Wikia

Memory Alpha

Talk:Deleted scene

37,559pages on
this wiki

Back to page

Locating source materialEdit

Does anyone know where we could get info for this page? Enterprise info is easy to get, but the other series aren't.

DS9's "Emissary" had a deleted scene showing Sisko taking the Orb back to Bajor, but we only know this due to an interview with Rick Berman that Trekpulse had. -- Tough Little Ship 16:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Are there no deleted scenes on the DVDs for the other series? --From Andoria with Love 20:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
DS9 on DVD has no deleted scenes. As best I can tell, it's the same for TNG, TOS, and VOY. Some of the movies do have some deleted scenes though. -- Sulfur 20:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Well that sucks. I know the movies and Enterprise have deleted scenes, but I would have thought they would have put deleted scenes on the others. Now that you mention it, though, I don't recall seeing any deleted scenes on DS9 Season 7 DVD. Bummer. :( --From Andoria with Love 20:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Cousteau Edit

This article links to "Cousteau", but it's a disambig, so it should be cleared up. I don't know which link it should point to, however. 64.231.64.66 17:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. It's the captain's yacht version. -- Sulfur 18:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :) 64.231.64.66 18:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Enterprise's Deleted ScenesEdit

I have these on hand, I might be able to work something in, but I am wondering what Kind of listing should be here? there are scenes from all four seasons, with several each season.--Terran Officer 00:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I made a similar post in the right area in the deleted scenes talk area, but I want to increase my chances of a response. I have the deleted scenes of Enterprise, and I am willing to try and write up a summary of them, however, there are...many of them. Should it be somehow worked into the main article? OR (I kinda like this upcoming Idea...) perhaps a separate article to link to? Then I could easily subdivide it by seasons, episode etc... What do people think?--Terran Officer 00:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Main episode article would be the most logical place to put them, such as in a subsection "Deleted scene(s)", and perhaps a full list on deleted scenes. Creating new and separate article pages seems redundant or all around unnecessary. --Alan del Beccio 00:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

That could work, I guess it could be summarized on the full list, I'll work on it. Thanks for the reply.--Terran Officer 01:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The question is, are they considered canonical? Adamwankenobi 02:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Umm... I don't know, I think there's something in the policy about that. Probably not from the studio's point of view, as it was not in the final cut. To bad, like nemesis, a lot (if not all) of the deleted scenes are character moments.--Terran Officer 01:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I added something for Broken Bow, but the format of the listing needs some work perhaps?--Terran Officer 05:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Since you'd also added the scenes to the episode summary, I reworked the format and pointed a link to there so that we don't have to duplicate the text and maintain two copies of it. :) -- Sulfur 12:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Canonicity?Edit

Uhura's actions in Elaan of Troyuis are noted in her article, but Saavik's Romulan heritage from a deleted scene is not canonized in hers. What is the policy regarding deleted scenes? -- StAkAr Karnak 21:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Originally, deleted scenes were tolerated to a point, but now, according to our current policy, deleted scenes that were not reintegrated into a film at a later point (such as with director's cuts) are to be mentioned as background information only and are not considered canon. Of course, the current policy is still relatively new, and we have yet to weed out all the deleted scene-based articles and references. Oh, btw, I believe Saavik's Romulan heritage comes from an un-filmed line in an early draft of the Star Trek II screenplay. At least, I have never seen such a scene, and it wasn't included in the director's cut DVD (not even in the special features), so I have to question whether it was filmed or not. --From Andoria with Love 01:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The scene involving Saavik's heritage was was filmed and was recently available on YouTube. As they are discussing the cadets' performance in the simulator, Kirk mentions that Saavik is not what he expected, and Spock suggests that her Romulan half may be responsible. After that, Kirk thanks Spock for the gift of A Tale of Two Cities.
Regarding the deleted scenes, am I to understand that all mention of those will be deleted throughout MA, or will the "Deleted scene" article remain? From a critical stand point, I think it is important to maintain some resource for this information as it adds to the understanding of Star Trek as popular culture, but I can also see why these references should be kept separate from the episode articles. --GNDN 12:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
No no, the deleted scene article can remain, I was referring only to removing deleted scene info from in-universe articles. --From Andoria with Love 15:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Shran, I have to question your statement on the canon policy. There is nothing on deleted scenes on the canon policy page, so how do we have this policy on it? If we do, why is it not on the canon policy page? --OuroborosCobra talk 12:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
To quote a paragraph under the "restricted validity resource" section of the canon policy, "Cut or alternative scenes from Episodes as compared to those originally broadcast (for television) or released (for movies); provided that the feature film on "Director's Cut" DVDs can be used as valid resources and will take precedence over original film releases where different and conflicting." --From Andoria with Love 15:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Ye be using to many terms. "Cut scenes". "Deleted scenes". I be only a simple pirate, after all. --OuroborosCobra talk Pirates! 15:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Are ye asking me to use simpler terms, matey? If that be the case, I am disinclined to acquiesce to your request.
Means "no." ;) --From Andoria with Love 15:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Forum:Deleted scenes issueEdit

