Talk:Star Trek (film)/Archive 2008

Information to include in this article

Would it be okay to discuss the possible setting of this film and who it would involve (both production crew and characters), or would that be against the spoiler policy? --From Andoria with Love 10:35, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Redirect

Although the title of the movie isn't written in stone, should Star Trek: The Beginning be created and redirect here? Intricated 23:21, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I would wait until the title is official. There's no reason to move the article if the title is just going to change later on anyway. --From Andoria with Love 12:45, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)

And yet it's being redirected right now, isn't it? cap97 20:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Like the spoiler notice says: "...contains spoilers to released material only, so no information about this movie can be added until Paramount announces a film or identified studio sources discuss information with a press outlet, such as a news service. Because of our desire to disinclude unconfirmed data, please use the talk page to suggest or explain an addition to this article, only if it has a citation that could be referenced here." So calling it "Star Trek: The Beginning" would probably fall under: "unconfirmed data" --Alan del Beccio 09:02, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Possible director

According to the IMDb, Russell Mulcahy has been assigned to direct this film. However, I can find no other sources citing this information, and IMDb has been known to be wrong before, especially since anyone can add almost anything to the site. For the record, Mulcahy is most famous for directing the first two Highlander movies, so he is no stranger to science fiction. --From Andoria with Love 11:21, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)

New plot details for officially dead project

According to this article here, this project is officially dead as production is no longer moving forward according to writer Eric Jendresen. He also revealed a number of new plot details, including the fact that the film would have been part of a trilogy, would have filled a gap between the end of Star Trek: Enterprise and the beginning of the original series, and the fact that the Federation was formed in time to fight the Romulans in the Earth-Romulan War. Oh, this is Shran, btw. --70.106.24.39 21:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

New project

J.J. Abrams is announced as producer and director of ST 11 according to Trektoday and Trekweb "Paramount Pictures announced today that Lost creator J.J. Abrams will co-write, produce and direct the eleventh Star Trek film, set for release in 2008." If that is exact, I think the earlier project can be a little bit developed in the background section as it was abandonned in order to have a complete history of the preproduction of ST11. - Philoust123 12:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest merely leaving it in a similar state to the other movies in that, if the details that have come out are vastly different to the final product, some notes are made about the earlier concepts, indicating that they were merely that, early concepts. Sulfur 12:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Being that news of this is on the official Star Trek website, don't you think this should be moved up, or displayed more prominently? --Gekko16 03:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

"No official announcements"

There have been no official announcements of any upcoming film except for industry reports of producers and executives who have been involved in pre-production of projects that would have become this movie.

This is no longer true, as Paramount has announced plans for the J.J. Abrams-directed film. The above should be revised to say that the information which follows it traces the status of the film, or something like that. --From Andoria with Love 00:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Strike that... according to the article at Star Trek.com, Paramount has yet to officially announce this project; it was reported by the newspaper Variety. Whoops! --From Andoria with Love 03:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

"LOST" in space?

Anyone else find it a little funny that JJ Abrams is doing a movie about the characters' pasts, when that's the main thrust of LOST? Maybe the movie will open with Kirk's eye opening up...

Wikipedia STXI article

The STXI article at Wikipedia is huge... tons of interviews, chronology, random extra crap... you think we could use any of that stuff here? 66.41.75.64 03:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why not, although I think the article as it is now covers the basics of what needs to be known about the upcoming film. --From Andoria with Love 00:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the Teaser Poster

"In late July 2006, Paramount released an early poster image for Star Trek XI, depicting a command divison-Starfleet emblem as we know it from The Original Series, [...] giving another hint to the film being set in the 23rd century, possibly during Kirk's and Spock's time at Starfleet Academy."

Shouldn't that be the Enterprise emblem instead of Starfleet emblem? This would also imply that the story is set on Enterprise and not at the academy.

it was a UESPA emblem before it was the Enterprise emblem anyway, according to its use on Friendship One. I'd say it probably being used in the most general sense and it would be silly to try and assume there is an implication of how heavily Enterprise, the Academy, Starfleet, the Federation or UESPA are involved based on one symbol that has been used by more than one of the parties mentioned. -- Captain M.K.B. 20:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh man. I hope they don't try to recreate TOS. It's going to look so crappy! I'm not saying that the set designers and special effect guys/gals can't do it. I'm just saying the 60's series looked like/was crap! Just reimagine it PLEASE???? Realistic uniforms. Realistic ships. Realistic effects. I understand the old as dirt fans want to relieve their childhoods but this movie is going to suck if its just for you old farts. (like my dad). 70.44.7.130 14:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Um... yeah, whatever. Anyway, talk pages are to be used to discuss the content of the article and not for personal commentary or chit-chat. --From Andoria with Love 16:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It's probably more realistic that the Voyager people forgot that each ship in TOS had its own insignia. Rather, they used the symbol for the original Enterprise as it is used in the 24th century - as starfleet's insignia.

