Talk:Star Trek (film)/Archive 2008

Forum:The New Star Trek Movie and New Enterprise
I was just wondering if Memory Alpha would be posting the new USS Enterprise pictures from the movie as the official pic, or if the cite would have to wait for the movie to become cannon. Furthermore are there supposed to be Romulans, Klingons, or any other established races in the movie or will it create an entirely new race? Thanks
 * In terms of the images, one of them has been added to the article about the film. My bet is that the rest should wait until the movie's release.  A couple of images, not so bad, lots of them... bad. :)


 * In terms of races in the new movie... like us, you'll just have to wait and see. -- Sulfur 05:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Star Trek Teaser Trailer While It Lasts!
View it while it lasts on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RllSZW_YLk8 Sorry if this shouldn't be here. Just figured some people might want to view it. - TerranRich 21:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, please don't view it on YouTube or anywhere else at the moment. The bootleg versions really don't do the trailer justice. Just wait for the official online release of the trailer on Monday. Trust me, you won't be disappointed. --From Andoria with Love 01:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

"We don't know..."
Regarding the comment "We don't know that the corridor is that of the Enterprise..." Actually, we do. The whole site is about spying the construction of the Enterprise. That said, I think it's cool to leave it vague... kind of makes one thing "Gee, I wonder where that could be?" ;) --From Andoria with Love 03:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone else noticed what appears to be the Companion Cube from the game Portal in the top left part of the screen? Just thought that that was worth noting.

not sure why the trailer shows people welding metal on the enterprise. current airplanes are made from carbon fiber which you don't weld. hopefully in the future they have not regressed.
 * We don't know how the materials used to build the ship are put together. Maybe they are welded.  I know the TNG Tech Manual speaks of "gamma-welding".--31dot 12:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Cruise or Spielberg ?
According to this page an A-list star is featured in the new film. His appearance in the film is an absolute secret. Maybe Tom Cruise's or Steven Spielberg's visit on the set was not "only" a visit. ;o] – Tom 01:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * He was probably referring to Tyler Perry, whose involvement was confirmed December 31st. The producers reportedly wanted to keep his involvement under wraps for a bit longer. --From Andoria with Love 02:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

MA used for movie
Hey, guys. Just thought I'd share this. I asked writer Roberto Orci on TrekMovie.com if they used Memory Alpha for research while writing the film. Here's the entire discussion:


 * Me: ''Mr. Orci,


 * ''I am a contributor and administrator at Memory Alpha (http://www.memory-alpha.org/). Did you guys use Memory Alpha when researching for the movie? And if so, can MA expect to receive a mention in the end credits?


 * Roberto Orci
 * ''We absolutely used Memory Alpha during the entire process, and still reference it occasionally during production. It was great to be able to refer the less educated members of the team to your great site. THANK YOU!


 * ''Will see what I can do about credits. Not a bad idea at all.

So, not only did they use MA, we might actually get a mention in the credits! Awesome, yes? :D --From Andoria with Love 23:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * For the record, you can find the interaction here. See #504 and #514.--From Andoria with Love 23:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Haha, that's great to hear! It was a good question after all, right ;-) Thanks to Mr.Orci for replying! Good to hear the work we're doing here is also of use for the pros. Can't wait to include all the bits and references from the movie!
 * Anyway, speaking of MA-Star Trek movie interactions: We should definitely go for the webmaster program on the official movie site. I think MA definitely qualifies. Maybe Harry and some of the admins (can you here me, Shran?) could go for it and represent us? Just as you said in the thread at, Shran, we should create pages for every person involved in the movie (as we're already doing), people working in front of and behind the scenes. For spoiler reasons, we won't add any details of the plot or add pages for the characters as long as the movie hasn't been released. Creating and expanding articles about the people working ON the movie is an area that we can work on until it is released. --Jörg 10:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, Jörg just made me enter the webmaster program thing. I have no idea what this entails, but I'll let you guys know what happens. As you can see above ("From the Horse's Mouth"), they already contacted us before, via their agent. So this is cool :P --  Harry  talk 13:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm definitely signing up! I was contemplating it before, but I never really considered myself a "webmaster." But I guess wiki administrators are close enough, right? :-D By the way, would MA be considered a "Fan Site" or "Other" :-P --From Andoria with Love 19:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I just got my signup finished (I listed it as a Fan Site). Apart from some links to the trailers and images released, there's a 'webmaster link' that leads to the offical website. Everytime someone clicks on that link, MA will get 1 point. I have no idea what those points are supposed to do, but it would be nice if you could use this link for all links to the new movie website. --  Harry  talk 22:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * EDIT:' They just did away with their points system (they hadn't settled on any rewards, and people were misusing it to generate silly click counts). --  Harry  talk 20:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I listed it as "Other". Blame sulfur. :-D I don't see any link leading the the official site, though... unless you mean the movie logo at the top? Everytime I click that, it just reloads the webmaster page in a new tab. Very odd. :P --From Andoria with Love 06:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * nm, I see what you mean. :) --From Andoria with Love 06:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

