Talk:List of Star Trek films

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of Star Trek films article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 180 days

Star Trek Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Star TrekWikipedia:WikiProject Star TrekTemplate:WikiProject Star TrekStar Trek articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Film: American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Science Fiction High‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Cinema Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Film portal This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force.

Media franchises Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media franchises, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to media franchises on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Media franchisesWikipedia:WikiProject Media franchisesTemplate:WikiProject Media franchisesmedia franchise articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Coloured lines

Based on the "Films Section" section above, I am assuming the coloured lines that are used in the reception charts have been around for a long time. I was wondering if anyone knows the decision making behind them? I personally feel that if there is going to be coloured lines used to differentiate the sub-franchises then yellow for TOS and blue for TNG would make more sense, but I also know that we tend to avoid using colours like this for film articles. The fact that we don't use colours in the film overview tables so the charts don't actually correspond to anything is also weird. If no one knows how these colours came to be then I would recommend we remove them or have a discussion about using more logical colours and in a more consistent way. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

I recently went ahead and added an infobox to the article and was reverted by David Fuchs who said "I don't think the infobox adds much here". I'm confused by this rationale, as no infobox should really be "adding" anything to an article. The point is to provide a quick summary of the key points that are already in the article per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. I know it isn't required, but it is generally expected and certainly useful to those who may want to see the key things without searching through prose. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a diffuse film series covering decades with drastically different cast, creative teams, etc. I don't particularly see the utility of deciding the most important elements of the franchise are a based on credit, production company, and cumulative grosses without any context. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is a summary of the details in the article, no infobox has context. I didn't try to cram the different producers, actors, and production companies all into the infobox so I just included the elements that apply to all films. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kelvin Origin film

There also seems to be some question as to whether the origin movie is set in The Kelvin Timeline. However, during CinemaCon Paramount confirmed that the movie is set decades before the 2009 movie (see reference).--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 06:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That source does not confirm what timeline the film is set in, you are making an assumption. Before the 2009 film could be in the 24th century of the Prime Timeline, and it could also be early in either timeline since that film is the divergence point. Plus, we have a reliable source saying the film could be a prequel to both timelines. We need to wait until we get further clarification about the setting. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really am not assuming as additional reliable sources (here and here) identify the movie as taking place prior to The Kelvin Timeline, and identifying the movie as a prequel to those films. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not "additional sources", they are repeating the reports that we already have. And if you look at the sources that we have listed in the article you will see that there is conflicting information about which timeline the film will be set in. We need further clarification before we can confirm if it is a Kelvin film or not. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:16, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TV film(?)

Lastly, the topic regarding the specification of "TV film" for Star Trek: 31 -- it has been stated that the movie is "a TV movie". My argument would be that this specifier is misleading to the average leader, given that the term is generally used for a movie that airs on broadcast television. Wouldn't some other statement be more helpful/effective in this article? The movie is developed for a direct-to-streaming platform.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 06:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Series created for streaming, including the modern Star Trek series, are called "television series". There is consensus at WP:TV to generally avoid the term "streaming series" as it suggests that there is a difference between series created for streaming and series created for traditional television networks. It also suggests that series created for streaming are more like web series. The same principles apply for films created for streaming. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with DisneyMetalhead that including made-for-TV movies (or the modern equivalent) on a "List of Star Trek films" when all the others were specifically created for and shown theatrically is a bit off. Section 31 is its own thing and I don't think should be included here, especially since a lot of the other common discussions (like grosses, CinemaScores, what critics are likely to be covering the film for reception) are not going to be the same. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think DisneyMetalhead said anything about that. This section is discussing whether the term "television film" is appropriate for a film that is made for streaming rather than traditional television. As for whether it should be included in this list, it is still a film and this is not "List of Star Trek theatrical films" or "List of Star Trek feature films". It would also be way too early to discuss splitting it off to its own list since there is only on TV film so far. Maybe in the future if we get more then that could be a possibility. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not so sure that the indicator of "TV Film" makes a lot of sense... seeing as it's not a TV film. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a film made for television. The definition of television has changed in the last decade or so to include streaming services. That is why all the new Star Trek series made for Paramount+ are listed at List of Star Trek television series and not separated out to List of Star Trek streaming series. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]