Talk:Star Trek: Phase II (fan series)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Star Trek: Phase II (fan series) article.
Article policies
Star Trek Portal
This article is part 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.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 6 June 2006. The result of the discussion was withdrawn.

Contents

[edit] Continuity Error?

Okay... I've seen all the episodes on STNV so far... and I haven't really kept up with the site for a year now... but does anyone know why at the end of "To Serve All My Days" (SPOILER WARNING) Chekov dies but in the start of the next episode he is alive and well? Did I miss something? - Vezz801 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.78.247.72 (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I was wondering that myself. There was no explanation whatsoever. I had came here looking for some explanation from the writers, but there isn't a word about it. 66.245.126.238 (talk) 09:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Uncertain Future?

WTF is this about "Uncertain Future"? There is no source...nothing. Some moron must have posted this because he thinks its funny. I vote to delete that part. What do others think? FreddyE —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.201.224.13 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 4 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I was searching to find a reference to it before I removed it. If the original editor provides a link to a press release, it should go back up. (Alternatively, it could get reported by any reputable source. I just can't find one-- including major Trek news sites and the New Voyages page and forums.) JRP 4 July 2005 17:56 (UTC)
Actually your Annonymous Contributor was correct - NV did indeed get at C&D! The reason he didn't push the point here was probably because Cow Creek Films was able to successfully negotiate a deal with Paramount and he doesn't want people to know that fan films really do have a tenuous but verifiable set of rules from on high! Checkout Jack Marshalls posts on the Trek BBS Be aware that they have a tendancy to wipe old threads (I've made a copy for posterity)--Kirok 12:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

10:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Sixty Six==High Bar?== I agree that we need to have a very high bar before we should allow fan-produced material to be in Wikipedia, but I believe that "New Voyages" meets that criteria-- not because of any qualitative percepton of quality, but because it has the backing of many Trek vets. JRP

I have to disagree.. I don't believe "New Voyages" meets this criteria, despite their lofty goals they barely produce on their promises. They have done little for the trek community except shine false hope for a new episode of TOS once a year by a cast who can't act worth beans, let alone hold a candle to their original counterparts. -NG
Maybe, but you can't deny it has cultural significance within the fan community, even if it is undeserved. -- Captain Proton 13:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
It's a hype factory; it can't not have cultural significance. But as a trekkie I'm ashamed of it. -NG
Regardless of the above discussion, it should not be included in the Star Trek series category. Only actual (and in the case of Phase II, almost) Star Trek programs should be in that category.
He who is without laziness cast the first stone. The people behind STNV have done what precious few fans have attempted. Unlike the Star Wars vernacular (and Yoda be damned), in the Star Trek universe there IS try. If one didn't try, one would never succeed. These guys are trying. They deserve recognition. This page is fine where it is. If only more fans of Roddenberry's unique original vision would support efforts such as these instead of trying to criticize them and tear them down. ZachsMind 01:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
The "Occam's Sledgehammer" in this case is the fact that Cawley and Marshall have approval and some "clandestine" support from Paramount, and above that have the blessing, approval and even assistance from both Eugene Roddenberry and Majel Barrett Roddenberry. The episodes so far have been significantly superior in quality than most of the fan-produced productions currently available, and manage to capture a good deal of the "look and feel" of the Original Series.
However, with the critical aspects out of the way, the reason it should continue to be included has jack frack to do with whether or not New Voyages is good or bad. Wikipedia is about information, not about rendering judgments on quality. If it were, Hitler, Stalin, Nixon, Carter and Brussel Sprouts would not have entries. Wikipedia is not about "out of sight, out of mind". That way lies Newspeak, which is doubleplusbad. Sixty Six 10:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Just to seal off this debate, New Voyages has been featured in Wired [1], the New York Times ("'Star Trek' Fans, Deprived of a Show, Recreate the Franchise on Digital Video" - 6-18-06), the official Star Trek site [2] and their official magazine (I don't know the issue, sorry), CNet [3], G4's Attack of the Show [4], and others I'm missing. Notability is well established now. Rob T Firefly 03:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paramount approval?

