Talk:Star Trek (film)/Archive 2009

From Memory Alpha, the free Star Trek reference

Contents 1 POV treatment on MA 2 POV treatment on MA 3 POV treatment on MA (minimal spoilers) 4 Tarsus IV: in or not? 5 Horrible 6 Franchise Reboot? 7 Giant Alien Monster's Species? 8 Title Change? Nope 9 New Page 10 Promotions 11 Star Wars and Star Trek United!

[edit] POV treatment on MA

So has anyone read this interview?
http://trekmovie.com/2008/12/11/bob-orci-explains-how-the-new-star-trek-movie-fits-with-trek-canon-and-real-science/ Appparently this trek occurs in a kind of parallel universe, which gives Kirk an alternate history, as well as other changes to the universe. 66.8.254.133 09:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Not a parallel universe, but an alternate timeline, but the changes in this new timeline does not effect the old timeline (as screwed up as it already is). EDIT: By the way, that's not to say that certain things which happen in the new timeline aren't the same things that happened in the old timeline. Only those events directly affected by the "incident" at the beginning of the movie will be changed. --From Andoria with Love 12:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering how we will deal with this alternate timeline aspect of the movie when creating in-universe articles, especially since its possible this alternate timeline will be the one most depicted on screen for some time to come.--31dot 13:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion: we separate the events "Timeline A" from those of "Timeline B". Everything from the attack on and destruction of the USS Kelvin – in other words, everything in the new movie – takes place in the newly-formed "Timeline B;" everything from TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, and the first ten films take place in "Timeline A." Some things from the new movie – like the existence of the USS Kelvin and George Kirk serving aboard her – can be grouped in "Timeline A," as well, since "Timeline B" won't be created until Nero attacks the Kelvin. We should also keep in mind that Nero and his Romulan followers, as well as older Spock, also originated from "Timeline A." --From Andoria with Love 18:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anything should be separated, and I don't think any specific timelines should be given names or special treatment. There have already been so many different changes to the "main" timeline, and so many different "alternate" timelines whose events never impacted the MA POV, that it's hard to justify singling out one timeline for this treatment. We say, both in-universe and in realworld backgrounders, "in an alternate timeline, thisorthat happened", and cite the source. MA's POV must be considered: Our in-universe POV permits recording events form alternate timelines. "Everything from TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, and the first ten films" does not take place in some hypothetical "Timeline A", because there are things that take place in TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, and the first ten films which are alternate timelines but still knowable in-universe by the idealized in-universe MA archivists. If we were to decide that in-universe future lookeruppers from some specific timeline (like, let's say, the "preferred" or "standard" one) couldn't actually have knowledge of such alternate events, then we would have a lot more to fix than film 11, and we would just as well get started on that right now instead of deciding what to do once film 11 will open. I say: Treat this no differently from any other alternate timeline or unknowable event, for example the one in which chronexaline is used by Janeway in 2404, or the one in which the Battle of Procyon V takes place, or the one with Na'kuhl Nazis. MA's in-universe POV currently takes for granted that future historians or researchers will be able to access information about alternate timelines (to say nothing of other ostensibly unknowable events), and our POV also has a preferred timeline that is considered "not alternate". Film 11 will not impact the preferred timeline and it also will not require any change to the status quo that has suited us for years. --TribbleFurSuit 19:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The issue is this new alternate timeline is going to become the timeline of all things Star Trek for the foreseeable future. As such, it must be treated the same way which the canon of the old timeline is treated, but, because it is not the same timeline, it must be separated. There is actually no real choice there; the writers of the new film made that decision for us, as you can read in the interview linked above. The new film will not be set in the same timeline as the other Star Trek movies and TV shows; the writers have already confirmed that. Therefore, treating the new alternate timeline as "not alternate" is not an option, since it was deliberately created by the writers as an alternate timeline. Currently, we write alternate timeline information in italics to note that this timeline is different from the original timeline. We will not be able to do that with the information from this new movie and any subsequent movies set in this new universe, because it will be the new universe of Star Trek. So, there really isn't an option as to if we separate the info; the only options we have are how we choose to separate it and what we choose to separate. Simply keeping the events seen in the new movie apart from the events in other movies and shows seems the easiest, less chaotic way to do things. It will just require a new section on certain pages, with one section for "Timeline A" and another for "Timeline B", or however we choose to label them (assuming the writers give us that option). I really don't think this will be that bad, though; all it will mean is two separate sections in certain articles, one for "timeline A" and another for "timeline B." --From Andoria with Love 05:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I did read everything. Now: I didn't say "treat the new timeline as not alternate", I said "Treat this no differently from any other alternate timeline" - that is to say, do treat the new timeline as an alternate one, but not any differently from how we've treated other alternate timelines. In order to understand why I said "Film 11 will not impact the preferred timeline", you should know what it is that I mean by "preferred timeline". It's the one which (A) contains the latest known canon non-alternate events (all of the self-consistent, non-alternate 24th-32nd century stuff so far) and which (B) contains the greatest bulk of the Star Trek corpus. Since there is a single timeline which is "latest and greatest", and which will continue to be until later and greater events in the Film 11 timeline are produced (>700 episodes and >10 movies), then what we'll see in Film 11 will be just another alternate timeline which never changed the events of all the rest of canon. From the POV of that in-universe Memory Alpha archivist of the >32nd Century which I talked about, that person will have experienced the results of the main timeline yet will have access to info about alternate timelines. So, again, this film doesn't need to be treated any differently from other alternate timelines. I suppose that if more works are produced taking place in the destroyed-Kelvin timeline, then we could have a name for it, the same way that the "anti-time future" is an alternate timeline that we have a specific label for. But to elevate the "destroyed-Kelvin timeline" to equal prominence with the entire rest of the main canon timeline , and to diminish the entire rest of the main canon timeline to the importance of the timeline of <1 film, to me isn't necessary or desirable. What you said about the choice the writers have made for us could be equally applied to the writers of all the other alternate-timeline events. The idea that "...and they might write another one!!!!" doesn't outweigh the idea that MA's in-universe, far-future, omniscient perspective still exists in one timeline (let's just say - the main one), not many timelines. The idea that the exact same MA with the exact same contents will exist in all possible universes is cuckoo. This is why I feel we have to pick one main timeline and treat all alternates the same, and that the timeline we should pick as "not alternate" is the one we already have, before Film 11 opens. --TribbleFurSuit 21:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It would sort of contradict the unwritten policy that what ever is the latest addition to canon should be most preferred and prominently featured thing in MA, if most STXI related articles begin with "In the alternate timeline caused by Neros temporal incursion..." But it would be the easiest solution, even if it is something of a spit in the face to the creators of the new film who have spent so much time and effort to reinvent and reimagine trek. ;-) --Pseudohuman 21:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"Not a parallel universe, but an alternate timeline"
Actually he uses both terms, parallel universe, and alternate imeline to mean the same thing. Read the full interview. I don't know they kinda do have the same meaning, or similar meanings, or are least related. While you can't always accept wikipedia's definitions, it states; In these contexts, parallel universes are also called "alternative universes", "quantum universes", "interpenetrating dimensions", "parallel worlds", "alternate realities", "alternative timelines", etc.[1] Thus Orci is not the only one that uses the terms parallel and alternative timeline to mean the same thing. This is apparently a normal phenomena in scifi stories and apparently quantum theory. While I respect your opinion that perhaps you view alternate timelines and parallel universes as seperate topics, it would seem many sci-fi writers wouldn't necessarily agree with you. Regardless, it doesn't matter what other scifi writers believe, we have evidence of Orci himself using the terms as synonyms, which is all that really matters 66.8.254.133 22:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Good points all around. All this being the case, we should probably treat the new movie not as alternate timeline information but as parallel universe information, as we do with the mirror universe stuff. One thing we can't do is intersperse pages with italicized "In an alternate timeline in which the USS Kelvin was destroyed..." Kirk's history will be the most impacted and changed by this movie and I just don't think having a bunch of "In an alternate timeline" lines sprinkled throughout his article would be a good idea. I therefore suggest we treat the movie the way the writers are treating it: as taking place in a separate universe. With that in mind, we should handle info from the new movie similarly to the way we handle info from the mirror universe episodes of Star Trek. This means we should either A.) do as I suggested above, separating information into different sections; or B.) creating new pages for the alternate Kirk, the alternate Spock, the alternate Enterprise, the alternate Romulan history, the alternate Pike, etc. I'm not sure I like the latter idea. For one thing, what we name the pages? For another, it would be a bit too chaotic. Adding a separate section to pages seems to be the easiest way to go. If you guys have any other suggestions, please add it below. For the record, TribbleFurSuit, there's no written policy saying our POV exists only or primarily in one timeline or universe. If that were true, well, then, we wouldn't have any info on the alternate timelines or the mirror universe, would we? :-D I'm also not saying we should treat the new timeline as prominent over the old one, but I do think we should treat them equally. Afterall, this will be, in all likelihood, the new canon timeline for a long time to come. In any case, the new timeline info will be added after the "main" timeline events, so in a sense, the old timeline is taking prominence. You see? --From Andoria with Love 23:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, sure, they're the same thing, why not. It doesn't actually matter whether it's a parallel universe or an alternate timeline. I still maintain that the in-universe Memory Alpha archive which our in-universe future audience would use can't exist in many universes/timelines/whatever in a single state, and that the universe/timeline/whatever we're writing it for should be the one which had the latest canon events and the greatest number of them in canon. While I understand the concept of "many worlds" and "multiverse", nobody lives there - everybody lives in one of the many universes. Over time they enter different ones, but no single instance of any person experiences the multiple universes/timelines/whatever. While MA so far has assumed that, in the universe in which this copy of Memory Alpha will exist, people can have knowledge of alternate universes/timelines/whatever, still none of them lives in a single universe/timeline/whatever with multiple realities. The archive can't be in a universe in which both timelines are valid, so I maintain that we have to choose the POV of one universe/timeline/whatever, and all the rest are alternates from that POV. It would be nonsensical to have two non-alternate but mutually contradictory sets of facts in any single universe, so, unless we'll make a second MA which lives in a second universe/timeline/whatever, which is also laughable, then we pick one POV.