I mentioned something to Shran about this on IRC and forgot to follow up on it, but now I see that two examples of this are now up on Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion: Luta and Carnat. First I would like to post Jörg's comment, then my proposition:

"We do not know if the scene was filmed and then cut for time reasons or was simply never filmed at all. If you take a look at the TNG and DS9 scripts that are available online, some seem to be really early versions, including slightly different plots and additional characters, so they are not always reliable (only when it comes to spelling, they come in handy). We keep Martin Madden because he was included in a deleted scene available as a special feature on DVDs, so we know for sure, that his scenes were filmed, as we have visual evidence. In the case of carnat and Luta, we have no clue. Besides, the USS Garuda article was deleted for the same reason - no footage exists, never mentioned in the episode - deleted."

I agree that there is a difference between a filmed deleted scene and an unfilmed and deleted script reference, however, it seems there are several references like this that have been included and disputed on M/A for quite some time. In some cases, these articles have been deleted or redirected (USS Garuda, IRW D'ridthau, USS Spector), others have yet to be pointed out, resolved, or sufficiently justified (Stolpan, USS Hemingway). In some cases, these references are simply cut lines that are extremely useful ("The Bortas should have twice the firepower of a Bird of Prey." or that the USS Enterprise-C had a crew of 700), and in other cases many are moderately intriguing to read (again Stolpan), or completely pointless, but referenced nonetheless (again Luta).

Regardless, perhaps we could create a page collecting these articles whose sole existence is based on deleted scenes, for various points of interest. This is an age old argument/concern on this site, and perhaps this way we can keep everyone (the "completionists" and "perfectionists") happy by including all production information but segregating it to an appropriate section of MA. Not only would this promote tidying up the site from one time cut references that were at one point valid but removed based on various production constraints, but also would make a compelling list of "what could have been" (without deleting an individuals contribution).

To clarify, this page would serve as a "catch all" for all articles that were created based on deleted scenes, such as I listed above. They could be organized by series, or they could be an alphabetical listing of entries, in a "list" format.

Other than that, I think articles based on filmed references that were cut (Martin Madden) deserve a little more attention, such as Jorg noted. As for cut script references associated with existing articles, like Stolpan's reference in Sisko's article, as well as the cut crew size and firepower references of the Bop and the E-C (despite my personal feelings about the potential lost potential of those references), should simply be included as part of the articles background information.

