Talk:Star Trek (2009 film)/Archive 1

AfD
This article has been nominated for deletion as the film will not now go ahead for many years if ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.196 (talk • contribs) 15:19 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it's not up for deletion. You need to follow all steps for listing an article for deletion. Also, please sign your posts with ~, this will append your name and the date to your comment so that we know who's posting and when. It would also help matters if you would simply create an account to do this with. Please follow process. — [[Image:Flag_of_Ottawa%2C_Ontario.svg|20px]] [[Image:Flag of Ontario.svg|20px]] [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]] nath a(?) nrdotcom (T • C • W) 21:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is a mess
I have given this article a rewrite to try and remove as much crystal ball and speculation material as possible, but I fear it will not survive an AFD challenge as it now stands. The whole thing is nothing but rumor, save for Berman reporting on the pre-production. I removed the Mulgrew link because all she says is "if they ever make a Voyager movie sure I'll appear in it." Big whoop. I have tried my best to fix this, and I won't be the one putting this up for AFD. But as it stands now I'd most likely vote to delete this article if someone were to do an AFD on it. The biggest obstacle this article faces in terms of survival is the lack of any official announcement that Paramount will actually make this film. 23skidoo 04:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm inclinced to agree, as this kind of rumor content would likely be better suited for a Star Trek fansite/wiki, but I feel as it's rather likely that this event will happen that it's fair to have information in regards to its likely occurrence; however speculative it may be. Smeggysmeg 18:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's useful to document the various rumours.. the article states that its only rumour. I personally found the article useful when researching the different rumours that there had been about the film.
 * That's a fair comment, but the Crystal Ball rule has to apply nonetheless. So far it seems OK, but we have to stay away from language like "will be produced", "events leading up to production" etc. because there IS no production ... at least not yet. If it hasn't been AFD'd yet this article is probably safe so long as it clearly states that it's an accounting of different verifiable reports about a proposed film. 23skidoo 05:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What if the article was rewritten in a timeline format, breaking down the various rumors in a chronological fashion? That way, rather than just have a massive amount of text that is more or less speculation, it would be easier to follow the speculation/rumors/whatever. Just a thought.
 * I like that idea, but I have noted that a number of Wikipedians seem to dislike bulleted-style articles (see, for example, the article on Alleged Continuity Violations in Enterprise. If it can stay away from being bulleted, then a time-line of sorts might work. Ultimately, in lieu of any official film announcment, this article could form the core of an article looking at the developments/survival of the Trek franchise after the end of the last TV series...also, just a thought. 23skidoo 23:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Just splitting it up by year would go a long way towards making it more accessible. Although the article would need a bit of reworking; I have noted a few instances in which a single paragraph will jump from year to year. I just think that something needs to be done, because the way it reads now is painful.
 * Well, I went ahead and split it up by year. Not sure if it really helps. Can we get rid of the contents box or is that mandated by the number of headers? I think considering the lack of real content there is no actual need for such a box.209.51.77.64 01:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Future film tag
I don't know if the future film tag is appropriate at this point, since Trek XI is neither scheduled nor officially expected. Until Paramount actually says such a film is in the planning stages, officially neither term is applicable yet. 23skidoo 15:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I think its ok to have the tag. Mainly because another Star Trek film is inevetable. Weather it be "this one" that is being rumored or not.
 * This may be moot. TrekWeb is reporting a Berman spokesman as saying the film is off, so this article might be headed to AFD before long and/or be merged into the main Trek article. (Not that I personally plan to do either; there are enough arguments for keeping and for deleting that I find myself in a neutral position.) 23skidoo 17:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for the Berman article? And should we mention this information in the article proper?  —   THOR  =/\= 18:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've updated the article with a source for the Berman article, and I've added some relevant information about the CBS/Viacom split which helps explain the problems with Trek at the moment. - DiegoTehMexican  23:35, 3 March 2006  (UTC)
 * I added a link in the bit you just added. - [[Image:Ottawa flag.png|20px]] [[Image:Flag of Ontario.svg|20px]] [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]] nath a nrdotcom  (Talk • Contribs)  23:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it being made?
I've heard from several sites that this film is no longer moving forward. Should this article even exist? Allemannster 22:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to echo that. The quote from Berman's assistant would appear to render this article moot. I'd recommend condensing it into a few paragraphs and merging it with the main Star Trek franchise article until something is announced. I repeat my earlier concern that this article wouldn't survive an AFD challenge on the grounds of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; when Trek XI was still a going concern, it was holding on by a thin thread. Based on recent reports, I'd say this article doesn't have a leg to stand on anymore. 23skidoo 04:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Considering the fact that the Maribello comments were not substantiated on anything, and now that the scribe is talking details, I believe this article deserves continued life. SyFyMichael 00:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