I think it is very relevant to note that the poster uses the Enterprise insignia. I think either those who made the posters are younin's who forgot that in TOS that symbol is for Enterprise crew members only, or they mean that XI will have something to do with the original Enterprise. --Beyerku 15:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

1. The people who made Voyager have nothing to do with this film, not even Rick Berman.
2. All poster images are based on content from initial story outlines or scripts and must be approved by the director or producer (in this case, J.J. Abrams) before being released. Since Abrams is a fan of the original series and Next Generation, I doubt he would make a mistake – although anything is possible. --From Andoria with Love 18:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Definitive statements regarding the symbol are kind of off-base at this point. The symbol used was the command division insignia on the Enterprise in the 2260s -- but then remember, the symbol with the star in the center was also worn by other divisions aboard Enterprise in the 2250s and 2260s. The arrowhead delta symbol itself was used for UESPA in the 21st century, worn by non-Entrprise Starfleet crewmwmbers on Starbase 11, and then was used for all of Starfleet starting in the 2270s onward. Given all this, can we really say this is an Enterprise movie? lets not engage in silly speculation... -- Captain M.K.B. 19:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed content

I removed the following:

It is impossible to set a movie during "Spock and Kirk's Academy days" because they were not in the academy together. Actually when Kirk became captain of the Enterprise Spock had already served aboard the Enterprise for 17 years. Vulcan lifespans are much longer than humans. Since Kirk was the youngest captain at age 30 years, he would have been 13 when Spock completed his Academy training.

It might be true, but doesn't belong in what amounts to only sketchy descriptions of the plot. Deevolution 20:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Especially since the year of Kirk's captaincy and his age at the time is incorrect. What [canon] evidence is there that he was the youngest captain? -- Captain M.K.B. 23:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

He definatly wasn't the youngest captain. I just saw an episode of Deep Space Nine on Spike that showed a 23 year old? captain (Tim Watters. I think I remember hearing 23 but regardless he was jumped from cadet to captain, so clearly it means he was definitely younger than Kirk. 70.44.7.130 01:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Kirk was supposed to be the youngest person to become a captain during his time, although there hasn't been any on-screen reference to this. I think it's from Roddenberry's notes or something, or maybe just speculation that somehow became accepted as fact over the years. In any case, although he may have been the youngest captain in the 23rd century, by the 24th century, that honor was held by Tryla Scott. --From Andoria with Love 01:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

According to StarTrek.com

"As much as any other figure in Starfleet history, the tall tales about James T. Kirk's exploits over a 40-year career are as numerous as the official record — and probably closer to the truth in some instances. Kirk's renown began by becoming the youngest captain in Starfleet to date at 34 and the first captain to bring his starship back relatively intact after a five-year mission, having also gained a reputation as an independent whose success couldn't be argued even though he often bucked the system. He also has the distinction of being involved in 17 different temporal violations, a career record which still stands."

-- MstrControl ^{talk | contrib.} 23:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Does this really need to be included?

"During a short phone interview with J.J. Abrams on his show, The Colbert Report, Stephen Colbert expressed that he felt he was perfect for the role of Dr. McCoy."

YES! -- Captain M.K.B. 14:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible Era

I thought that it might be worth noting in the article that the ages of the actors noted as being considered for the roles would seem to place the movie's era around 2270, if the characters' ages are to roughly match those of the actors playing them. 80.47.190.122 12:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

But what does that have to do with the price of figs in China?

Characters (especially young ones) are very rarely played by actors of the same age, so this "fact" doesn't seem noteworthy in the article. -- Captain M.K.B. 14:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Forum:Star Trek XI: Working title is "Star Trek," film will reboot franchise

Just saw this posted on IGN:

"While precious little has been confirmed about Paramount's in-the-works attempt at restarting their Star Trek franchise, MTV has managed to confirm today what many fans have expected (and hoped for): that the new film will be a reboot of the franchise rather than simply a prequel...the plan is to simply call the film Star Trek -- with no subtitles, Roman numerals, or colons anywhere in the name."