Thoughts, ideas, suggestions? --Alan del Beccio 18:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea, and think that it would be well worth tying into the current deleted scene article. I also like the idea of keeping script, but (may or may) not be filmed scenes. They do add to the intrigue and interest factor of the articles. All we have to do is note that the reference was in the script but never made it into the final filmed/released/whatever (in the case of STII and STVI) version. -- Sulfur 18:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
That makes a lot of sense to me. If we already have an article about a subject mentioned in one episode and cut from another episode, we can still add the information from the second episode to that article, although, as Alan said, just as background information.
Creating a site that collects all cut references would be a good idea as well, we just would have to make pretty clear what we want to see on that page. For example: The script of Star Trek: First Contact that is available on the net is a very early draft. Would we allow characters or things mentioned in that script to get their own sub-entry on the proposed cut references page? Or would we just allow scenes that were cut (either because they were not filmed at all or because the filmed footage didn't make it into the final movie) from the final draft of a given script? Another good place for the information about, say Luta or carnat, would also be on the relevant episode page. We already have some "cut/deleted scenes" sections in a few episodes, the information could be put there as well.
We just have to make pretty clear, be it on the episode page, a regular article or the proposed new cut references page, that those subjects were indeed not mentioned in the final episodes but are just remnants of the scripts or ended up on the cutting room floor. And we should always check if something did make it into the episode or not, or even if a name was changed between what is written in the script and what was said in the episode (Rebecca Smith anyone? ;-)) --Jörg 18:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking that it would be formatted in more of an encyclopedia/dictionary entry list-- slightly more abbreviated than what you might find in a normal article. Renamed references would be redirects, and references deleted altogether would be listed somewhat like I have presented below. Understandably, in the case of Stolpan, as much as I condensed it, it is still somewhat lengthy, suggesting that this might have to be based on series if the page starts to get too long. --Alan del Beccio 19:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I think having a separate article to just "dump" all those references would be repeating the situation we already had with "nitpicks" on episode articles. In that case, we decided that it would be better to have such information (if relevant at all) on the page about the item/person in question, not on a generic page about the whole episode. The suggested situation here is similar. Why should we add information from all possible scripts to just one page, if we could add each bit to the background section of an individual episode article instead? Doing it that way would even be similar to what we already do with non-canon characters from novels - add them to the article about that novel, not have a separate article for all novel characters. -- Cid Highwind 11:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Cid brings up a good point... but, we also have the non-canon characters pages, which lists and describes non-canon characters appearing in novels and comics. I see no reason why we can't do the same with deleted references. This idea has my full support. --From Andoria with Love 06:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, this is what I feared in the first place - first we move all references of a specific type to one page (a "sub-encyclopedia") without good reason, and then we split that content so that it's no longer on one page? Doesn't seem to make much sense to me... -- Cid Highwind 11:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I think these shouldn't be in a separate page. I think "Background Information" is a fine place for Deleted Scenes of any particular episode. Actually, what if it was a subsection the background heading? Sometimes they are interesting facts about an episode, but they really aren't canon and they are rarely used in production to check continuity; they nearly universally forgotten in continuity. The only time they should break into the article main body is as an italic in a special circumstance where it could offer potential clarification to an issue with the episode. That's rare as well. Otherwise deleted scenes belong in the same place as other production notes about the episode, because that's pretty much what they are.--JCoyote 22:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Example of page contentEdit

B
D
G
M
S
W

Forum:Deleted scenes: scripted, performed, filmed, canon?Edit

This discussion started on talk:Martin Madden, but I wanted to move it to a more visible location. While I am only "getting the ball rolling" and am not giving this initial posting the attention I might normally give a posting such as this, I figured we might as well deal with this topic once and for all.

As we all know, there have been numerous deleted scenes in the various incarnations of Trek that were written into scripts and then not filmed. While they were initially included in several article on M/A we've decided that they are not, after all, canon. They have since been merged with the background information of the episode that they were originally written for. Several are still in the process of being found and merged.

The new issue we are currently facing involves scenes that were not only scripted, but performed and filmed, only to be unfortunately "deleted" for various reasons. These scenes were later included in various DVD releases, either by reintegration into the film (Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan comes to time) or added to the special features of the DVD that they were released on- including, but not limited to, several ENT DVDs, Star Trek: The Motion Picture, again Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Star Trek Generations and, of course, Star Trek Nemesis. While I do not have a list of all the articles this would affect, I do know that USS Talos and Martin Madden would be among them.

I think the big difference, in this case, is that they were performed, they were filmed, and they don't appear to contradict canon as we know it-- they just fell victim to time contraints, or to be fair, aesthetics.

