Talk: Star Trek 4 (alternate reality)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Star Trek 4 (alternate reality) article.

For general discussion, please visit Memory Alpha's Discussions, or join the chat on Discord.

Please click here to start a new discussion

Star Trek XIV / 4[]

Did you read that STXIV on ImdB ? They announce already JJ Abrams, and a new art director, is it possible ? C-IMZADI-4 (talk) 18:48, November 5, 2015 (UTC)

I'll believe it when there's a proper announcement. Typically things on IMDb are kept on the Pro site until a proper announcement. And why would only an art director be listed? -- sulfur (talk) 19:12, November 5, 2015 (UTC)

Here [1] and here [2]. --LauraCC (talk) 16:31, March 2, 2016 (UTC)

I've prepped the necessary templates and created a redirect to point here for the time being, since it seems like the secret is out, if not in an official enough manner to warrant an article...yet. - Archduk 3 05:41, March 3, 2016 (UTC)

Official[]

Since Paramount is talking about it, it's official now. - Archduk 3 20:39, July 19, 2016 (UTC)

Removed[]

I've removed the following quote, as it seems too irrelevant to this article. "Star Trek Beyond director Justin Lin is planning other projects: 'For the last year and a half I've been on this Star Trek detour, the greatest detour of my career. But I'm excited because Lone Wolf and Cub is one of many projects that I can't wait to go back and revisit in the next two weeks when we're done with all the press.' [3]" --Defiant (talk) 23:00, July 26, 2016 (UTC)

Deletion[]

Here's the reason why I marked Star Trek XIV for deletion: I just read in an article that Paramount Pictures had pulled the plug on Star Trek XIV indefinitely, thus killing off Bad Robot Productions' rebooted Star Trek universe for good. This is the article I'm talking about: [4] AdamDeanHall (talk) 21:42, January 10, 2019 (UTC)

We don't delete information because one of the films that could be ST14 is canceled. See undeveloped projects. - Archduk 3 (on an unsecure connection) 22:00, January 10, 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't we wait for sth. more official than just one media article before moving it completely to the "undeveloped projects" category? Kennelly (talk) 23:31, January 10, 2019 (UTC)

Split[]

With "Star Trek 4" canceled, we need to move the info related to that film off the page as it seems unlikely that it will be the Star Trek XIV. Anybody have a better title than "Star Trek 4 (alternate reality)"? - Archduk 3 (on an unsecure connection) 22:38, January 10, 2019 (UTC)

We have Star Trek III (Gene Roddenberry), so why not leave this here and make a separate page for "Star Trek XIV (Quentin Tarantino)? As I said above, there's no confirmation this project is actually cancelled - as in this will never get made for sure. The latest official word from Paramount is their working on two films, one Kelvin and one Tarantino project. Kennelly (talk) 23:37, January 10, 2019 (UTC)

Because the title isn't STXIV, this is a placeholder title and will eventually be a redirect to whatever option becomes the 14th film, so nothing gets to stay here. Also, none of AR films used the original numbering in any way, so that shouldn't be the "final" title. - Archduk 3 08:23, January 11, 2019 (UTC)

Agreed (to the original move proposition); now that Pine, Quinto and Hemsworth have all abandoned the project in the wake of the huge turmoil caused by dismal box-office performance of Beyond (which actually was the personal AR favorite of mine) and taking also into account the lackluster Discovery (commercial) performance for CBS, there – having recently delved somewhat deeper into the very murky waters of corporate thinking & decision-making [5] – is no way in hell this movie (whatever it is called, I'm fine with "ST:XIV (AR)", and mind you this one has never been the "Tarentino" version) will ever see the day of light. An article move to this cat. is therefore more than warranted IMHO (btw, a Category: Undeveloped movies doesn't exist yet, a bit to my surprise).--Sennim (talk) 02:33, February 5, 2019 (UTC)

Sennim, Midnight Edge is considered by some as an unreliable source.--Memphis77 (talk) 05:53, February 5, 2019 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, but sofar (at least where Star Trek is concerned) I haven't caught them in the act yet, as they themselves cite, (or rather actually show) verifiable sources themselves (Variety, Hollywood Reporter, etc.), causing me to be wary of detractors themselves; unfortunately, we're living in confusing times--Sennim (talk) 16:45, February 5, 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. The confusion caused by YouTube blogers and others has become so great, that even actors are now getting involved, killing any talk about Discovery being canceled.--Memphis77 (talk) 17:56, February 5, 2019 (UTC)

Amen to that, brother...To slightly elaborate on my earlier made statement, it is because Midnight Edge (who incidentally, have never reported on the "impending" cancellation of Discovery, just on the behind-the-scenes [executive] turmoil as reported elsewhere) cites its sources as well as emphatically providing disclaimers when a specific report is (yet) unsubstantiated, quite meticulously I might add, that I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt for now, as opposed to their detractors who, doing so for whatever reasons and as far as I can ascertain, do not...--Sennim (talk) 22:11, February 5, 2019 (UTC)

...and it's back like Spock, baby![]

See here for the story, as this is apparently not just back in the running for Star Trek: Section 31, but also in the lead. So, do we want to merge this back into that page, or wait it out and see it it dies again? I'm kinda game either way, since I tend to think the Q script is still the less costly option, and therefore the most likely to actually happen. This is all page history to me in that regard, but the back and forth might make that a bit wonky for the future people who weren't here now, in the darkest of times. - Archduk 3 22:52, August 7, 2020 (UTC)