J.J. Abrams movie?
Onet, a major Polish news site reports that a new Star Trek movie produced by J. J. Abrams about young Kirk in Starfleet Academy has been announced. Does any other source confirm it? Ausir 07:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I can see one source does: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117941815?categoryid=13 Ausir 07:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ugh. What an awful idea. (Abrams good, Academy bad, IMO.) In any event, the Variety link should be replaced at the earliest possible time, as Variety tends to put its articles behind subscription walls after a few days. Presumably there will be a more permanent CNN or similar link available shortly. 23skidoo 14:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * How about a TrekWeb one? http://trekweb.com/stories.php?aid=44488f278b8d2&topBrowse=all Ausir 15:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is the Associated Press story via Yahoo.com: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060421/ap_en_mo/film_star_trek_abrams ProfessorPaul


 * Startrek.com have announced it... which means I finally believe it. I've ammended the link to go there as variety is behind subscription now. JiMternet 19:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone added a reference in the article to JJ Abrams' work on MI:3. Given the immediately preceeding link to JJ Abrams' article, is it necessary too keep that in? Or can we trust that users will go find that info for themselves? User:66.41.75.64 23:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

As per startrek.com
The 11th movie is officialy under production. I have removed all speculation as we now have some canon info.

I am not too happy to see Kirk myself... but then again its better than nothing. We will see a sharp increase in populution naw. ^_^ -- Cat out 11:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The old speculation has some historical value, I think it can stay. Ausir 12:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Why remove the history leading up to this film? We have history on every other film in Wiki, why not here? I think the history, even if it's reformatted and represented, should be retained. SyFyMichael 13:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my bad. I thought it was cristal clear (the production issues). Apperantly rumors will go on. I was excited. :P -- Cat out 11:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Opposition to Prequel
The last edit had a quote stating that there was opposition, and provided a link to one of several petitions and a letter-writing campaign. The petition has only 169 signatures, and the campaign was already a dead link by the time I found it (it has since been removed). I think this is nothing but a self-promoting edit by whoever is running this specific petition and is not worthy of the page. To put it in perspective (and SciFiMichael will know; yes, I can tell who you are), this petition has been running for a couple of weeks. TrekUnited, admittedly a fringe group of fans of a show with a proportionally miniscule fan base, attracted that number within twenty-four hours after site launch. While opposition to the prequel is a part of the story, this particular petition, in my view, is not. I have removed it. --User:66.41.75.64 03:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

How's this for opposition to the prequel: Abrams says it isn't. http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=18614 (Zeekthegeek 23:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC))

Scope of Rumors
I just did a revert from User:Ardenn's elimination of most of the newest rumors (as well as his presumably accidental removal of some new information concerning The First Adventure. He cited the policy that Wikipedia is Not A Crystal Ball, but, having read the rule several times, I fail to see the relevance.  I am still new here and am wondering whether placing rumors in the article, even with citations, is in some way unkosher.  Is it?  --BCSWowbagger,  9 May 2006, 03:01:30 Zulu.

