Talk:Star Trek (film)/Archive 2009

film discussion archive.

POV treatment on MA
So has anyone read this interview?

http://trekmovie.com/2008/12/11/bob-orci-explains-how-the-new-star-trek-movie-fits-with-trek-canon-and-real-science/ Appparently this trek occurs in a kind of parallel universe, which gives Kirk an alternate history, as well as other changes to the universe. 66.8.254.133 09:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a parallel universe, but an alternate timeline, but the changes in this new timeline does not effect the old timeline (as screwed up as it already is). EDIT: By the way, that's not to say that certain things which happen in the new timeline aren't the same things that happened in the old timeline. Only those events directly affected by the "incident" at the beginning of the movie will be changed. --From Andoria with Love 12:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering how we will deal with this alternate timeline aspect of the movie when creating in-universe articles, especially since its possible this alternate timeline will be the one most depicted on screen for some time to come.--31dot 13:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's a suggestion: we separate the events "Timeline A" from those of "Timeline B". Everything from the attack on and destruction of the USS Kelvin – in other words, everything in the new movie – takes place in the newly-formed "Timeline B;" everything from TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, and the first ten films take place in "Timeline A." Some things from the new movie – like the existence of the USS Kelvin and George Kirk serving aboard her – can be grouped in "Timeline A," as well, since "Timeline B" won't be created until Nero attacks the Kelvin. We should also keep in mind that Nero and his Romulan followers, as well as older Spock, also originated from "Timeline A." --From Andoria with Love 18:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think anything should be separated, and I don't think any specific timelines should be given names or special treatment. There have already been so many different changes to the "main" timeline, and so many different "alternate" timelines whose events never impacted the MA POV, that it's hard to justify singling out one timeline for this treatment. We say, both in-universe and in realworld backgrounders, "in an alternate timeline, thisorthat happened", and cite the source. MA's POV must be considered: Our in-universe POV permits recording events form alternate timelines. "Everything from TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, and the first ten films" does not take place in some hypothetical "Timeline A", because there are things that take place in TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, and the first ten films which are alternate timelines but still knowable in-universe by the idealized in-universe MA archivists. If we were to decide that in-universe future lookeruppers from some specific timeline (like, let's say, the "preferred" or "standard" one) couldn't actually have knowledge of such alternate events, then we would have a lot more to fix than film 11, and we would just as well get started on that right now instead of deciding what to do once film 11 will open. I say: Treat this no differently from any other alternate timeline or unknowable event, for example the one in which chronexaline is used by Janeway in 2404, or the one in which the Battle of Procyon V takes place, or the one with Na'kuhl Nazis. MA's in-universe POV currently takes for granted that future historians or researchers will be able to access information about alternate timelines (to say nothing of other ostensibly unknowable events), and our POV also has a preferred timeline that is considered "not alternate". Film 11 will not impact the preferred timeline and it also will not require any change to the status quo that has suited us for years. --TribbleFurSuit 19:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue is this new alternate timeline is going to become the timeline of all things Star Trek for the foreseeable future. As such, it must be treated the same way which the canon of the old timeline is treated, but, because it is not the same timeline, it must be separated. There is actually no real choice there; the writers of the new film made that decision for us, as you can read in the interview linked above. The new film will not be set in the same timeline as the other Star Trek movies and TV shows; the writers have already confirmed that. Therefore, treating the new alternate timeline as "not alternate" is not an option, since it was deliberately created by the writers as an alternate timeline. Currently, we write alternate timeline information in italics to note that this timeline is different from the original timeline. We will not be able to do that with the information from this new movie and any subsequent movies set in this new universe, because it will be the new universe of Star Trek. So, there really isn't an option as to if we separate the info; the only options we have are how we choose to separate it and what we choose to separate. Simply keeping the events seen in the new movie apart from the events in other movies and shows seems the easiest, less chaotic way to do things. It will just require a new section on certain pages, with one section for "Timeline A" and another for "Timeline B", or however we choose to label them (assuming the writers give us that option). I really don't think this will be that bad, though; all it will mean is two separate sections in certain articles, one for "timeline A" and another for "timeline B." --From Andoria with Love 05:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, I did read everything. Now: I didn't say "treat the new timeline as not alternate", I said "Treat this no differently from any other alternate timeline" - that is to say, do treat the new timeline as an alternate one, but not any differently from how we've treated other alternate timelines. In order to understand why I said "Film 11 will not impact the preferred timeline", you should know what it is that I mean by "preferred timeline". It's the one which (A) contains the latest known canon non-alternate events (all of the self-consistent, non-alternate 24th-32nd century stuff so far) and which (B) contains the greatest bulk of the Star Trek corpus. Since there is a single timeline which is "latest and greatest", and which will continue to be until later and greater events in the Film 11 timeline are produced (>700 episodes and >10 movies), then what we'll see in Film 11 will be just another alternate timeline which never changed the events of all the rest of canon. From the POV of that in-universe Memory Alpha archivist of the >32nd Century which I talked about, that person will have experienced the results of the main timeline yet will have access to info about alternate timelines. So, again, this film doesn't need to be treated any differently from other alternate timelines. I suppose that if more works are produced taking place in the destroyed-Kelvin timeline, then we could have a name for it, the same way that the "anti-time future" is an alternate timeline that we have a specific label for. But to elevate the "destroyed-Kelvin timeline" to equal prominence with the entire rest of the main canon timeline, and to diminish the entire rest of the main canon timeline to the importance of the timeline of <1 film, to me isn't necessary or desirable. What you said about the choice the writers have made for us could be equally applied to the writers of all the other alternate-timeline events. The idea that "...and they might write another one!!!!" doesn't outweigh the idea that MA's in-universe, far-future, omniscient perspective still exists in one timeline (let's just say - the main one), not many timelines. The idea that the exact same MA with the exact same contents will exist in all possible universes is cuckoo. This is why I feel we have to pick one main timeline and treat all alternates the same, and that the timeline we should pick as "not alternate" is the one we already have, before Film 11 opens. --TribbleFurSuit 21:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It would sort of contradict the unwritten policy that what ever is the latest addition to canon should be most preferred and prominently featured thing in MA, if most STXI related articles begin with "In the alternate timeline caused by Neros temporal incursion..." But it would be the easiest solution, even if it is something of a spit in the face to the creators of the new film who have spent so much time and effort to reinvent and reimagine trek. ;-) --Pseudohuman 21:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"Not a parallel universe, but an alternate timeline"

Actually he uses both terms, parallel universe, and alternate imeline to mean the same thing. Read the full interview. I don't know they kinda do have the same meaning, or similar meanings, or are least related. While you can't always accept wikipedia's definitions, it states; In these contexts, parallel universes are also called "alternative universes", "quantum universes", "interpenetrating dimensions", "parallel worlds", "alternate realities", "alternative timelines", etc. Thus Orci is not the only one that uses the terms parallel and alternative timeline to mean the same thing. This is apparently a normal phenomena in scifi stories and apparently quantum theory. While I respect your opinion that perhaps you view alternate timelines and parallel universes as seperate topics, it would seem many sci-fi writers wouldn't necessarily agree with you. Regardless, it doesn't matter what other scifi writers believe, we have evidence of Orci himself using the terms as synonyms, which is all that really matters 66.8.254.133 22:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Good points all around. All this being the case, we should probably treat the new movie not as alternate timeline information but as parallel universe information, as we do with the mirror universe stuff. One thing we can't do is intersperse pages with italicized "In an alternate timeline in which the USS Kelvin was destroyed..." Kirk's history will be the most impacted and changed by this movie and I just don't think having a bunch of "In an alternate timeline" lines sprinkled throughout his article would be a good idea. I therefore suggest we treat the movie the way the writers are treating it: as taking place in a separate universe. With that in mind, we should handle info from the new movie similarly to the way we handle info from the mirror universe episodes of Star Trek. This means we should either A.) do as I suggested above, separating information into different sections; or B.) creating new pages for the alternate Kirk, the alternate Spock, the alternate Enterprise, the alternate Romulan history, the alternate Pike, etc. I'm not sure I like the latter idea. For one thing, what we name the pages? For another, it would be a bit too chaotic. Adding a separate section to pages seems to be the easiest way to go. If you guys have any other suggestions, please add it below. For the record, TribbleFurSuit, there's no written policy saying our POV exists only or primarily in one timeline or universe. If that were true, well, then, we wouldn't have any info on the alternate timelines or the mirror universe, would we? :-D I'm also not saying we should treat the new timeline as prominent over the old one, but I do think we should treat them equally. Afterall, this will be, in all likelihood, the new canon timeline for a long time to come. In any case, the new timeline info will be added after the "main" timeline events, so in a sense, the old timeline is taking prominence. You see? --From Andoria with Love 23:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, sure, they're the same thing, why not. It doesn't actually matter whether it's a parallel universe or an alternate timeline. I still maintain that the in-universe Memory Alpha archive which our in-universe future audience would use can't exist in many universes/timelines/whatever in a single state, and that the universe/timeline/whatever we're writing it for should be the one which had the latest canon events and the greatest number of them in canon. While I understand the concept of "many worlds" and "multiverse", nobody lives there - everybody lives in one of the many universes. Over time they enter different ones, but no single instance of any person experiences the multiple universes/timelines/whatever. While MA so far has assumed that, in the universe in which this copy of Memory Alpha will exist, people can have knowledge of alternate universes/timelines/whatever, still none of them lives in a single universe/timeline/whatever with multiple realities. The archive can't be in a universe in which both timelines are valid, so I maintain that we have to choose the POV of one universe/timeline/whatever, and all the rest are alternates from that POV. It would be nonsensical to have two non-alternate but mutually contradictory sets of facts in any single universe, so, unless we'll make a second MA which lives in a second universe/timeline/whatever, which is also laughable, then we pick one POV.
 * Now, I don't have any idea where this unwritten rule you're talking about, Pseudohuman, came from. In-universe retcons have occurred, but that is different from creating alternate realities. Retcons still take place in the main/preferred/latestgreatestcanon universe/timeline/whatever, but that's totally different from creating alternate ones. At any rate, with retcons or any other kind of story where past canon is further illuminated by new canon, then, of course we'll take the latest content produced as the real story. You see how the latest production is different from the latest events in-universe? OK, there can not be two canons. There can be only one. All that's left is to pick: will it be from the POV of Film 11, or that of TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT and 10 other movies? --TribbleFurSuit 23:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Finally: regarding"For the record, TribbleFurSuit, there's no written policy saying our POV exists only or primarily in one timeline or universe. If that were true, well, then, we wouldn't have any info on the alternate timelines or the mirror universe, would we?" OK, see MA:POV: "Memory Alpha's primary point of view is that of a character inside the fictional Star Trek universe – an archivist at Memory Alpha, the Federation library planet. Star Trek universe articles should be written as if the described person, object, or event actually existed or occurred, exactly like in a normal encyclopedia, but with an omniscient writer. " Omniscient means what I've been saying above: These archivists can (somehow) know about other realities, but the various alternate realities are separate realities. The Battle of Procyon V did not take place in the main/preferred POV, even if some in-universe library has information about it, presented as an alternative that was learned about in some fashion or another. Maybe they'll use a version of Daniels' temporal observatory. Nevertheless, even Daniels proves that we can't say, from any in-universe POV, that "these two mutually exclusive contradictory events both took place in our universe". One of them has to be an alternate. Future Daniels' memory of what happened in his universe always was changing, because what happened in his universe was changing, or, to use the multiverse metaphor, they were different Daniels's from different universes. --TribbleFurSuit 23:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * To me it depends on what the intentions of the producers are no matter what the technobabble behind it is. Do they want to reimagine Trek for future fans with this film, or do they just want to add another yesterday's enterprise to the mix. If fans who come aboard trek with this new film are intended to treat all the events, tech, ships and such as the "new true canon" that the franchise will follow from now on, we should take the film-11 pov as the "main timeline" in MA too. I suspect the end of this film will be such that all the TOS-onwards adventures take place with only some superficial changes, the shape of connies, etc. but it's too early to tell. :) --Pseudohuman 01:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * TribleFurSuit: You're forgetting that MA already "lives" in more than one universe, namely the "prime" universe and the mirror universe. We treat mirror universe information the same way we treat "prime" universe info: we have individual articles for elements in the mirror universe, just as we have individual articles for elements in the "prime" universe. Some mirror universe info is even located on pages with "prime" universe info. In addition, you're assuming that this new film won't somewhat alter our POV policy to account for this "new" universe.