Now, I don't have any idea where this unwritten rule you're talking about, Pseudohuman, came from. In-universe retcons have occurred, but that is different from creating alternate realities. Retcons still take place in the main/preferred/latestgreatestcanon universe/timeline/whatever, but that's totally different from creating alternate ones. At any rate, with retcons or any other kind of story where past canon is further illuminated by new canon, then, of course we'll take the latest content produced as the real story. You see how the latest production is different from the latest events in-universe? OK, there can not be two canons. There can be only one. All that's left is to pick: will it be from the POV of Film 11, or that of TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT and 10 other movies? --TribbleFurSuit 23:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Finally: regarding"For the record, TribbleFurSuit, there's no written policy saying our POV exists only or primarily in one timeline or universe. If that were true, well, then, we wouldn't have any info on the alternate timelines or the mirror universe, would we?" OK, see MA:POV: "Memory Alpha's primary point of view is that of a character inside the fictional Star Trek universe – an archivist at Memory Alpha, the Federation library planet. Star Trek universe articles should be written as if the described person, object, or event actually existed or occurred, exactly like in a normal encyclopedia, but with an omniscient writer. " Omniscient means what I've been saying above: These archivists can (somehow) know about other realities, but the various alternate realities are separate realities. The Battle of Procyon V did not take place in the main/preferred POV, even if some in-universe library has information about it, presented as an alternative that was learned about in some fashion or another. Maybe they'll use a version of Daniels' temporal observatory. Nevertheless, even Daniels proves that we can't say, from any in-universe POV, that "these two mutually exclusive contradictory events both took place in our universe". One of them has to be an alternate. Future Daniels' memory of what happened in his universe always was changing, because what happened in his universe was changing, or, to use the multiverse metaphor, they were different Daniels's from different universes. --TribbleFurSuit 23:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