Not a crystal ball specificly mentions uncited rumors. I think Ardenn is extrapolating that to fit his/her desires and have returned the cited passages accordingly. CovenantD 14:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! I have left a message with User:Ardenn anyways, to see if there is in fact some basis for his ruling. But it is a relief to know that I'm not completely off-base here. --BCSWowbagger 23:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * To clarify, I'm not an admin. However... rumors can't be verified. That's why they are rumors and speculation. So it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. It's also not encyclopedic. Ardenn  00:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that clarification. I am still a n00b, as I have said before.  In the case of the article, I think we're in the interesting position of having confirmed rumors; that is, rumors that are verifiably circulating and/or speculation that is verifiably widespread.  The content within them is not itself verifiable (though the sources used all have good records with respect to reliability), but the simple presence of the rumors/speculation concerning this movie, combined with their reliability, makes their content relevant and noteworthy. --BCSWowbagger 05:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * New issue (since I don't have a life, I have spend way too much time on this article). Chcknwnm made a revert today eliminating some of the latest rumors (which debunk previous rumors).  He cited it as original research.  I reverted back and asked that he refer to this page, since we have already been discussing related problems here.  Given the very complete citation, I don't see how it could be called original research, but I am prepared to submit to an explanation.  I may rephrase the passage for clarity, however.  --BCSWowbagger 00:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * My apologies, I saw that it was written in the first person, but was too tired and didn't catch that it was a quote. I guess it's all right. Regards, Chu ck(척뉴넘) 05:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That's cool; NP. Just shows that I really do need to revise that passage.  Thanks.  --BCSWowbagger 22:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Writing
Someone needs to seriouly look at the franchise and consider if its worth saving. The writing has suffered, Star Trek used to be a very cerebral genre. Now its marred relying only on specfial effects and not enough on the story line. If a prequel would be made and a young Kirk present. HE MUST TAKE THE CAPTAINS CHAIR SOMETIME DURING THE MOVIE!!!. I would like to see the actual Kobiashi Maru Scenario played out and a young LT. Kirk standing before a Star Fleet tribunal for academic honesty infractions and instead gets a commendation for "original thinking". A McCoy coming out of his residiceny in Tennessee finding the competion for private practice too stiff enlists in Starfleet. Spock the rejected half human son of sarek tries to prove himself by joining starfleet against his fathers wishes (See Star Trek: The Voyage Home).

These are some options of what the movies could do as a prequel.


 * And this helps write the article because....? Chu ck(contrib) 04:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Head over to the TrekBBS. They've got a whole room for people like you.  But Wikipedia is not the place. --BCSWowbagger 05:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

question movement
Replacing the following from the article. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 18:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Then, of course, there's the amazing talk about the subtle effects work done on Patrick Stewart & Ian McKellan in the latest X-Men outing: A scene has their characters meeting twenty years prior, & the word is that they both defintely look younger. Any speculation re ST XI characters ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.48.76.60 (talk • contribs)

Revisions
I've just given the article a little nip and tuck, removing multiple wikilinks and the like, as well as a little bit of POV language that had snuck in. The only section I deleted was the bit about Abrams being named in the Time 100 as no point directly connected to Trek XI seemed to be made by its inclusion here. 23skidoo 23:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * My bad on the Bryan Singer error. Good catch. 23skidoo 05:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Dealing with rumors
Anyone can post that "Internet rumors say..." and just make up whatever they want. I recommend this article adopt the same policy adopted by Casino Royale (2006 film) and that is all new information must be accompanied by a citation from a reputable source i.e. a newspaper, TV programme, or reputable website otherwise it gets deleted. It makes the article a little footnote heavy, but it would help remove some of the nonsense that will probably continue to appear right up to the release of the film. 23skidoo 14:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Invincible Ninja appears to have adjusted the heading accordingly. It's a good idea, too. --BCSWowbagger 17:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

