Forum:Captain Chase and the crew of the starship EnterpriseEdit

Just read this article about a proposed new animated series. Whether this gets made or not, it surely deserves an entry. Wow. -- StAkAr Karnak 03:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Saw that earlier today. Not sure I like the premise so far at all, but yes, it deserves an entry. --OuroborosCobra 03:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
This is way too early for an article. --Bp 03:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. How early did we create Star Trek? Take a look at the first version of that article. We seem to know more about this animated series than we knew about ST XI back then. --OuroborosCobra 04:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
This is an idea for what might be 6 minute web episodes that has not been accepted by CBS or anyone associated with the canon productions. The project is unnamed. There is no other source for information about it except this article. is a fine place for this information for now. Let's wait until we have some more information, and more sources, and something with some official status. --Bp 04:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Again, failing to see most of the difference compared to the contents of the original version of the Star Trek XI article. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, that barely should have existed anyway. The only reason it might be justifiable is that after Star Trek X, one could expect Star Trek XI. This web cartoon doesn't even have that much. What information do you expect to put in this article? Are you just going to let different users extract information from's interview, and compile it here until you have a nice little piece of plagiarism? What other sources are there? --Bp 04:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The ST11 article is about a movie we KNOW will be made, and we KNOW will be canon. It should be considered apocrypha even if it IS made (provided that saner heads prvale, and this dreck never sees a tv screen), as it wouldnt even fall under the broadcast trek umbrella that TAS is in. The comparison between a confirmed, canon movie and an unconfirmed, most likely non-canon wreck is inaccurate, and invalid. --6/6 Neural Transceiver 04:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Did you follow my link to the original ST 11 article? It was written when we did NOT know a movie was going to be made, and knew NOTHING about it. Honestly, sometimes I don't know why I bother leaving a comment if no one is going to read it. --OuroborosCobra talk 21:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Like our spoiler notice states: "Warning: Memory Alpha 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." Since we are theoretically more policy adherent today than a year and a half (plus) ago, we should try to heed to our own words. No? --Alan del Beccio 04:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I considered this while updating news and the STXI article last night, but neglected to bring it up. While I do agree an article for this should definitely be made if the series is ever made official, it cannot get an article just yet. As I stated on IRC, CBS has not yet accepted the series, therefore it does not exist, therefore an article on it cannot exist. By the way, has anybody realized that if these make it to television, we'll have to consider them canon? Scary thought, no? --From Andoria with Love 04:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm big on avoiding spoilers, so I have no idea what the Trek XI article contains. OTOH, with Captain Chase, if the series doesn't get made, what is the difference between it, and, say, Star Trek: Planet of the Titans, or any of the other undeveloped spin-offs? -- StAkAr Karnak 13:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Surely this and similar articles set the precedent? No, the series hasn't been given a green light, and I personally doubt it ever will be, but it's a piece of Trek history none the less, so surely it deserves a place in a comprehensive encyclopedia such as this? It only needs to be treated like any other unaired or unmade production, in the way that Planet of the Titans or Phase II have been. --Pearse 17:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

In response to Bp, there is a world of difference between harvesting information and plagiarism. -- StAkAr Karnak 13:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

(first part, written before Gvsualan's 23:32 15 December statement) As Gvsualan said, MA pays more credence to policy, not precedence, so the Star Trek XI example is not very good. Regardless, there was pre-production on some movie at the time the article was made, and it cited Star Trek: Communicator's penultimate issue about it. I'm not sure if they asked/hired Berman to write a treatment for Beginning at that time, but if they did, then the article would have as much write to exist as Star Trek: Planet of the Titans (I think). CBS has asked Zero Room to make promotional artwork and to write five "mini-episode" scripts, which suggests to me that they are at or near the same level as Planet of the Titans, but I'm still on the fence on this one. Once we get a title or at least a statement, from CBS Paramount Television, then of course we should have the page. Hmmm... Undeveloped Star Trek animated project has a nice ring to it, huh?--Tim Thomason 23:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
While true this is (so far) yet another "undeveloped spin-off," it also isn't the first time they've considered an animated Trek (aside from TAS). Apparently in 1990 Paramount considered an animated series that featured TOS and TNG characters, it was ultimately dropped because no network or syndicator was interested, nor did Berman (almost ironically) stated that he didn't want to "[dilute] the franchise." (source). Considering that neither that proposed series, or this proposed series have been given a proper name (a la Star Trek: Planet of the Titans), for us to create an article on something without a name might simply be inaccurate and/or lead to confusion. It seems to me, with this (and even the proposed TNG animated series), it would make decent background fodder on the TAS page-- which is the most related topic we currently have on the subject-- The Animated Series. --Alan del Beccio 23:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
(second part, written after Gvsualan's aforementioned statement) Never heard of the 1990 animated series. Actually, maybe an Undeveloped Star Trek projects page with links to the already created and expanded pages and "unnamed projects" could stay there?--Tim Thomason 23:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Current StatusEdit