In need of shortening and protection?
Hey, gang. I recently learned that, while Star Trek: Enterprise was on the air, pages for episodes that had not yet been aired had been protected to prevent the addition of information. Since that was the practice back then, should it not be the practice now? I realize this article has been edited in the past several months more than any other article (mainly by me :/) and the movie is still nearly 12 months away... so should we limit some of the info on this page and protect it? Here's what I was thinking...

I am currently working on a revised edition of this page at User:Shran/Star Trek XI (a "final cut", if you will :P) which would replace the current page once the film is released. However, that page is currently limited to background information with excess info on plot, casting, etc. removed because that info will already be present in the summary and the cast/crew list. I was wondering, though, perhaps we should replace the current info on this page with the info on that page? This way the info will be limited to the basic, need-to-know stuff. Maybe... I dunno.

Regardless, perhaps this page should be protected and no further information added (with the exception of updating it to say that filming has ended) until the film opens? Basically, what I'm trying to do here is A.) reduce the number of edits made to the article (in other words, telling me to stop adding crap :P) and B.) reduce the number of spoilers in the article (there is no plot info, but there is stuff on characters, species, and ships). The thing is, MA policy says we include information from material released by official sources (i.e. Paramount, people working on the movie), and the info on this page, I think, primarily consists of info that has been officially revealed or at least revealed unofficially and later confirmed officially.

What do guys think? Thoughts? Suggestions? Comments? Complaints? Post 'em here. :)

Oh, and while we're on the subject, if we do anything with this page, we should also think about what to do for the various actor pages that have been created which also divulge character information. This will also affect certain entries on Performers considered for Star Trek roles. --From Andoria with Love 02:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I would oppose protection, except in the event of chronic vandalism (which, I have to say, I'm quite surprised not to have seen yet). We're in a completely different situation to Enterprise, here - the lead time is much longer compared to episodes, where we would get a title, brief synopsis and a few guest stars maybe a month or so before airing, and a few more details between then and the airdate. Here, useful (and useable) material is coming in every day. We've never had to deal with a new movie before, and this one is much more media- and detail-intensive than any before - if this were, it would be much less detailed, simply because we would be dealing with the same cast and crew as always.


 * All the information is confirmed from Paramount or other official sources, so our spoiler policy is not an issue. And there's a huge great note at the top of the article, which could probably be adapted slightly. Perhaps, in general, some sort of template box, warning about STXI spoilers could be placed on each relevant page - it could be used to more significant effect when the movie comes out, but it may be a useful warning to readers who randomly stumble upon actor pages.