- Brent Spiner
I removed the following information from the article which was added by 71.248.21.149: Cast It has been confirmed that Brent Spiner will have a role in Star Trek XI. This was cited by the following reference in the "External links" section: *Brent Spiner in the film The article referenced does, in fact, say that Brent Spiner is confirmed to the movie; it also says that the movie is a confirmed crossover and that Data will be a central character. However, the article is dated January 7th, 2003; and it sources an article at AICN which, when followed, isn't about Star Trek at all, but about Gary Oldman and Harry Potter (dated the same day). —  pd_THOR  undefined | 17:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Purging the article
This article needs to be rewritten badly. There are too many rumors, too much opinion, and quotes that are too long. There should be facts about what will be in the movie, not about what won't be. I'm not a Star Trek fan, but I think this film article needs serious attention. There's a lot of fat that needs to be cut from this. --Erik 00:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Insofar, not a whole lot is known as far as what it will concern aside from Abrams' statements and the like. I think the speculation could stay since it gives an overview on what rumours had been circulating amongst fandom those years and now. However, I do feel that there can be some revisions made to tidy things up and divided in the like of Canceled Superman films.
 * Till the actual film arrives (which I'd highly doubt would be titled the same), noted speculation should stay so long as the sources are kept. DrWho42 02:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide encyclopedic entries about subjects including films. An encyclopedic article about Star Trek XI would not contain speculation that has existed among fans for years; that is not Wikipedia's purpose.  This film article should provide useful information about the upcoming movie for all people, not Star Trek fans who need to know the nitty-gritty of every pre-production detail.  A Star Trek-based website should chronicle that, not Wikipedia.  I will see what I can do to clean up the article, but I urge others to do the same and specify the reasons why in their edit summaries. --Erik 02:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As the guy who has made this article my main WikiMission here, and who has done most of the word-count damage in the post-announcement section, I might as well say that I tend to agree with Erik. We're practically at 23 KB without even having one shred of actual hard knowledge about the upcoming movie.  OTOH, other than people (okay, Trekkies) who want to know the nitty-gritty data, no one's reading this article right now.  It documents sources that support and/or refute major rumors, and everything is cited.  (Indeed, there are *far* more rumors out there than this article discusses or even refers to... see the utterly destroyed imdb entry for XI for examples of the misinformation floating around out there right now.)  The article isn't front-page material, but it's written for its current audience, and does a fairly good job.


 * That said, I think, as a preliminary measure, it's time to compress all the pre-announcement material from 2002-2006. The Jendressen script, for instance, is already fading into the background as a piece of trivia that fans will pull out at conventions a decade from now.  We can start with that, and that should get the article back into a reasonable size for the time being.  As more information comes out--*solid* information--we'll compress even more.  The quotes, as Erik says, could also use major shortening.  There are some extraneous interviews.  We don't want to become a stub, but we can certainly distill a lot of this material into the relatively few pieces of information people actually care about at the moment.


 * A final note: Until this week, with the establishment of the Star Trek XI Report, this page was the only central information location for verified Trek XI information. This article remains the best-sourced, best-written Trek XI document anywhere on the Internet.  I want to congratulate everyone who has helped make the article be a hard rock of information in a sea of rumor.  --BCSWowbagger 07:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I did some work, remembering to Be Bold. I hope no one objects to the big compression of Early reports/spec. There's more compression where that came from, too, but I don't have time tonight. --BCSWowbagger 05:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup Tag
Anyone have any thoughts on what we can do to remove this tag? Would he who added it please explain what he (or she) thinks is wrong with the article vis-a-vis WP quality standards? --BCSWowbagger 00:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The article looks a lot better than when I posted in the "Purging the article" section seen above. The only issue I have with this article is that there are way too many embedded links in the Production section of the film article.  See a film article like Spider-Man 3 to see how references (or footnotes) are used.  Other than the reference issue, I'm not sure about the validity of the "Fan reaction" subsection.  Unless there are polls of Star Trek fans available on their opinions regarding news like Matt Damon's involvement, a whole community's perspective can't be assumed based on a loud handful on Trek forums.  If needed, I can help with cleaning up the references.  You can fix them by using the Cite news or Cite web templates. --Erik 03:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If you look at the diff between the revision before I posted the cleanup tag and the revision after, you can see what I was talking about. User:Pd THOR did a good job.  The tag is removed now. --- Bitt 15:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * reads pre-tag revisions* Oh, geez. Point taken, although I wish you had just reverted them.  These Brent Spiner vandals are really getting irritating.  I'll see about fixing those citations; you're right about that, of course.  --BCSWowbagger 21:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Brent Spiner
As much as I'd love to see him in Star Trek XI, this is rving is getting rediculous. --myselfalso 19:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've already reported the user in violation of 3RR, as seen here. Please check my report to make sure it's valid. --Erik 19:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've supplemented the 3RR notice (Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR); also engaged in ... "discussion" here (User_talk:Pd_THOR). —   pd_THOR  undefined | 21:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I also just noticed this on User:Wildthing61476's talk page: "ill stop but just to let you know That all the information is the truth from the real Brent spiner I'm not lieing, any ways what happened to the site you guys need to repair it." . This would be a thing to make you go hm ahh.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 21:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to thank all the editors who helped revert changes made by the user. Your attention to the authenticity of the film article is appreciated. --Erik 21:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