 * TFS, if I understand you correctly, you want to treat the new movie as we treat all alternate timeline info, meaning separating it from "norman" timeline information using italics. I am not saying that is absolutely not the way to go; in fact, we can try it and it may work out fine. But, since this movie also takes place in a parallel universe, why can't we treat info from the new movie the way we treat info from the mirror universe episodes? Yes, this would most likely mean information from the movie being separated into its own section – is that really a problem?


 * By comparison, the Battlestar wiki operates in a very similar way as I'm suggesting. For example, they have Cylon split up into three articles based on the series in which they appeared, since each series was a different universe. Of course, that wiki does not share our "in-universe" POV, which brings me back to my point about our current policy: we may need to adjust it to say that we can see into other universes, as well. As ludicrous as this may sound, we are already doing this with the mirror universe information; we just haven't stated it in the policy yet.


 * All of the mirror universe episodes has at least one element from our universe visiting the mirror timeline, whether it be one or more characters (Benjamin Sisko, James T. Kirk) or a starship (USS Defiant (NCC-1764)). This new parallel universe will be no different: it will have Spock from our universe, a group of Romulans from our universe, and at least two starships from our universe, all visiting this new alternate universe. In addition, this new universe will be continuing as the mirror universe has been. So, I ask again, why not treat info from the new movie as we would info from the mirror universe?


 * Pseudohuman: This new film is intended to be the "new" canon which the franchise will follow from now on, assuming the film is successful. (As I said before, we don't have to worry about implementing anything just yet, but it's probably a good idea to talk about it ahead of time, which we are doing.) This is why just treating it as any other alternate timeline doesn't really sit well with me. However, if the community wants to go that route, then I will agree. TribbleFurSuit is right that we've been treating alternate timelines a certain way and I do see his point, but this movie is not just another alternate timeline: it is an all new universe, one in which the producers intend on staying for quite a while. --From Andoria with Love 09:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We're getting somewhere. Yes, let's treat this more like the Mirror Universe. I'm not at all "forgetting that MA already "lives" in more than one universe, namely the "prime" universe and the mirror universe." But this is really not correct: MA doesn't live in the Mirror Universe, it lives in the regular one. Archivists, in this universe, have knowledge of at least some aspects of the Mirror Universe and that knowledge is represented in the archive as originating from the other universe.


 * "this would most likely mean information from the movie being separated into its own section – is that really a problem?" No, no, of course not. But the idea of "Timeline A and Timeline B" is unpalatable. This universe isn't Universe A, and the Mirror Universe isn't Universe B, they're this universe and some other universe. Also, alternate content is not always italicized or shuffled off to an appendix. (Frankly, I don't think it should be, either: Italics are normally used for non-canon or occasionally real-life info. But alternate reality info still is canon. Maybe we currently have a style problem?) We have entire in-universe articles about events and people from alternate realities, as well as other articles which discuss alternate timeline events in main-style text.


 * The idea of adjusting our POV is tricky. If it's done, there will be a Xload of cleanup to do. I am really not sure it's necessary: while you predict that "we may need to adjust it to say that we can see into other universes", I say that we already can see into alternate timelines/parallel universes, at least to the extent necessary to represent all of canon. For events in our universe, we possess the omniscience that MA:POV indicates, and for other universes/timelines, we don't, but we do indeed still know some things (somehow).


 * Let me point out one little difference between the Mirror Universe stuff vs. the alternate timeline stuff. The reason we have 2 articles for main and Mirror characters is that they really are different characters - different beings. But if one already-living character gets his life bifurcated by a temporal event, is it 2 characters? I don't know, maybe it is, maybe it's not. We've never done that before with alternate timeline characters. Tasha Yar still only has 1 page.


 * So the Mirror Universe model might turn out to be a pretty good one, especially if we can come up with a catchy, concise, meaningful name for the destroyed-Kelvin timeline. Or, if separate articles for one character aren't palatable to everybody, then a new standardized "Kelvin Timeline" subsection would be better than "sprinkling throughout articles" this info. Again, see Yar's page. It contains info from multiple ones, but a standard one for the Kelvin timeline should work for a lot of pages. Or a separate "Kelvin Timeline" article, why not.


 * All right: hopefully some ideas are starting to percolate. My main objection was to the idea of treating the universe we've had all along, and will have until next May, as a stepchild with no greater import than the new timeline. It's the main timeline/universe. Its history stretches to the 32nd century. Some timeline that is portrayed in one production and essentially ends in the 2250's should not displace the primacy of the universe that rest of canon represents. In. my. opinion. --TribbleFurSuit 17:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

TribbleFurSuit, good thoughts all around, and I agree with you. However for others who have used the term, "new" canon, ugh, that doesn't sit well with me... That kind of wording sounds too close to "replacing", the old. The thought that there may not be a continuation to the old canon, and that it could be "replaced" in a way, is disheartening to me... Personally I hope this new movie is just a one off event. Though rumors from AICN are that this new timeline may be used to present "what-if" stories where more disasterous things happen to the universe, that wouldn't happen in the "main" universe, like perhaps important planets or races being wiped out. If true, I suppose that might be interesting, but done only in moderation. I really don't want them to do that too often, and that type of thing might make for interesting direct to video releases rather than theatrical. I really want them to go back to the universe we know and love, and have them fill in more gaps. Imo, future theatrical movies should go back on track to the main timeline. Also speaking of direct to video releases, and mini-series; it would be nice if paramount used that format to say bring back characters from previous shows to tell new stories in the original universe. I mean why not give us the Romulan war with the Enterprise cast, as a mini series? There is still plenty they could do with the original universe without having to resort to creating full length series, or "replacing" the original universe with a new one.66.8.254.133 18:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What about details from the new universe like the name of Kirk's dad and the ship he served on which are part of the Prime canon (I take this name from merchandise for Leonard Nimoy's Spock in the new film). – Alientraveller 20:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Tribblefursuit: Fair enough. :) We will have to come to some decision on what to call sections for the new timeline, though. "Kelvin timeline" doesn't really work, especially since the Kelvin is in the prime timeline, as well. Remember, the movie starts in the prime timeline but deviates when the Kelvin is attacked and destroyed by the Romulans. Maybe something like "alternate prime timeline," since this is basically the creation of a new prime timeline. Actually, I don't think I like that name, either, lol!


 * 66.8.254.133: It is not the writers' or the filmmakers' intention to "replace" the old timeline with this new one. The old timeline will still exist, but to open up new possibilities for story-telling, they have established a new timeline in which to tell their stories. Keep in mind that not everything will be different in this timeline, only some things, particularly things with Kirk.


 * Alientraveller: The existence of the USS Kelvin and its crew, as well as George and Winona Kirk's service aboard the vessel, will be included as part of the "prime timeline" canon. However, everything from the ship's destruction onward will take place in the "alternate prime timeline." (Still not sure I like that phrasing...) --From Andoria with Love 02:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Cool. I predict that once we see the movie, some snappy name will suggest itself. Knowing what we know now, though, the best I can come up with are:
 * the "STXI" timeline (pronounced "sticksy")
 * the "Orci/Kurtzman" timeline
 * Though, we'll probably want an in-universe name:
 * the "Nero" timeline (since he hasn't ever appeared before)
 * the "Tattoo" timeline
 * the "Iowa Enterprise" timeline
 * --TribbleFurSuit 17:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm... of those I like "Nero timeline" best, though I'm not too thrilled about that name, either. Also, Nero existed in the prime timeline, as well, so it may cause some confusion. An in-universe term is definitely what we're looking for, though; if we were to go by a production-POV term, we could just call it the "Abramsverse" and be done with it. :)


 * By the way, I just thought of something. Regarding a tweak to the policy, we could say we have the ability "visit" different timelines/universes, or maybe say that we made a leap from the "prime timeline" to the new timeline of the movie. Or something like that. Dunno, just spitting out ideas. Let me know what you think. --From Andoria with Love 18:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, like I said, after we see the movie, some better in-universe name probably will suggest itself. Regarding MA:POV, maybe something that alludes to the temporal observatory could be stated, in order to justify the in-universe capability to see into alternate timelines and other unknowable things, like USS Voyager (mimetic) and Museum of Kyrian Heritage. So far, most of the alternate timeline/universe stuff is knowable in the main timeline just because people here witnessed them. But not all. Definitely a few alternate timelines plus a couple of other ostensibly unknowable events are already treated here as knowable by the >32nd century MA archivists. I like the idea of "seeing into" better than the idea of "making a leap" or "visiting". Though, the policy has suited everything we've done so far. I really don't know what should be changed. Maybe just some statement about what's the main universe and what's not. How about: "...but with an omniscient writer, who can see certain events from alternate timelines and parallel universes" --TribbleFurSuit 19:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Orci said there would be revelations in the film that are common ground to the old universe because they are not affected by the destruction of the Kelvin. Would those details be noted in italics in the prime articles or be disregarded because one undone change to the timeline means everything is an alternate universe? – Alientraveller 22:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Without knowing what those details are, I think we'll just have to see. I'm inclined to say that, if we see something in the new timeline which may appear to be unaffected by Nero, but we never actually saw it in the main timeline, then there's not any evidence that it did occur the same way in the main timeline, and so not to do what you say.


 * On the other hand, if Orci is talking about things that are revealed before the timeline forks, like let's say we learn that Amanda Grayson tried out a little Sapphism in college before meeting Sarek, then this fact wouldn't be an issue of the alternate timeline at all. It would belong to the main timeline before the split. So it would just be a regular canon detail in the Amanda Grayson article.