 * I wouldn't replace this with your "release version" just yet, simply because more material is coming in - essentially, you'd be adding this version of content to that version, a sort-of half-condensed, half-expanded article which would be somewhat jarring. We should keep updating this one as it is, add more condensed material to the release version as relevant, then we can pop that one over this one later in the year, maybe once production is finished - things should die down a little as a result. Hopefully. :) -- Michael Warren | Talk 10:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That was kind of my line of thinking, as well. I know this is the first film release since MA was created, so it would definitely be a different scenario. I just noticed the previous efforts taken to ensure no info was added to upcoming episodes and was just wondering if the same efforts should be implemented here. I like the idea of a revised spoiler template for each of the production page – but I'm not particularly sure others will be fond of it since. I'd be willing to add them, though. --From Andoria with Love 16:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Shran/Star Trek XI
This page is basically what the article at will become once the film opens. At the moment, the Star Trek film article in the main namespace consists of news and updates regarding the movie. This page, on the other hand, is a reformatted version of that page; it has been edited to conform to the writing and formatting style of the other film articles (for example, and ). Any excess information regarding cast and crew that can be found on other individual articles has been removed, and much of the other information slimmed down. All plot info and plot rumors have also been removed since the plot will be known by then. All remaining info has been placed under a background section. Sections for a summary, memorable quotes, and reference links have been added. I think it is looking pretty good thus far, but it is still a work in progress. In addition, I'm hoping to make writing this page a community effort. So, if anyone has any suggestions for the information currently on this page, please bring them up here. If you think something should be cut out, added or reformatted in some way, please let me know. Sysops, feel free to implement any changes you feel are needed, but please leave any reasoning, etc. here on the talk page. Thanks! :) --From Andoria with Love 22:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been considering how to approach this myself for a little while now. I wasn't expecting to have to work it out properly until later in the year, but... :D. I'm a bit too worn out right now from the work I've just done with Star Trek Magazine to go into great detail, but I would pair down the 'Rumors and gossip' section to an absolute bare minimum - as it is, it's pretty much the most dominating section of the article, and overwhelms the more important sections such as 'Production'. Obviously, since we're still in the midst of production, those sections are still somewhat incomplete, plus we're bound to have additional sections upon release, such as visual effects and soundtrack which will bump up page size. The Shatner section should also be paired down - a lot of it can probably go on his page. I think it all comes down to how much is actually useful to the reader. I could try and have a go at it myself tomorrow.


 * Other than that - great work, on both versions of the page. -- Michael Warren | Talk 23:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree about the rumors & gossip section and was one of my main concerns when transferring the info from one page to the other. I think that can be slimmed down significantly to just say "so-and-so auditioned for the part of yada-yada-yada." Also agree about the Shatner part. I'll take a crack at it momentarily. Thanks for the input! :) --From Andoria with Love 04:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've slimmed down the rumors & gossip section (which can probably just be renamed "casting rumors"). It's still lengthy, but nowhere near as much as before. I've also bulleted the section. For the record, I'm expecting the other sections (Production, in particular) to expand with time. --From Andoria with Love 06:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding the update I made to the crew list, I really like the way it looks with the credits style -- thanks for the assist, DH! :) -- but what do you guys think? Of course, this is simply an educated guess as to what the final credits will look like (I used the Transformers credits as a guide/template), but once the full credits are known, we can just reorganize them to look the way the do on screen. :) --From Andoria with Love 03:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No androids construct the ship?
We already have (rudimentary) androids that can vacuum and do other chores for us. Moreover, the movie starts in c. 2244 for crying out loud, so why do we still need organic welders? Why didn't they put in self-aware autonomous welder bots in their place? Welding is dangerous anyway and we would be in our right mind to plan to consign dangerous (and mundane) tasks to artificial intelligence. --K. Shinohara 16:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Speculation. This isn't the place for that kind of "futurist" discussion, the same kind you continue to bring up all over the wiki.  The Trek world is what it is, "futurist" or otherwise.  It's not the real world.  This type of discussion belongs on a Star Trek forurm, which this wiki is not. -- Sulfur 16:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * c 2244 in the Star Trek world, not the real world. Don't get them confused. --86.135.181.146 15:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Robert April
Any word on whether we'll have Robert April appear in this film? After all, he is/was the 1st captain of the Enterprise. --70.179.191.225 18:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no word on whether or not April will appear in the movie. The film may not even cover that point in time. --From Andoria with Love 21:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Crew list organization
I have reorganized the crew list by separating them into their various departments. I was thinking maybe we could adopt this format for all the other movie pages; either that, or we could reorganize them to match the actual on-screen credits. Let me know what you guys think. --From Andoria with Love 16:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I support this, also for the other films. These departments show structure and you can easily find someone. We have many, many people who are not listed on these movie pages and when they all (one day) have their article and credit, the whole list would be too long, so the department sections are appreciated. – Tom 16:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * They should match on-screen credits... similar to what we've been aiming to do with cast listings. Those are (often) arranged by department, but not completely so.  In the interim, it makes sense to sort them by department, until we actually get that credits sequence to work from. -- Sulfur 16:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And as a followup to... myself... Anyone uncredited should be in a section at the end of all of that, and if there are enough, sort them by department. :) -- Sulfur 16:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but except the cast members, the performers on-screen should be placed right behind the credited cast, as we already do. ;) – Tom 16:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Doing it in credits order and keeping them sectioned will be a bit difficult, at least for the first batch of names. The main titles of a movie list most (though not all) of the film's department heads. After listing the cast, the typical order for credits are: casting director(s), composer, costume designer, vfx supervisor (this one might appear earlier in the credits or in the rolling credits), associate & co-producers (if any; these might come between composers and costume designers), film editor(s), production designer, cinematographer, executive producers, producers, story basis (i.e. based upon "Star Trek" created by Gene Roddenberry; this credit might come between exec producers and producers), writers and, lastly, the director. A music supervisor and make-up effects person might be thrown in there, as well, depending on the movie, but these are normally in the rolling credits.