User:BCSWowbagger: From the evidence on this talk page and elsewhere, it appears you are on the correct side of the fence on this debate. However, your last edit was apparently a mistake, because you actually recreated the controversial content. I suspect you just accidentally clicked on the wrong revision when you went to revert. No harm done :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scott Cranfill (talk • contribs) 16:24, August 21, 2006 (UTC)
 * Apologies for forgetting the sig! --Scott Cranfill 23:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, dear. That's really embarrassing.  Sorry! --BCSWowbagger 03:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, this was left on my userpage from User:Jkress613 . ..


 * do not change that edit again, i am a member to, and the information that i put down is true, any way what happend to the layout on this site.


 * '''it is the real brent spiner go to the web site look at his page its realy him he keeps saying he going to star in it, and that its about tos,tng,enterprise in the film,


 * thank you


 * any way what happend to the layout of this site?
 * Fun stuff, eh? --myselfalso 04:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I got that too. I don't really appreciate it. I removed some pure speculation from the page (along the lines of "some people belive that____ however, we will have to wait and see."Cptjeff 19:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Purging the article, part 2
I just fixed all the references and all the embedded links with the Cite_news template for consistency's sake. In going through the article, I noticed that a lot of information is out of order in terms of date. For example, there would be a sentence about the movie written in June, but the following sentence, written in May, seems placed to refute the previous sentence. I'm not a Star Trek fan in the slightest, but I think there should be some kind of chronological order. Furthermore, there seems to be too many "reports" about what may or may not happen -- is speculative information, even by actors themselves (such as Shatner) really relevant to the film article? I'd go through the article to organize it as best as I can, but it seems like the job should be up to the fans. --Erik 23:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you much for the citations. That's a lot of greatly appreciated work.  The article used to be in mostly chronological order, but that was given up -- without discussion -- when it was rewritten (by me) with a preference towards brevity and clarity.  Certainly still open to discussion on that.  As for the speculative information, you might be amazed by how many rumors are flying around the Trekkie world these days, and how many of them have real traction.  One need only look at the serious errors at the imdb a couple weeks ago--not to mention these Brent Spiner vandals--to see how pervasive they are.  The article discusses the actual solid facts behind each of the most powerful rumors.  I think that, until we know more for certain, the speculation is relevant.  Thanks again! --BCSWowbagger 22:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Earth-Romulan War

 * If the move takes place after 2164 then the Earth-Romulan war cannot possibly be a part of it. The E-R War took place 2156-2160. The UFP was formed as a result of this. Jasca Ducato 19:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Right... there was an early rumor that the movie would be set in 2156-2166.  It turned out to be false, but it is still relevant info in the Early Reports section. --BCSWowbagger 22:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Giacchino Section
I moved it there because there had been no offical announcement from the studio, and also because it just seemed out of place in the Production section. But I dunno where else it would go, so I'm fine leaving it there :) --Scott Cranfill 14:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * True. I hadn't looked at it that way before.  I don't think Early Rumors and Spec is a good place (since that's mostly for pre-Abrams rumors), but maybe a new section?  Crew or something?  Speculative involvement?  IDK; maybe you have a better idea. --BCSWowbagger 17:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have a better idea; perhaps someone more experienced with articles for yet-to-be-released films could step in and help? --Scott Cranfill 19:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Goran Vijnic rumor
An anonymous IP added that TrekToday and several message boards had rumors that the ER actor was "going to play a major role". I am a regular reader of TrekToday and can find no indication of such a report, and I didn't think message board postings are considered reputable sources, since I could go onto the TrekBBS and easily start a rumor that Gilbert Gottfried was going to play Kirk, or whatever. If there's been an actual media report, that's one thing, but let's keep netrumor out of it or this article is going to become the same sort of train wreck the Casino Royale (2006 film) article nearly ended up being during the hunt for Bond when virtually every male actor in Hollywood was being rumored for the part. 23skidoo 17:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree; keep up the good work. The article stands for some ongoing improvement. --Erik 17:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Nimoy quote on the movie
http://www.cinematical.com/2006/08/31/shatner-and-nimoy-back-for-next-trek/ He (Nimoy) says, ""The head of production at Paramount called my agency to tell them about this project and they are aware of Bill's and my contribution to the franchise, and they'd like us to know they might want some involvement. It was all very, very general. They might possibly want Bill and I to set up the story as a flashback. But that's just conjecture on my part."


