Talk:Star Trek: Renegades

1 - About synopsis
Is it wise to give a synopsis about something not yet aired / released? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.164.53.248 (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Reads like a promo
This article reads like a promo and likely written by people involved in production - the claim this is a tv pilot is a claim they made with no evidence to support  it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Intended as pilot for WEB series. No guarantees that a broadcast network will pick it up for production or distribution. But also note this is an increasingly common way for new series made by independent studios to be produced and distributed (see the story of "Sanctuary" starring Amanda Tapping for a good example of a show picked up by SciFi after 6 episodes and 2 years online). Its all part of the slow fall of broadcast networks to smaller cable networks internet distribution and heavy CGI production series (in SciFi-Fantasy-Action genre). The guaranteed broadcast studio productions from day 1 are becoming less and less common. Even shows that do go into production as broadcast network productions often have independent roots for the pilot & then networks buy up the rights or even the independent production company and casting.   70.114.147.5 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 01:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Revised to make it less promo like
I made a lot of revisions to make sure the piece is more balanced.

I deleted many of the details about the fundraising which came across as crowing about by how much they beat their goals.

I deleted a quote from a review of the trailer, which is not a review of the film. I also added an additional quote to the first review, which had been cherry-picked to only state the positive whereas the full review was not so one-sided. MrNeutronSF (talk) 00:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Release date?
The 00:04, 23 August 2015‎ Debresser revision indicates the film was released on August 1, 2015, but where? And how? To backers? On the website it says you can get the bluray for a donation, but would that actually count as a "release"? And there's nothing on the official website to indicate there has been a public release as of 23 August. MrNeutronSF (talk) 04:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I found the reference. I also found references for home media. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 05:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I too was surprised that the film was released, and there is nothing about it on the website. That is a bad promotion job. :)
 * I think the details about where and when to buy are superfluous here, and make it likely the article will again be tagged with the Advert template. Debresser (talk) 07:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Maybe so. I'm looking for more research. I could always ask Tim Russ on twitter, I guess as to what is going on. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 07:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * According to sources I have heard the release to YouTube will be August 30th. Until someone can find a solid confirmation and can reference it, I still believe "unreleased to the general public" is what this film remains at this time and should be described thusly.MrNeutronSF (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I have tweeted Tim Russ on the project. Tweet to Tim Russ - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 21:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I saw something a few days ago on the official facebook which said that it'd be released in mid September. Miyagawa (talk) 22:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Star Trek: Renegades will be released for the public September 30, 2015. It will become a web series. I have changed it to reflect that. I have also added the music section. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 01:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Even the BluRay would count as a release. Just a "direct to DVD" type release with limited/poor distribution channels. Definitely not Universal distributor class release or even Lionsgate is that is your real point. The online web series videos will be another release format. Not clear if the web video episodes will be free or by subscription like Sanctuary and other pay-to-finance next episode models. 70.114.147.5 (talk) 01:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @Kiraroshi1976 But it is already available! Debresser (talk) 06:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

CBS Paramount
I deleted the text "As neither CBS nor Paramount can commit to a new series at this time," because that implies that the show wasn't picked up by CBS because they "cannot commit", which is an unsupported statement without verifiable citations and smacks of self-promotion.MrNeutronSF (talk) 06:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Facebook as unverifiable citation source
A number of the REFs here point to the Renegades Facebook page, but said links do not point to specific posts, ergo, it's nearly impossible to verify these as sources. I submit these should be thrown out as unverifiable and replaced by links whereby the material can be verified. As is, they are useless.!!! MrNeutronSF (talk) 06:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Yep, we shouldn't be taking these claims about CBS seriously without WP:RS - which their own facebook is not! --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Or we could say: "According to their Facebook site, ...". Debresser (talk) 12:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * No - fails WP:V in that adding that from a self-published source would fail 'it does not involve claims about third parties' - this makes specific unverifiable claims about the business practices of CBS. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I either don't understand you or disagree with you. Would you mind explaining that again, please? Debresser (talk) 20:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * In short, many of the references on this page fail to meet the Wikipedia standards for a proper citation, such as self-published sources. Futhermore, pointing to a constantly changing target like a Fecebook news feed, without a link to a specific item, is like grabbing smoke. MrNeutronSF (talk) 22:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Basically you cannot use self-published sources to make claims about others. "We plan to present this to CBS as a pilot" = fine. "CBS told us that they aren't permitted to make a Star Trek series at the moment" = not fine. --Cameron Scott (talk) 06:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Not A "Series" Yet
The article keeps referring to this as a "series", but, as of this date, there is a single film, and only plans for more. I suggest that the article should treat the film as a singular entity throughout, and refer to plans for future episodes/a web series as just that until such time that additional films are actually in production. The best laid plans do not constitute actuality. MrNeutronSF (talk) 00:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes good point. --Cameron Scott (talk) 06:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Queries
Will the new web series be canon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.252.136.138 (talk) 10:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

This isn't a discussion board... but... no. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Budget and Star Trek franchise production values
I came to the page with some surprise after watching the film in order to discover the background. Whilst I am surprised the film could be produced on such a low budget, I am equally surprised that a film would bear the hallmarks of a franchise with a history of highly professional and well resourced production. Perhaps it isn't currently possible to match Paramount's production values at those production funding levels. Might be interesting to introduce a discussion whether the film was produced with specific authority from Star Trek franchise holders and whether the franchine now generally open, or abandoned. Nick Hill (talk) 23:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * No it wasn't and no it isn't - CBS is making a Star Trek series for 2017. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

the producers refuse to work with the tv station
there is no communication between the rights holders and the producers. the rights holders refuse to allow the producers to sell the series to other channels. they told me by email. 84.213.45.196 (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The producers went to CBS. CBS instead decided to do their own TV series on CBS All Access. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 07:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Casting section is needlessly picayune
The section reads like trivia about who was or wasn't cast. As such it feels pointless and unnecessary and trivial and could be pared back or deleted,MrNeutronSF (talk) 04:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)