To me it depends on what the intentions of the producers are no matter what the technobabble behind it is. Do they want to reimagine Trek for future fans with this film, or do they just want to add another yesterday's enterprise to the mix. If fans who come aboard trek with this new film are intended to treat all the events, tech, ships and such as the "new true canon" that the franchise will follow from now on, we should take the film-11 pov as the "main timeline" in MA too. I suspect the end of this film will be such that all the TOS-onwards adventures take place with only some superficial changes, the shape of connies, etc. but it's too early to tell. :) --Pseudohuman 01:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

TribleFurSuit: You're forgetting that MA already "lives" in more than one universe, namely the "prime" universe and the mirror universe. We treat mirror universe information the same way we treat "prime" universe info: we have individual articles for elements in the mirror universe, just as we have individual articles for elements in the "prime" universe. Some mirror universe info is even located on pages with "prime" universe info. In addition, you're assuming that this new film won't somewhat alter our POV policy to account for this "new" universe.

TFS, if I understand you correctly, you want to treat the new movie as we treat all alternate timeline info, meaning separating it from "norman" timeline information using italics. I am not saying that is absolutely not the way to go; in fact, we can try it and it may work out fine. But, since this movie also takes place in a parallel universe, why can't we treat info from the new movie the way we treat info from the mirror universe episodes? Yes, this would most likely mean information from the movie being separated into its own section – is that really a problem?

By comparison, the Battlestar wiki operates in a very similar way as I'm suggesting. For example, they have Cylon split up into three articles based on the series in which they appeared, since each series was a different universe. Of course, that wiki does not share our "in-universe" POV, which brings me back to my point about our current policy: we may need to adjust it to say that we can see into other universes, as well. As ludicrous as this may sound, we are already doing this with the mirror universe information; we just haven't stated it in the policy yet.

All of the mirror universe episodes has at least one element from our universe visiting the mirror timeline, whether it be one or more characters (Benjamin Sisko, James T. Kirk) or a starship (USS Defiant). This new parallel universe will be no different: it will have Spock from our universe, a group of Romulans from our universe, and at least two starships from our universe, all visiting this new alternate universe. In addition, this new universe will be continuing as the mirror universe has been. So, I ask again, why not treat info from the new movie as we would info from the mirror universe?

Pseudohuman: This new film is intended to be the "new" canon which the franchise will follow from now on, assuming the film is successful. (As I said before, we don't have to worry about implementing anything just yet, but it's probably a good idea to talk about it ahead of time, which we are doing.) This is why just treating it as any other alternate timeline doesn't really sit well with me. However, if the community wants to go that route, then I will agree. TribbleFurSuit is right that we've been treating alternate timelines a certain way and I do see his point, but this movie is not just another alternate timeline: it is an all new universe, one in which the producers intend on staying for quite a while. --From Andoria with Love 09:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

We're getting somewhere. Yes, let's treat this more like the Mirror Universe. I'm not at all "forgetting that MA already "lives" in more than one universe, namely the "prime" universe and the mirror universe." But this is really not correct: MA doesn't live in the Mirror Universe, it lives in the regular one. Archivists, in this universe, have knowledge of at least some aspects of the Mirror Universe and that knowledge is represented in the archive as originating from the other universe.

"this would most likely mean information from the movie being separated into its own section – is that really a problem?" No, no, of course not. But the idea of "Timeline A and Timeline B" is unpalatable. This universe isn't Universe A, and the Mirror Universe isn't Universe B, they're this universe and some other universe. Also, alternate content is not always italicized or shuffled off to an appendix. (Frankly, I don't think it should be, either: Italics are normally used for non-canon or occasionally real-life info. But alternate reality info still is canon. Maybe we currently have a style problem?) We have entire in-universe articles about events and people from alternate realities, as well as other articles which discuss alternate timeline events in main-style text.

The idea of adjusting our POV is tricky. If it's done, there will be a Xload of cleanup to do. I am really not sure it's necessary: while you predict that "we may need to adjust it to say that we can see into other universes", I say that we already can see into alternate timelines/parallel universes, at least to the extent necessary to represent all of canon. For events in our universe, we possess the omniscience that MA:POV indicates, and for other universes/timelines, we don't, but we do indeed still know some things (somehow).

