc. What I asked is the purpose of these talk pages, what I got was just cross-purpose talk. smintili 19:54, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it started out as such way up, but that question has been answered already - you just didn't get the answer you would have liked to get. Again: it shouldn't be added because it is not an error in continuity, but in fan belief. If there's a good way of "explaining away" some supposed error, it doesn't make that explanation "canon" and worthy to be added to some article - but it is a hint at that error probably not being one in the first place.
Assignment patch reuse is a good explanation - another, similar one would be the idea that patches have never been used for individual ships, but rather for ship fleets. Perhaps the later Enterprise was in the same fleet ("Exploration Fleet"?) as the former Kelvin... -- Cid Highwind 10:27, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

One last thing: I didn't ask for it because I wanted a certain answer, and I have no problem with JJ Abrams and his movie, by the way, but then again, after this discussion I believe even more that not mentioning this is just bending the rules, because it was never stated in canon that assignment/mission patches get reassigned nor was it said that they are not - but the latter one is obiously correct, since every Starfleet vessel seen in the "assignment/mssion patch" period (at least 2144 up to 2273) has its own patch, even in the Mirror universe. And just saying that Enterprise reuses Kelvin's patch is this rule bending thing. But even if it is only in my opinion, then it should be noted, probably in the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) and the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701 alternate reality) article that their patch is a reuse of Kelvin's patch, because from what you said, this would be correct then. And that Starfleet adopted Kelvin's patch because of "Prime" Kirk's achievements. smintili 17:30, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

It is not bending any rule (probably you're referring to some rule about "what constitutes canonicity"?) simply because the "canonicity status" of what we're discussing here is neither true nor false, but unknown (see wikipedia:Argument from ignorance for more). You should look at it the other way - the very fact that the so-called "Enterprise patch" was in use on other ships (the Kelvin, the Ariel and Friendship 1, at least, and probably the whole Fleet only ten years after the events of TOS) makes it unlikely that it was, in fact, a patch unique to the Enterprise at any point in time. -- Cid Highwind 20:06, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! That was the kind of answer I was waiting for the whole time! =) smintili 21:25, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

I assumed when seeing the film that the Kelvin patch was simply a variant of the "old arrowhead theme" as it was completely hollow unlike the Enterprise patch. Much like the Huron patch with the additional tilted thingy and a black center. File:Huron-crew.jpg. --Pseudohuman 22:47, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

Spock's date of entry to the academy Edit

It states that Spock had his discussion with his mother about the Kolinahr in 2255. But that doesn't add up.

We know Spock had programmed the Kobayashi Maru for 4 years, so at the very least, he must have entered the Academy in 2254. But he also held the rank of Commander, and First Officer of the Enterprise, which implies some time elapsed from his graduation to achieve that rank, and also the experience needed to be F.O. of StarFleet's flagship.

If, as it suggests, Spock was born in 2230 and let's assume he graduates the Vulcan equivalent of high school at the same age as Terrans, that would put him at the Academy in the Fall of 2248. And since his academic record was 'flawless' according to the VSA admissions board (making him a genius even amongst Vulcans), then we can probably safely assume that he also condensed his course from 4 to 3 years, which would have him graduate in 2251, giving him 7 years to achieve that rank and get the kind of experience needed to be the flagship's F.O. Also, since neither Jim nor Bones recognized Spock at the hearing, it's possible he wasn't around until more recently, and he may well have done more than one stint at the Academy in between missions, one of which is when he got started on his work programming the K.M. simulation.

Thoughts, anyone?--AmandaWarrington 20:59, April 7, 2011 (UTC)

Or that Spock simply was an outside contractor when he began programming the simulation in -54. --Pseudohuman 21:23, April 7, 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious where the 2255 come from in the first place? And Spock was clearly an instructor, not a cadet at the time of Kirk's third KM test. So he must have joined at least a year earlier than Kirk, if not more. Also, if he was such a 'distinguished graduate' Kirk would have heard of him if he'd graduated while Kirk was there.--AmandaWarrington 21:33, April 7, 2011 (UTC) Since no-one has come forward with where the 2255 date came from for Spock's talk with his mother, and I've not seen any reference to that date myself (and can posit a number of reasons why it is likely to be wrong), I've gone ahead and removed it from the synopsis.--AmandaWarrington 13:21, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

I suppose you are right, I would assume that this has been an assumption that the events occur during the same year due to the transition from Vulcan to Iowa which sort of feels like "meanwhile on Earth." but there is nothing in the script or anywhere to indicate this is so. --Pseudohuman 18:56, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I can see why that could be assumed, although the dates of Kirk's and Spock's births are offset by 3 years; and when we later see them as boys, they appear to be about the same age, but if they are, the events we see would have also occurred three years apart. We don't know for sure when Spock in the alternate timeline had that conversation with his mother and the meeting with the VSA council, but TOS Spock entered the Academy after rejecting the VSA in 2249, so it's *logical* to assume (in the absence of any evidence to the contrary) that the other Spock did much the same.  :) --AmandaWarrington 20:07, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

MacGuffin? Edit

I've recently been doing some research on Hitchcock and the history of MacGuffins, etc. and I was wondering if there's any identifiable MacGuffins in this film. Could the red matter (for example) be termed as such? --Defiant 00:38, August 11, 2011 (UTC)

Young Spock blooper Edit

Shortly before the scene where young Spock's peers call his father "a traitor for marrying a Human whore" is a "pop quiz" including the following:

Question: The square root of 2,396,324?
Young Spock: 1,548.

