Talk:Star Trek (film)/Archive 2007

About: This is an archive of discussions regarding Star Trek (film) from 2007, an older archive can be found here.

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

Does this really need to be included?


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

Possible Era
I thought that it might be worth noting in the article that the ages of the actors noted as being considered for the roles would seem to place the movie's era around 2270, if the characters' ages are to roughly match those of the actors playing them. 80.47.190.122 12:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But what does that have to do with the price of figs in China?


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

Forum:Star Trek XI: Working title is "Star Trek," film will reboot franchise
Just saw this posted on IGN:


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

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


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


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

Early Kirk/Spock film
I removed the following:


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

For one thing, this has nothing to do with the development of this film. For another, it's uncited. And third, we have no idea yet as to what point in Kirk & Spock's careers the film will take place; all that's been revealed thus far about the plot & setting are rumors and unofficially released inside info. --From Andoria with Love 22:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it is reasonable to link to Star Trek: The First Adventure, even if to just open the door to readers that were not aware of the previous proposal for a Starfleet Academy film that had at once also been in the works. --Alan 23:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Good thinking. Don't retire. :) --From Andoria with Love 03:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 49,855 --Alan 03:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Hi Harry and Dan,

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


 * It's not really a controversy, I was merely stating what I believed to be correct information based on reports from various sources. From what I gathered from those stories, Abrams was indeed involved in the writing of the film's story. I guess I was wrong...? --From Andoria with Love 02:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, based on past reports and interviews, Abrams was indeed involved with the writing of the film's story. However, Orci and Kurtzman are the only ones who worked on the screenplay. According to Anthony Pascale, Orci and Kurtzman stated in a recent interview that, for the time being, they are the only ones receiving credit for writing the film. However, Abrams may receive a writing credit if the rules of the WGA (Writers Guild of America) allow it. But either way, Abrams did work on the film's story. --From Andoria with Love 20:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Referencing Star Trek Enterprise
I know the new movie is helmed by Abrams, but do you think the new movie will mention and have references to Star Trek Enterprise?--TrekDudeToTheMax 14:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's possible, but not likely. We won't know for sure until the movie is released, but it's improbable that Enterprise will make even a passing reference due to its unpopularity with Paramount and many fans. --From Andoria with Love 14:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Re-boot, canon, outside Trek
I havw an even better question on the topic of the new movie; Since the new movie is a re-boot and outside of Trek canon, will it be reflected on Memory Alpha?


 * Since the new movie is not a reboot and will not be outside of Trek canon, yes, it will be reflected on MA. You need to follow the reports on the film; see for more details and trekmovie to stay on top of things. This page will also be helpful. --From Andoria with Love 09:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Have we started developing any contingency plans should it be "respectful" (the word I've seen most often in Abrams interviews) but nevertheless a de facto reboot? Trekmovie.com tries to contextualize the concept by giving examples such as Casino Royale and Batman Begins — both of which get to the heart of the characters involved, but run fairly roughshod over basic continuity points.   Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  02:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a reboot. Either way, we'll deal with the situation when the movie opens. ;) --From Andoria with Love 13:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I should have said we'll deal with it exactly the way we've dealt with past "contradictions," assuming there will be any. Remember, the Star Trek universe is, as far as we know, a constant one, meaning there are no contradictions within the universe, outside of any Human error. If something appears to us to be a contradiction, a note can be made about it as background but it is canon nonetheless. --From Andoria with Love 00:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Writer's Strike
Any word on if the latest Writer's strike will have an effect on Star Trek and its development or release date? This could make for an important note if it does affect development. - Adm. Enzo Aquarius...I'm listening 03:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know Shran's source, but he has been keeping some of us up to date on the strike information via Facebook, and according to him Star Trek is some sort of "high priority" project for Paramount, and therefore will not be affected by the strike. I'll try to get him involved in this conversation, and get a source. I think it is worth talking (as briefly as possible, since it would seem to be a none issue) in the article, as readers are bound to want to know. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The strike is not expected to impact production on Star Trek. According to Roberto Orci at trekmovie.com, "the script is in great shape" and they had "a long lead time." The movie starts shooting tomorrow so the script should be locked by now. As Cobra said, Star Trek is one of Paramount's "high priority" projects. Motion picture studios prepared for the strike by accelerating production on certain films to ensure they will be ready to go by the time the strike arrived. Studio insiders have estimated that the strike would have to last about six or seven months before the motion picture industry begins feeling the effect (the last strike, back in 1988, lasted about five months). (Source: Variety) You can find the studios' complete list of "high priority" films here. Again, though, the strike will most likely not affect Star Trek. The production's in good shape and they're all ready to start shooting. --From Andoria with Love 14:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The strike is now over. - Adambomb1701 17:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Open Casting Call
For all of us, check out this link

OPEN CALL INFO:

Open Call: Saturday, November 10, 2007.

Hours: 2:30-5 p.m.

Address: 3108 W. Magnolia Blvd.

Burbank, CA 91505

(across from Pinocchio's Restaurant)

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

Plot details & on-set images removed
I removed the details describing the actual plot of the film. Having information about what characters will or may appear is one thing since that tells us nothing about the actual plot, only who is involved. In addition, the information came from unidentified sources. We could re-add the info about the plot concerning time travel and Romulans since Orci has confirmed those, but I think it's best to spoil as little of the movie as possible. If people are curious, the links to the rumors are still available. --From Andoria with Love 05:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Those mentions might be alright, as the disclaimer on the very page mentions there may be spoilers within. If the writers are confirming details, it could be safe to mention, albeit in a few lines, perhaps as a notarization, or some other small mention.--Terran Officer 07:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

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


 * Of course Paramount is not happy about these pics. They were also shocked when Kim Cattrall did her "almost nothing" pics on the set of Star Trek VI, but I think it should be mentioned in the Production section that these shots exist. And even if the links should not be in the article, where are they now? Shouldn't they placed here into this talk section (Removed from article = talk page?)? Yes of course, these pics say "Look here", but they also show several actors beside background extras who are still unnamed. It could be helpful to find these people who are involved in the production. My opinion. – Tom 18:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If Paramount is getting really pissed about these pics, I'd rather not have them anywhere on MA, talk page or article. Legal protection and all that. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And thats a reason we don't have these pics here, only links to a site which owns them. But I understand, we don't want Paramount's anger. I can live with this decision. – Tom 18:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

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