Talk:Star Trek films

Odds n' Evens
Should there be some mention of the "Star Trek Movie Curse" around here? Caswin 17:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And not just the odds/evens; any multiple of 5 is especially bad (The Final Frontier and Nemesis) AyalaofBorg 07:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No. &mdash; Morder 07:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, indeed. --From Andoria with Love 15:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No indeed, indeed. --86.140.186.173 22:57, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Films 11 and 12
It seems a bit odd to me to have and  listed in different sections. We know that the next film will also feature Kirk, Spock and co. as seen in 2009's Star Trek, don't we? We haven't really determined how we're going to indicate the new continuity (although articles with the suffix (alternate reality) are being created), but I think it makes sense to list them together. Would anyone object to the tables being divided into "Original Series" (identified as films with the cast of the original series), "Next Generation" and whatever descriptor we end up with for the new crew, instead of putting Star Trek (2009) together with the first six films? —Josiah Rowe 06:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * what about listing them as "Original Series/New Cast" or "Original Series/New Timeline" or "New Original Series" or how about calling it ""Original Series Phase II" as a plug about the TV Show Phase 2 that failed


 * In all practicality ST XI and ST XII probably should just be listed as 'alternate timeline'. After all there are quite a few points that are actually outside the established classic ST cannon. After all, what's a ST universe without a planet Vulcan or Ch'Rihan/Ch'Havran?66.72.201.81 14:49, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Sub-heading for "Appearances" sections
Had a question for the community. Where does fall for the sub-heading in the "Apperances" sections on articles. On Earth's page, it is listed under TOS films, while on Vulcan's page, it is listed unter TNG films. Both sub-headings link back to Star Trek films. Should the new film (and the possible sequel) mimic what is already here ("Alternate Reality" films)? Just wondering. Willie LLAP 20:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Inflation numbers
We have a minor edit war going on. Do we even need inflation numbers? First of all, they're not accurate (for example, TMP's gross adjusted for inflation is closer to $239 million, not $240 million, and it's difficult to get an exact number anyway), and second of all, as Morder pointed out, they're not as valid as comparing the current price of a ticket. Add to that the fact that they're just polluting the page with more numbers. So, I ask: are inflated numbers really necessary? --From Andoria with Love 22:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said, elsewhere, The numbers aren't necessary because the cost of a ticket has gone through the roof since the movies were first shown...so no, inflation means nothing. &mdash; Morder 22:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it does explain how much the movies made, in relative terms. I mean, a studio exec doesn't care if a ticket is $1 or $100, as long as they're bringing in the $$$.  I think from the perspective of profitability (rather than popularity) it's a valid lense of analysis.  And as we all know (by the lack of Star Trek on television right now) profitability matters to the franchise.  I think it's a legit method of analysis and should remain. ---  Jaz  18:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It's an estimate of how much a movie made, at best. It's based on the average ticket price at the time not the actual ticket price. It's a very rough estimate, nothing more, and we really don't need to add an extra column for what is, for all intents and purposes, a made-up number. --From Andoria with Love 04:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)