 * A third type of revelation might be: we see something that occurs after the timeline fork, it's something we already have seen in canon in the main timeline, and it appears to be something which couldn't possibly be affected by Nero's actions. Like, maybe we find out that those five cadets still die attempting a Kolvoord Starburst at the Academy. OK, if that's all we learn, then there's no new information. But let's say we learn a new detail, like one of those cadets' names. Then will we include it in the main timeline, the new timeline, both, or what?


 * I think there will really only be a pretty small number of cases like this and the way we answer those questions in each case will depend on what we really see and hear onscreen. --TribbleFurSuit 22:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I like "Abramsverse". :) I'd like the POV policy to change so that abramsverse is not called an alternative timeline in the articles and that there would be separate pages for all the abramsverse specific stuff that simply have a template thingy in the upper corner similar to the realworld template that says "This information is written from the Abramsverse point of view" it would be easier to just call this another parallel universe and put the stuff in subsections, but in this case it should get more from us IMO. But if you dont agree, then forget it. Just my opinion. =D --Pseudohuman 11:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, let's think about it a little: Does your way mean that there would be a separate James T. Kirk (Abramsverse) article? If so, would that article include info about Captain Kirk from before the timeline split? And, would the regular James T. Kirk article include new info from STXI about Kirk's life before the timeline split? Just asking. Because, whether we were to call it the "Abramsverse" or not, the reality is that this stuff does intersect with the regular universe.
 * "Abramsverse" could become an anachronism as soon as somebody else directs STXIII or the like. Same goes for Orci/KurtzmanVerse or other realworld-POV names. This and other POV reasons stated previously are why I personally would like an in-universe name. I still don't care whether we call it an alternate timeline or a parallel universe.
 * And, I didn't get what this means: "it would be easier to just call this another parallel universe and put the stuff in subsections, but in this case it should get more from us IMO". What should get more what from us, now?
 * Thanks for the ideas, let's keep talking about them. --TribbleFurSuit 14:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Quantum universes as explained in have a shared history up to some point with another quantum universe and "abramsverse" would therefore begin from the temporal incursion event as it is an artificially forked out quantum universe. It would not have any history of its own beyond that as it is only a tangent-universe without its own past. So yes to the James T. Kirk (Abramsverse) article, no to the shared history info bit, new pre-incursion info would belong to the James T. Kirk article. Of course info can be referenced when it explains something in Abramsverse but it shouldn't be given redundantly when that is unnecessary. The "more" would be these own articles written from the abramsverse-pov with the little template up there at the top of the page, instead of the current treatment of alternative timelines. This was my suggestion, sorry for not being clear enough. In-universe name would be better. I understand the objection to my suggestion and why you think we should treat it as we treat other alternative timelines currently, as that would be easier, no need to repeat the position, this section is long enough as it is. =D --Pseudohuman 02:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * My two cents would be that Memory Alpha should be split in two, just as there is the "Memory Alpha" in timeline A, as another user put it, there probably would be a "Memory Alpha" in JJ Abrahams reimagined Trek universe
 * Besides, didn't I see a Mirror Universe Memory Alpha? http://memory-alpha.org/mu/wiki/Main_Page 204.209.209.129


 * There is indeed a Mirror Universe wiki. And there could indeed be an "Abramsverse" wiki. I'm pretty sure there will be, sooner or later. Neither of those have anything to do with the fact that this is the canon wiki, for all of canon. We have Mirror Universe material here, even though there's a separate wiki, and we will have Nero-timeline stuff here, even if there's a separate wiki. We're trying to manage this wiki, and STXI stuff is not going to be piped out of here to some other wiki and ignored here.


 * At any rate, the holding pattern that we've arrived at for now is to plan to treat this like we already treat the Mirror Universe here, and to pick a name for this new timeline/universe/whatever once we see the movie, because we don't have a good in-universe name yet and the movie probably will reveal something that makes good sense. I'm picturing naming it for whatever will be the specific novel timetravel technology Nero will use. I bet it will be something we've never heard of yet, so we could be calling it the "Nero's ChronoBomb Timeline" or something. --TribbleFurSuit 07:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

POV treatment on MA

 * For the spoiler-rich precursor to the discussion below, see Talk:Star Trek (film)/Archive 2009.


 * For the spoiler-free redacted version of the complete original discussion, see User:TribbleFurSuit/Redaction of Talk:Star Trek (film).

POV treatment on MA (minimal spoilers)

 * Like the above discussion, just without major plot points being spoiled! :(

OK, one hopefully minor spoiler on top: The new movie will, apparently, show...

HERE IT COMES:

alternate universe events.

Now that this is out of the way - I don't want to be spoiled too much about the new movie, but I (and I'm sure others as well) would like to participate in a discussion that concerns some basic MA policy decisions. I only scanned the above discussion, because I was pretty much spoiled in the first line of it, and didn't want to be spoiled further. What I saw, though, was the fact that the whole discussion seemed to be between just two participants - which isn't much if this indeed is about future policy.

So, can the above discussion be rephrased here, without giving any more spoilers than the one I gave at the top of this discussion? If yes, then please do so that we can participate - if no, then this problem will probably have to wait until the movie is out in May. -- Cid Highwind 14:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I will give it a shot. :) Basically, according to co-writer/exec producer Bob Orci, the events of the new film take place in an alternate timeline. However, he argues that, based on the theory of quantum mechanics, the existence of this new timeline does not mean the old timeline is wiped out. In fact, some of the things which happen in this timeline will be no different than what happens in the old timeline, or so Orci argues. Nonetheless, it does present an alternate canon history of events. The question was how to include those events on Memory Alpha. One way to do it is to separate articles based on timelines (i.e. Timeline A and Timeline B), but this option was not met with much enthusiasm. It was argued that, even though we have knowledge of alternate timelines, we "live" within one timeline, and that timeline takes precedence over the others. This is where a possible tweak in policy came in; I optioned to change the policy to say we can "see" or "live" in alternate universes, as we seem to be doing with the mirror universe. I don't think this suggestion was met with much enthusiasm, either, so I then suggested we treat this new, parallel timeline as we treat mirror universe information, which would include, I assume, separate articles for the alternate Kirk, Spock, etc. Or maybe just a separate section within the already-existing articles, not sure. In any case, this seems to be the preferred choice, but now we have to come up with a catchy name for the timeline, ala "mirror universe." That's about it, I think. If there was any other policy-changing discussion, I'm not aware of it. --From Andoria with Love 15:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have been imagining that just as soon as the movie opens and spoilerfree people see it, all of the above will be read and commented upon before any decisions are made. We could parapharase everything again down here (lots of work), I guess, or re-post it all down here in redacted form (less work). Anybody want that? --TribbleFurSuit 20:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, there's a spoiler-redacted version of the above 40KB discussion here. Shall we archive the above so that this is the only place this is discussed anymore? --TribbleFurSuit 21:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Archived the old discussion, where the link says I sent it. --Alan 21:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, can this be used in any way as an example? --Alan 21:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I for one was enthusiastic about the clear timeline A and B seggregation suggestion. So I proposed the idea of writing about the new stuff in new articles in the way as if it was the one and only real thing and add into that article a little box similar to the real world pov-box that would state: "This article is written from the timeline B (we'll make up a better name later) point of view". To clarify, instead of writing it into the article text "In the timeline B, this type of communicator was used by Starfleet officers" we write "This type of communicator was used by Starfleet officers." and add the little box. --Pseudohuman 18:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not a regular here, and not nearly as knowledgeable in Trek lore as most of you, but for what it's worth, I support creating separate articles for the new timeline, like is already done with the mirror universe (as User:Shran said). We use a similar method on the Wikia I founded, The Hardy Boys Wiki for the different continuities, and it seems to work quite well. WHLfan (talk to me!) 06:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's bad... You're right, we can't really pretend that "everything is the same" if, this time, even the producers admit that it isn't - and deliberately created their story to not be... this means, we need some sort of separation.

However, moving 700+ hours of continuity to the "alternate universe" while keeping 2 hours of continuity as the "main timeline" would be nothing more than a big "Fuck you all!" statement to everyone who has seen Trek in the last 40 years - and I care a little more about those than about the sentiment of current producers. So, unless much more than just a single movie is part of that timeline, it should be this tiny fragment of Trek lore that gets the "alternate" treatment, not the vast majority.

Regarding the "mirror universe" comparison. Keep in mind that we only created separate articles if there was "enough" information about each, and otherwise kept all information in separate sections of a single article - or did that change at some point? --Cid Highwind 13:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I was always under the impression that it was the movie timeline we would be treating as "alternate," not the 700+ hours of history that came before it. As for creating articles or giving them separate sections, we can do the same thing with information from the new movie. For example, if there's enough info on an alternate pre-existing character, we can create a page for that alternate character. If there isn't, then we just add it as a section or sentence on the pre-existing character's page. --From Andoria with Love 13:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. "not the 700+ hours of history that came before" [and especially after] "it" --TribbleFurSuit 16:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Amen, brother.


 * Heh, well, I meant the 700+ hours that came before this film, not in-universe history. :) --From Andoria with Love 12:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I know. To me, I felt it worth reiterating here (since it's only in the archives so far). The fact that there's in-universe history that came after and that we have so much of it is the important point. Latest and greatest: Latest canon events, greatest canon volume. Anyway I guess it's not 700 hours from that perspective, it's many many centuries. --TribbleFurSuit 14:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think the "two timelines can be equal main timelines"-approach should be dismissed as an unthinkable impossibility, only because it's not in the policy books yet. I think we would be lagging behind the times if we continue with the way we do things now by giving the abramsverse only the "mirror universe treatment" by weighing which main timeline has the most onscreen hours behind it. --Pseudohuman 14:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

