Jump to content

Talk:List of Star Trek films/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

UNMENTIONED FILM

I remember going to the movie theater in 2008 and there was a brand new Star Trek film showing at the time. I remember the storyline was about Dana. It had Jean Luc Picard and it showed DEanna Troi getting married to the first mate William Riker. The movie was NOT STAR TREK NEMESIS. The movie showed Dana with human skin and he had upgraded sensors and he could feel human emotions. I remember a scene where he jumped out of the USS Enterprise in space and went into another ship. I can't remember the whole thing but they recovered his parts on a nearby planet and reassembled him. For the life of me I can't remember the name of the film and I can't find it anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.134.145.146 (talk) 13:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You are mixing up 3 entirely separate movies/episodes of TANG. 24.55.213.129 (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Films Section

Could someone insert a colored line between the last TNG film and the first "reboot" film from a few years ago? Just as there is a colored line between VI and Generations. 98.221.120.104 (talk) 16:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

What on earth is the point of having two charts?

One of these charts was ported from the now defunct List of Star Trek Films article, but as is there is absurd redundancy. Plot synopses from first should be merged into second and then the first done away with.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Synopses

The plot synopses were moved to here from the main Star Trek page, because it was thought they would be more appropriate to this page. Similar synopses do appear on the "Harry Potter (film series)" page, and the James Bond (film series)" page. I don't really see why they are omitted here.--WickerGuy (talk) 08:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

Adding Rotten Tomatoes scores for the films is foolish. Rotten Tomatoes wasn't around when the majority of the films were made, and thus is a useless barometer for true reception (especially as it is skewed towards newer critics and reviews.) Likewise, an average weight of the scores is intellectually dishonest. They aren't the same film with the same critics; you can't weigh the reception of one against the other in an objective, quantified fashion (even if these sites try to.) The article needs a proper, prose-based reception section, but in the meantime lets cut the garbage out. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Please sign your edits with a the four "~" symbols.. Also, please maintain civility, as calling any editor's good-faith edits garbage is needlessly inflamatory and confrontational. I disagree with your opinion. It was discussed over on the main Star Trek page and decided that while it didn't belong on the main page, it was certainly relevant to the StarTrek (film series) section. There is no reason not to include this (and other) review information as it does reflect public perception of the films in general. Rapier1 (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm calling the content garbage, and I believe I am perfectly justified in doing so. All save two (maybe three?) of those films were released before Rotten Tomatoes was a gleam in its creator's eye. Do I really need to go through and point out how heavily skewed and useless they are? They don't show public perception, and their critical reception is inaccurate and misleading. You can't explain how the films were received using them, so what is the point of their inclusion? (And as a side point, whoop-de-doo it was discussed on another, non-central talk page. Hardly a reason to do anything.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