 * Talking as a Star Trek fan: Very interesting! But as a Wikipedia contributer, I'm afraid it seems clear that conjecture by Nimoy is still just conjecture and probably does not belong in the article. — Mütze 19:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA nomination
If the article retains this amount of quality throughout the film's production, than it can easily become a GA. However, for the moment, the article fails the stable requirement of the good article criteria as the film is still in production and will most likely have day by day changes to it (if not now than soon). The Filmaker 05:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

previous Captains
Everyone seems to be terrifed of the prospect that they are gonna bring back the originals. There where two other captains before kirk, Robert April & christopher Pike maybe this film will be about them instead of Kirk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.218.47 (talk • contribs)
 * There were *a lot* of captains before Kirk. The point is, that Shatner and Nimoy's statements seem to indicate that there might be some sort of revival of the TOS crew - and that has nothing to do with April and Pike having been before Kirk. — Mütze 08:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd also remind 86.139 that this is not a discussion forum. If there's credible info, we'll post it.  But Shatner and Nimoy's recently rewritten contracts that now give them recasting approval would pretty strongly indicate a Kirk/Spock/(McCoy) movie.  Plus, who in the viewing public want to see a Captain April movie? :P --BCSWowbagger 20:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You'd be surprised. --myselfalso 20:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Potentially Salient Addition to the Opposition/Criticism Section
I think one area of 'objections' which hasn't been incorporated into the article (except perhaps indirectly at the beginning of the page) but seems relatively prevalent amongst the fan community (or at least the portion I am aware of) is the classic "exhaustion" or "failure to think of long term franchise health". This was brought up a great deal after Voyager went off the air while Enterprise was being planned, and it is being brought up again. I'm assuming that people reading this page will know what this objection means, but, to sum it up: by pushing out another movie after the recent failures of the franchise, there is a chance that, rather than revitalizing ST, it will put the final nail in the coffin, and thereby cut off future development, funding, corporate support, etc. for a long time to come. Whereas, if a larger hiatus were embarked upon, interest might grow again ala the period betwee TOS and the first Motion Picture.

I'm sure that this objection could be written into the article with citations. I've read op-ed pieces linked at treknation which have held this position ... any (more experienced wiki writers) willing to take up this challenge and write it in?


 * To be honest, a fan base's reaction is difficult to gauge. I don't know much about Star Trek lore, so I'm not familiar with what you're talking about.  I'm glad you want to make this information verifiable, but the information needs to be reliable as well.  I'm not sure how prominent TrekNation is, or whether op/ed pieces would be valid.  Fan blogs just don't come up to the level of independent news sources.  Also, is it really necessary to discuss objections to the film, if it hasn't even been released yet?  What if it turns out to be something different than previous movies, despite these objections?  Just questions to consider. --Erik 20:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * My inclination is that the Fan Reaction section all needs more citations, so anything you can provide would be nice. I'll admit that I haven't heard the "franchise fatigue" argument used much on Trek XI, because it is coming out 3 years (long, long years) after the end of Enterprise, so I didn't include it in the section.  If you've heard a lot about it, please point me in the right direction.  As for Op-Ed's, I think an official Op-Ed from TrekToday would be a valid source, seeing as it's the first or second most-read independent Trek news source. --BCSWowbagger 21:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Brad Pitt is definately not connected to Star Trek XI
Are Brad Pitt and Matt Damon so easy to mix up? lol The rumors are suggesting Matt Damon as the captain, and it has never been suggested that Brad Pitt is in the running. If this is a prequel about a young Captain James T. Kirk, how could 43 year old Pitt be a candidate? It's obviously just someone who was a bit confused about their Hollywood leading men who wrote this. i did try and go in and edit it to correct the mistake, but it appears that the edit was already made .. although this correction has still not been published to the live page? Why? Quite a clonker of an error for Wikipedia :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.151.44 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 19 November 2006