With that said there seems to be a lot of questions we need to answer: Are these canon? If so, how canon do we want to consider these? If not, should we merge these like we did with the inferior-in-significance "script-only" deleted scenes? Ideas, thoughts, comments? --Alan del Beccio 13:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I for one would like to keep articles based on references from deleted scenes, however I should point out the reason I brought this to people's attention in the first place.
On IRC, Jorg discovered a series of language books handled by Hoshi Sato in a deleted scene from "The Expanse" (see ENT Season 2 DVD). Unfortunately, whoever designed the books neglected to look up the show's setting: one book was dated January 2164, and the other July 2166. As we all know, however, "The Expanse" was set in 2153. This a a major continuity error that, unlike many other deleted scenes, does contradict canon.
Anyway, it was the talk of the books in that deleted scene that reminded me of all the other deleted scene-based articles we have here, and remembered that we had basically decided to merge articles based on unfilmed script references with canon articles. I figured the same would probably apply to Madden and company, and that's why I brought it up.
Now, having said all that, again, I don't see a problem with including articles based on deleted scenes references, as long as they are clearly noted to be from deleted scenes and any contradictions noted. --From Andoria with Love 14:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
We don't need to decide if we think these parts are "canon" - because we, in general, don't decide what is canon and what is not. The studio/company/person-in-control does.
We decide whether we think that some type of resource has enough internal consistency to allow "in-universe" POV articles derived solely from these resources.
For example, we allow TAS as a resource, although it is still declared as being non-canon, and no amount of talk page discussion here will change that very basic fact.
We don't allow other types of resources, because those are very inconsistent with existing on-screen information, or likely to be contradicted by future information of that sort (for example the various tech manuals).
So, if we want to decide something "once and for all", which I'd really appreciate, we need to define:
  • What type of resource are we talking about?
  • What benefit do we have from allowing that type of resource, instead of the alternative of production-POV article + redirect?
  • What problems are to be expected, if we do allow that stuff?
I'm sure we will have a more detailed conversation about those questions regarding this type of resource, but for the moment and since I was asked here - I don't see any reason to use this as a resource for in-universe articles instead of background sections somewhere else... -- Cid Highwind 16:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
As a completely unrelated note, with the release of the DVDs, there was an article on StarTrek.com that indicated TAS is being considered canon now. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it is unrelated... and it is also just an article talking about the "possibility" of TAS being canon - unless you're talking about a different article than thiswbm. -- Cid Highwind 17:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

What's with these almost defensive reponses Cid? If one was to forget about the "canon wars" of last spring, one might feel a bit chastized for exploring possibilities of how to proceed with ideas and actions around here.