Let me point out one little difference between the Mirror Universe stuff vs. the alternate timeline stuff. The reason we have 2 articles for main and Mirror characters is that they really are different characters - different beings. But if one already-living character gets his life bifurcated by a temporal event, is it 2 characters? I don't know, maybe it is, maybe it's not. We've never done that before with alternate timeline characters. Tasha Yar still only has 1 page.

So the Mirror Universe model might turn out to be a pretty good one, especially if we can come up with a catchy, concise, meaningful name for the destroyed-Kelvin timeline. Or, if separate articles for one character aren't palatable to everybody, then a new standardized "Kelvin Timeline" subsection would be better than "sprinkling throughout articles" this info. Again, see Yar's page. It contains info from multiple ones, but a standard one for the Kelvin timeline should work for a lot of pages. Or a separate "Kelvin Timeline" article, why not.

All right: hopefully some ideas are starting to percolate. My main objection was to the idea of treating the universe we've had all along, and will have until next May, as a stepchild with no greater import than the new timeline. It's the main timeline/universe. Its history stretches to the 32nd century. Some timeline that is portrayed in one production and essentially ends in the 2250's should not displace the primacy of the universe that rest of canon represents. In. my. opinion. --TribbleFurSuit 17:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

TribbleFurSuit, good thoughts all around, and I agree with you. However for others who have used the term, "new" canon, ugh, that doesn't sit well with me... That kind of wording sounds too close to "replacing", the old. The thought that there may not be a continuation to the old canon, and that it could be "replaced" in a way, is disheartening to me... Personally I hope this new movie is just a one off event. Though rumors from AICN are that this new timeline may be used to present "what-if" stories where more disasterous things happen to the universe, that wouldn't happen in the "main" universe, like perhaps important planets or races being wiped out. If true, I suppose that might be interesting, but done only in moderation. I really don't want them to do that too often, and that type of thing might make for interesting direct to video releases rather than theatrical. I really want them to go back to the universe we know and love, and have them fill in more gaps. Imo, future theatrical movies should go back on track to the main timeline. Also speaking of direct to video releases, and mini-series; it would be nice if paramount used that format to say bring back characters from previous shows to tell new stories in the original universe. I mean why not give us the Romulan war with the Enterprise cast, as a mini series? There is still plenty they could do with the original universe without having to resort to creating full length series, or "replacing" the original universe with a new one.66.8.254.133 18:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

What about details from the new universe like the name of Kirk's dad and the ship he served on which are part of the Prime canon (I take this name from merchandise for Leonard Nimoy's Spock in the new film). – Alientraveller 20:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Tribblefursuit: Fair enough. :) We will have to come to some decision on what to call sections for the new timeline, though. "Kelvin timeline" doesn't really work, especially since the Kelvin is in the prime timeline, as well. Remember, the movie starts in the prime timeline but deviates when the Kelvin is attacked and destroyed by the Romulans. Maybe something like "alternate prime timeline," since this is basically the creation of a new prime timeline. Actually, I don't think I like that name, either, lol!

66.8.254.133: It is not the writers' or the filmmakers' intention to "replace" the old timeline with this new one. The old timeline will still exist, but to open up new possibilities for story-telling, they have established a new timeline in which to tell their stories. Keep in mind that not everything will be different in this timeline, only some things, particularly things with Kirk.

Alientraveller: The existence of the USS Kelvin and its crew, as well as George and Winona Kirk's service aboard the vessel, will be included as part of the "prime timeline" canon. However, everything from the ship's destruction onward will take place in the "alternate prime timeline." (Still not sure I like that phrasing...) --From Andoria with Love 02:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I predict that once we see the movie, some snappy name will suggest itself. Knowing what we know now, though, the best I can come up with are:

the "STXI" timeline (pronounced "sticksy")

the "Orci/Kurtzman" timeline

Though, we'll probably want an in-universe name:

the "Nero" timeline (since he hasn't ever appeared before)

the "Tattoo" timeline

the "Iowa Enterprise" timeline

--TribbleFurSuit 17:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... of those I like "Nero timeline" best, though I'm not too thrilled about that name, either. Also, Nero existed in the prime timeline, as well, so it may cause some confusion. An in-universe term is definitely what we're looking for, though; if we were to go by a production-POV term, we could just call it the "Abramsverse" and be done with it. :)

By the way, I just thought of something. Regarding a tweak to the policy, we could say we have the ability "visit" different timelines/universes, or maybe say that we made a leap from the "prime timeline" to the new timeline of the movie. Or something like that. Dunno, just spitting out ideas. Let me know what you think. --From Andoria with Love 18:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, like I said, after we see the movie, some better in-universe name probably will suggest itself. Regarding MA:POV, maybe something that alludes to the temporal observatory could be stated, in order to justify the in-universe capability to see into alternate timelines and other unknowable things, like USS Voyager (mimetic) and Museum of Kyrian Heritage. So far, most of the alternate timeline/universe stuff is knowable in the main timeline just because people here witnessed them. But not all. Definitely a few alternate timelines plus a couple of other ostensibly unknowable events are already treated here as knowable by the >32nd century MA archivists. I like the idea of "seeing into" better than the idea of "making a leap" or "visiting". Though, the policy has suited everything we've done so far. I really don't know what should be changed. Maybe just some statement about what's the main universe and what's not. How about: "...but with an omniscient writer, who can see certain events from alternate timelines and parallel universes" --TribbleFurSuit 19:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Orci said there would be revelations in the film that are common ground to the old universe because they are not affected by the destruction of the Kelvin. Would those details be noted in italics in the prime articles or be disregarded because one undone change to the timeline means everything is an alternate universe? – Alientraveller 22:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Without knowing what those details are, I think we'll just have to see. I'm inclined to say that, if we see something in the new timeline which may appear to be unaffected by Nero, but we never actually saw it in the main timeline, then there's not any evidence that it did occur the same way in the main timeline, and so not to do what you say.