Since this show is in development and awaiting greenlight (the same situation as Star Trek, which also doesn't have a title), I have moved this information (as written by Tim Thomason) from Undeveloped Star Trek projects (where it didn't really belong) to its own page. You can find the discussion leading up to this here. --From Andoria with Love 06:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody know what the current status of this proposed series is?? Apparently, the only source of information was this single article from almost exactly a year ago. Since then, there have been no further reports. So, is it still in development? Provided there will be no further announcements or reports in the future, when will be the right time to edit/move/delete/whatever this article? --Der Hans 9 December 2007
Well, since the thing was actually in development (at some point, if it still isn't), then this article can logically (like "Phase 2") stay here. Assuming that it never takes off, it should just be updated to indicate that. That's all. Oh, and it would be linked from the Undeveloped Star Trek projects too. Since that's what would come of it. Again, assuming that it doesn't take off. -- Sulfur 14:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Alright then... but assuming there will be no further reports in the future, when/how do we know that it "never took off"? --Der Hans 14:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Logically, at some point, we arbitrarily change the wording. Now, things in television almost always take a long time from idea -> development -> airing, and with the strike upon us, that stops (delays) development of any property. Heck, for all we know, they're waiting for next winter to take advantage of the new movie. -- Sulfur 14:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I just found it kind of odd that there has been no further news whatsoever on this for a whole year now. --Der Hans14:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Somebody could ask TrekMovie to do a follow-up story. -- Connor Cabal 15:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Not that I really have time for it, but consider it done, anyway. :) --From Andoria with Love 08:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Two years later...Edit

As the ever-wise beep-o once said: "this is way too early for an article." We've been claiming this to be "in production" for two years now, or at least, "as of February 2007". So, some time later, something like twenty-one months later, does anyone know someone who knows anyone who knows what the story is with this? If nothing is going to happen with it, we should take it off the back burner and move along rather than lead people on with misinformation.... --Alan 17:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

So merge it (back?) into Undeveloped Star Trek projects then?– Cleanse 04:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Or follow the process laid out in the discussion before this one. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Or we can wait for when CBS is most likely to greenlight the show – namely, after Star Trek (2009) opens and if it is a hit. At the moment, the series is still officially "in development" (meaning it's not "undeveloped" but it is "being developed"). Yes, it's been nearly two years, but still, don't rush things. Sometimes it takes a while for these things to come to fruition. We should learn whether or not the series will be greenlit next year. If it isn't, then we can move it back to "Undeveloped Star Trek projects." For now, however, it is still in development. --From College with Love

Okay, so now the obvious question...can you cite that? I mean, that's typically how things work around here, afterall ;) ... --Alan 18:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I just received word from Anthony, this series is either dead or dormant right now, meaning it's not going anywhere at the moment. So if you guys want to merge it back to "undeveloped," I'm all for it, just be prepared to move it back if/when this goes back into development. --From Andoria with Love 04:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Final FrontierEdit

At the webpage, they (and that is the production team with David Rossi) has named the series "Star Trek: Final Frontier". It's not in active development, though, but should the title of this article be changed? Peter R 20:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

From reading the page at the link, it sounds like this is on an indefinite hold, if active at all. There is a reference to posting material that "might have been", suggesting it will not be, at least soon. As for the title, either this article or wherever this could be merged to could be called that.--31dot 21:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I doubt they would be releasing the script if this was going to be made. Seems more like their script was rejected, but the idea for a web series wasn't. I vote for changing the page name and moving it from the in development section on Undeveloped Star Trek projects. - Archduk3:talk 02:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek web animation Edit

Someone needs to change the name of "untitled Star Trek animated series" into Star Trek: Final Frontier, update the information and start adding canon information and images into other memory alpha articles and also pay attention to updates that appear on the Final Frontier website. 21:25, September 5, 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. Yes, the move should be made, and the information on that article updated, but it should not be added to other articles as "canon information", because the series has not gone into production, and is not therefore a valid resource for adding information to in-universe articles. -- Michael Warren | Talk 09:57, September 6, 2009 (UTC)
The website speaks of the series in the past tense, indicating its progress towards production has been slow or halted totally.--31dot 10:17, September 6, 2009 (UTC)
Also, this needs some kind of "official acknowledgement", I think, before we should consider any of this "canon". Having produced some webisodes for the website (which has had "non-canon" content in the past) does not mean that new content produced is any more valid for us than, say, the PB novels... -- Cid Highwind 11:54, September 6, 2009 (UTC)

Scripts being publishedEdit

The scripts written for the series are now being published on their website. -- sulfur (talk) 02:49, November 17, 2012 (UTC)