That aside, I would not be opposed to keeping the articles, as is, if we were to establish it as a production POV-type article. Afterall, we have several: Star Trek: Phase II, Star Trek: Planet of the Titans, Star Trek: IMAX, and the numerous other undeveloped Star Trek projects. While true, we are not including those references in canon, we still chose to accept them as legitimate enough to contain their own page, rather than being placed as a background section in the Star Trek page, despite the fact that the studio nixed the idea. I think this is the same premise, just at a different scale. --Alan del Beccio 17:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I have an inclusionist mentality. If material appears in deleted scenes or a script, note it in the background section of the relevant article. If it is exclusive data, like Martin Madden, have an entry with a note mentioning its source. We could also introduce tags that say "the following information is from a deleted scene, script, etc and is of ambiguous canonicity." Wookieepedia does this for source material from the first few issues of Star Wars Tales. What have we got to lose? When deleted material appears to contradict canon, like the dates on Hoshi's books mentioned above, we can make a background note and a resolution or explanation may eventually come to light. -- StAkAr Karnak 19:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
No, there is not. An article on TAS on StarTrek.com indicates that the people running the site would like for it to be considered canon, but that the issue is muddled because there's no clear, official, definitive definition of Star Trek canon. -- Sci 20:13 16 DEC 2006 UTC
I like your idea here, but the question then becomes, why don't we take that mentality and extend it to things like the novels? What, then, distinguishes a piece of information from a novel from a piece of info from a deleted scene? It becomes arbitrary to include one and not the other. Deleted scenes are clearly not canonical, because they're not part of the movie. They were, after all, removed from the film; they're no more a part of the film than the script-only scenes, or than something from a rough draft, and they run the same risk of being contradicted that any novel does. -- Sci 20:19 16 DEC 2006 UTC
It is not arbitrary at all. Deleted scenes and script points were intended to be part of the story all along but didn't make the final cut. Novels are understood to be non-canon from the get-go. -- StAkAr Karnak 13:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, intended to be a part of the story until the very end, when the intent changes and they're no longer intended to be part of the final story. There can be a lot of reasons for an element's deletion from the final cut, not just time limits. It's entirely possible for something to be deleted because, after being filmed, the creators realize that it's a bad idea/concept. Unless we're going to individually interview the creators for why each element has been deleted, we can't be making presumptions. Thus, yes, including deleted elements but not, say, novels, is arbitrary. -- Sci 02:43 23 DEC 2006 UTC
I don't mind keeping the articles in production-POV. In fact, I'll go ahead and create a temp page for Martin Madden so ya'll can see how it would look and comment here. You can find the page at "Martin Madden/Temp" shortly. --From Andoria with Love 02:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
There you go, lemme know what you guys think. --From Andoria with Love 03:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Not to detract from your efforts, but I have a strong distaste for this approach. It seems to denigrate the material by repeatedly referring to the fact that it was excised. Either a tag or a note at the end stating it was deleted suffices. -- StAkAr Karnak 13:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I like From Andoria with Love's approach. It allows the casual researcher to find the requested information, but keeps the appropriate POV for MA purposes.
With due respect to StAkAr Karnak's position, I must disagree with the statement that deleted "scenes and script points were intended to be part of the story...." Editorial changes are made for a myriad of reasons, many more than simply "lack of time." If we take StAkAr Karnak's argument to its logical conclusion, then we would be constrained to consider "The Naked Time" and "Tomorrow is Yesterday" as a two-part episode, or that Uhrura never played the Vulcan lute as shown in a scene cut from "Elaan of Troyius". From a critical standpoint, excisions provide insight into the producers' intentions, but the production as released has to be the final word. --GNDN 15:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The point about all this is that "being consistent with what fandom generally calls canon" is the unique selling point of Memory Alpha. Look around the bigger Trek forums - MA is considered a "reliable" resource in many discussions, and if MA gets criticized, it is most often the fact that some of our articles don't live up to that self-proclaimed standard.
So, whenever another one of those "Hey! Let's include X!"-type discussions comes up, I'd like to remind people of the fact that we don't only have contributors, but also readers. Readers are even less likely to read through tons of policy pages just to see which resources we momentarily consider "good" than contributors - and let's face it, even some of the contributors are regularly confused and in disagreement when it comes to an exact definition of "canon" vs. "allowed" vs. "allowed for background info" vs. "God, no, we don't want that anywhere...".
I still think that our policy should stick as close as possible to the official "canon" definition - and at the very least, we shouldn't give that position up for something that can just as easily be added to a production POV article... -- Cid Highwind 18:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with what Cid said above me. Although I personally love to have as much info as possible, we should probably stay as close to the 'official canon' (which doesn't really seem to exist in any strict definition) as possible, if only for the sake of providing readers with a basic, reasonable canon from which to work. So, just briefly, it could very well work like this: Re-inserted scenes for DVD releases or Extended/Directors Cut/Remastered versions are acceptable canon, with added background notes if necessary. However, I think deleted scenes that were never part of an actual episode should not be canon. With this I mean scenes seen only in special features of DVDs or makeup tests (like the DS9 Trill footage, but also the Phase II stuff and, indeed, the Madden/Talos stuff).
But err, before you run away with these comments, please understand that what I say is not intended by me to become regulation or policy right away. This is just my opinion, and just as valid as any of yours. -- Harry talk 21:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Well I think keeping deleted scene references as production-POV articles is a good compromise and, unless I am mistaking the comments of Alan, GNDN, Cid, and Harry above, seems to have been accepted as such by a general consensus (I'm counting myself in there). Unless you believe further discussion is needed (it probably is), I am ready to begin "converting" these types of articles from in-universe to production-pov. Just give the word. :) --From Andoria with Love 07:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
What is the objection to simply applying a tag at the top of each entry? "CAUTION: This article/section contains information from a deleted scene and is of ambiguous canonicity." Something similar to this. It gets the point across without constant reminders throughout the text. -- StAkAr Karnak 14:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep in mind that this is not only restricted to a single page in each case. Martin Madden, for example, is currently linked from other "in-universe" pages, including at least one navigational template. Just stating on the article page itself that "Actually, this info might or might not be true..." isn't really helpful in that case. To be consistent, we either need to accept information without exception, or not at all. Presenting information in an "in-universe" POV if there might not actually be such information "in-universe" doesn't seem to be the best way to go. -- Cid Highwind 15:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like a rather Euclidean way of thinking. I'd rather offer options than restrict them. -- StAkAr Karnak 15:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
To Cid: I was aware of the in-universe links and would have removed them in each case if the "conversion" was approved. To StAkAr: the problem lies in that, even with a tag on the top of the article, we would still be accepting the references as part of canon which, technically speaking, they are not as they were not seen as a part of the final product. If they do become part of the final product, however (i.e., a director's cut), then the articles can simply be reverted back to the way they were. --From Andoria with Love 16:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we could link such references with a template, like Martin MaddenNC, where the NC linked to an new explanatory page? (I just linked it to the canon page for the demo.) I don't know if it's possible, but maybe the link color could be different on these as well? (I tried to change it with a "style" attribute, but it didn't change the link color.)