David, this is a place for rational discussion of content, not taunts and rants. As an administrator, I would hope that you would take into consideration the fact that your greater authority here also brings with it a greeater responsibility to be civil with other editors. Calling content "garbage" is inflammatory, however you may feel about it. Simply stating your reason logically for not supporting its inclusion is far more effective and less likely to produce ill will. Also, the "whoop-de-doo" comment is completely out of line. If a topic has been discussed elsewhere and editors have come to a good-faith consensus then that information is germaine to a future debate. There is no need in a discussion to use denegrating rhetoric, and I would appreciate it if you would keep your comments more civil in the future. We all have bad days, but please don't let it affect your editing or comments. Rapier1 (talk) 20:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not having a bad day, I'm just not going to mince words. You have not brought up a single rebuttal to any point I have made; instead you complain as to my methods, which I find a complete waste of this space. Spare me your scolding, I'll not have any of it regardless. Have you any comments on content, which is what this was originally about? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with David about excluding Rotten Tomatoes. The films precede Rotten Tomatoes, so the aggregation is not live, unlike for films this decade. It is better to use other sources that can report the contemporary reception more accurately. For as recent as 1999, I excluded the Rotten Tomatoes score for Fight Club because critical reaction to the film was more divided than the score reflects. Erik (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I believe that Rotten Tomatoes ratings are important for this page. While it may not show the reception at the time it was released, it does show the reception the films have had against the test of time. A films reception can change over time and while the initial reception is important, I believe that the current reception is more important. If I am permitted to give an example, The Shining's initial reception was very negative. While it is important to mention it's negativity at release, it is more important to note it as a film that is now hailed as one of the best in it's genre. I believe it is the same with Star Trek films. Eoghan1234 (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Given that this edit-war has gone back and forth 5 times now by my count, shouldn't there be an official guidline in WP:FILM of some kind?--WickerGuy (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I actually meant WP:MOSFILM. Here is what is overtly stated (emphasis added by me)
These will be more reliable in retrospect; closer to the release, review aggregate websites such as Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic are citable for statistics pertaining to the ratio of positive to negative reviews. (Caution: reliable review statistics may not be available for older films. Appraise the sample size in conjunction with other reliable sources, using best judgment to determine consensus.)
"
I would gather from this that with the Star Trek series, Rotten Tomatoes should only be used in conjunction with quotes from other reviews.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Star Trek (film series)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Star Trek (film series)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "boxofficemojo":

  • From Star Trek (film): "Star Trek". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved 2009-10-25.
  • From Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country: "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991)". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved March 11, 2010.
  • From Maid in Manhattan: Maid in Manhattan @ BoxOfficeMojo.com

Reference named "cast":

Reference named "meyer":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Curse Of The Were.....ummm...Star Trek Films???

(Imagine Spock, raising one eyebrow. That's me, here.) The painstaking references just make this even sillier. How important is this information? Really? 92.234.48.114 (talk) 01:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

--- Uh, I don't edit wikipedia at all, but could I suggest that someone improves the Star Trek curse redirect to have it go to where it discusses the curse? This is just for speediness and not that necessary, but just an idea. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.226.137 (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

--- Elect that the curse section is removed from this article as whether or not this movie has or hasn't broken the curse is purely a personal bias. I think the fact of whether or not this movie broke the curse is totally subjective. I for one think that the movie wasn't as good as the others and others think so as well. I elect that this section of the Curse is removed as it is purely personal bias one way or the other. --Skippingrock (talk) 08:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The painstaking references are there in order to satisfy Wikipedia's rules of satisfying WP:NOTABLE. Without them, it would have to go. I'm not sure it merits a section, but if it's been mentioned in various newspapers and in movies in which Trekkers are characters, then a brief mention seems OK. The article should not take its own position on the last movie.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it's important enough to merit its own section (it is, after all, just half-believed ex post facto hokum), but it's worth mentioning for its sheer persistence. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
It's definitely persistent in pop culture as a pop culture phenonemom. Actors in the Trek movies mention it in interviews!!--WickerGuy (talk) 23:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Why list the North American Gross instead of Worldwide Gross?

Shouldn't the worldwide gross be mentioned instead of just how well it did in North America? That's what they do in the main film articles. Dream Focus 05:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

At one point it was in the article, but I guess someone reverted me. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Old series and reboot listed in the same chronology?

Shouldn't the new films, Star Trek and Star Trek into Darkness, be in a separate chronology section from the original films? They are not part of the same continuity.
—Sowlos 12:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Box office receipts relevance

Are box office receipts of a film series extanding from 1979 through 2013 even relevant? Shouldn't it be number of tickets sold, since prices have changed by a factor of ~5 in this time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.55.213.129 (talk) 16:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately ticket sales are not as readily available metrics, in terms of reliable sources. Grosses, however, are widely available and verifiable. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Star Trek (2009) isn't a reboot