-- User:Humu­humu­nuku­nuku­āpuaʻa 15:29, March 8, 2007

This actually belongs at Talk:Star Trek XI, but I'll correct the info here and move it to the talk page later. Anyways, Star Trek XI will not be a reboot. When the writers spoke of "reimagining the franchise", it was merely a poor choice of words; they were speaking of the look of the universe itself. To quote Orci from that MTV interview, "We're not going to start totally from scratch...We want it to feel like it's updated and of the now. That's actually the discussions we're having now: how to keep the look of the universe yet have it not look like nothing's new. It's tricky." If the film were to be a reboot, it would not only contradict that statement but every statement Orci, Kurtzman, and Abrams have been making since this thing was announced. People just saw the term "reimagining" (a term associated with Ronald D. Moore's Battlestar Galactica) and went bonkers. You'll notice that nowhere in the original article was it said that the film would be a reboot. As for the title, the writers have intended for it to simply be called Star Trek, but nothing's official yet: Paramount has yet to decide on whether or not they like that title. --From Andoria with Love 05:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, for future reference, when it comes to news about the upcoming film, don't believe any of it unless it comes from here, at The Trek Movie Report. IGN is one of the sites that have been reporting information later proven to be incorrect. The original source from MTV did not make any assumptions as to whether or not the film would be a reboot, but that's how all the other news sites took it – except for Trek Movie Report (see their report on the story here). Basically, if you see some news source other than Trek Movie Report stating something about Star Trek, don't believe it until you see what Trek Movie Report has to say about it. Unless it's stated there as fact, then it is only rumor. --From Andoria with Love 07:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Early Kirk/Spock film

I removed the following:

The idea for a Trek movie based on the early careers of James Kirk and Spock was first proposed in the early 1980s when Gene Roddenberry approached Nicholas Meyer for help in developing a script for a second Star Trek movie. The decision to focus on the original crew's experiences at the academy was ultimately a pragmatic one, as it seemed unclear whether certain key actors (especially Leonard Nimoy) would sign on to make another Trek film. Nemoy's objections to his role in the script were eventually ironed out and "The Wrath of Khan" was born instead. The original idea was shelved and seems to have now reappeared for similar casting reasons.

For one thing, this has nothing to do with the development of this film. For another, it's uncited. And third, we have no idea yet as to what point in Kirk & Spock's careers the film will take place; all that's been revealed thus far about the plot & setting are rumors and unofficially released inside info. --From Andoria with Love 22:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable to link to Star Trek: The First Adventure, even if to just open the door to readers that were not aware of the previous proposal for a Starfleet Academy film that had at once also been in the works. --Alan 23:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Good thinking. Don't retire. :) --From Andoria with Love 03:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

49,855 --Alan 03:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

From the horse's mouth

Hey guys. I've been inactive again for a while (various reasons, including a possibly inevitable decline in Trekdom now that there's no new stuff and so many great scifi shows), but enough about me. I just received this message from the publicist representing Alex Kurtzman and Bob Orci:

Hi Harry and Dan,

I represent STAR TREK XI writers Alex Kurtzman and Bob Orci and I’ve become aware that your wiki has incorrect information about the film and its writers.

Kurtzman and Orci are the only writers working on STAR TREK XI – JJ Abrams is not a cowriter. Abrams is listed as a cowriter on the main STAR TREK XI entry, Kurtzman’s entry and Orci’s entry.

Kurtzman and Orci have both seen the entries and want to be sure that you have the most accurate information possible. Please let me know when these (and any other entries I may have missed) have been corrected to show that Kurtzman and Orci are the only writers.

Thank you so much for understanding – and I love your site! You guys are fantastic!

Apart from the vague possibility that the writers might be using this little website :P, I think it's pretty straight-forward. However.. there was some commentary in the article about 'not changing' the bit about Abrams being a co-writer. Is there some weird controversy about this? I'd think the actual people involved would know better than some rumor site, right?

-- Harry ^talk 22:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC) (posting from the sideline)

"Stunning, absolutely stunning", thanks for forwarding this excellent info Harry! - Adm. Enzo Aquarius...I'm listening 22:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not really a controversy, I was merely stating what I believed to be correct information based on reports from various sources. From what I gathered from those stories, Abrams was indeed involved in the writing of the film's story. I guess I was wrong...? --From Andoria with Love 02:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Ok, based on past reports and interviews, Abrams was indeed involved with the writing of the film's story. However, Orci and Kurtzman are the only ones who worked on the screenplay. According to Anthony Pascale, Orci and Kurtzman stated in a recent interview that, for the time being, they are the only ones receiving credit for writing the film. However, Abrams may receive a writing credit if the rules of the WGA (Writers Guild of America) allow it. But either way, Abrams did work on the film's story. --From Andoria with Love 20:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Page name change