On the other hand, if Orci is talking about things that are revealed before the timeline forks, like let's say we learn that Amanda Grayson tried out a little Sapphism in college before meeting Sarek, then this fact wouldn't be an issue of the alternate timeline at all. It would belong to the main timeline before the split. So it would just be a regular canon detail in the Amanda Grayson article.

A third type of revelation might be: we see something that occurs after the timeline fork, it's something we already have seen in canon in the main timeline, and it appears to be something which couldn't possibly be affected by Nero's actions. Like, maybe we find out that those five cadets still die attempting a Kolvoord Starburst at the Academy. OK, if that's all we learn, then there's no new information. But let's say we learn a new detail, like one of those cadets' names. Then will we include it in the main timeline, the new timeline, both, or what?

I think there will really only be a pretty small number of cases like this and the way we answer those questions in each case will depend on what we really see and hear onscreen. --TribbleFurSuit 22:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I like "Abramsverse". :) I'd like the POV policy to change so that abramsverse is not called an alternative timeline in the articles and that there would be separate pages for all the abramsverse specific stuff that simply have a template thingy in the upper corner similar to the realworld template that says "This information is written from the Abramsverse point of view" it would be easier to just call this another parallel universe and put the stuff in subsections, but in this case it should get more from us IMO. But if you dont agree, then forget it. Just my opinion. =D --Pseudohuman 11:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's think about it a little: Does your way mean that there would be a separate James T. Kirk (Abramsverse) article? If so, would that article include info about Captain Kirk from before the timeline split? And, would the regular James T. Kirk article include new info from STXI about Kirk's life before the timeline split? Just asking. Because, whether we were to call it the "Abramsverse" or not, the reality is that this stuff does intersect with the regular universe.

"Abramsverse" could become an anachronism as soon as somebody else directs STXIII or the like. Same goes for Orci/KurtzmanVerse or other realworld-POV names. This and other POV reasons stated previously are why I personally would like an in-universe name. I still don't care whether we call it an alternate timeline or a parallel universe.

And, I didn't get what this means: "it would be easier to just call this another parallel universe and put the stuff in subsections, but in this case it should get more from us IMO". What should get more what from us, now?

Thanks for the ideas, let's keep talking about them. --TribbleFurSuit 14:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Quantum universes as explained in "Parallels" have a shared history up to some point with another quantum universe and "abramsverse" would therefore begin from the temporal incursion event as it is an artificially forked out quantum universe. It would not have any history of its own beyond that as it is only a tangent-universe without its own past. So yes to the James T. Kirk (Abramsverse) article, no to the shared history info bit, new pre-incursion info would belong to the James T. Kirk article. Of course info can be referenced when it explains something in Abramsverse but it shouldn't be given redundantly when that is unnecessary. The "more" would be these own articles written from the abramsverse-pov with the little template up there at the top of the page, instead of the current treatment of alternative timelines. This was my suggestion, sorry for not being clear enough. In-universe name would be better. I understand the objection to my suggestion and why you think we should treat it as we treat other alternative timelines currently, as that would be easier, no need to repeat the position, this section is long enough as it is. =D --Pseudohuman 02:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

My two cents would be that Memory Alpha should be split in two, just as there is the "Memory Alpha" in timeline A, as another user put it, there probably would be a "Memory Alpha" in JJ Abrahams reimagined Trek universe

Besides, didn't I see a Mirror Universe Memory Alpha? http://memory-alpha.org/mu/wiki/Main_Page 204.209.209.129

There is indeed a Mirror Universe wiki. And there could indeed be an "Abramsverse" wiki. I'm pretty sure there will be, sooner or later. Neither of those have anything to do with the fact that this is the canon wiki, for all of canon. We have Mirror Universe material here, even though there's a separate wiki, and we will have Nero-timeline stuff here, even if there's a separate wiki. We're trying to manage this wiki, and STXI stuff is not going to be piped out of here to some other wiki and ignored here.

At any rate, the holding pattern that we've arrived at for now is to plan to treat this like we already treat the Mirror Universe here, and to pick a name for this new timeline/universe/whatever once we see the movie, because we don't have a good in-universe name yet and the movie probably will reveal something that makes good sense. I'm picturing naming it for whatever will be the specific novel timetravel technology Nero will use. I bet it will be something we've never heard of yet, so we could be calling it the "Nero's ChronoBomb Timeline" or something. --TribbleFurSuit 07:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] POV treatment on MA

For the spoiler-rich precursor to the discussion below, see Talk:Star Trek (film)/Archive 2009.

For the spoiler-free redacted version of the complete original discussion, see User:TribbleFurSuit/Redaction of Talk:Star Trek (film).

[edit] POV treatment on MA (minimal spoilers)

Like the above discussion, just without major plot points being spoiled! :(

OK, one hopefully minor spoiler on top: The new movie will, apparently, show...

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

HERE IT COMES:

alternate universe events.

Now that this is out of the way - I don't want to be spoiled too much about the new movie, but I (and I'm sure others as well) would like to participate in a discussion that concerns some basic MA policy decisions. I only scanned the above discussion, because I was pretty much spoiled in the first line of it, and didn't want to be spoiled further. What I saw, though, was the fact that the whole discussion seemed to be between just two participants - which isn't much if this indeed is about future policy.