We're already doing something that works for the Mirror Universe, which has more completed productions, more onscreen hours and more in-universe canon history than STXI and its hypothetical sequels. Two universes are not equal main universes, and in my opinion there's even less reason to attempt to treat a timeline as equal than there would be to consider a parallel universe as equal/internally consistent. The fact that Mirror Spock and Our Spock can meet each other makes the Mirror Universe more like "two universes can be equal main universes", or at least can be consistent within one of the universes, but that Orci/Kurtzman ******** and our ******** can not, makes that less like two realities that can be treated as equal and self-consistent, in-universe. Neverminding the previous Talk: and Orci's blab about how alternate timelines and parallel universes are the same thing, the truth is, they're different, based on canon so far. Timelines can be created/destroyed/erased/re-set, while parallel universes just co-exist and occasionally interact with each other. (OK, maybe Orci/Kurtzman ******** and our ******** could meet, if Braxton came along and made it so, or something... but it doesn't quite change the point I'm making.) So, you're right, the "rule book" currently requires that we take an in-universe perspective to MA.org, and in my opinion we have to pick which of many possible canon universes/timelines/whatever our perspective is in. That our archive can see into other univserses/timelines/whatever is already a given. The idea that our one archive could actually be in more than one universe/timeline/whatever would be so difficult that, if we decide that at least one other timeline/universe/whatever is going to be treated just as much "main" as another one, the only sensible thing would be to just revoke the entire conceept of MA.org having an in-universe POV. Personally, I fully expect that an Abramsverse version of MA will get started, kind of like how there's the Mirror Universe version of Memory Alpha. That would satisfy having an in-universe POV for the other universe/timeline/whatever. But for MA.org/en, rejecting the in-universe POV or changing it so that an arbitrary "alternate" POV is is also in-universe and "primary" would be so disruptive that we'd never ever get all our articles cleaned up to match such a POV change.
 * Not to be argumentative with you, PH, but just to describe my own opinion regarding "the 'two timelines can be equal main timelines'-approach", I'll say:
 * All in good spirits, here, those are my opinions. Don't get me wrong: I'm not somebody who wants to make Abramsverse "less canon". The Abramsverse will be fully canon. I just think that MA.org/en doesn't have any choice but to treat it the same way (but with a certain emphasis) in which we have treated other alternative timelines/universes/whatever. They're canon too. To give Abramsverse the "Mirror Universe treatment" would elevate it above all but one of the other dozens of parallel realities that exist in canon, so, that actually would be quite a powerful validation. Cheers, --TribbleFurSuit 15:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose my point is that the main timeline is really only the main timeline because, as viewers of the show, we can draw a line from the beginning of Ent to the end of Voy and call it a whole continuity no matter how many in-universe temporal reboots it contains. While there is such a singular continuity it makes sense to have our MA POV in the future end of that continuity because it is the path the viewers are led along. STXI is the first time trek has decided to diverge into a new continuity that is supposed to be treated as a main timeline of its own from the viewer perspective. So the ballgame has changed. The mirror universe nor any other parallel universe so far was never intended to be a new continuity in that sense. Main timeline is still the main timeline in the sense that it is a whole continuity. The abramsverse is by nature a tangent-continuity. But indeed all in good spirits, there is something positive in the non-disruptive "Mirror universe treatment"-approach too because it keeps the POV intact and the database remains singular. I just think MA should reflect the producers intent and join the club of other wikis that have multiple continuities (in our own way) because that is what we have now too. --Pseudohuman 11:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW. The line by Daniels in : "This species has technology which allows them to examine alternate timelines" Might be taken as a canonical confirmation that all alternate timelines remain in existance as parallel quantum realities. It's a bit vague but still, if the new film offers no such confirmation and all we have is the producers intent again. This might be as good as it gets. :) --Pseudohuman 21:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I really think that if this movie is falling outside of the timeline as we know it in the Star Trek world, from TOS to ENT (and all movies in between), then it would just be best to create separate entries for this movie and its contents, characters etc and acknowledge that accordingly. Like i mentioned below, something similar to what was done with Mirror universe story lines/characters who had their own separate entries/pages. Splitting up the entire wiki based on one movie doesnt sound like a good idea and would certainly take away from the whole point of this being a comprehensive Star Trek encyclopedia. Keep it simple.– Distantlycharmed 21:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Holy sh*# I cant believe i just read this...arggh. – Distantlycharmed 16:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * With all this talk about timelines etc... How about this?  We talk for the time being about the movie as existing in it's own closed loop of space time/ closed bubble of space time apart from our space-time.  (Because let us not forget, the original Ent tos, TNG, DS9, Voy) universe was our universe...just in the future.  What does all that mumbojumbo mean in terms of writing a wiki?  What it means is we just write one article for the movie, and note how it's contituity is different from the rest of everything else on this wiki.  Leaving that information in that one article.  Then was sequels or TV shows etc are made, we build off that article.  Let us just hope that if they do make this a separate continuity that the new team will at least be internally consistent with itself.--71.239.121.162 22:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Writing only one article would be impossible, there will be hundreds of new articles about this film alone. Also, no trek-series has been of "our universe", trek has always been the fictional future of a fictional universe, not a possible future of the real world. --Pseudohuman 08:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Tarsus IV: in or not?
I was curious if there has been any leaks at all as to whether or not Kirk's time on Tarsus IV is depicted in the new film. I'm sure we all have seen the trailer by now which depicts a childhood age Kirk. The age might match when he should have been on Tarsus. Thoughts? Thanks. -FC 14:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The film does not involve Kirk's time on Tarsus IV; in fact, this Kirk probably never went to Tarsus IV. Remember that this is not 100% the Kirk from the original series and films. The new film depicts an alternate history for Kirk than the one we know. --From Andoria with Love

Horrible
This file is REALLY hard to read with all the citations in there. I propose hiding them or something.

Franchise Reboot?
Can someone please clarify whether this is actually a total reboot of the franchise or not? (i.e. is it effectively based in another universe to the rest of star trek as we know it so far?) --92.237.153.26 21:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Reports thus far have it set in an alternate timeline, spun off from the post Nemesis era Trek. -- sulfur 21:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not a reboot. It's also not set in the timeline all the other Treks are set in. Since the movie has characters from the previously-established timeline (including Spock), it does not qualify as a reboot, as reboots are devoid of characters which originate directly from the pre-rebooted universe. Basically, it's set in a different timeline but contains characters from the pre-existing timeline. So, it might help to think of the movie as an "alternate history prequel." Hope that helps. --From Andoria with Love 03:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Good to know, may be this should be mentioned in the opening part of the article to make it clear that the movie won't affect previously determined facts in the other timeline?--92.237.153.26 09:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the latter. Also, how is this movie going to be incorporated into all the Star Trek canon? Do we, on MA, need to create separate entries for the characters in this particular universe? (as it was done in the Mirror universe?) I really dont know much about the contents anyway, I just made the mistake of reading something about it taking place in another timeline and not really being part of the other Star Trek franchise (?) :) hope not, just curios how this will turn out for the canon. – Distantlycharmed 19:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * the "POV treatment on MA"-discussion above is about this subject. To put it simply: 1. either we treat the new timeline as a new continuity, and split MA like other wikis about different continuities are split up. or 2. we just incorporate all the new facts similarly as mirror universe stuff is on MA now. Join the discussion above if you have an opinion. --Pseudohuman 21:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Shran, is there a universally accepted definition of reboot anywhere? The wikipedia entry certainly doesn't list the qualifiers you mention. In any event, assuming your assessment is accurate, this is a mere technicality. As Battlestar Galactica is the most relevant reboot to this new movie, would you still consider it a reboot if sometime during season 3, they brought a "Prime" Adama back in time to set right something the Cylons did? While officially this movie is not a reboot for the reasons you mention, I find it nothing more than a marketing scapegoat to keep from alienating the core fanbase. Aside from traditionally non-canon sources like comic books and what the producers tell us, there is no on-screen proof that this is even the Spock from our universe. He is simply "A Spock" from "A Future". In the end when the new film series continues, there will hopefully be no more time travel and no more characters from the "Prime" universe. In effect a technical reboot. Nothing will be like it was in the universe we all know an love. Nurse Chapel could even show up as a male. Call it what you will, but for all practical purposes, THIS IS A REBOOT OF THE FRANCHISE and it should be acknowledged in the ultimate definition.--Dogg 01:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Since the filmmakers have stated its not a reboot, I don't think it will be acknowledged as such, sorry. Also, Wikipedia is hardly anything to go on. Yes, it does have some of the machinations of a reboot, but thus far, no reboots that I can think of has involved a character from a pre-rebooted universe. As such, no, this is not a true reboot. And yes, the "A Spock" in the movie is the Spock, regardless of there being any reference to what future he was from. The filmmakers have already stated he is the Spock. This means he was never intended to be some other Spock. Therefore, he is the Spock. There's no argument about that. Really, do you think they wrote in some other Spock from some other timeline no one cares about? Let's not get ridiculous now. --From Andoria with Love 02:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't a "reboot" basically the creation of a new continuity that the audience will start to follow instead of the old one. Even if the previous universe still hangs around there somewhere and isn't retconned away. Similar thing they do in comics with all the Earth-1, Earth-2, ... things though. I think this is the case with this film? --Pseudohuman 17:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Giant Alien Monster's Species?
Thanks. 24.16.41.216 20:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Got me. Which one do you speak of? There are actually two of them in the movie, a red insect-looking thing and a white giant ape-like creature somewhat similar to a Mugato, only much, much bigger. The names of their species have not been revealed, but (warning -- SPOILER) they are both native to the planet Delta Vega. --From Andoria with Love 02:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you messing with me? I don't expect no ape. 75.165.25.13 04:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Title Change? Nope
Just to let everyone know, the title of this film is still Star Trek. The trailer was aired during tonight's episode of Heroes and apparently an announcer was added, who referred to the movie either with "Star Trek - The Future" or "Star Trek - The Future Begins." This is not the title of the movie; the announcer was combining the title with a tagline as they sometimes do. Nothing more. So, just to be clear, the movie is still called Star Trek. --From Andoria with Love 02:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

New Page
I feel that a new page discussing development and marketing should be made. Thoughts? Most of the stuff on this page should in turn move there. This page is huge, even before we add a story synopsis.71.123.170.163 05:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of it will be condensed into something as seen in previous films pages, as they will quickly lose relevancy. --Alan 06:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Promotions
I haven't and won't be around much prior to the release of the film for various reasons, but a few unavoidable promotions/merchandising things I've noticed that don't appear on here including Esurance and Kellogg's. --Alan 00:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Star Wars and Star Trek United!
I noticed that this film's (and seven other Trek films) special effects were done by Industrial Light and Magic, the company created and owned by George Lucas, originally for the special effects in the star wars films. Perhaps this will inspire better relations between those Star Wars and Star Trek fans who choose to bicker over which is superior. Now we just need GL to let a Star Trek director direct a season of the Star Wars TV Series coming in 2010...--75.48.44.99 04:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You might want to read Industrial Light %26 Magic if you think you've found something new...because nothing will change &mdash; Morder 04:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, ILM has been involved since 1982 or so. The fact is that fan relations have nothing to do with production side relations, and production side relations have never been "mean." --OuroborosCobra talk 04:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed from article
In the "references to previous episodes and films", I've removed this:
 * When Spock and Sarek talk in the transporter room, the number and letter on one of the doors is M-3110; the numbers add up to 5, possibly an indirect reference to the M-5 supercomputer.

This seems like way too much of a reach to me. What do others think? —Josiah Rowe 04:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. I think that its just a coincidence IndyK1ng 04:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm removing this, too, on the same grounds:
 * The opening battle sequence between the USS Kelvin and the Narada features the intentional collision of a starship into an enemy vessel as well as the death of a crewmember as a result of being "blown out" of a starship and into space because of a hull breach and the resulting depressurization of the ship. Both are possible references to.