What is the justification for this page move? --Alan 12:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. Guess it was added here: Portal:Main/Panels/News. Still probably should mention that there is a reason why there is a summary section, which is most favorable to use especially when moving pages. --Alan 12:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Comic Con update on July 26

I'm just letting everybody know ahead of time that I will be updating this page on July 26th as trekmovie.com reports the Star Trek announcements made at San Diego's Comic Con. There are supposed to be some "major casting announcements" and trekmovie's Anthony Pascale will be updating live from the convention site and I hope to have Memory Alpha updated as soon as those announcements are, um... announced. Anyway, on the 26th (I don't know what time yet – I only just now asked Anthony when the event begins), I will slap an {{inuse}} tag on the page. Just giving you guys a heads up. ;) --From Andoria with Love 17:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

In case casting directors ever look here...

Just in case... Sulu... Daniel Dae Kim... hello? Could there be a better choice?

Writer's Strike

Any word on if the latest Writer's strike will have an effect on Star Trek and its development or release date? This could make for an important note if it does affect development. - Adm. Enzo Aquarius...I'm listening 03:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know Shran's source, but he has been keeping some of us up to date on the strike information via Facebook, and according to him Star Trek is some sort of "high priority" project for Paramount, and therefore will not be affected by the strike. I'll try to get him involved in this conversation, and get a source. I think it is worth talking (as briefly as possible, since it would seem to be a none issue) in the article, as readers are bound to want to know. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 03:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The strike is not expected to impact production on Star Trek. According to Roberto Orci at trekmovie.com, "the script is in great shape" and they had "a long lead time." The movie starts shooting tomorrow so the script should be locked by now. As Cobra said, Star Trek is one of Paramount's "high priority" projects. Motion picture studios prepared for the strike by accelerating production on certain films to ensure they will be ready to go by the time the strike arrived. Studio insiders have estimated that the strike would have to last about six or seven months before the motion picture industry begins feeling the effect (the last strike, back in 1988, lasted about five months). (Source: Variety) You can find the studios' complete list of "high priority" films here. Again, though, the strike will most likely not affect Star Trek. The production's in good shape and they're all ready to start shooting. --From Andoria with Love 14:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Open Casting Call

For all of us, check out this link [1]

OPEN CALL INFO:

Open Call: Saturday, November 10, 2007.

Hours: 2:30-5 p.m.

Address: 3108 W. Magnolia Blvd.

Burbank, CA 91505

(across from Pinocchio's Restaurant)

If I would reside in California it would be my duty. ;o] – Tom 23:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Plot details & on-set images removed

I removed the details describing the actual plot of the film. Having information about what characters will or may appear is one thing since that tells us nothing about the actual plot, only who is involved. In addition, the information came from unidentified sources. We could re-add the info about the plot concerning time travel and Romulans since Orci has confirmed those, but I think it's best to spoil as little of the movie as possible. If people are curious, the links to the rumors are still available. --From Andoria with Love 05:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Those mentions might be alright, as the disclaimer on the very page mentions there may be spoilers within. If the writers are confirming details, it could be safe to mention, albeit in a few lines, perhaps as a notarization, or some other small mention.--Terran Officer 07:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I have also removed the links to the JFX Online on-set spy photos. For one thing, they're spoilers just as much as actual plot details are. For another, they don't really serve a purpose in the article except to say "Hey, look! Pictures!" And lastly, those images pissed Paramount off something fierce. --From Andoria with Love 17:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course Paramount is not happy about these pics. They were also shocked when Kim Cattrall did her "almost nothing" pics on the set of Star Trek VI, but I think it should be mentioned in the Production section that these shots exist. And even if the links should not be in the article, where are they now? Shouldn't they placed here into this talk section (Removed from article = talk page?)? Yes of course, these pics say "Look here", but they also show several actors beside background extras who are still unnamed. It could be helpful to find these people who are involved in the production. My opinion. – Tom 18:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

If Paramount is getting really pissed about these pics, I'd rather not have them anywhere on MA, talk page or article. Legal protection and all that. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 18:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

And thats a reason we don't have these pics here, only links to a site which owns them. But I understand, we don't want Paramount's anger. I can live with this decision. – Tom 18:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

A few sites (which I can't name) have already gotten an earload from Paramount for having the images on their site. Adding the links to the talk page shouldn't be a problem, but I don't think it's needed. Also, if it be deemed by consensus, the links can always be re-added. Let me just say, though, that not including them in the article is probably for the best. --From Andoria with Love 18:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek Teaser Trailer While It Lasts!

View it while it lasts on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RllSZW_YLk8

Sorry if this shouldn't be here. Just figured some people might want to view it.