As for the rolling credits, those are kind of all over the place at first. They typically begin now-a-days with the unit production manager and assistant directors, followed by the cast list and stunt people. After that, it goes to hell. Art directors/set decorators are generally listed first after the stunt people. In the case of, there's art directors, set decorators, concept artists, and senior production associate, followed by camera people: operators, photographers and loaders. Then there's script supervisor, second unit production members, sound mixers, boom operator, cable & video, lighting techs, electricians, grips, prop masters, the special effects team, production coordinators/associates/secretaries, location managers, and set dressers. At this point, we start to get a little order -- costume department members, make-up artists, hair stylists and some art department members. Then it gets a little random again until we get to the sound/music department and the individual vfx company credits.

Not all movies are like this, though; some credits are nice and orderly and well-organized. Maybe this movie's credits will be, as well... but the Nemesis creds certainly weren't. --From Andoria with Love 22:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking of again separating the principal crew (those generally listed in the opening/main title credits), while keeping the separate sections for the other crew members. Would that be okay with everyone? --From Andoria with Love 05:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Old crew
Just a small question. Is the usual crew mostly out? By usual I mean the people that have been working on the shows and movies before like Michael Westmore, Robert Justman etc.Vegfarandi 17:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Bob Justman's been retired for a while. I haven't heard anything about Michael Westmore working on the project, and it seems unlikely. Thus far, the only confirmed people working on this movie who have worked on Trek in the past are Leonard Nimoy, Greg Ellis, Chris Doohan, John Eaves, Mark Garbarino, Barney Burman, Rob Burman, Russ Herpich, Joey Box, Jon Braver, Lin Oeding, Dennis Scott, and Xuyen Valdivia. But, for the past part, the crews who have worked on the last few films are out. I would expect the credits to look more like Mission: Impossible III than Star Trek Nemesis, Insurrection, etc. --From Andoria with Love 04:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Spoiler Template
Just writing this note to avoid any misunderstandings.

Shran reverted the addition of the 2008 spoiler, stating that it was already covered on the page. However, if one was to read the statement already there, the fact that MA contains spoilers is easy to miss. Having both:


 * looks nicer and is consistent (all 2009 ST film pages have the template)
 * makes it clearer that: first MA contains spoilers, and second, MA contains info on citable info (the point of the second note).– Cleanse talk 05:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, for one, this page now contains a link redirecting to itself. For another... why would we need to say that a page on the new Star Trek movie contains information on the new Star Trek movie? The spoiler was created to be added on other production-POV pages because their titles do not immediately tell you what kind of information they contain (i.e., you could not tell by just reading the name Chris Pine that it has anything to do with the movie). In this page's case, however, it very obviously has to do with the movie. Therefore, the spoiler template is very redundant on this page, IMO. --From Andoria with Love 05:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I guessed I jumped the gun a bit Shran. On my browser, I didn't see a self-link, so I assumed it was automatically removed. I should have really brought this up on the talk page before re-reverting.