I don't think the 2009 film is strictly a reboot. The wikipedia page for a reboot in fiction states, "In serial fiction, to reboot means to discard all established continuity in a series and start over from the beginning". Casino Royale (2006) would, for example, be a reboot, as would Batman Begins, as they discard the previous stories told. However Trek 2009 does not - the story technically (if not chronogically in the film) begins in the Next Generation era with Spock from the 'original' timeline. Thus although the film creates an alternate timeline, it does not discard previous continuity. Nsign (talk) 12:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Although I would agree with you in principle that the 2009 movie is not a reboot in the "strictest" terms, your edits are premature at this time (I'm not sure what movie it would be a sequel to) and your timeline above is completely wrong (saying its during the ST:TNG timeline only because we have an adult Spock is clearly false). So a "reboot" would be correct because we are throwing out Star Trek history starting even before the time of ST:TOS (since the Original Series started when Spock, Kirk, McCoy, et al were much older and Pike had long since left command of the Enterprise). Reboot is probably the most descriptive word. Ckruschke (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
Can you explain how its "clearly false"? The character is identified in the first 5 minutes of the film as "Ambassador Spock" - the title he was known by during the TNG/DS9/Voyager era. There are flashbacks within the film to the character in the future and he states he is from 129 years from now or something similar, putting him firmly in that timeline.
The film is not a reboot for the simple reason that it does not discard previous continuity - this has been openly confirmed by the creators of the film. See the Star Trek (film)article: "(Roberto) Orci said creating a reboot would have been disrespectful". The film explores Star Trek history in an alternate timeline but it does not assume that the "original" history never happened - if it did then it would be a reboot as per our own definition. Nowhere in that article is it described as a reboot and it shouldn't be here either. It is not strictly a sequel either but the film simply cannot be described solely as a reboot as per our own definition as it does not follow that criteria and is inaccurate. You haven't presented any logical reason or rebuttal for reverting my edits. Nsign (talk) 09:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
I think if you read my reply again, I've agree that the movie isn't a reboot in the strictest sense. However, I also say that claiming it is a sequel (which your extensive edits on the page did) to TNG/DS9 timeline solely based on the appearance of one character while the entire rest of the cast dates to a time prior to TOS is false. So I'm sure what your point is - I've clearly stated the points of my disagreement. If you want to discuss why it isn't a reboot and by doing so what to call the movie instead, we can do that (and the Orci quote is probably a good place to start despite whether he thinks its a reboot or not), but your other points are inaccurate and only cloud the discussion. Ckruschke (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
My edits did not claim it was a sequel. At one point I referred to it being a "sequel/reboot". Elsewhere I removed references calling the film a reboot. Your point about the timeline is (pardon me) illogical. The Spock character and the entire catalyst for the film's plot (the destruction of Romulus, Nero's journey into the past) originate from the TNG/DS9 etc timeline. That is not an opinion, its a fact. It doesn't matter if the rest of the cast predate TOS (and actually, they don't, because as I have already said, they are in an alternate timeline which will not predate TOS as we know it) - the film clearly and unambiguously uses narrative threads and characters from established Trek canon. Thus, it CANNOT be described solely as a reboot within the article according to the definition of the word here. It is simply wrong. Nsign (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Again you aren't reading what I said - I've now stated three times that I agree the movie can't be termed a reboot in the strictest sense - so I'm not sure why you keep arguing that point...