Depressurization (demonstrated with a crewmember floating in space) and putting a starship on collision course seem to me to be fairly common "space battle" tropes. Since Abrams said that he hadn't even seen Nemesis, it seems unlikely to me that these would be intended as references to that film. —Josiah Rowe 17:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Admiral Archer's beagle
Is there anything going to be put in about the reference to admiral archer and his dog. More than likely its supposed to be a reference to archer from enterprise seeing as this dog porthos was also a beagle


 * The film's writers have confirmed that this is a reference to Enterprise, but there's some dispute over whether the fact that it's a reference (out-of-universe) also means that the "Admiral Archer" mentioned is Jonathan Archer or not. At the moment, there is a page for "Admiral Archer" at Archer, and there's a note in the "Background" section of Jonathan Archer.  There's some discussion about how to handle this at Talk:Jonathan Archer, Talk:Archer and Talk:Porthos. —Josiah Rowe 20:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

References to previous Star Trek episodes and films, and other media
This entire section needs to be removed or reedited. Too many "might be", "may be" and other "possible" type references without incites. &mdash; Morder 13:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not that unusual, but here's one everyone seems to have missed. 47 Klingon ships? Yeah.  Graptor 00:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally I think the outpost looked like a DHARMA Hatch.- JustPhil 00:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * When the Enterpise rises out of Titan, its similar to when the Enterprise arises from the Mutara Nebula ready to attack Khan.

Unless specifically stated to be a reference all references should really be removed as they're too subjective. For instance the above one is a stretch, especially since it didn't arise from the nebula it just sunk below and came up from behind... &mdash; Morder 12:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, i think, it would be nice to make two sections. One as it is now and another for the specualtions. Because everyone will have another opinion, how something could be inspired by something etc. Speculations about references not only to episodes and films, coudl be in the second "subchapter" (like the names of shuttles: Gilliam and Moore). --Mvek 14:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This site is not for opinions it's for facts that can be verified. So no, speculations are not allowed. &mdash; Morder 14:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? Then why have you not yet removed the "Memorable Quotes" section?  The entire section is speculation and opinion.  Unless of course you think you can find some sort of documented evidence that each of the quotes is in fact "memorable".   Please get over yourself.  Wikis, no matter how much work goes into them, are not encyclopedias.  They're fan pages.  24.29.93.5 23:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Quotes and speculation are not the same thing. For the record, I've been one who would like see the Memorable Quotes section removed entirely but I'm not the only deciding factor in that. &mdash; Morder 23:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the section was a magnet for unfounded speculation, but I think that requiring a citation for every entry may be going too far. Do we really need a citation for noting that McCoy says "Are you out of your Vulcan mind?" in  and ?  Similarly, what was the reasoning for removing Spock's Sherlock Holmes reference "If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains — however improbable — must be the truth", which he attributed to "a human ancestor" in ?  The note about the origins of the name "Nyota" for Uhura also seems worth keeping to me. —Josiah Rowe 21:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Without having a specific citation for the reference it will always be filled with someones thoughts as to what is a reference and thus too much speculation and not enough fact. With regards to your example of the phrase "Are you out of your Vulcan mind?" it's just something he's said before. Not necessarily a reference...he's also said "I'm a doctor no a..." - doesn't mean it's a reference to every single episode...it's just the way his character is. Similar to the "if you eliminate..." - Oh and the Nyota note belongs on her page. &mdash; Morder 21:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * But isn't it noteworthy that the film contains dialogue that's reused from former Star Trek episodes and films? I'm not talking about everyday remarks like "hello" or "yes, sir", which could be repeated coincidentally — "Are you out of your Vulcan mind" is clearly deliberate.  So is the Sherlock Holmes line.  I don't see the advantage in quibbling over whether it's a reference to a specific episode or to the way the character is; either way, it's a reference.  And it's noteworthy. —Josiah Rowe 21:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is not whether that is the issue it's what makes your (not yours but the general your) reference any more valid that any other reference? &mdash; Morder 21:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Common sense. —Josiah Rowe 23:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we have lots of that around here...it's easier to enforce rules when you have a standard common sense doesn't apply when people get emotional over their great contributions to this site..."how dare we remove one that doesn't meet someone else's idea of what a reference is". :) &mdash; Morder 23:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, but I still think it's not too difficult to establish a consensus among active editors that certain references are indeed noteworthy. Aside from the general principle that "references should be cited as references", does anyone really doubt that those two lines are references, and should be listed as such?  I'm suggesting that the standard could be either a citation from one of the filmmakers that it's a deliberate reference or a consensus of editors that it's sufficiently clear, unambiguous and noteworthy to merit mention in the article. —Josiah Rowe 23:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed all the incite tags from notes that simply state facts. Some of the tags were a bit silly, such as on "Spock Prime (Leonard Nimoy) recites the famous "Space, the final frontier..." monologue at the end of the film for the first time since ." or the note about the mud fleas first appearing in Enterprise.


 * As for the rest, I'm sure if someone goes through all the interviews they could track down a few more citations. Surely Olson = "redshirt" has been mentioned, for example.– Cleanse 07:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * How about we change the name of the section to "Continuity", which is the title we use on many episode pages? This avoids the suggestion that all of these are intentional references/homages. Rather, it means the section is a list of events, places, animals etc. previously established on Star Trek. To claim that it is an intentional reference would still require a citation, but it would mean there is no problem with objectively stating where mud fleas, Cardassians etc. come from.– Cleanse 23:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan :) &mdash; Morder 23:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll go ahead and do this. If anyone objects, please feel free to revert and discuss further. —Josiah Rowe 03:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

How Time Travel Changed The Way Starfleet Makes Bridges
So we all noticed the much more graphically-oriented bridge design. Technical readouts on the main screen instead of just camera shots, Scotty's eyepiece, Chekov's easy-to-read sensor HUD - it's wonderful! But why didn't they have those things in the "Prime" universe?

Very simple. Necessity is the mother of invention. In the Prime Universe, no insane Romulan killship from the future emerged from a black hole randomly and destroyed a Federation ship only to disappear into the night for almost three decades. And when nothing happens... no one reacts!

UNIVERSE PRIME: The designers of the USS Kelvin believed their design was suitable for the universe they were living in. It was not exactly costly to produce, and it completed all of its missions. More ships were commissioned based on this design, with simplicity of interface and an emphasis on scientific analysis at the core of its construction. The turreted guns put on the vessel were never used, so they were phased out of later models. Not until Captain Kirk encounters the Romulan Bird of Prey and the Klingon Cold War starts does Starfleet realize the military necessity of their vessels. However, even based on the Kelvin's design, Starfleet Operating Systems, targeting software, and phaser strength are all more than a match for their galactic neighbors at the time.

UNIVERSE SECOND (or Abrams Universe): The designers of the USS Kelvin were sent back to the drawing board when their vessel was destroyed. Obviously the Federation's neighbors were more technologically advanced than previously believed, and the Romulans pose a greater threat than ever imagined. In reaction several new technologies are proposed by Starfleet Command: improved turreted phaser systems, graphical scan interfaces that require less training to operate due to the high propensity for Senior Officer mortality in battle, improved nacelle design to avoid collapse under key stress points, tactical readouts on the main screen through unified sensor grids, and in improved cooling system for the main plasma relays to avoid overheating when exerting more than %100 capacity. All of these sudden necessities redefined the way Starfleet thought about building ships.

Now, when I saw the movie, I thought this was OBVIOUS. I mean, this is the point of the opening scene, no? To account for EVERYTHING that is different. And it does! Really! Just think about it! I don't think this is fan speculation. This is common sense! --75.151.116.106 16:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am glad this works for you. Do you think this also explains why the new movie is just a recycled Hollywood plastic hollow third-grade comic bookish piece of crap with no substance or soul to it whatsoever?&mdash;Eta Carinae 17:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This page isn't a forum to discuss timeline changes or film quality (see Help:Talk pages and MA:NOT). Please keep comments to what should and shouldn't be placed on this page.--Tim Thomason 18:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand and apologize. I am in the process of burying something that is very dear to me, and could not control my rage outburst very well after having watched the "movie".  Fell free to delete this thread altogether; I won't take any offense.  Best of luck with the rest of Memory Alpha.&mdash;Eta Carinae 19:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest that this thread indeed be deleted. It has nothing to do with improving the article.  It's rather an essay about one part of the film and someone else's negative reaction to it.  Perhaps we can move this somewhere else, but it shouldn't be taking up this much space on an article talkpage when it has nothing to do with the article in question. -FC 11:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I reverted the blanking of the section since the proper way to remove this would be a formal move by an admin or a deletion of the original entries onto the talk page. Blanking it would actually be against established procedure, as far as I know. -FC 15:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't believe you're taking this so seriously, he made a minor comment about the film and you want to blank the page? This is what is wrong with wikis, you get a bunch of mindless people following the rules to the letter like it was handed down by Roddenberry himself. It is essentially a dictatorship. My two cents. Wheatleya 00:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a discussion page, no? Are we not allowed to discuss the movie? Because... that's silly. Even people who hated the movie (which most certainly does not include me) should be free to pop off their mouths here. It's not like we're doing it ON the main page. We're discussing random crap about the movie on the movie's discussion page. Calm down. Jeez. --75.151.116.106 19:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It is a page to discuss the writing of the article - not "random crap", as you put it. There are community websites specialized on that - while we're specialized on writing an encyclopedia. -- Cid Highwind 20:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Friend, this is the internet. None of this matters that much. Chill out. Established procedure and specialists belong in the military, where it's a matter of life or death. This is a text page about a sci-fi movie. Besides, this isn't the encyclopedia portion of the website. We're just nerds kicking around ideas on the internets. --75.151.116.106 20:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Um, shouldn't we consider than history was already altered before all of this in First Contact? I mean, the Borg went back in time and so did the Enterprise E so it is certainly possible that technology from the future was already altering the timeline long "before" the events of the new movie.
 * That depends. We can't be certain if the events of First Contact effected both universes. I also always took the events of First Contact, especially in light of the events of the Enterprise episode with the Borg, to be a sort of Gary Seven situation. You know, the people going back in time are products of their own interference in the time stream. Therefore the TOS episodes would have happened not just in spite of, but BECAUSE of the events of First Contact. --75.151.116.106 20:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Somehow you all missed Tim's post above. This conversation is over. Please do not post here anymore. Thanks. &mdash; Morder 21:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

New starship designs
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/schematics/spacedock-trekxi-wallpaper.jpg There are numerous starships that are sighted to be docked with the USS Enterprise (Alternate Reality) and I am wondering if anyone knows what class they belong to and what they are called.--Kevinunlimited 04:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/schematics/stxi_ships.htm says it's a wallpaper at startrekmovie.com. By the way, the direct link to the image doesn't work as hotlinking isn't allowed. Setacourse 03:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed comments
I have removed the following speculative/uncited comments. Any that can be backed up with evidence can be put back.