I copied the code from the template to make a more appropriate message, which I think better captures what I meant. Now, the link to the spoiler policy stands out a bit better (as it gets its own sentence). Combined with the old note I think it's a bit more watertight.– Cleanse talk 06:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I can live with that. Good work. :) --From Andoria with Love 07:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Added New External Link
Hi there, just adding a link to a blog run by an official Star Trek Webmaster (Paramount certified), this mirrors the same link on the main wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_%28film%29#External_links

Cheers! Filthish 01:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * We're not putting TrekMovie in as an external link, so... we're not putting other blogs either, even though they're "officially in the paramount webmaster program" -- Sulfur 14:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Include the original props and effects in Star Trek 2009
Will the new Star Trek Movie 2009 have an Enterprise bridge that will look like the bridge Captain Pike commanded in "The Cage"? Will they actors be wearing those gawd-awful uniforms along with those rediculous looking mini-viewers at each station? Will the transporter make the same sound effect as in The Cage? It sounded like it was going to blow up right then and there. Where will the original Number One be? I cannot imagine this new Star Trek movie without Number One. Will Mr. Spock be emotionally out of control as he was in The Cage? I hope the new movie stays in line with Star Trek "The Cage".
 * The bridge of the Enterprise in the new film will resemble the way it looked in the original series but it will be updated to look more futuristic. There is no word yet on what the Pike-era uniforms or the bridge will exactly look like. Ditto on the sound effects. There's also nothing on Number One -- don't even know if she's in the movie (I would assume she is). As for Spock showing more emotion, that's possible. I seem to recall Zachary Quinto stating his Spock would be exploring his emotional control or something in the movie. As for staying in line with "The Cage," the writers have promised that the movie stays in line with canon (to a point). I don't think the events of "The Cage" are in any danger of being contradicted or obliterated... not that that's the important thing, in any event. --From Andoria with Love 04:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Revamped ENT
I have a composite shot of the saucer I asked someone to make for me from the trailer. It shows the entire forward section of the saucer. Could it possibly be included in the article? --WTRiker 00:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not. I would upload it as a new version of this image, though. :) --From Andoria with Love 00:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the pic. It is not as wide, but gives more vertical detail. Whaddya think? --WTRiker 20:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That looks fine. Go ahead and re-upload it as a new version of this image and I'll delete the one linked here. Or you can just replace the one in the article with the composite and I'll delete the replaced image later. Your choice. :) --From Andoria with Love 16:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep this one and dump the old one. I'm still slightly on the "new" side of wiki. I've used them, but don't edit that often. Could you tell me how to delete it? Thanks for the help.--WTRiker 17:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid an administrator will have to delete the old image. Go ahead and replace the image in the article with the composite shot and I'll delete the old image. --From Andoria with Love 17:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Already done. --WTRiker 20:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And the old image has been deleted. All is now right in the universe. :-D --From Andoria with Love 20:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Is Nero a Romulan?
It has been assumed that the character of Nero is a Romulan. The poster released at San Diego Comic Con shows the character and he doesn't look like any Romulan we have seen before. A recent interview by E! with Clifton Collins Jr. (General Ayel) indicates that Nero is a Romulan. Collins said, "Me and Eric [Bana] are the new Romulans." http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/marc_malkin/b23815_star_trek_scoop_romulan_speaks.html

However, there is an erlier interview with writer Alex Kurtzman by UGO. Kurtzman is asked what is going on with Nero's ear in the San Diego Comic Con poster. Kurtzman responds, "Nero isn't necessarily a Romulan... It's all part of the plot." http://movieblog.ugo.com/index.php/movieblog/more/fear_your_blackberry_eagle_eye_preview/

To me, this indicates that Nero's character may not be Romulan as we know it. There could be many possibilities. He could be Romulan as much as Shinzon is Reman I attempted to change the article to indicate this, but it was changed to say that it is confirmed that Nero is a Romulan. I think it is too early to confirm that he is a Romulan. He may or may not be. Any thoughts?