Please note that I'm not endorsing this method, per se, only offering it as a possible solution. -- Renegade54 17:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I fear that something like this would just be further incentive for people to add whatever they like wherever they like. Plus, it would be a nightmare to maintain, because we would need to regularly check all links to these "NC-type" articles and make sure they use the NC template call instead of a direct link. And all that just so we can write an article using a POV that might not even belong? I'm not sure about that... :) -- Cid Highwind 18:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I hear you... like I said, I'm not convinced myself, I just threw it out for consideration. I'm still more or less on the fence with this issue, but if I was forced to decide one way or the other, I'd say to avoid the whole issue by NOT including information like this, other than as background. -- Renegade54 18:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Valid SourcesEdit

Are these meant to be just scenes that were shot and deleted, or are scenes that were written but never filmed also valid? --Defiant 17:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please answer this question? --Defiant 20:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I know it's a tad late, and all, but this is the first time I've looked at the talk page here. I can only speak from experience. I've added the scenes to the DS9 section of the page, and what I've done is added scenes that were filmed but not included in the episode (using the Companion as my source). As such, the alternative opening of "Resurrection" was filmed but not used, so it gets noted. However, take something like the scripted ending of "Rocks and Shoals", which was scripted, but never shot; I haven't been adding that stuff, quite simply because that does not constitute a deleted scene. I can't speak for the other series and the films, but that's been my own criteria for DS9. – Bertaut talk 16:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Do Deleted Scenes count as canon?Edit

I was just wondering if deleted scenes count as canon here at Memory Alpha? Iwas looking through the canon FAQ and I could not find anything about this. Since I found the article with Martin Madden, I was wondering if you count Wesley Crusher serving on William T. Riker's ship the Titan as well? Thanks. --24.65.161.244 04:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Short answer, notice the "realworld" tag on the Martin Madden page? That should answer your question. :) -- Sulfur 04:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
My turn. Why do we keep getting the same questions asked over an over? --Alan del Beccio 04:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe because it's not on the canon FAQ? :P *Ahem* Anyway, it was decided that information from deleted scenes not be included as canon, but only as background information or production POV. I believe it's explained in the content policy. I'll get one of our resident slaves to add it to the FAQ page, as well. --From Andoria with Love 06:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I was actually referring to that big huge discussion we had on this in another forum, once or twice. --Alan del Beccio 07:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I know, I just felt like a schmuck. Thank you for indulging me. ;) --From Andoria with Love 07:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Nanoprobes in Generations Edit

The article states that one of the deleted scenes for Star Trek Generations is one where Geordi is tortured with a Borg nanoprobe. I have to call foul and ask for a source on this. As far as I recall, the very concept of Borg nanoprobes, and the very term, did not show up in Trek productions until well after Generations was made. --OuroborosCobra talk 22:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

That scene is at least in the script. --Pseudohuman 22:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
It is also in the novelization.--31dot 22:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
In the movie, Crusher says she removed "the nanoprobe", which was never talked about prior.--31dot 22:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
And it's on youtube [1] :) --Pseudohuman 22:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Questionable note Edit

Regarding the following note:

