Portal talk:Main/Panel/Movie News

Trek movie news suggestion
In order to avoid spoilers on Star Trek from being added to the Main Page, I propose (based on Cobra's suggestion) we do the following: What do you guys think? --From Andoria with Love 03:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Create a "Star Trek movie news" panel specifically for information related to the new film;
 * 2) Link said news section to the latest news panel on the Main Page;
 * 3) Create a spoiler warning template specifically for the movie news panel;
 * 4) Either add spoiler warning at the top of the "Star Trek movie news" panel OR have the link on the latest news panel direct the reader to the spoiler template, which can then direct the reader to the movie news section. In other words, the reader clicks the "Star Trek movie news" link on the Main Page, gets a message basically saying "WARNING! There be spoilers ahead! Do you want to continue?" and give him the option of continuing to the movie news page or going back.


 * In order:
 * Sure. that works.
 * Just put a link at the top of the news panel "For news on the upcoming movie. Note that it may contain spoilers."
 * Use the normal spoiler tag. No need for a new one.
 * The tag on the page should be sufficient.
 * That should be enough. -- Sulfur 04:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What Sulfur said. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

In that case, rather than create a new spoiler template, we can just put a notice at the top (like the one I have at the top of my user page). The currently spoiler template wouldn't really work well with the news section. :/ We need something specific that says "This page contains news regarding the new Star Trek movie and, as such, may include spoilers." --From Andoria with Love 04:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Wrong citation
Um... 17 April 2008's new item refers to the wrong magazine. Star Trek: The Magazine ended publication in 2002. It's supposed to be just "Star Trek Magazine", a different (and newer) publication. &mdash;TerranRich 13:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * They are still making the magazines? Interesting... (Rift Fleet) Added 1:42 P.M. 05.15.08


 * Isn't it, though? --From Andoria with Love 09:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Why not? I saw a Charmed one the other day. AyalaofBorg 07:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

OK back to the topics involved here. Can someone please explain the Romulans with head ridges thing? IIRC Romulans and Vulcans were basically the same race but they diverged at some point due to philosophical reasons. Maybe I just wasn't looking at their foreheads. I do recall something about the Klingons losing their ridges for a time period, that explains the way they looked in TOS. – Sebrantley25 05:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This isn't the proper talk page for this, but the difference between the Romulans with ridges and those without has never been explained. It most likely has to do with some Romulans evolving on Romulus and some evolving off-planet (i.e. defectors from Vulcan). This is just fandom speculation on my part, though. For what it's worth, [SPOILER ALERT!] the Romulans in the new film don't have ridges... they don't even have hair! For the record, the difference between Klingon foreheads was explained in the ENT episodes and . --From Andoria with Love 07:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: the "bonehead" move
Could this be an explanation? And should a tone so unencyclopedic be used here?  Gonk  ( Gonk! ) 11:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Moved from panel:


 * In quite possibly the dumbest move the studio has done in the past few months, Paramount Pictures has decided not to put on any panels at this year's San Diego Comic-Con. This means there will be nothing at the convention to promote or build anticipation for upcoming Paramount movies, include Star Trek. The excuse given by a Paramount spokesman is that the timing is off because all of the studio's major films are still about a year away. This excuse is invalid, however, since panels at last year's Comic-Con promoted films that were well over a year away, including Star Trek. The true reason for such a bonehead decision has not yet been revealed.


 * I agree, the tone is very subjective/unencyclopedic. I moved the news item in question here for a rewrite. -- Cid Highwind 11:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've removed the offending parts and re-added the note. Sorry about that but I was pissed (although I was trying to inject a bit of humor into it, as well... I think I failed). Anyway, as for the actors strike being an excuse, that is possible, but that's not stopping other studios from having panels nor does it stop the director, producers, executives, etc. from attending the panel and giving fans/audiences a glimpse of the new film. So I still maintain that not having any panels at Comic-Con is a very stupid decision. --From Andoria with Love 20:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

We only need one article
In the second paragraph, we only need one article to introduce the location of transporter room which we get to see in this movie. I suggest the, rather than a, unless the Enterprise only has one transporter room. I can't edit it. Jstealth 06:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * eh? – Morder 08:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I second that response. I have no idea what you're talking about, stealth. Could you perhaps rephrase that? --From Andoria with Love 08:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I get what you were saying now. In response, we will reportedly only be seeing one transporter room in the movie, so "a" is correct. :) --From Andoria with Love 08:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

What is the font on the banner at the top of the page...
I was just wondering what the font was in the front of the Star Trek movie logo that says "memory alpha" on the spoiler warning banner.

Any help will be greatly appreciated!

Thanks, – Carbon Fiber Man 18:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like some light gothic, probably Century. User:DarkHorizon created it, but he may not respond since he says he's offline indefinitely. --TribbleFurSuit 23:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * DH was online earlier today, and actually has been quite a bit lately. --OuroborosCobra talk 23:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am still technically offline, since I can only access the web from work, and for very brief periods of time :). I will check the original Photoshop file I have at home tonight, and get back to you after the weekend. -- Michael Warren | Talk 08:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And now, after the weekend, I can give you the answer. The font is called Futurist Fixed-width. -- Michael Warren | Talk 08:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, DarkHorizon! --Carbon Fiber Man 19:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

New Ships
I read, or looked, at an article in some Entertiantment Weekly or something like that and I noticed that I saw a ship called the USS Kelvin* NCC-0513*. (* Check this to make sure that I did not make a mistake, if I did please correct it). Also I saw another picture that showed the interior of either the Enterprise or another ship, it was clean and not at all like the TOS series. Oh yea I read in the article that J.J. Abrams said "This movie is not for the fans of Star Trek, but more for the fans of movies." Very "unwise" of him to say that, since his sales could drop dramaticly. Rift Fleet 12:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The USS Kelvin's registry is NCC-0514. I checked it so I suppose you can add it, but just to be safe check up on exactly what ship it is first. Kinda weird looking if you ask me. Rift Fleet 17:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm aware of the Kelvin and its registry number. I could have confirmed that the registry number is indeed NCC-0514, but I didn't see this until now, sorry. The news panel already states that there are images of the Kelvin, though. And there were actually two images showing the interior of the Enterprise bridge: one with Kirk in the captain's chair with McCoy at his side and another with the crew (Chekov, Kirk, Scotty, McCoy, Sulu, and Uhura) standing in front of the viewscreen. As for Abrams' quote, for one, that's not the first time he said something like that; he's been saying it all along. For another, it's actually a very wise thing to say. The box office of was powered primarily by Star Trek fans, and it ended up earning less than any other Trek film. Abrams needs to get the word out there that this movie isn't just for Trekkies, otherwise only Trekkies will care about it and it will flop very much big time. Also, what he says is very true: based on what I've seen and heard of the movie from various sources, this movie was not made to cater to Trek fans; it was made to cater to fans of science fiction/action film buffs while still delivering the optimistic Trek message. In fact, die-hard and purist Trek fans will likely find much to hate about the movie, but only because most of them are not open-minded or willing to embrace change. And now I'm ranting, so I'll quit while I'm ahead. :) --From Andoria with Love 17:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

time correction
Could someone correct the time for the official online trailer debut? It's 10AM PST, not EST. Or you can say 1PM EST. Whichever. :-P Thanks! --From College with Love

Time to remove?
I guess it would be time to remove this page since we're now posting star trek news on the main news... &mdash; Morder 21:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)