As I said previously, it probably needs to be discussed in the group as to what to call it if reboot is wrong. One option is to completely delete the word from the page. However, even if we all agreed to this in "Talk", my guess is that you'll have many editors coming in trying to reinsert that word into the page since I've routinely seen this word thrown out about this movie. Same goes if we follow your line and term it a "reboot/sequel" or some other variation to that theme - you'll have people coming in and reverting that assertion. Another option is to insert a discussion on the reboot topic itself within the page or a comment in-line with the first appearance of the word "reboot" as to how "the movie isn't a reboot in the strictest sense, but this is the best we could come up with so don't change the word", but IP editors and others routinely ignore in-line instructions about things they aren't supposed to add/delete from the text. If there's a happy medium somewhere, I'm missing it... Thoughts? Ckruschke (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
Well since you agree that the film cannot be termed a reboot I fail to see why my edits were reverted. I favour deleting the word from the talk page (which I did). If editors want to try and reinsert it they'll need to justify it, but unless there is a re-definition of the term on Wikipedia, there is no argument to be had - the film does not meet the criteria established here for "reboots" and if it isn't described as such in the Star Trek 2009 article then it certainly shouldn't be here either. However I wouldn't object to adding a sentence here under the 2009 film to the effect of, "The film acts as both a continuation of the existing film series and as a quasi-reboot of the original series, with the plot device of time travel utilised to create an "alternate reality" seperate from the original timeline". Nsign (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Been following this discussion and wanted to weigh in. Star Trek (2009) is clearly a reboot. J.J. Abrams and Paramount said it is a reboot. It is almost universally regarded as a reboot by critics, fans, etc. That the filmmakers decided to do it in a way that doesn't ignore and disregard everything previously established in the Star Trek universe over the last 45 years, doesn't mean this film is not a reboot because it does meet all the criteria of a reboot. To try to claim that it is not a reboot is just not accurate and the goal here should always be accuracy. SonOfThornhill (talk) 12:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Where are your sources for JJ Abrams and Paramount's stating that it is a reboot? The Star Trek 2009 article provides a sourced quote from one of the creators of the film confirming the film is not a reboot ("Roberto Orci said creating a reboot would have been disrespectful"').
"Almost universally regarded" is a purely subjective statement of opinion. Wikipedia defines a reboot as "In serial fiction, to reboot means to discard all established continuity in a series and start over from the beginning". The film demonstrably and according to the creators does not do that and therefore cannot be described as a reboot as per our own definition. If the goal is indeed accuracy then by our own rules we cannot describe a work as something it is not. We can describe it as a quasi-reboot, as it meets some of the criteria. These are simple facts supported by evidence. Any argument for describing it as a reboot rests purely on opinion. Nsign (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
No you're arguement that it is not a reboot is your opinion alone. It has been called a reboot here for 4 years. And it is even used an example of a reboot by Wikipedia. SonOfThornhill (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
In other words, you don't have any sources or any argument to speak of. So until you can bring anything constructive to this discussion please exempt yourself from it. Nsign (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Who are you to tell me to exempt myself from this discussion? I don't have to cite multiple sources to prove the earth is round. That is accepted at fact. Just because one person who says different is quoted doesn't prove anything. The 2009 Star Trek film is regarded at a reboot. It has been called a reboot on Wikipedia for years. It is even used an example of what a reboot is. Just because the filmmakers used a plot device to respect everything that had come before, doesn't mean it is it is not a reboot. SonOfThornhill (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree with you Thornhill. Although I said that it wasn't a reboot in the strictest sense, I didn't say the term didn't fit (again - you don't seem to be reading the whole comment). I've also seen a preponderance of publications call it a reboot. This is of course anecdotal evidence on my part, but "no one" is calling it a sequel. Just because Orci says it isn't a reboot is somewhat meaningless - he could have been pandering to the Star Trek crowd to try and assure them he wasn't throwing out 45 yrs of history (as many ST fansites and publications were worried about prior to the movie coming out and which Thornhill alludes to). Who knows... However, I would hardly hold Orci up as the end all, beat all word. Saying so is a bit disingenuous. Ckruschke (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke


With respect Ckuschke, Orci's statements are not meaningless. Your speculation about whether he is pandering to the crowd is simple speculation and original research. Who are you to disregard the creators statement of intent with regards to their own movie? Wikipedia works with FACTS, not assumptions, speculation or original research. We have sourced, verifiable statements from several sources from the creators of this work stating clearly that the film is not a reboot, and you are simply choosing to ignore them to suit your own preference. That is a simple denial of reality. Roberto Orci and Robert Kurtzman wrote the film and by definition they know a lot more about it than you do. Below are further statements from the creators of the film with relevant quotes in bold:
You will note that here Roberto Orci is quoted as saying, ""We couldn't imagine not having this movie somehow fall within some degree of continuity. We don't accept the word reboot. Reboot does not actually describe the fact that this movie would not be possible without the 10 movies that came prior to it. The very events of the movie themselves are caused by Leonard Nimoy as Mr. Spock and his story, which picks up essentially after the last movie, Star Trek 10 [Nemesis]. ... So our movie is both a prequel and a sequel. It's a sequel if you're a fan, and a prequel if you're not."

TrekMovie.com: You guys have resisting labels for this film such as remake, reboot, etc….even prequel. Prequel has a pretty basic definition so what is wrong with calling it that?
Roberto Orci: But yet it is not entirely accurate. In some senses it is a prequel, but the word I would use, which is how Damon [Lindelof] describes it, is a re-invigoration or re-vitalization.
TrekMovie.com: So your point is since Nimoy’s Spock would at least start well after the TOS period, then it isn’t exactly a prequel.
Roberto Orci: Exactly, Nimoy’s Spock is very much in line with canon.
TrekMovie.com: You guys have said this will respect canon and ‘fill a gap’ but you are also trying to make a new movie for a new audience. Why aren’t you doing what they did with Batman Begins and just start over and avoid opening yourself up to the critiques on breaking with canon?
Roberto Orci: The reason we aren’t starting over is because the people involved, both fans and behind the scenes, have worked so hard to specify what is canon - then to simply ignore it would be unnecessary. There is so much about The Original Series that is worth continuing. It is not like Batman where you can ignore everything. That being said there are some things that have never been specified fully in canon that we take liberties with.
Anthony: So what happens with the destruction of the Kelvin is the creation of an alternative timeline, but 'what happens to the prime timeline' after Nero leaves it? Does it continue or does it wink out of existence once he goes back and creates this new timeline.
Bob: It continues. According to the most successful, most tested scientific theory ever, quantum mechanics, it continues.
Anthony: So everyone in the prime timeline, like Picard and Riker, are still off doing there thing, it is just that Nero is gone.
Bob: Yes.
  • I have been told here that regarding this film as not being a reboot is a matter of my own opinion. Now, I have provided sourced, verifiable statements from the creators of this work that the film is not a reboot and was never intended to be a reboot. That is demonstrably not a matter of my own opinion. I have also clearly demonstrated why the film does not meet the Wikipedia definition of a reboot. Again, not a matter of opinion but a simple and demonstrable fact. I have also not called for the film to be described as a sequel - I have said we should refer to it as a "quasi-reboot" as that is the most accurate description. Other terms we might use could be "both a prequel and sequel" or "both reboot and sequel". I simply state that the film cannot be regarded as solely a reboot as it simply isn't by our own criteria. The argument that "we've called it a reboot here for years" (except, conspicuously, on the Star Trek page, where I suspect it would be thrown out very quickly were anyone to try and insert it) is not an argument supported by any Wikipedia policy. If its been wrong for years, its still wrong.
Ckruschke, you have so far been willing to engage sensibly with this so I'd now ask you to please provide a rebuttal of the above supported by Wikipedia policy, sources and facts, that does not rely on WP:OR, WP: Synthesis or simply stating, Lebowski-style, "yeah, well, that's just like, your opinion", which has so far been SonOfThornhill's method. If you can then I will happily engage and discuss it with you to reach some kind of agreement or consensus. If you cannot then I will reinstate the edits and if they are arbitrarily reverted then I will seek mediation or resolution via other channels, and bear in mind that my argument is supported by policy, sources, facts and logic, and thus far, yours is not. Nsign (talk) 09:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Ckruschke, I think we are in complete agreement here. Does the film check the boxes on every criteria for a reboot. No it doesn't. But just because it only meets 8 or 9 out of 10 of those criteria doesn't mean it is not a reboot.SonOfThornhill (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