The scene can only be considered a loss to the franchise as a whole. Spock's contentious relationship with Sarek gains further texture with the knowledge of the music competition. This is particularly true in light of Sarek's comments regarding his instructing Spock in computer science and his disapproval of the decision to forbear the Vulcan Science Academy in favor of Starfleet. (TOS: "Journey to Babel") Lost, also, is the interplay among the senior officers and Uhura, something rarely seen. It is curious, though, to witness the stunned reaction to Spock playing the lyre, especially after Uhura and Spock performed an impromptu duet in "Charlie X". Even more problematic is Uhura's claim that she would like to learn how to play the lyre – she played Beyond Antares as she serenaded Kevin Riley in "The Conscience of the King". Perhaps Nomad's memory wipe robbed Uhura of that skill. (TOS: "The Changeling")
It is also noteworthy that a large standing set was constructed early in the third season. Although, in hindsight, it was obvious that the series was doomed, both cast and crew had high hopes at the beginning of what would be the last season. This set is evidence of that hope, and its limited use (seen again only in "And the Children Shall Lead" and redressed as the arboretum in "Is There in Truth No Beauty?") is proof of those hopes being dashed. (See: I Am Spock, Inside Star Trek: The Real Story, and Star Trek Memories)

There are some facts in here, but they're buried in speculation, analysis, and opinion. Could someone familiar with the sources quoted rewrite this to be more encyclopedic?– Cleanse 06:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Why are so many TOS background notes so...praise-y and verbose? And speculative. --Golden Monkey 17:28, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Category Edit

I put this page in Category:Deleted material, since I'm not really sure why it wasn't already, or why it's in Category:DVDs. - Archduk3 14:54, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Citations for scenesEdit

Every single one of those deleted scenes on the article needs a citation somewhere, whether to a DVD (ie Enterprise stuff), StarTrek.com (if discussed there), or a book. Most of the scenes there have nothing and are arbitrarily added by anons. -- sulfur 21:25, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

I was citing a few from scripts, and I tried looking up the one where Saavik is revealed as half-Romulan, and according to her page it isn't even a deleted scene; it's just a description from the script that was never brought up. --Golden Monkey 12:39, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

The ones that are from scripts that list "this was filmed but cut for time"... that's the bit that needs citing. Who says that it was filmed? Perhaps they were cut from the script before filming. See what I'm driving at? :) -- sulfur 13:06, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

"Yesteryear"? Edit

I've come across a possible example of a deleted scene from TAS: "Yesteryear", but I'm not sure if I have sufficient evidence for its existence. One of the animation cels from Tuttle Enterprises (which were only based on the episodes and did not actually reuse animated shots, verbatim, from the series) shows Spock pointing at Aleek-Om with a hand containing six digits. In an interview from Starlog, Vol. 2, No. 6 (p. 47), Malcolm C. Klein – a management and marketing consultant for Filmation – refers to the same erroneous shot as if it was included in the episode. He says of the scene, "It's there now, for all to see. (It's also in number five of the collectors' series of hand-painted cels sold by Tuttle & Bailey Galleries.) Our attention was brought to it by a fan attending a Star Trek convention in Los Angeles. She shrieked it out and there was a mad rush to purchase the small supply at the convention. Presumably, the scene occurs so quickly on the screen that no one is likely to catch it." Despite this, I can't find any trace of the scene in the DVD nor in the episode's novelization. Is it possibly a deleted scene?! --Defiant 13:42, June 30, 2011 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the DVD versions contained minor fixes to animation errors. I may be wrong though. - Archduk3 17:09, June 30, 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised, really, since I have read that the DVD changes the number of episodes attributed to Hal Sutherland and those that carry Bill Reed's credit. --Defiant 18:27, June 30, 2011 (UTC)

I bought the VHS version and discovered that the shot is not included in that. I've also found, however, that the cels from Tuttle claim not to be reproductions of the cels actually used but genuine copies of them. I'm still not quite sure if there's sufficient info to assume the shot was deleted from the actual episode. --Defiant 10:17, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

I confirmed from the script that there's no trace of the scene there, so it's probably just hearsay. --Defiant 08:47, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

If the cells are suppose to be genuine, and we have an interview about it from the people who made it saying it's real, I would be willing to support it being included with a note about the absence of this shot from other sources. It could have been cut early enough for it to be excluded from the final draft of the script. Either way, this info is still note worthy because of the interview. - Archduk3 09:08, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

Death Wish Edit

The info about the scene that was deleted from "Death Wish" and added to "The Thaw" is from the text commentary for "Death Wish", which can be found in the Star Trek: Fan Collective - Q DVD. I was borrowing the DVD when I added the info, though, so I'm not quite sure of the precise details (having not been blessed with a photographic memory). Could someone who has the DVD (or at least access to it) please add a citation where appropriate? --Defiant 13:25, July 6, 2011 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki