Talk: Star Trek (film)/Archive 2006

About: This is an archive of discussions regarding Star Trek (film) primarily from 2006, with a few dating back to 2005.

Information to include in this article[]

Would it be okay to discuss the possible setting of this film and who it would involve (both production crew and characters), or would that be against the spoiler policy? --From Andoria with Love 10:35, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Redirect[]

Although the title of the movie isn't written in stone, should Star Trek: The Beginning be created and redirect here? Intricated 23:21, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I would wait until the title is official. There's no reason to move the article if the title is just going to change later on anyway. --From Andoria with Love 12:45, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)

And yet it's being redirected right now, isn't it? cap97 20:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Like the spoiler notice says: "...contains spoilers to released material only, so no information about this movie can be added until Paramount announces a film or identified studio sources discuss information with a press outlet, such as a news service. Because of our desire to disinclude unconfirmed data, please use the talk page to suggest or explain an addition to this article, only if it has a citation that could be referenced here." So calling it "Star Trek: The Beginning" would probably fall under: "unconfirmed data" --Alan del Beccio 09:02, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Possible director[]

According to the IMDb, Russell Mulcahy has been assigned to direct this film. However, I can find no other sources citing this information, and IMDb has been known to be wrong before, especially since anyone can add almost anything to the site. For the record, Mulcahy is most famous for directing the first two Highlander movies, so he is no stranger to science fiction. --From Andoria with Love 11:21, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)

New plot details for officially dead project[]

According to this article here, this project is officially dead as production is no longer moving forward according to writer Eric Jendresen. He also revealed a number of new plot details, including the fact that the film would have been part of a trilogy, would have filled a gap between the end of Star Trek: Enterprise and the beginning of the original series, and the fact that the Federation was formed in time to fight the Romulans in the Earth-Romulan War. Oh, this is Shran, btw. --70.106.24.39 21:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

New project[]

J.J. Abrams is announced as producer and director of ST 11 according to Trektoday and Trekweb^(X) "Paramount Pictures announced today that Lost creator J.J. Abrams will co-write, produce and direct the eleventh Star Trek film, set for release in 2008." If that is exact, I think the earlier project can be a little bit developed in the background section as it was abandonned in order to have a complete history of the preproduction of ST11. - Philoust123 12:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest merely leaving it in a similar state to the other movies in that, if the details that have come out are vastly different to the final product, some notes are made about the earlier concepts, indicating that they were merely that, early concepts. Sulfur 12:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Being that news of this is on the official Star Trek website, don't you think this should be moved up, or displayed more prominently? --Gekko16 03:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

"No official announcements"[]

There have been no official announcements of any upcoming film except for industry reports of producers and executives who have been involved in pre-production of projects that would have become this movie.

This is no longer true, as Paramount has announced plans for the J.J. Abrams-directed film. The above should be revised to say that the information which follows it traces the status of the film, or something like that. --From Andoria with Love 00:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC) Strike that... according to the article at StarTrek.com^(X), Paramount has yet to officially announce this project; it was reported by the newspaper Variety. Whoops! --From Andoria with Love 03:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

"LOST" in space?[]

Anyone else find it a little funny that JJ Abrams is doing a movie about the characters' pasts, when that's the main thrust of LOST? Maybe the movie will open with Kirk's eye opening up...

Wikipedia STXI article[]

The STXI article at Wikipedia is huge... tons of interviews, chronology, random extra crap... you think we could use any of that stuff here? 66.41.75.64 03:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why not, although I think the article as it is now covers the basics of what needs to be known about the upcoming film. --From Andoria with Love 00:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the Teaser Poster[]

"In late July 2006, Paramount released an early poster image for Star Trek XI, depicting a command divison-Starfleet emblem as we know it from The Original Series, [...] giving another hint to the film being set in the 23rd century, possibly during Kirk's and Spock's time at Starfleet Academy."

Shouldn't that be the Enterprise emblem instead of Starfleet emblem? This would also imply that the story is set on Enterprise and not at the academy.

it was a UESPA emblem before it was the Enterprise emblem anyway, according to its use on Friendship One. I'd say it probably being used in the most general sense and it would be silly to try and assume there is an implication of how heavily Enterprise, the Academy, Starfleet, the Federation or UESPA are involved based on one symbol that has been used by more than one of the parties mentioned. -- Captain M.K.B. 20:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh man. I hope they don't try to recreate TOS. It's going to look so crappy! I'm not saying that the set designers and special effect guys/gals can't do it. I'm just saying the 60's series looked like/was crap! Just reimagine it PLEASE???? Realistic uniforms. Realistic ships. Realistic effects. I understand the old as dirt fans want to relieve their childhoods but this movie is going to suck if its just for you old farts. (like my dad). 70.44.7.130 14:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Um... yeah, whatever. Anyway, talk pages are to be used to discuss the content of the article and not for personal commentary or chit-chat. --From Andoria with Love 16:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It's probably more realistic that the Voyager people forgot that each ship in TOS had its own insignia. Rather, they used the symbol for the original Enterprise as it is used in the 24th century - as starfleet's insignia.

I think it is very relevant to note that the poster uses the Enterprise insignia. I think either those who made the posters are younin's who forgot that in TOS that symbol is for Enterprise crew members only, or they mean that XI will have something to do with the original Enterprise. --Beyerku 15:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The people who made Voyager have nothing to do with this film, not even Rick Berman.
All poster images are based on content from initial story outlines or scripts and must be approved by the director or producer (in this case, J.J. Abrams) before being released. Since Abrams is a fan of the original series and Next Generation, I doubt he would make a mistake – although anything is possible. --From Andoria with Love 18:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Definitive statements regarding the symbol are kind of off-base at this point. The symbol used was the command division insignia on the Enterprise in the 2260s -- but then remember, the symbol with the star in the center was also worn by other divisions aboard Enterprise in the 2250s and 2260s. The arrowhead delta symbol itself was used for UESPA in the 21st century, worn by non-Entrprise Starfleet crewmwmbers on Starbase 11, and then was used for all of Starfleet starting in the 2270s onward. Given all this, can we really say this is an Enterprise movie? lets not engage in silly speculation... -- Captain M.K.B. 19:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed content[]

I removed the following:

It is impossible to set a movie during "Spock and Kirk's Academy days" because they were not in the academy together. Actually when Kirk became captain of the Enterprise Spock had already served aboard the Enterprise for 17 years. Vulcan lifespans are much longer han humans. Since Kirk was the youngest captain at age 30 years, he would have been 13 when Spock completed his Academy training.

It might be true, but doesn't belong in what amounts to only sketchy descriptions of the plot. Deevolution 20:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Especially since the year of Kirk's captaincy and his age at the time is incorrect. What [canon] evidence is there that he was the youngest captain? -- Captain M.K.B. 23:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

He definatly wasn't the youngest captain. I just saw and episode of Deep Space Nine on Spike that showed a 23 year old? captain (Tim Watters. I'm think i remember hearing 23 but regardless he was jumped from cadet to captain so clearly it means he was def younger than Kirk. 70.44.7.130 01:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Kirk was supposed to be the youngest person to become a captain during his time, although there hasn't been any on-screen reference to this. I think it's from Roddenberry's notes or something, or maybe just speculation that somehow became accepted as fact over the years. In any case, although he may have been the youngest captain in the 23rd century, by the 24th century, that honor was held by Tryla Scott. --From Andoria with Love 01:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

According to StarTrek.com

"As much as any other figure in Starfleet history, the tall tales about James T. Kirk's exploits over a 40-year career are as numerous as the official record — and probably closer to the truth in some instances. Kirk's renown began by becoming the youngest captain in Starfleet to date at 34 and the first captain to bring his starship back relatively intact after a five-year mission, having also gained a reputation as an independent whose success couldn't be argued even though he often bucked the system. He also has the distinction of being involved in 17 different temporal violations, a career record which still stands."

-- MstrControl ^{talk | contrib.} 23:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)