←Guys I think you're making this a bit more complicated than it needs to be. We have a lot of general sources that describe it as a reboot; we have the creators who specifically say it is not; and we have the term itself, which by technical definition does not apply to the film (although I would say that "reboot" is thrown about now not just to describe continuity but a "that didn't work we're starting over" approach.) If we have the sources, put them in. "It has been called a "reboot" of the franchise, though Orci considers it…" and be done with it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Concur with David on this. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Sounds fair to me, although I still prefer simply calling it a "quasi-reboot" and briefly explaining why. My concern is that as soon as I remove the repeated references to "the reboot" the edits will be reverted with no coherent explanation, as before.Nsign (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
There will always be IP editors (and others) who come in and change correct info. However, we'll have this clear dialogue in Talk to refer anyone to as to the thought process behind calling it a "quasi-reboot" or whatever is agreed to. Ckruschke (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
Well unless there's a source that refers to that, we can't really delve into that language ourselves. If necessary, we can shunt the relevant info to a special footnote--"while described as a reboot by XX, XX, XX, and XX,[1] YY said that ZZ,[2]and the movies are still canonical.[3]" Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
So David, then what is your suggested change - if any? Once we have an agreed plan, we can institute it.Ckruschke (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
I will put something together shortly. Nsign (talk) 11:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Nsign, I think you are confusing substance with semantics. One (such as yourself) can argue that a "reboot" in strict terms is simply a "do-over" with no in-story recognition of it. However, J.J. Abrams' Star Trek's use of a plot element to discard the established continuity does not mean it is not a reboot. Perhaps they wanted to make the new series appeal to older fans by using Star Trek's tradition of eccentric physics as a plot element and a cameo appearance by Leonard Nimoy seeing the new series off or perhaps they felt the new story needed a "bridge" to connect the new series to Gene Roddenberry's original Star Trek. Whatever the case, the fact is the new series discards the old continuity and start over from the beginning (Kirk's time).
If you would argue that it doesn't discard "all established continuity", this is true. There is an established pre-Kirk continuity, but:
  1. They wanted to reboot the Starfleet/Federation continuity, not erase it.
  2. TOS is the starting point for all Star Trek continuity later written. Discarding it is essentially discarding the Star Trek continuity.
  3. ENT already established that the Federation of the 29th century & onward polices time travel, making the Nero continuity difficult to accept unless they actually did discarded the whole previous continuity. However, this heads into OR territory and we need keep with reliably sourced facts, which leads me to my third track of thought...
It is nice that co-writers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman give their thoughts on the new serial's reboot status, but they are not exactly impartial sources. Everything they say in interviews is tied to PR and the marketing of their product. They are reliable sources for the happenings within the plot they write, not on the wording the rest of the world uses.
—Sowlos 12:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
As already pointed out with reference to sources, the new series demonstrably does not "discard the old continuity and start over from the beginning" and therefore the film cannot be described solely as a reboot as we define it. It can be described as "both a sequel and reboot", which is what I have changed it to in the article, or even as a "sequel and a prequel", which is what the creators have called it. Your interpretations above are all original research. Nsign (talk) 13:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
As already pointed out with reference to sources, the new series demonstrably does not "discard the old continuity...
And as I said, I challenge the validity of using promotional interviews as sources in an objective categorization of the subjects' own work. Such open interviews lack the editorial oversight of reliable sources and the subjects clearly have a conflict of interest.(WP:QS) Such open interviews also draw up (WP:ABOUTSELF) issues.
Your interpretations above are all Original research.
At the risk of sounding redundant, my point in that tangent was the need for reliable sources.
It can be described as "both a sequel and reboot", ...or even as a "sequel and a prequel"
Ironically, this is why several characters in Star Trek were portrayed as disliking time travel/"temporal mechanics". It seems I forgot to mention it before, but I'd like to see third party sources explicitly calling the new Star Trek serial and/or something like it not a reboot. Unfortunately, this type of plot element isn't the most common and may not neatly fit into any single definition. Simply calling a new/revived series starting over may be the best we can do.
That said, I think such a lengthy discussion on this topic is silly. It is an over-analysis of semantics. "Reboot" indicates that the story is starting over and the new depictions of Kirk & the Enterprise cannot be retroactively integrated into the previous time-line. To stray away from that term due to a specific semantic interpenetration can be more misleading for readers than using it.
—Sowlos 16:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I fail to see why statements from the creators of a work should be considered invalid. Who are we to dispute the creators own stated intent? What "conflict of interest" is there? They have devised and written the narrative and are therefore by definition much more knowledgeably qualified to comment on that narrative than "reliable sources", whoever they would be. However, even if one were to consider it invalid, you can just watch the film. There is no ambiguity. It is directly related to existing canon and demonstrably does not "discard all previous continuity", therefore it cannot be referred to solely as a reboot as per our own definition.. Batman Begins - reboot. Casino Royale - reboot. Amazing Spider Man - reboot. Star Trek - not reboot. Nsign (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