So, can the above discussion be rephrased here, without giving any more spoilers than the one I gave at the top of this discussion? If yes, then please do so that we can participate - if no, then this problem will probably have to wait until the movie is out in May. -- Cid Highwind 14:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I will give it a shot. :) Basically, according to co-writer/exec producer Bob Orci, the events of the new film take place in an alternate timeline. However, he argues that, based on the theory of quantum mechanics, the existence of this new timeline does not mean the old timeline is wiped out. In fact, some of the things which happen in this timeline will be no different than what happens in the old timeline, or so Orci argues. Nonetheless, it does present an alternate canon history of events. The question was how to include those events on Memory Alpha. One way to do it is to separate articles based on timelines (i.e. Timeline A and Timeline B), but this option was not met with much enthusiasm. It was argued that, even though we have knowledge of alternate timelines, we "live" within one timeline, and that timeline takes precedence over the others. This is where a possible tweak in policy came in; I optioned to change the policy to say we can "see" or "live" in alternate universes, as we seem to be doing with the mirror universe. I don't think this suggestion was met with much enthusiasm, either, so I then suggested we treat this new, parallel timeline as we treat mirror universe information, which would include, I assume, separate articles for the alternate Kirk, Spock, etc. Or maybe just a separate section within the already-existing articles, not sure. In any case, this seems to be the preferred choice, but now we have to come up with a catchy name for the timeline, ala "mirror universe." That's about it, I think. If there was any other policy-changing discussion, I'm not aware of it. --From Andoria with Love 15:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have been imagining that just as soon as the movie opens and spoilerfree people see it, all of the above will be read and commented upon before any decisions are made. We could parapharase everything again down here (lots of work), I guess, or re-post it all down here in redacted form (less work). Anybody want that? --TribbleFurSuit 20:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, there's a spoiler-redacted version of the above 40KB discussion here. Shall we archive the above so that this is the only place this is discussed anymore? --TribbleFurSuit 21:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Archived the old discussion, where the link says I sent it. --Alan 21:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, can this be used in any way as an example? --Alan 21:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I for one was enthusiastic about the clear timeline A and B seggregation suggestion. So I proposed the idea of writing about the new stuff in new articles in the way as if it was the one and only real thing and add into that article a little box similar to the real world pov-box that would state: "This article is written from the timeline B (we'll make up a better name later) point of view". To clarify, instead of writing it into the article text "In the timeline B, this type of communicator was used by Starfleet officers" we write "This type of communicator was used by Starfleet officers." and add the little box. --Pseudohuman 18:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a regular here, and not nearly as knowledgeable in Trek lore as most of you, but for what it's worth, I support creating separate articles for the new timeline, like is already done with the mirror universe (as User:Shran said). We use a similar method on the Wikia I founded, The Hardy Boys Wiki for the different continuities, and it seems to work quite well. WHLfan (talk to me!) 06:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's bad... You're right, we can't really pretend that "everything is the same" if, this time, even the producers admit that it isn't - and deliberately created their story to not be... this means, we need some sort of separation.

However, moving 700+ hours of continuity to the "alternate universe" while keeping 2 hours of continuity as the "main timeline" would be nothing more than a big "Fuck you all!" statement to everyone who has seen Trek in the last 40 years - and I care a little more about those than about the sentiment of current producers. So, unless much more than just a single movie is part of that timeline, it should be this tiny fragment of Trek lore that gets the "alternate" treatment, not the vast majority.

Regarding the "mirror universe" comparison. Keep in mind that we only created separate articles if there was "enough" information about each, and otherwise kept all information in separate sections of a single article - or did that change at some point? --Cid Highwind 13:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I was always under the impression that it was the movie timeline we would be treating as "alternate," not the 700+ hours of history that came before it. As for creating articles or giving them separate sections, we can do the same thing with information from the new movie. For example, if there's enough info on an alternate pre-existing character, we can create a page for that alternate character. If there isn't, then we just add it as a section or sentence on the pre-existing character's page. --From Andoria with Love 13:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Amen, brother.
P.S. "not the 700+ hours of history that came before" [and especially after] "it" --TribbleFurSuit 16:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh, well, I meant the 700+ hours that came before this film, not in-universe history. :) --From Andoria with Love 12:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I know. To me, I felt it worth reiterating here (since it's only in the archives so far). The fact that there's in-universe history that came after and that we have so much of it is the important point. Latest and greatest: Latest canon events, greatest canon volume. Anyway I guess it's not 700 hours from that perspective, it's many many centuries. --TribbleFurSuit 14:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the "two timelines can be equal main timelines"-approach should be dismissed as an unthinkable impossibility, only because it's not in the policy books yet. I think we would be lagging behind the times if we continue with the way we do things now by giving the abramsverse only the "mirror universe treatment" by weighing which main timeline has the most onscreen hours behind it. --Pseudohuman 14:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to be argumentative with you, PH, but just to describe my own opinion regarding "the 'two timelines can be equal main timelines'-approach", I'll say:
We're already doing something that works for the Mirror Universe, which has more completed productions, more onscreen hours and more in-universe canon history than STXI and its hypothetical sequels. Two universes are not equal main universes, and in my opinion there's even less reason to attempt to treat a timeline as equal than there would be to consider a parallel universe as equal/internally consistent. The fact that Mirror Spock and Our Spock can meet each other makes the Mirror Universe more like "two universes can be equal main universes", or at least can be consistent within one of the universes, but that Orci/Kurtzman ******** and our ******** can not, makes that less like two realities that can be treated as equal and self-consistent, in-universe. Neverminding the previous Talk: and Orci's blab about how alternate timelines and parallel universes are the same thing, the truth is, they're different, based on canon so far. Timelines can be created/destroyed/erased/re-set, while parallel universes just co-exist and occasionally interact with each other. (OK, maybe Orci/Kurtzman ******** and our ******** could meet, if Braxton came along and made it so, or something... but it doesn't quite change the point I'm making.)
So, you're right, the "rule book" currently requires that we take an in-universe perspective to MA.org, and in my opinion we have to pick which of many possible canon universes/timelines/whatever our perspective is in. That our archive can see into other univserses/timelines/whatever is already a given. The idea that our one archive could actually be in more than one universe/timeline/whatever would be so difficult that, if we decide that at least one other timeline/universe/whatever is going to be treated just as much "main" as another one, the only sensible thing would be to just revoke the entire conceept of MA.org having an in-universe POV. Personally, I fully expect that an Abramsverse version of MA will get started, kind of like how there's the Mirror Universe version of Memory Alpha. That would satisfy having an in-universe POV for the other universe/timeline/whatever. But for MA.org/en, rejecting the in-universe POV or changing it so that an arbitrary "alternate" POV is is also in-universe and "primary" would be so disruptive that we'd never ever get all our articles cleaned up to match such a POV change.