Hello, PLEASE supply a Paramount studios press release link to support this comment, "According to an interview with Walter Koenig, Paramount Studios has given approval for the series," otherwise this is just hearsay or rumor. It must be available, if true! [user: just checking] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.138.140.215 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

PLEASE supply a link or facts to support this vague comment,
"Paramount Pictures, which owns the legal rights to the Star Trek franchise, has traditionally allowed the distribution of fan-created material as long as no attempt is made to profit from it without official authorization, and New Voyages enjoys the same toleration." Otherwise this is just hearsay or rumor. It must be available, if true! [user: just checking] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.169.127.118 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
First off, please actually sign your comnments. It makes it hard to tell who is writing what.
Second, this information comes from the Walter Koenig article which is in the "External links" section - Koenig said that Paramount Studios is on board, allowing the production to take place as long as it is distributed for free on the Internet. He expects it to be available in January.
Not as good as a direct quote from Paramount, but secondary information from a reliable source. JRP
'Secondary information' from a press release? I don't know. Recently, the New Voyages folks contact union guest stars; Walter Koenig, George Takei, Grace Lee Whitney, and others. The actor's unions have SAG Rule #1 and AFTRA Rule one that does not allow union performers to work on non-union projects. (If they do, they can get into trouble by being fined and disciplined by the unions.) Does this mean that New Voyages video becomes a union show to have these union performers? How is this done? Love top hear from a NV reps on this. Netwriter 19:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't be wrong but I highly doubt the union prevents their performers from playing unpaid roles in non-commercial projects... Nil Einne 11:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Episodes List

The article had a link to a non-existant page for a list of episodes. I deleted the link and instead created a list in this article. Hawaiian717 07:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hyphen

Just rv'd an edit by Bkell. He added a hypen to "five year mission". As the picture cover clearly has five year without a hyphen, I believe that the correct grammar is "five year" as apposed to "five-year". I may well be wrong so feel free to change it back if you know that "five-year" is correct. Ed 16:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Since "five-year" is a phrase being used as an adjective immediately before the noun it modifies, it should have a hyphen, despite the hyphenless cover. I'm putting the hyphen back in. —Bkell 23:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and "To boldly go" is a split infinitive. Since when is Star Trek about grammar? Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 18:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kelly or Kelley?

Could we have a definitive answer on how to spell the name of the gentleman who plays the part of Dr, McCoy? On the Cast list on the website his name is John Kelly, however on IMDB and elsewhere he is credited as John M. Kelley. --Kirok of L'Stok 23:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NV's not canon

This is actually not about this article, but other articles. I've just been to the james T. Kirk article and NV was mentioned right in right in the first paragraph. I saw similar NV mentions in other Trek related articles. I don't think NV is quite popular enough to be mentioned alongside actual canon Trek, but we can mention NV in the trivia section, or perhaps in the filmograhpy of Trek Veterans who had a part in it. -- Captain Proton 12:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

NV is quite awful - what Ive seen of it - the acting is worse than many highschool plays. Its should be shot out of a huge CANNON into outer space rather than even being considered as canon. At best it is some kind of mutant offshoot that is best forgotten. It should be limited to a trivia note. Walter Koenigs involvement ranks with his decision to accept the hiddeous role in STARLOST as the Alien Oro. As far as Takei goes, well.... his recent revelations indicate he just isnt right in the head. Anonymous - 1:13, 4 January 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.219.235.164 (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC).
Obi Wan Kenobi tells Luke Skywalker that you can use "The Force" to change peoples' minds -especially weak-minded folk. Now, repeat after me: New Voyages is Canon... ... ...New Voyages is Canon... :-) GordonWatts 17:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Up for Deletion???