  • Proposed changes:

Lead : "A reboot to the original television series, simply titled Star Trek, was released in May 2009", changed to "After a 7 year hiatus a new film was released in 2009, simply titled Star Trek, serving as both a sequel and reboot for the franchise".

"A sequel to 2009's reboot of the franchise, Star Trek Into Darkness, is scheduled for release in theaters in May 2013" changed to "A sequel to 2009's Star Trek..."

"Reboot" section renamed "Star Trek (2009)" and the word "reboot" removed from that section

The word "reboot" removed wherever solely used to describe the 2009 film.

I have also added some information to the Star Trek: Nemesis section that provides some context for the 7 year hiatus: "This film was a critical and commercial failure (released in late 2002 in direct competition with the James Bond film Die Another Day and The Lord of The Rings: The Two Towers) and was the final Star Trek film to feature the Next Generation cast and to be produced by Rick Berman.

"Star Trek" section

Second paragraph: "This film acts as both a sequel and a reboot to the existing franchise by taking place in an "alternate reality" using the plot device of time travel to depict an altered timeline, featuring younger versions of the original series' cast".

I have already made the edits. If they are unsatisfactory then we can discuss why here. Nsign (talk) 09:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable compromise to me SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

INFO BOX

I started an info box for this page. It is based on the styling of similar franchise movies (Harry Potter, Fast and Furious). It took a good while to get all the information compiled and formatted. It needs a few more fields added and a picture I can get to in a couple of days. I am locked out from adding pictures for a day or two NEW USER. Tell me what you think just? --Mccordscvs (talk) 05:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Cast Members

Should it be noted, somehow, that the Worf in undiscovered country is not actually Worf, but his grandfather? It seem misleading to say it is Worf. Is there a way to gloss with an asterisk or something?

Agreed. I changed it to add an asterisk next to Michael Dorn with an explanation below the table. They are definitely distinct characters, though they share the same name.221bbaker (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, under 'The Next Generation cast' heading, it calls Undiscovered Country a transition film, but I don't think it is, and the claim is unsourced. There are NO characters from the Next Generation who appear in Undiscovered Country, only the actor Michael Dorn playing the grandfather of one of the TNG crew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skatendrum (talk • contribs) 19:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Made changes. Ckruschke (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
Thanks! Skatendrum (talk) 14:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

"Written by" section in infobox

Why is Gene Roddenberry listed in the infobox as having written all twelve Star Trek movies when he died right before the 6th one was released? 99.43.175.19 (talk) 03:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I would say the infobox itself is so diffuse as to be useless, disregarding the above issue. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page not moved: insufficient support Ground Zero | t 01:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


Star Trek (film franchise) → Star Trek films – see below - adamstom97 (talk) 11:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