 * During Spock's conversation with his mother on Vulcan, he mentions that feeling "fine" is not acceptable. This may be a reference to  when the test asks Spock "How do you feel?"  Spock is unable to provide an answer until the end of the film: "I feel fine."
 * As Kirk proceeds through the Kobayashi Maru scenario test, he is seen eating an apple, which may be a reference to the fact that he was eating an apple while recounting the story to Saavik in the Genesis cave below Regula in.
 * Chekov's difficulty in pronouncing the letter V through his accent ("Victor Victor") is an allusion to the scene in where he has difficulty pronouncing "nuclear vessels."
 * Spock's refusal to comment on Uhura's first name is likely a reference to the dubious canonicity of the name prior to the film's release.
 * Spock enabling Scotty to develop his transwarp beaming system is similar to when Scotty himself gave Dr. Nichols the formula for transparent aluminum in.
 * The destruction of Vulcan may reference the destruction of the Genesis planet in . In particular, the attempted transport of Spock, his parents, and the Vulcan council off of the planet (as the seismic disturbances tear the planet apart and the ground beneath the characters begins to collapse) resembles the transport of Kirk and Spock off of Genesis. In both cases the destruction of the planet is accompanied by the death of a beloved family member of one of the main characters (David Marcus and Amanda Grayson).
 * The Federation council's decision to give command of the Enterprise to Kirk because of his efforts to save Earth from destruction, despite his previous insubordination, at the finale of the film, strongly resembles the finale of.
 * Scotty's companion on the Delta Vega colony may have been a Kolaran: in the scene where he is introduced, he takes off his goggle in the same manner as a Kolaran does at the conclusion of the car chase in.
 * Leonard Nimoy's line "I am Spock" could be a reference to his second autobiography of the same name, as well as returning to the character after an 18 year gap.--31dot 17:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

More, plus reasons for removal:
 * When Bones pulls Kirk into shuttlecraft transport to the Enterprise, notice the name of shuttle craft next to the doors. It is Gilliam - this might be reference to script supervisor Dawn Gilliam. (not a reference to any past movie or show)
 * Nero yells "SPOCK!" twice after finding out Spock had stolen the Jellyfish, much in the same way Kirk exclaims "Khan!" twice in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. (opinion, and a stretch, to boot)
 * Chekov's reporting to that there is an intruder resembles Chekov telling Admiral James T. Kirk there is an intruder . (opinion, and a stretch)
 * Spock reveals that the Romulans share a common ancestry with the Vulcans. In the TOS episode, Spock (Prime) seems not to know of any connection; however, this difference could be due to Nero's prior appearance in 2233. In fact, it was stated in that episode that no one had ever seen a Romulan, even during the Earth-Romulan war a century previous. This greatly tied the hands of Enterprise writers to feature Romulans in an episode but not let them be seen. (more of a nitpick than pointing out a reference)
 * Captain Richard Robau's mention of shoring up the hull plating during the attack on the Kelvin may be an homage to Star Trek: Enterprise -- raising the shields in the 22nd century was performed by "polarizing hull plating." (I don't recall such a mention, although Robau did say "polarize the viewscreen", which may or may not have been a ref to Enterprise)
 * When Spock is called forward after being revealed as Kirk's accuser for cheating during the Kobayashi Maru test, he stands up and quickly tugs down the front of his jacket. This is a possible reference to the habit of Patrick Stewart to do the same after standing up from the captain's chair in TNG, often referred to by the cast as the Picard Maneuver. (speculation)
 * Chekov's "televised" speech to the entire crew -- and scenes of the crew watching him on the screen -- are reminiscent of Sybok announcing his intentions on screen to the crew in . (a stretch)
 * Spock's half-brother Sybok is not mentioned in this film, which may have been the producer's way of honoring / validating Gene Roddenberry's belief that the character of Sybok was apocryphal. (or maybe they just didn't write him in because it wasn't needed or couldn't fit him in; not a reference to a prior movie or TV show, anyway) --From Andoria with Love 01:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"...large Orange County hangar..."
I have a feeling that the location referred to can only be one of two old blimp hangars aboard what was Marine Corps Air Station Tustin. knoodelhed 17:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, I think you're right. The El Toro Marine Corps Station in Irvine doesnt have a hangar (at least not one that can be used), so this must be the one. – Distantlycharmed 18:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Vulcan's sky
is red, but in the movie it looks blue. What's up?


 * The sky is. :) Seriously, though, perhaps the atmospheric conditions on Vulcan vary enough that sometimes the sky is red and sometimes it's blue.  Perhaps the ceremony in  took place at sunset, or after a dust storm.  (I know that we've seen red or reddish skies in other episodes and films, but you get the point.) —Josiah Rowe 06:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Update: Roberto Orci says here (comments section, post #456) that Vulcan's red sky is seasonal. —Josiah Rowe 08:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to point out, in the ENT episode, Archer asks T'Pol if "the sky ever get this blue on Vulcan?" to which she replies "Occasionally."--NME 16:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Quality
Given the "casual" nature of the film for its appeal to a general populace, i think we can expect to see more poor writing. WWhat i mean is that there was wording and slang that is unbecoming of an encyclopedia that i had to edit out. Just keep your eyes open and correct them. For instance, when it spoke of kirk saying he is going to study but instead meets the orion hthe writer opted to use language like sarcasm and words like "hooking up".
 * This site has a policy of inform and entertain. And "study" was the term used in the movie and has every place here. &mdash; Morder 17:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean like inability to capitalize your words, lazy typos like "WWhat" and "hthe", and sentence fragments?  Perhaps you're not the most qualified to complain of other contributors' writing ability.

Deleted Scenes
Since this section hasn't been expanded upon, I was wondering if I might add that two seconds of Nero on Rura Penthe shows up in the first theatrical trailer? I'll refrain from changing anything until I get a response. (Omega05 22:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC))
 * There is also a shot of Nero on Rura Penthe during Spock's mind meld. In fact, it's this shot right here. As for expanding deleted scene info, it would probably be best if you did so on this page. The movie's article should just include a list of the deleted scenes and a link to the delete scenes page for more info. --From Andoria with Love 05:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Some of the deleted scenes will probably be released in the next year or so. I'd just table the issue for a while until more info becomes available. No hurry.--Hribar 21:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Moved from article
I removed this from the article and placed it here as this is the proper location:

From 146.243.4.157: Request: Can the moderator please let us know what would meet the criteria of "citation needed" for this section -- beyond the name of the episode/movie? it isn't clear. Thank you.

"this section" in the request refers to the "References to previous Star Trek episodes and films, and other media" section. Moved by Interrupt feed 23:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Queston
since this movie created an alternate timeline/universe, are the events in the ST:TNG, ST:DS9, and ST:VOY the same or "erased"?

I ask because in an interview with the writer's of this movie they talk about destiny and that Kirk's crew still came together because the new time line was "correcting" or "mending" itself and returning to it's default state, if this is true then most of the events from the shows (ST:TOS, ST:TAS, and all the 24th C. ones) should still take place only with the ship and technology being altered (one could argue that the Klingon's, Romulian's and other Warp able races scanned the federation starships and created more advanced weapons, plus the Romulian/Klingion treated might still take place if the Klingion fleet that Nero destroyed never communicated who attacked them)

The issue only comes to confussion with the size of the NCC-1701 (alternate) if it is as big as the writers claim them the Federation Galaxy class starships must have been named as a joke (or Picard's crew lied to us for 7 years about the number of crew and deck size, it would explain the error in 1st contact about the NCC-1701-E having 26 or 29 decks, and the NCC-1701-A having 71 decks in ST:5) -- Sithlord
 * As said by the writers, Nero's encursion created a different, parallel timeline which exists in addition to the previous one. So both exist at the same time.--31dot 14:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

true but the whole point of the movie was to show the destinies of the crew, that no matter what changes took place Kirk still became Capt. of the Enterprise, Spock still became his 1st officer, ect. so would the events in ST:TOS still take place? (Kirk meeting Khan, the Tribbles, Klingon Kor, Klang, koloth, Spocks death and rebirth, the Enterprise going boom over genesis)only with new technology due to Nero's changes would the USS Enterprise's history still be grand enough to have an USS Enterprise A, B, C, D, E so that in 2374 Picard will still command his 2 Enterprise's and meet Kirk when he did, or is the future of this timeline unknown, and Picard might never be born? -- Sithlord


 * You mean will the events seen in the original timeline take place in the new, alternate reality? Well, we won't know until the stories are written, but the writers have stated that it's logical to assume some events would still take place. For example, both V'Ger and the Whale Probe will both still threaten Earth. Of course, the events won't play out exactly as they did in the prime universe, but the outcomes could be similar. In all honesty, though, at this point, it's anybody's guess. :) --From Andoria with Love 00:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

thank you that is what i was looking for, if all the event in the "old" timeline was altered by Nero's changes then the Kelvin was the most important ship ever created by anyone, if you stop and think of things like V'Ger, Whale Probe, Borg, Breen, Dominion, the 23rd C. Romulians, one federation ship going boom (with most of the crew living 800 people saved per Pike) could not have stopped all of the events seen in the "old" timeline (although it would be funny to see in the next movie the Enterprise being called away just as the ship finds the Botnay bay with Kirk saying "well it was 400 years old no one would be alive in it.")-- Sithlord

There's no possible way the future of the new universe could be anything like the old universe. The original Enterprise has pulse phaser cannons for goodness sakes! All those times the original Enterprise was in danger and just needed more power to turn a nail-biting episode into a snooze-fest, now it's a snooze-fest. By the time they get to the Enterprise-D, the Federation will have probably explored the entire galaxy, destroyed the Borg like they were nothing, and be as bored as the Organians probably are. Just face it folks, everything you spent decades of your life watching and being a fan of has, in one fell-swoop, been destroyed and is completely irrelevant. You may as well stop being Star Trek fans now, 'cause if you start being fans of this universe the writers will probably just destroy it too. Decades of series and movies, completely thrown out the window. Thanks for this movie! All of the Star Trek fan world appreciates it! (24.168.238.96 18:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC))
 * I'm sorry you feel that way, but this is not a forum to express your opinions of the movie. The writers of the movie have said that they believe some things in the main timeline happened in the new one as well.  That's not our opinion, they said it.   Unless you feel like you have to throw away all your Star Trek DVDs, the main timeline is no more or less relevant than it was before.--31dot 18:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

To the person who said that this movie erased mot of Star Trek history: I personally liked this movie least of the nine Star Trek films I've seen, so I am biased. Anyways, the concept of parallel universes standing side by side has been confirmed by many shows (like "Parallels" from TNG, "The Alternative Factor" of TOS, and the mirror universe shows.) Therefore, the original timeline surviving is highly probable; I would say a fact. Even if you reject this, it makes no sense for Paramount to do that; how else are they going to market stories that never "really" happened. And where would Memory Alpha be if half its material didn't "really" happen?