 * Take a look at the Nero promo shot here. Take a good look at his chin tattoo.  Then jump over to this.  See a resemblance? Jpers36 20:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Besides, we have countless reports and interviews of actors, etc. stating Nero is, in fact, a Romulan. Kurtzman says Nero "isn't necessarily a Romulan..." in other words, he's a Romulan, but Kurtzman doesn't want to admit that to the public as a fact. Most likely, what was meant is that Nero isn't like the other Romulans we know. For the record, Nero's ear as seen on the posters looks like it has been either burned or chewed off, and it was revealed long ago that none of the Romulans in the film will have cranial ridges. Long story short: yes, he is a Romulan, just maybe not the kind of Romulan we're used to seeing. It doesn't get more concrete than the actors saying "we are Romulans." --From Andoria with Love 00:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Just released!: new pictures
Someone want to add a mention and/or pictures as seen here USS Kelvin at TrekMovie.com and [http://trekmovie.com/2008/10/15/more-star-trek-images-enterprise-crew-nero/ New images at TrekMovie.com? --WTRiker 02:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)]


 * I had added them and they were removed - Nx1701g 04:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Mentioning them is one thing, but we cannot have any images from the actual film on this site until the film is released as it violates the spoiler policy. Also, we do not have permission to use those specific images as they were given exclusively to those official sites and provided by Industrial Light & Magic. --From Andoria with Love 05:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well then how DO YOU get permission? Contact ILM and ask them to send me a written permission? So we are an encyclopedia of some sorts right? It is not like we are using these images for profit or to sell. Also, how does it work with images of cast members (in universe or not) that we find on the internet and would like to add to a specific article? Sometimes tracking-back to find out who originally took the picture etc is hard to do. I got tons of images but hell if i know who holds copyright. How exactly does it work. It cant possibly be that complicated. – Distantlycharmed 16:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Romulan appearance

 * from talk:Romulan

According to TrekMovie.com, it is "confirmed that the Romulans in the new Star Trek do NOT have the extra forehead ridges seen in the TNG era". Should this fact be added to the Physiology section, as at the moment it states that "most Romulans have two brow ridges above the bridge of their nose, forming a V-shape on the forehead. However, a minority of Romulans lack these ridges, making them outwardly indistinguishable from Vulcans". As more Romulans are seen browless, including all in the upcoming film, should this be changed in the article? CaptainRedHook 20:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing on the new movie should go in this article, background or otherwise, until after the movie comes out. This is per our Memory Alpha:Spoiler policy. The only pages that should have content on the movie are the pages devoted to that movie, namely . --OuroborosCobra talk 20:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah... sorry everyone. CaptainRedHook 02:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

USS Kelvin

 * from talk:Nacelle...

From the wallpapers that are being available from promotional sites such as intel, it's now clear that the USS Kelvin only has one Nacelle - should it get a mention here? --94.192.126.64 15:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Seeing as there is no USS Kelvin in canon, I would say no. Also, promotional sites such as that aren't considered canon either. Sorry. Willie LLAP 15:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Better yet, read the spoiler policy. --Alan 15:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi there - just to let u guys know there is a website with some detailed information on the USS Kelvin - https://boldlygo.intel.com/content/index.html, it shows 4 crew members from the Kelvin including the captain, George Kirk, a helmsman named Michael Johnson and an alien security chief, it also gives a brief description of several areas such as the bridge, hanger bay and impulse engines etc. There are other pieces of info there as well about the new film - enjoy! 81.152.231.176 14:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, we know, thank you. We will be able to add that information in some form or fashion once the film opens. --From Andoria with Love 00:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Website updated
The website has been updated with new posters and other stuff, if someone wants to add it to the article. --94.192.125.6 12:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Spoiler proposal
I've made a suggestion about dealing with spoilers from the film in in-universe articles here; people who are following the film's production and spoilers are welcome to chime in (and shoot the proposal down if you want). —Josiah Rowe 22:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Certain aliens in canon
I'm not sure where else to ask this. I've heard from other sites that having Romulans in the movie is against canon, since it is (supposedly) established that the Federation doesn't encounter Romulans until later. However, I can't find any evidence of that. Anyone know if this is accurate? —76.94.123.210 11:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The main events of the movie takes place before the events of, when the Federation had their first encounter with the Romulans in over a century in addition to first learning what Romulans look like. The movie seems to be contradicting this by having the Federation not only encounter Romulans a few years prior to that episode but also having them come face-to-face with them. --From Andoria with Love 15:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Will the in-universe material from this film...
be placed in Memory Alpha or Memory Beta? Wratched 13:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * When the movie comes out then it will be placed here. &mdash; Morder 14:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It will be an aired movie won't it? :)  I'm sure that MB will add the information too though, supplementing it with the comic book series leading up to the movie's release, and all. -- sulfur 15:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * it's like Dr Who, the new film is a reboot so will steal from the old and restart. It should not be in Memory Alpha in my view as it isn't the same cannon, but a whole new one. Lt.Lovett 20:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? Where does it say it's a reboot? Alternate timeline caused by time travel is what I read. And I can't figure out what reboot in Doctor Who you're talking about either. The new series was certainly not a reboot. You mean the non-canon films based on early serials? Xavius, Envoy of Fluidic Space 07:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not a reboot as much as an adaptation, TNG, DS9, all the films et cetera were meant to be sequels (or prequels) to the original Star Trek Series, this isn't and Abrams chose the title 'Star Trek', specifically to indicate that no other knowledge is a prerequisite to watching the film. Also, various changes in things like communicators and tricorders already took place before the future was altered. It's like making a film of a book, one keeps certain elements but also changes some things to better reach the new audience. It's not a sequel not prequel to TOS, it's an adaptation, I don't think there is going to be any way to integrate this film into this encyclopaedia without putting 'in an alternate timeline...' in every page most likely too. GarakxBashirKawaii 09:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The entire movie takes place in an altered timeline, from beginning to end, so the part about "communicators and tricorders" being changed before the future was altered has me a bit puzzled. What did you mean by that, exactly? :) --From Andoria with Love 04:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Get ready
Just get ready for this. It really appears as some of the uniforms in the new film will be original series 2266 era (gold/red/blue). But wait...how will this be explained that the movie is actually set during the pilot uniform era (tan/brown/blue). I hope we will not be dealing with one of these "just pretend it didnt happen" things. I for one was REALLY looking forward to seeing pilot era uniforms, perhaps with some higher ranking insignia than just the one stripe we saw in the "The Cage" and the two in "No Man Has Gone". Regardless, this might cause us to have to seriously revamp the uniform and insignia articles. I guess we will see...in about 7 months. -FC 03:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's an idea: let's not talk about it until we need to, say around . We'll deal with it then, because we can't deal with it now (see site notice -- that includes talk pages, or at least it should). Also, please keep in mind that talk pages are to be used only to discuss the quality of the page, not for idle chit-chat on what will be in the movie. --From Andoria with Love 03:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's an idea too...LIGHTIN' UP! :-) I know all about the site notice and would never add anything to an actual article about this.  But it is without a doubt going to cause a problem since the film will apparently contradict uniform continuity...or uniform uniforimity...or something like that.... -FC 04:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm as lit up as anyone here. :) The fact of the matter is this is, like, the hundredth discussion expressing concern over some canon issues from the movie and the response will always be the same until May 8th: we will worry about it then, because we can't worry about it now since we just don't have enough concrete evidence as to not only what will change but why it will be changed. This is also the upteenth time a discussion like this has been brought up on a talk page which these pages are, in fact, not for this sort of discussion. They are to help improve the quality and content of the article, not to alert people as to the impending doom of their beloved canon because the uniforms are the wrong style. (By the way, you're worried about the uniforms? Have you seen the bridge?) So, yah, I was lightened up about a hundred posts ago dealing with the same canon doomsday scenarios. That light has dimmed since then – it's just become monotonous. The movie doesn't come out for another five and a half months. Let's not concern ourselves over something before we know if we should be concerned about it, mmkay? :) --From Andoria with Love 05:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, man. In fairness, perhaps this whole posting should be put on the uniform page so it can be referenced in May when it does in fact become an issue (which it will). Until then, I'll keep all opinions about the film to myself. BTW- I'm wearing MY uniform (gold shirt with Captain stripes) the opening night of the movie. Have a great day! -FC 19:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see what the problem is, the movie takes place between Pike's missions and Kirk's, there's approximately 10 years that have never been seen before so we don't know what happened.
 * I myself was eager to see what they would do with the fact Uhura was a yellow-shirt and Sulu was the botanist but these can all be explained anyways-just use your imagination. Not long to go now anyways!

Image of the new Enterprise
Greetings.