Why? The notice box was added, This seems to be a legit article explaining what Star Trek: New Voyages is. Perhaps it needs an additional parenthetical addition (Fan Fiction?) I am sure that the description could be amended to denote Non Canon and so forth. I found this article through google search Wikipedia Star Trek New Voyages. It answered my question. 198.203.175.175 17:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a couple of zealouts (sic) out there who're taking the view towards NV as the infamous James Dixon took towards the FASA TOS RPG, going out of their way to sabotage any positive support for it for their own reasons. This sort of pettiness should be left out of any Wikipedia decisions, and arguably should be grounds for disqualifying any calls for deletion. From a historical and informational aspect, the NV article in no way violates any Wikipedia rules. It's not a promotional fluff piece, but simply a statement of its existence, a brief historical overview with essential facts, an episode guide and some additional notes and trivia. I wouldn't worry about its being removed any time soon. Sixty Six 10:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] June 18 New York Times article

This project, along with other Trek fan film efforts are discussed in a new article in The New York Times: "'Star Trek' Fans, Deprived of a Show, Recreate the Franchise on Digital Video"

This would be an appropriate article source to use for citation, in light of the recent concerns over notability/significance.--LeflymanTalk 04:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New NV Episode Released

"To Serve All My Days" is now officially released and available for download. I've solidified the release date in the main article accordingly. Sixty Six 10:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Will Windom mislinks

The link attached to will Windoms name links to a 1800s politician,not the actor —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.66.212.175 (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Nichelle Nichols interview

I removed the following sentence from the article because it looks like it will not have any reliable source:

Additionally, Nichelle Nichols said in an interview[5] that she was talking with producers about appearing in an episode "next year", presumably meaning 2007.

The bare link itself requires registration at TVLand.com (which I believe is against WP policy for reliable sources), but even after I registered, I couldn't retrieve any info from it (it kept timing out). I also could not find any reference to it using Google or the Internet Archive. Even if it worked, it appears to be a fan-chat forum, not typically considered a reliable source. Just in case someone else can resolve these problems, here's a partially completed citation that can be edited and pasted into place in the article:

— Jeff Q (talk) 09:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spinoff- First Voyages?

I heard there was to be a spin off of New Voyages called First Voyages. Is this true?

To quote the top of this very page: “This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Star Trek: New Voyages article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.”
That said… yes, it does seem to be true. “…the New Voyages spin-off series "Star Trek: First Voyages"…” “…Star Trek: New Voyages and its spinoff, Star Trek: First Voyages…” etc.… use Google. —Frungi 03:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Episode numbers

The NV site is down, but the torrent site lists “Come What May” as the pilot, episode 0, and the numbering starts with “In Harm’s Way” as episode 1. This article lists the pilot as episode 1, “In Harm’s Way” as episode 2, etc. Is there a reason? —Frungi 03:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed(?) by an anonymous user. —Frungi 17:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images in this article

This article has pretty consistently been a mess of non-free images uploaded under false fair-use rationales (headshots and screengrabs tagged as "posters," etc.) These are most certainly non-encyclopedic and the "fair use" is not justifiable for the vast majority. Is there anyone working on this article with conections to the "New Voyages" producers? If so, the solution is simple: get the NV folks to release one or more "publicity shot" images under the GFDL, Creative Commons, or other applicable free license. Perhaps a Wikipedian who uses their forum or something can approach them with the idea. At any rate, this constant cycle of deleting images only to have them re-uploaded and deleted again is tedious, and not at all appropriate. Rob T Firefly 16:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:NewVoyagesCast.jpg

Image:NewVoyagesCast.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] That huge production notes paragraph

Unlike the official Star Trek series prior to Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, the CGI-rendered ships are able to move in all dimensions rather than just the horizontal plane. This has been the subject of some controversy. ... ... ... and so on and so forth da-da-de-da

Apart from being unsourced and long-winded, this is also nonsense. Since when is there a "horizontal plane" in space? 86.136.8.212 (talk) 12:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

They could have meant horizontal with respect to the tv screen. Dr.K. (talk) 02:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)