This is not a separate franchise from the rest of Star Trek, it is a series of films within the Star Trek franchise, so should be moved to Star Trek films. If anyone objects, please discuss why here so that a decision can be reached. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe Star Trek (film series) would be the appropriate disambiguator as per WP:NCF#Film series (see Transformers (film series) for example). You should probably just go ahead and do it since the current title is inconsistent with the MOS. Betty Logan (talk) 10:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I thought Star Trek films would be better because it is really all apart of the same series as the tv shows, if you know what I mean. Like the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which has the page List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films rather than Marvel Cinematic Universe (film series). I'm going to go ahead with Star Trek films per WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:BOLD, and if anyone really thinks it should be moved again, they can discuss it here. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
It didn't work for some reason, so I'm just gonna request it be moved. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose proposed name per WP:NCF#Film series. Star Trek films would be inconsistent with how film series are named on Wikipedia. The correct title for a "list" article would be List of Star Trek films whereas the correct disambiguation for an article is Star Trek (film series). I agree the article should be renamed, but it should follow the standardised format. Betty Logan (talk) 12:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what you are trying to link to with the wikilink NCF#Film series but I don't think it is right. Now, Star Trek films is more appropriate than your suggestions, because this page isn't just a list, there is a lot more information than that, so we can't really call it List of Star Trek films, but I would also rather not define it as a film series, because it is not a separate franchise to the TV shows. The example you provided above doesn't really apply here, as the Transformers films aren't part of a wider multimedia franchise like this. Also, the films have been spun-off from the TV shows, rather than the other way around. I know that the WP:MOS suggests consistency in our layout and structure, but it also tells us to do what works best for the individual articles, and I think in this unique case we have to do something a bit different. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
The (film series) disambiguator is entirely applicable here. It is irrelevant whether it is part of a franchise or not, because this article just describes a series of films. The relevant guideline for this can be found at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films). The alternative is to use the List of XXXX format which would be consistent with lists such as List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films and List of James Bond films, both of which include a substantial amount of prose. Many list articles contain substantial prose; lists are defined mostly by their structure. There is nothing unusual about this article that requires an atypical title format. Betty Logan (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I have to agree with Betty. "Star Trek films" is inconsistant with how other film series are handled by Wikipedia. SonOfThornhill (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I see your point. List of Star Trek films is probably the most appropriate choice then. Any objections? - adamstom97 (talk) 04:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm completely fine with that. Betty Logan (talk) 05:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is about the film series / film frachise, this is not about Star Trek films. There are other "Star Trek" films that are not part of the series/franchise. If you want a list article about Star Trek films, create a new article. A general Star Trek film list would include documentary films about Star Trek such as Trekkies (film), which this current article excludes. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
No, that is a non fiction film about Star Trek, it is not a Star Trek film. This article is about the films that have been spun-off the Star Trek tv series. It is not an individual film series or franchise. There are currently 8 films spun-off from the original series, and 4 films spun-off from the next generation. They are not one consistent film series, so List of Star Trek films is more appropriate, because we are listing the films set in the Star Trek universe, not films where Star Trek is the subject matter. An easy comparison is List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films, because, like Star Trek, there are multiple films in the MCU that aren't part of a single film series, but take place in the same universe, and essentially serve the same function. If a feature length documentary about the MCU films was released, it would not be added to that page, because it is not a film set in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. This is the same situation here. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
No, it is considered a film franchise in the industry. Your argument about the "source material" of used in the films is immaterial to it being a franchise or not. The continuity between films is also immaterial to it being a franchise or not. The proposed name does not bar material such as "Trekkies" or the section that was just deleted, the fan film "Axanar". The article should bar such material, as a separate list article can be created to list any old Trek-related film. Being spun-off from the TV shows does not bar the TV shows from being TV series, even though it has related film, and vice versa, here, where the films are related to TV shows. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Seeing as that entire comment was personal opinion, I will add my own - I disagree. List of Star Trek films is the most appropriate title because this is a list of films connected to the Star Trek TV series and therefore set in the Star Trek universe. This is not a film series (like X-Men (film series)) or a franchise (like Terminator (franchise)) it is a list of films (like List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films). - adamstom97 (talk) 05:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Star_Trek_films/Archive_1&oldid=1227360240"