Close but no cigar. 1,548 is actually the square root of 2,396,304 (the original number without "twenty-"). The Spock I recall would have noted that the square root of 2,396,324 is "approximately 1,548.00646" (the final "6" being a rounding of "5993..."). Evidentally the movie needed a mathematical proofreader. --Glenn L 01:27, October 16, 2011 (UTC)

That would be a nitpick, which we don't put in articles.--31dot 01:30, October 16, 2011 (UTC)
That figures (pun intended). Thanks anyway. --Glenn L 01:39, October 16, 2011 (UTC)
Just an update: the Star Trek novel correctly states that young Spock was asked for "the square root of 2,396,304". So, nitpick or not, the typo was only in the movie. -- Glenn L (talk) 23:47, August 25, 2012 (UTC)

More trek Movies...?Edit

Does this mean the start of more/alternative realty Star Trek Movies every year....?The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Probably one more. Upon reviewing JJ's career, one stumbles upon a pattern that suggest creative ADD, meaning he'll probably get bored by the end of the second film and go look for something else to do. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Deviations from the timeline Edit

I have to ask where the controversy over Spocks parentage can be discussed. In the first generation of Star Trek films, it is shown that Spocks mother died during childbirth, and was human. This is backed up by Ambassador Sarek, in the TV series onf The Next Generation, where Sarek is over 200 years old and becoming senile. Yet, in this film she is alive and is quite possibly Vulcan. Has this been explained anywhere in the film? Or is it simply suggested as a side effect of the Romulan ship's jump through time? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Don't worry about it now, but specific questions not pertaining to changing an article can be asked at the Reference Desk.
I think you're only remembering bits and parts of Star Trek, or you haven't seen every appearance of Amanda.(which is fine; just stating it. :) ) She did not die in childbirth, as she was seen in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home as well as in The Animated Series. Spock's birth seen in Star Trek V: The Final Frontier was painful but she didn't die. Amanda Grayson (alternate reality) is not a Vulcan, she's a Human. 31dot (talk) 14:52, October 14, 2012 (UTC)

If that is the case, than why is Spock's mother almost always referred to in the past tense, by both Spock himself and by Sarek? If I remember rightly, Sarek's wife's appearance in TNG was under a different name to that of Star Trek V: The Final Frontier. Is that just a canonical error? or is it scripted?

In future, I will remember the reference desk; this is my first visit to this website. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

By the time of TNG, Amanda had died, and Sarek had remarried to a Vulcan named Perrin. -- Glenn L (talk) 15:49, October 14, 2012 (UTC)
  • Close. Sarek had married another Human named Perrin. Picard notes she is Human like his first wife in the opening log/voiceover. Sir Rhosis (talk) 23:28, October 14, 2012 (UTC)

Film NameEdit

Just "(film)" is a little unspecific. I think the article should be renamed to either "Star Trek - The future begins"(or something), or "Star Trek(2009 film)". That would make it somewhat more descriptive. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thomsons Gazelle (talk • contribs).

The idea is to use the most generic identifier as the disambiguation suffix. At the moment, there is only one film with the exact title "Star Trek", so "(film)" is enough to disambiguate it from the article about the whole franchise. Only if there were two or more films with only that title, we would start to use more specific disambiguations. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 23:48, November 29, 2012 (UTC)

I know that... But could still be confusing, especially for newcomers. A little more clarity can't hurt, can it?Thomsons Gazelle (talk) 16:09, November 30, 2012 (UTC)

We shouldn't be more complicated than we need to be. 31dot (talk) 16:33, November 30, 2012 (UTC)
The real issue is that the title is just "Star Trek". Not "Star Trek - The Future Begins". While it may be a film from 2009, it's also the only film with the name "Star Trek". -- sulfur (talk) 16:41, November 30, 2012 (UTC)

It's just that there are too many one-letter variations to the title that changes the meaning entirely. Normally, I'm for compact titles, but this is just too much, with too general terms. Thomsons Gazelle (talk) 22:37, December 3, 2012 (UTC)

Food referencesEdit

Are all the currently red food links in "references" stuff that was on display panels? --LauraCC (talk) 18:07, August 12, 2015 (UTC)

Not quite display panels; they're from the menu Kirk looked at in the shipyard bar, which is pretty readable on bluray. -- Capricorn (talk) 21:59, August 14, 2015 (UTC) PS If you want to make pages on them, please double check that the names are correct to the letter: they might have been added by trying to decipher lesser quality sources -- Capricorn (talk) 22:05, August 14, 2015 (UTC)
And it's a good idea to use the search function first to make sure they don't already have articles. --| TrekFan Open a channel 14:38, August 16, 2015 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+