I'm inexperienced with posting on wiki's so I thought it might be best to ask here before I go doing anything hasty. Although I read the spoiler policy, I am still unsure. There is a certain image of the new Enterprise on a certain website, can the image or link be posted here? I've noticed that screen captures of it have been posted, but I don't want to assume. If anyone could answer this it would be appreciated.

-Cheers

Strangedays 06:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No. No spoilers are allowed on memory alpha. &mdash; Morder 06:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I noticed in a previous entry that linking to them was ok, but posting them was not. (It was the "Just Released" entry) Strangedays 06:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If you do - make sure it's in a forum - with appropriate warnings but it's a good idea not to post them at all. Though administrators will probably undo or remove any spoilers since we don't post them here at all... Guess I should point you here to explain Memory Alpha's policies. &mdash; Morder 06:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright then. Seems to contradict what I found above, but better safe that sorry, right? Besides, it wasn't that hard to find in the first place. Thanks for the feed back Morder. -Cheers. Strangedays 07:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Short answer is... nothing in the new movie is actually canon until the movie is actually released. As such, since it's not canon... we can't use it here. :) -- sulfur 13:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Strangedays: Screen captures from the movie itself are not allowed. The only screen capture we have of the movie's Enterprise is from the teaser trailer, and that's only because that teaser is a product in and of itself; it showed no actual scenes from the movie. --From Andoria with Love 19:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing! But could someone explain why the links to the pics of the cast on set and in costume are ok? (Again I reference the "Just Released" entry). Strangedays 05:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * A link to pictures is fine because the pictures in those links are not on the actual site; we are giving readers the option to look at the images rather than forcing them to see them. --From Andoria with Love 08:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, thank you all for the clarification. Here's the link if you want to see it. (Don't click if you want to be surprised come May!) [http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2008/11/star-trek-first.html AND HERE SHE IS! (SPOILER ALERT!)] Strangedays 18:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Aye, I saw that when they first released it. She actually looks much better in the trailer. I think that image was selected just to cause controversy and so people watching the trailer will be much more impressed and awed. And I think it worked. :) --From Andoria with Love 18:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I'm just going to go shoot myself right now. The producers are apparently imagining that  just didnt happen.  Can't wait until May. -FC 17:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Holodeck get out?
A rumor in a free London paper is that the film has tested so badly with fans (which is why it has been left back) that "a new ending is being shot with 'Star Trek: Voyager actor' Robert Duncan McNeil as a Holodeck programmer" (London Metro) this would fit with the future Paris writing holonovels. Anyone else know about this, or is this the same ending with Nimmoy's Spoc? The piece also suggested the film will get on a limited release in the UK and only IMAX in London (as happened with 'Fly Me to the Moon'). Lt.Lovett 20:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I can tell you now that the rumor is false. For one thing, the four scenes that were screened for the press were very well received, for the most part. Also, there are currently no plans to shoot any additional scenes or to re-shoot any of the scenes that have already been filmed. The filmmakers and Paramount are very happy with the product, as is. In addition, if there were going to be an alteration of some sort (which there won't be, I assure you), it would be a very stupid idea to incorporate an actor from the one Trek series which the majority of fans dislike the most. It will also be pretty stupid because this movie is being made for the mainstream, who won't know who the heck Tom Paris is. For the record, though, this "new ending" is strangely reminiscent of the plot for ; in other words, I smell a hoax. With all that in mind, I can assure you there will be very few theaters in the UK, including London, that will not be playing Star Trek when it opens there on May 8th. Hope that helps! :) --From Andoria with Love 21:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As a long time Trek fan, I refuse to watch this movie, they should have never used new actors to portray the original Enterprise cast, let alone respecting the canon history of Star Trek. --70.75.210.1 07:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't the place to voice your dissatisfaction with Trek's direction.&mdash; Vince47 07:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 70.75.210.1: As an addendum to Vince47's reply, see Help:Talk page for more info on what talk pages are used for. In addition to this not being the place for such comments, the fact of the matter is... nobody cares. If you want to let close-mindedness and fear of change get in the way of watching a potentially good movie, that's your call. But we really could care less. Sorry, mate, just stating facts. --From Andoria with Love 15:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)