Nero
I would like to hear other peoples opinions on the films villain, Nero. I think he was rather underdeveloped and disappointing. Other villains star trek has had have been political leaders, military officers, powerful individuals, with strong and usually complex motives. Nero was simply a miner out for petty revenge. This is simply how I see it, did anyone else feel that way? --Preator 19:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Talk pages are not for that type of discussion, the trekbbs is a better place for that. --Jörg 19:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct. We don't use talk pages for forums.- JustPhil 19:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to misuse the talk page. Just wasn't sure where else to ask the question. --Preator 21:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Was there ever an explicit reasoning for the name "Nero"? Such as a confirmation that it alluded to the Roman terminology, culture et al that Romulan characters exhibited. Perhaps even regret at choosing such an overtly, at least notionally, human name? 92.10.232.123 04:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was attributed to to the Roman name. 04:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Nero was an Emperor of the Romans. The statement "give them bread...and games" (and whatever comes after that) are attributed to him.

I shoudln't say this, but I think Nero was the best villian we've had in ages. I didn't particularly like Shinzon. IT IS GREEN 23:29, November 2, 2009 (UTC)

Summary shortening
This movie's summary needs to be shortened way down to "just the facts," as it were. We don't need to know every single thing that happens in the movie. Wikipedia has a nice, short summary on the film, though I prefer telling the story as it unfolds in the film. Basically, the summary needs to be about the same length as the one at Wikipedia while using the same story-telling style used in the MA article. Think we can accomplish that? (Note: I know we have many other movie and episode pages with super-long summaries; those need to be shortened, as well. Yes, these include the ones I helped write several years ago.) --From Andoria with Love 09:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't say I agree in this case. I don't see anything in the MA policies that say the summaries need to be short.  Personally I think good, detailed summaries are fun to write at times and I think that it helps the pages.  And while I know that this is a wiki page ala Wikipedia, there's many pages on Wikipedia that have detailed summaries.  I should know, having written, or helped write a few of them.  So I don't see what it hurts here to have lengthy summaries at times.  Some of the contributors prefer good details like that.  leandar 13:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I absolutely agree with From Andoria with Love - it looks more like a novelization (rather than encyclopedic) as it is now.  The first paragraph alone could be reduced to two sentences and more probably just one sentence.  I think the article is "suffering" because it is a new Star Trek film and we are all excited to add to it.


 * On another note does it matter what Wikipedia does? Honestly curious.  Do we use Wikipedia as a template or for guidance? DhaliaUnsung 16:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

RE: Leandar -- There is currently no policy on the length of a summary (that I know of), this is a matter of community preference. I gave my opinion and now I leave it to other community members (such as yourself) to give their own. If consensus says we shorten it, great! If not, oh well.

RE:DhaliaUnsung -- I agree, we can tell the whole story without writing every single detail. That is what the other articles are for, after all. To answer your question, though, we don't have to use Wikipedia, I just did for this instance. I like the "get-to-the-point" style of the Wikipedia summary; I was just saying I would this summary to be more like that summary (with the exception of the order of the narrative). --From Andoria with Love 17:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, we've been through that whole discussion in the past, with all the arguments pro and contra lengthy "summaries". Fact is - the longer that section gets, the more it becomes a "retelling" instead of a summary. Being less detailed than the original product is the whole point of a summary. Also, some people don't want retellings, but just the quick facts, so they shouldn't be deprived of that. So, a suggestion that had been made was to have both, a short summary and a long retelling of the story. At this point of the discussion, the fundamental question is: do we even want both, and is a fully detailed retelling of a story within our scope (encyclopedia) and/or allowed as "fair use"?
 * My personal opinion: "Longer" doesn't equal "better" in this case - far from it, I'd rather have a three minute read that helps me remember the episode/film, than a half hour read that turns out to be missing the final acts, because the writer lost interest in continuing his novelization. :) -- Cid Highwind 17:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * RE: From Andoria With Love - Of course, I'm not trying to start an argument here, I hope you don't think I was. I accept your opinion and offer mine as well in the same vein.  If it's eventually decided that we need to have shorter summaries then I'll accept that, just as you will if they like the longer ones.  I won't like it terribly if they're shortened, but I'll live with it.  lol


 * Maybe it's just that I read a lot and so the longer summaries don't bother me, in fact I enjoy the summaries that are longer, probably just because of my more extensive reading habits. leandar 19:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You like to read a lot too? Great!  I just finished Shogun and I'm usually reading 2 or 3 books at a time.  But that's kinda besides the point. I don't think Memory Alpha is here for the "novelizations" is all.  As Cid Highwind said if someone comes to memory alpha searching for a summary to help them remember the movie/television show, they aren't going to want to read three pages first.


 * That said, I can see how reading about the show would be fun. Maybe it would be possible to have a link to "extended summary" if the community feels it's warranted?


 * ''I hope my post is read in the lighthearted and hopefully helpful manner in which it was written. DhaliaUnsung

Every section of this page is too long in comparison to the other movies, theres too much information, the summary is a novel, the memorable quotes is too long to emphasize something being "memorable", the background section is also ridiculously long, and includes erronious sections like "rumours and gossip" which were only really important before the movie came out. When I look at this page I get a headache! Vietminh

Removed apple comment
Removed the following after the Biblical portion was added. The whole passage is speculative unless it can be cited.

Cadet Kirk eating an apple while taking the Kobayashi Maru test for the third time may be an homage to the scene in, where Kirk explains to Saavik -- while munching on an apple from the Genesis cave -- how he beat the Kobayashi Maru. This repeated reference to eating an apple can be seen as a proverbial nudge to the Biblical story of creation, particularly in reference to the Genesis project. The Kobayashi Maru is a proverbial forbidden fruit, in that every other Starfleet test is able to be passed. This level of allusion isn't uncommon for either Star Trek II writer/director Nicholas Meyer (better known for writing the solitary Sherlock Holmes novel considered canon, but not written by Doyle, the Seven Percent Solution) or Bad Robot productions (which made, among other series, Lost; which features numerous allusions to other works). --31dot 00:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually I don't think the original timeline Kobayashi Maru went that way. Saevik is surprised to hear that Kirk manipulated the test, but these are the types of legends that don't die away on an academy in just a few years. I feel it's safe to assume that in the prime timeline Kirk got away undetected, maybe by doing it more subtle than the new one, and maybe without eating an apple. I'd guess Kirk Prime preferred a more dramatic and heroic setting. 79.210.175.101 10:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

TLA
It seems like there was a tradition for a while of referring to each division of Trek with a three-letter name; TOS, VOY, ENT and so on. Has anyone proposed one for the new movies, or is the tradition pretty much over? --Andrew Nagy 21:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, only a few movies have a 3 letter symbol but STF would probably be the one chosen but unnecessary for now. :) &mdash; Morder 21:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yah, only seven of the movies have three-letter abbreviations (TMP, TVH, TFF, TUC, GEN, INS, NEM); two are four-letter (TWOK and TSFS) while one is two-letter (FC). For the new movie, ST09 has been the abbreviation I've been seeing the most. There are a few other abbreviations which I have seen that are either not commonly used or have been discontinued (STXI, JJT [JJ's Trek], AST [Abrams' Star Trek or Alternate Star Trek], ART [Alternate Reality Trek], NST [New Star Trek], etc.) None of them are appealing to me; I would just go with ST09... or just plain ST. :) --From Andoria with Love 23:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * On another note, I think its pretty interesting how we (Memory Alpha) seem to be setting the trend on a lot of these issues. For example, here we had a long debate, leading to the "alternate timeline" consensus, which not only seems to have caught on, but people are citing Memory Alpha as their source on the "official" nomenclature.  Considering that many Star Trek authors, and even some of the creative team on the film cite Memory Alpha as a resource, we should always be keeping in mind the fact that we are, to a very small degree, framing Stark Trek.  I'm kind of rambling.  Sorry. ---  Jaz  03:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thinking further, TNM for The New Movies makes a kind of sense. --Andrew Nagy 02:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Spock's Quote
What does Spock Prime say when he leaves the ceremony at the end of the film?- JustPhil 13:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thrusters on Full– John Sheppard 17:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Does anyone know if this line is a reference to anything?Ctetc2007 17:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Anyone know if he ever said that in one of the movies, when the Enterprise was being launched from spacedock? I mean, it happened three times when he was there, and one more when he wasn't. IT IS GREEN 23:22, November 2, 2009 (UTC)


 * No connection - Nimoy thought of it on the spot as a "pass the baton" metaphor--Ten-pint 20:47, November 18, 2009 (UTC).

Searching for the Trek09 movie page on Memory Alpha
Just now as I was trying to find a piece of information regarding the 2009 "Star Trek" film, I had a very difficult time finding the page. I had to jump through the hoops of going through two or three other pages before I found a link here (I wasn't aware of "ST09" until I read the paragraph above). Would it be worthwhile to create some other redirect pages for predictably common search parameters? On IMDB, I've most commonly seen it referred to a "Trek09", which would be my first recommendation. Considering that'll be one of the more commonly requested pages for a good while (I'd guess), it seems reasonable that at least until the community decides on a fairly universally agreed upon abbreviation we should make things easy on people.

Just a suggestion. YMMV. Hossrex 06:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Using the movie's official title as a search term leads me to Star Trek, an article about the franchise as a whole, where is prominently linked in the first paragraph. Is that not the search term one would enter first? -- Cid Highwind 09:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Exclusive wallpapers
Yesterday, I added thumbnails for three of the "exclusive wallpapers" coming with the "Star Trek USB card": #1, #2, #6.

After some googling, I found more info and what seems to be the remaining 6 wallpapers, here:
 * - has #2, #6, #9
 * - has #1, #5, #8
 * - has #5, #7, #9
 * - has #4, #7, #9
 * - has #2, #7, #9
 * - has #3, #6, #7

I'm just adding this here in case someone wants to add info about this part of marketing/advertisement to the article section. Speaking of which - since there has been a huge amount of marketing, and the page is very lengthy - should we perhaps split that section off, to its own page? Might make both the new page and the remainder of this one more readable. -- Cid Highwind 16:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that this page is very long, and would go so far as to say both the marketing/advertisement and the background info sections could be moved to their own pages/subpages. - Archduk3:talk 14:47, September 14, 2009 (UTC)

What Spock Knows
I read this in the summary and became confused: ''Kirk explains he was left on the planet by the Spock he knows, who is currently in command of the Enterprise. The elder Spock is surprised, knowing that Kirk should be in command of the ship.'' Did I miss something here? Kirk would not have been in command of the Enterprise for another 7 years. Clearly Spock knows what year it is coming after the mind meld. Or are the events out of order in the summary? Or is something else being implied here?--Dogg 22:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Merchandise
Shouldn't this section include Star Trek: Nero, and maybe the Genki Wear fragrances? - Archduk3:talk 03:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Klingons
Did anyone get a good look at the Klingon ships in the Kobayashi Maru test? As in what class they seemed to be?