 * I appreciate your concern, 24.202, but the error was a vandalism, and it was up for all of 22 minutes before PDThor caught it on one of his thankfully regular patrols. Unfortunate for visitors during those 22 minutes, but it's otherwise about the most complete piece of Star Trek XI info you'll find in one place anywhere on the 'Net.  If I do say so myself.  ;) --BCSWowbagger 08:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Abrams Confirmed as Trek Helmer
From IGN. Feel free to work it in. --Erik ( talk/contrib ) @ 19:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * For the editor who reverted, the direct citation: Variety: "J.J. Abrams, who recently inked a film deal with Par, is set to direct." Thanks. --Erik ( talk/contrib ) @ 21:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice news grab. There does seems to be at least some debate about the Variety claim: .  Having said that, I think we should keep the new citation as-is, since TMR is only citing unconfirmed rumors and Variety is, well, Variety.  But I also think we should keep the 2008 date in the infobox, since every single piece of information to this point has said "2008," and even this citation only indicates a vague possibility of an '09 release.  Any comments on that? --BCSWowbagger 05:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, after I posted this, I quickly got a message from Tony Pascale, the chief editor of TMR, who personally knows that, as a news source, he shouldn't edit his own material into the article, but really does believe the Variety citation is errant. And he has good reason: Way back in April, Variety reported  that Abrams was directing.  Abrams quickly contradicted this, but it seems, based on the Variety article, that they have stuck with it.  Why think that?  Well, [www.on24.com on24.com] has an audio version of the interview Variety used as its source material.  There is no mention of Abrams at all, but merely the possible 2008-2009 release window.  Second, Trek Movie Report spoke with Abrams a few weeks ago, at which time Abrams said that he would not make a decision about directing until the script is done... which, to all available knowledge, it is not.  Third, and I know I can't cite this in the article, but it is useful for persuading you, the assembled editors of this article, Mr. Pascale was kind enough to send me a series of e-mails from a Paramount executive who can not be named, but who said: As far as I’ve been able to find out, there has been no official announcement that JJ is directing.  This is looks like lazy reporting to me.


 * So, here's what I'm saying: Abrams might direct, or he might not. Variety claims that he is going to direct, but, let's be honest here: Variety doesn't spend hours every day combing over every significant word in every Abrams or Paramount interview.  They almost certainly have slipped up, just as they did in April with their reports of directors and the Starfleet Academy plot.  As editors of Wikipedia, it is our responsibility to provide the most accurate information possible as it is confirmed.  The infobox should only indicate that Abrams has been offerred, but not accepted, the directorship.


 * Sorry I'm being such a nerd about this. I know people who read this page and don't realize that I edit it who come up to me and excitedly tell me news about STXI based on what's written here.  I hate it when they cite as fact that which is doubtful.  I hate it even more when other people come up to me and say that they won't watch the movie because Ben Affleck is starring as Captain Kirk, but that's a whole 'nother story.  I'll give this issue a couple days to simmer, then hopefully I can make the appropriate adjustments.


 * As a side note, there's been a bit of news in the last couple months on the Shatner front. When I next come through, I'll make some further adjustments to that section. --BCSWowbagger 06:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * With the release of IGN's retraction to the Variety story, I've gone ahead and made amendments. --BCSWowbagger 05:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)