All in good spirits, here, those are my opinions. Don't get me wrong: I'm not somebody who wants to make Abramsverse "less canon". The Abramsverse will be fully canon. I just think that MA.org/en doesn't have any choice but to treat it the same way (but with a certain emphasis) in which we have treated other alternative timelines/universes/whatever. They're canon too. To give Abramsverse the "Mirror Universe treatment" would elevate it above all but one of the other dozens of parallel realities that exist in canon, so, that actually would be quite a powerful validation. Cheers, --TribbleFurSuit 15:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose my point is that the main timeline is really only the main timeline because, as viewers of the show, we can draw a line from the beginning of Ent to the end of Voy and call it a whole continuity no matter how many in-universe temporal reboots it contains. While there is such a singular continuity it makes sense to have our MA POV in the future end of that continuity because it is the path the viewers are led along. STXI is the first time trek has decided to diverge into a new continuity that is supposed to be treated as a main timeline of its own from the viewer perspective. So the ballgame has changed. The mirror universe nor any other parallel universe so far was never intended to be a new continuity in that sense. Main timeline is still the main timeline in the sense that it is a whole continuity. The abramsverse is by nature a tangent-continuity. But indeed all in good spirits, there is something positive in the non-disruptive "Mirror universe treatment"-approach too because it keeps the POV intact and the database remains singular. I just think MA should reflect the producers intent and join the club of other wikis that have multiple continuities (in our own way) because that is what we have now too. --Pseudohuman 11:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW. The line by Daniels in "Azati Prime": "This species has technology which allows them to examine alternate timelines" Might be taken as a canonical confirmation that all alternate timelines remain in existance as parallel quantum realities. It's a bit vague but still, if the new film offers no such confirmation and all we have is the producers intent again. This might be as good as it gets. :) --Pseudohuman 21:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I really think that if this movie is falling outside of the timeline as we know it in the Star Trek world, from TOS to ENT (and all movies in between), then it would just be best to create separate entries for this movie and its contents, characters etc and acknowledge that accordingly. Like i mentioned below, something similar to what was done with Mirror universe story lines/characters who had their own separate entries/pages. Splitting up the entire wiki based on one movie doesnt sound like a good idea and would certainly take away from the whole point of this being a comprehensive Star Trek encyclopedia. Keep it simple.– Distantlycharmed 21:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Holy sh*# I cant believe i just read this...arggh. – Distantlycharmed 16:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

With all this talk about timelines etc... How about this? We talk for the time being about the movie as existing in it's own closed loop of space time/ closed bubble of space time apart from our space-time. (Because let us not forget, the original Ent tos, TNG, DS9, Voy) universe was our universe...just in the future. What does all that mumbojumbo mean in terms of writing a wiki? What it means is we just write one article for the movie, and note how it's contituity is different from the rest of everything else on this wiki. Leaving that information in that one article. Then was sequels or TV shows etc are made, we build off that article. Let us just hope that if they do make this a separate continuity that the new team will at least be internally consistent with itself.--71.239.121.162 22:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Writing only one article would be impossible, there will be hundreds of new articles about this film alone. Also, no trek-series has been of "our universe", trek has always been the fictional future of a fictional universe, not a possible future of the real world. --Pseudohuman 08:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Tarsus IV: in or not?

I was curious if there has been any leaks at all as to whether or not Kirk's time on Tarsus IV is depicted in the new film. I'm sure we all have seen the trailer by now which depicts a childhood age Kirk. The age might match when he should have been on Tarsus. Thoughts? Thanks. -FC 14:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The film does not involve Kirk's time on Tarsus IV; in fact, this Kirk probably never went to Tarsus IV. Remember that this is not 100% the Kirk from the original series and films. The new film depicts an alternate history for Kirk than the one we know. --From Andoria with Love

[edit] Horrible

This file is REALLY hard to read with all the citations in there. I propose hiding them or something. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.11.245.98 (talk).

[edit] Franchise Reboot?