 * I thought they looked like D7's or K'tinga's, but I only saw them quickly.--31dot 19:30, September 23, 2009 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but a second opinion never hurts...and I can't believe I forgot to sign that...must need more caffeine or something. - Archduk3:talk 19:53, September 23, 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can place them as a class, they were called 'Warbirds. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:15, September 23, 2009 (UTC)
 * As were D'deridex class ships. Though I agree we shouldn't assign it to a class, even if it looks like one, unless some authority stated that's what they intended them to be.--31dot 20:34, September 23, 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it would be better to wait at least until the DVDs come out. - Archduk3:talk 20:42, September 23, 2009 (UTC)

Looks like D7/K'tinga to me (and, IMHO, given the choice between that or "Klingon battle cruisers" that look nothing like anything we'd seen, wrong name for the right ship is by far the lesser of two evils)

As for the Rura Penthe scenes on the DVD, seeing as how all they wear masks, do they or do they not have the ridges?--Ten-pint 21:14, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

To me it seems like the whole reason they are wearing the masks is because the ridges/no ridges argument, and a great way of getting past it without upsetting anyone, as it doesnt specifically answer either way. Personally, I was more upset that the penal 'planet' wasnt an ice covered asteroid. -- Geek Mythology 21:41, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

"Interviews with JJ Abrams and the Star Trek DVD commentary indicates that they didn't want to address whether the Klingons in this film would look like they did in the original series, affected by the augment virus, or appear with forehead ridges as they did in the films and subsequent series although the helmets have the ridges on them, which is a nod toward the later look of the Klingons."

That's probably what really got me wondering, since the fact that they always wear the masks has me half-convinced they don't have ridges, and the ridges on the masks are meant to make the prisoners think they do - and, frankly, the picture of Victor Garber unmasked with the Worf nose but a smooth forehead raises more questions than it answers.--Ten-pint 01:16, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Romulan black man
Bill T. Brown play an romulan officer, but this actor is an afro, and we can see him to fight against Kirk and Sulu... so for the physiology section, we can describe "black skin" like tuvok !!!??? C-IMZADI-4 19:25, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * It should already be in there, if worth mentioning. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:46, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, Brown was not one of the two Romulans who fight Kirk and Sulu; those Romulans were played by Sala Baker and Damion Poitier. --From Andoria with Love 19:55, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

Ok! thanks for all informations, I don't remember Sirol... for Brown, so I saw him in another scene!!! but, the romulan's physiology section is not complete... that's information (black skin) should be describe (?) C-IMZADI-4 20:02, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

Rank
I haven't seen the film for a while and if I am correct then when they are deployed to their ships and sent to Vulcan is McCoy already a Lieutenant Commander or is that a provisional/feild commission given to him because of the situation. Also, if Kirk is made first officer doesn't that automatically mean he needs a Field Promotion to Commander or Lieutenant Commander? I may be wrong but I thought i'd ask just incase :) (Lieutenant Miller 20:32, October 27, 2009 (UTC))


 * Not necessarily. The XO's of that day weren't always Lt. Cmdrs. Assuming that the Prime Rules apply, I cite Number One. She held the rank of Lieutenant in the Prime Universe, but was second in command to a Captain, namely Pike. IT IS GREEN 23:26, November 2, 2009 (UTC)

Ahh I understand. I didn't think of Number One myself. Thanks a lot. Still leaves a little bit of ambiquation on the subject of Field Promotions or Commissions however. (Lieutenant Miller 23:54, November 4, 2009 (UTC))

Wil Wheaton?
Not actually seen the film, so not going to add this to the article myself. However, someone might want to look at Wil Wheaton's blog, where he's just stated that he voice acted for the Romulans. He's not listed amongst the cast at the moment. - Salak Talk 22:09, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Changed Premises
Should there be a section dedicated to key differences between the Abrams-verse and the established Trek continuity, which could possibly be due to changes in the timeline? For example, in the Kobayashi Maru scenario, which takes place in 2258, McCoy mentions three Klingon warbirds decloaking. 1)Klingon battle cruisers were never described as warbirds before. 2)Klingon use of cloaking devices didn't begin until the late 2260s. Did the Klingons steal the tech from the Narada? 3)Use of cloaking devices by Federation enemies was a surprise in 2265 "Balance of Terror" 4)Wasn't the Klingon Neutral Zone not established until the Organian peace treaty in 2266 or so? All these discrepancies could be explained by the timeline changes.

Other examples include the radical redesign and timeline of the Enterprise, including the engine rooms that look like brewery vats. The use of windows instead of viewscreens. etc. Vader47000 04:50, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

Starfleets Ground Authority
I've just watched the start of the 2009 movie, and in the Bar scene where Kirk takes on the Cadets, as Captain Pike enters he tells everyone to get out. The scene then changes and the bars empty - I wasn't sure how much time had passed and if everyone had just simply left in the next scene or whether a Starfleet Officer has the authority on Federation Planets to order people out of establishments? Do they have the ability to order civilians and such?
 * Since in the background of the empty bar you can see someone cleaning the floor, I took this to mean that it was after closing time or that since the bar was heavily populated with cadets, that most of the rest of the crowd would leave as well when they were ordered out, since no one wants to hang out at an empty bar. The bar could also be "on base," as in on land for the shipyard, in which case Pike could order it closed. Either way, I don't think Starfleet has the authority to just shut down a civilian business. - Archduk3:talk 21:12, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * When Pike barked his order, only the Starfleet cadets left; he was only speaking to the cadets, and they are the only people there under his authority. Then, enough time had passed for Pike to look up Kirk's file while Kirk was "drooling on the floor." So, I would probably say it was half an hour to an hour later. Depends on how long Kirk was unconscious. :-P I agree with Archduk, though, the reason the place was deserted in that scene was probably just that the bar was about to close. --From Andoria with Love 21:50, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Ahh cool, cheers guy. I always thought maybe it was a possibility that Starfleet Officers would have some kind of authority over the governing systems of a Federation planet due to their status as the Military of the federation if you get me? (Lieutenant Miller 22:37, November 21, 2009 (UTC))
 * Militaries are often very limited in their capacity to give orders or law enforcement that way, due to things like Posse Comitatus. At least, outside of military installations. --OuroborosCobra talk 01:10, November 22, 2009 (UTC)

Page split
It was mentioned above, but I'll bring it up in its own section now. Since this page is very long, should we maybe move the background - advertising sections to a sub page so it's easier to read? - Archduk3:talk 05:52, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Lack of continuity
"Spock Prime tells Kirk 'I have been, and always shall be, your friend,' which were his dying words to an older Kirk in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, and, recalling that conversation, his first words after fal-tor-pan in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock."Not quite. At the end of Star Trek III, Spock says, "I have been, and ever shall be, your friend." The discrepancy may have been due to a lack of attention being paid to continuity between ST:II and ST:III.


 * I think that's close enough. Clearly it was being referenced no matter the exact wording.--31dot 12:03, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

Reception
The reception section only offers the stats from two review sits for a total of a few hundred people. Perhaps something should be written about the multi-thousands of fans that protested the movie and JJ's direction with the film?--Jlandeen 08:16, November 28, 2009 (UTC)$$$$
 * I believe we only deal in the general consensus as far as the reception section goes. The majority of fans and critics liked the movie, so that's what we go with. Allowing for specific opinions of the minority could open a great big can of worms. That "multi-thousands of fans" protested the movie is a giant overstatement; the majority of fans actually like and accept the movie, even those who (like myself) have some gripes. So, when adding such information, if we allow it, one must be careful not to be too specific; keep it broad and general, and, of course, back it up with sources. :) --From Andoria with Love 09:51, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

Cast & Crew
I am wondering: how come the uncredited cast is here, but the credited cast gets a whole other article entry here? ? – CrimsondawnTalk yuh talk 23:44, December 3, 2009 (UTC)
 * Because the above mentioned link is an unaltered, unadulterated word-for-word text copy of the film's credits. Anything above and beyond goes on this page. --Alan 22:52, January 1, 2010 (UTC)

Additional removed
Uncited similarity, and with a non-canon source, not the movie-(In a non-canon source, it is stated that Kirk beats the test by adding the subroutine that the Klingons actually fear him, similar to the strategy set by Starfleet Command in - the Klingons would think twice about attacking the Enterprise under Kirk.

Irrelevant- However, the tone in which e says it in this instance makes it sound like a substitute word.

Uncited similarity- The Enterprise is unable to arrive in time to join a hopeless battle where they almost certainly would've been destroyed, therefore still being around to save the Federation, and Earth in particular, just as a later Enterprise was in .--31dot 21:29, December 20, 2009 (UTC)

Ditto- When the bridge crew is debating the merits of pursuing the Narada, Sulu utters the phrase "if you want the math of it", which is nearly identical to the words that the prime universe Sulu uses in the debate of how to deal with Gary Mitchell in "Where No Man Has Gone Before".--31dot 11:49, December 25, 2009 (UTC)

Missing citations

 * The external design of the Enterprise in this film is far closer in appearance to the "movie" Enterprise and later Starfleet vessels, rather than the look of TOS. Examples of this include the more metallic look, visible hull plating, and blue lights on the nacelles. The overall shape of the ship, however, is, while streamlined, more loyal to the TOS configuration. 
 * The Admiral's uniform worn by Pike is similar to that worn by Admiral James T. Kirk in . The white turtleneck collar of the uniform is very similar to the collars of the red uniforms introduced in . 
 * The child Spock being taunted by fellow students about his parentage and Sarek's subsequent dialog to the child Spock, regarding logic offering "a serenity humans seldom experience" mirrored scenes that originally appeared in the animated episode . Additionally, Sarek's explanation to Spock of why he married Amanda, that it was "logical," echoes the same reasoning heard in . Also in the same episode Amanda refers to an incident in Spock's childhood where he returned home after being taunted by bullies.
 * During all of the scenes in the USS Kelvin opening, the crew uses communicators that are very similar to those used in The Original Series. 
 * Captain Richard Robau's "Number One" is his Navigator George Kirk. Captain Pike's "Number One" also worked at the Navigation and Helm console. 
 * His vaunted emotional control ripped away, Spock fights with Kirk and nearly strangles him, just as he did in .
 * The image of the Narada's plasma drill boring into Earth's crust in San Francisco Bay is quite similar to that of the verteron array being fired on it in .
 * As Spock leaves the Narada's shuttle bay in the Jellyfish, several T'Plana-Hath type ships from and  (mirror universe), are visible on landing platforms. 
 * Spock Prime (Leonard Nimoy) recites the famous "Space, the final frontier..." monologue at the end of the film for the first time since . This decision was disputed as to whether to give it to Pine, Quinto or even Shatner. 
 * The point at which Ambassador Spock gives Montgomery Scott the equation for teleporting onto a ship at warp is similar to a scene in where Scotty gives the formula for transparent aluminum to a person in the past.

Long uncited and probably never will be. &mdash; Morder (talk) 23:58, December 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * At least part of the second one seems to be from Star Trek - The Art of the Film, though someone with that should confirm. - Archduk3:  talk  07:35, December 31, 2009 (UTC)