Can someone please clarify whether this is actually a total reboot of the franchise or not? (i.e. is it effectively based in another universe to the rest of star trek as we know it so far?) --92.237.153.26 21:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Reports thus far have it set in an alternate timeline, spun off from the post Nemesis era Trek. -- sulfur 21:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not a reboot. It's also not set in the timeline all the other Treks are set in. Since the movie has characters from the previously-established timeline (including Spock), it does not qualify as a reboot, as reboots are devoid of characters which originate directly from the pre-rebooted universe. Basically, it's set in a different timeline but contains characters from the pre-existing timeline. So, it might help to think of the movie as an "alternate history prequel." Hope that helps. --From Andoria with Love 03:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Good to know, may be this should be mentioned in the opening part of the article to make it clear that the movie won't affect previously determined facts in the other timeline?--92.237.153.26 09:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the latter. Also, how is this movie going to be incorporated into all the Star Trek canon? Do we, on MA, need to create separate entries for the characters in this particular universe? (as it was done in the Mirror universe?) I really dont know much about the contents anyway, I just made the mistake of reading something about it taking place in another timeline and not really being part of the other Star Trek franchise (?) :) hope not, just curios how this will turn out for the canon. – Distantlycharmed 19:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

the "POV treatment on MA"-discussion above is about this subject. To put it simply: 1. either we treat the new timeline as a new continuity, and split MA like other wikis about different continuities are split up. or 2. we just incorporate all the new facts similarly as mirror universe stuff is on MA now. Join the discussion above if you have an opinion. --Pseudohuman 21:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Shran, is there a universally accepted definition of reboot anywhere? The wikipedia entry certainly doesn't list the qualifiers you mention. In any event, assuming your assessment is accurate, this is a mere technicality. As Battlestar Galactica is the most relevant reboot to this new movie, would you still consider it a reboot if sometime during season 3, they brought a "Prime" Adama back in time to set right something the Cylons did? While officially this movie is not a reboot for the reasons you mention, I find it nothing more than a marketing scapegoat to keep from alienating the core fanbase. Aside from traditionally non-canon sources like comic books and what the producers tell us, there is no on-screen proof that this is even the Spock from our universe. He is simply "A Spock" from "A Future". In the end when the new film series continues, there will hopefully be no more time travel and no more characters from the "Prime" universe. In effect a technical reboot. Nothing will be like it was in the universe we all know an love. Nurse Chapel could even show up as a male. Call it what you will, but for all practical purposes, THIS IS A REBOOT OF THE FRANCHISE and it should be acknowledged in the ultimate definition.--Dogg 01:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Since the filmmakers have stated its not a reboot, I don't think it will be acknowledged as such, sorry. Also, Wikipedia is hardly anything to go on. Yes, it does have some of the machinations of a reboot, but thus far, no reboots that I can think of has involved a character from a pre-rebooted universe. As such, no, this is not a true reboot. And yes, the "A Spock" in the movie is the Spock, regardless of there being any reference to what future he was from. The filmmakers have already stated he is the Spock. This means he was never intended to be some other Spock. Therefore, he is the Spock. There's no argument about that. Really, do you think they wrote in some other Spock from some other timeline no one cares about? Let's not get ridiculous now. --From Andoria with Love 02:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't a "reboot" basically the creation of a new continuity that the audience will start to follow instead of the old one. Even if the previous universe still hangs around there somewhere and isn't retconned away. Similar thing they do in comics with all the Earth-1, Earth-2, ... things though. I think this is the case with this film? --Pseudohuman 17:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Giant Alien Monster's Species?

Thanks. 24.16.41.216 20:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Got me. Which one do you speak of? There are actually two of them in the movie, a red insect-looking thing and a white giant ape-like creature somewhat similar to a Mugato, only much, much bigger. The names of their species have not been revealed, but (warning -- SPOILER) they are both native to the planet Delta Vega. --From Andoria with Love 02:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you messing with me? I don't expect no ape. 75.165.25.13 04:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Title Change? Nope

Just to let everyone know, the title of this film is still Star Trek. The trailer was aired during tonight's episode of Heroes and apparently an announcer was added, who referred to the movie either with "Star Trek - The Future" or "Star Trek - The Future Begins." This is not the title of the movie; the announcer was combining the title with a tagline as they sometimes do. Nothing more. So, just to be clear, the movie is still called Star Trek. --From Andoria with Love 02:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] New Page

I feel that a new page discussing development and marketing should be made. Thoughts? Most of the stuff on this page should in turn move there. This page is huge, even before we add a story synopsis.71.123.170.163 05:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Most of it will be condensed into something as seen in previous films pages, as they will quickly lose relevancy. --Alan 06:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Promotions

I haven't and won't be around much prior to the release of the film for various reasons, but a few unavoidable promotions/merchandising things I've noticed that don't appear on here including Esurance and Kellogg's. --Alan 00:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Star Wars and Star Trek United!

I noticed that this film's (and seven other Trek films) special effects were done by Industrial Light and Magic, the company created and owned by George Lucas, originally for the special effects in the star wars films. Perhaps this will inspire better relations between those Star Wars and Star Trek fans who choose to bicker over which is superior. Now we just need GL to let a Star Trek director direct a season of the Star Wars TV Series coming in 2010...--75.48.44.99 04:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You might want to read Industrial Light & Magic if you think you've found something new...because nothing will change — Morder 04:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, ILM has been involved since 1982 or so. The fact is that fan relations have nothing to do with production side relations, and production side relations have never been "mean." --OuroborosCobra ^talk 04:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)