Talk:Star Trek: New Voyages

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)

• • Logic dictates that they had to un-kill him due to the unfortunate fact that he was alive and well after the fourth year of the Enterprise's voyage. I, personally, would like to know why they killed him in this series in the first place if he was still alive afterward anyway? Perhaps he didn't actually die; maybe he just hyper-aged, passed out after having a vivid hallucination from drinking too much vodka, and, barely living, was hypo'd by Bones and managed to have his age regressed — but unfortunately not the hangover. :D Kizul Emeraldfire (talk) 08:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• • • Logic aside, we never established he died. If you want a specific answer, you may wish to check out To Serve All My Days - A Night in 1969

RobertMfromLI | RobertMfromLI 21:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Nil Einne, not just are you correct, but online ventures are governed by a whole different set of rules. In addition, we are a SAG Signatory.

As for citations for the statement in the article, you (unsigned, at top) will doubtfully get any - I for one know that I will not be releasing such and neither will Paramount, CBS or Viacom. Of course, with a C&D (in our ancient history) having been issued and dropped - and us being contacted for content for one of the features on the ST:TMP BluRay release (check the costuming section, which our portion of was shot on our bridge with our costumes), anyone with a little bit of deductive reasoning will conclude that, at the least, some sort of agreement was made with us.

RobertMfromLI | RobertMfromLI 21:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.--Leflyman^Talk 04:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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).

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:

• ""Live Chat with Star Trek Stars"". TV Land Online Chat. TV Land. November 19, 2006. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

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

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)

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)

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)

I know this is an old post, but to clarify for future events and issues regarding permissible or fair use, people are always free to contact me via my page here, or the contact link on our site, as I am one of the small handful of people responsible for controlling the use of our material. And Rob, thanks for your concern on our behalf.

Robert Mauro

Producer/Webmaster/Network Admin/Gaffer

Star Trek New Voyages: Phase 2

RobertMfromLI | RobertMfromLI 21:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response!

When I wrote that, there were many non-free images being uploaded to illustrate every episode, character, and such, in conflict with Wikipedia:Non-free content. The images would get deleted, the article would end up with a bunch of broken images, someone would upload the images again, and so on in a messy cycle. It's in a much better state now; one poster and one cast shot fall within the guidelines.

I wonder if as a staff member, you might be willing to raise the possibility with the rest of the staff of releasing one or more images from your production under a free license compatible with Wikipedia, which would completely remove all non-free and fair use concerns. However, it'd definitely be something to go over with whoever handles legal affairs for your production first; I'm not a lawyer, nor am I familiar with the specifics of your agreement with CBS/Paramount or how it would affect your production's ability to relicense images which still contain their copyrighted designs, logos, etc. If possible, though, I think it would be a very neat idea. Rob T Firefly (talk) 00:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

"New Voyages" or "Phase II"?

Should this article really have been renamed to "Star Trek: Phase II"?

The creators of ST:NV certainly can change their name, so that all future episodes produced by them bear the name ST:P2. But can they -- can anyone -- retroactively change the name of a released product?

In other words, this page currently states that in 2004, an episode of Star Trek: Phase II was released. But that is a lie. No such product was released in 2004. It's equivalent to saying that in 1977, George Lucas released a movie entitled "Star Wars, Episode IV: A New Hope" (another false statement that I see a lot). Retcons are allowed in fiction, but not in real life.

Additional problems:

• In the body of this page, the terms New Voyages, Phase II, and Phase 2 are all used, pretty much interchangeably.

• The Star Trek: New Voyages page has been retitled Star Trek: Phase II (fan series), but the List of Star Trek: New Voyages episodes page has not changed.

• Regardless of what the page is entitled, shouldn't there be a paragraph in this article explaining when this name change took place, and perhaps (if known) why it took place?

I'm fine with any reasonable solution. (Two separate pages, one for ST:NV and one for ST:P2, each covering the time during which this show had that name, is probably not a reasonable solution.) — Lawrence King ^(talk) 08:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

According to the website, the full official name is Star Trek New Voyages: Phase II. Using the full title should remedy the situation. — trlkly 20:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

After you moved it, User:TheRealFennShysa moved it back.

My original question still persists, though. I am not convinced that the current name of the show is what's important. Suppose that next season, the Simpsons changes its name to "Homer's Family". Does it automatically follow that the previous seasons, which were released and marketed under the name "The Simpsons", should now be documented on Wikipedia under the new name? I don't think that makes sense.

On the other hand, maybe this really is Wikipedia policy. A television show from the 1960s starring William Shatner, called "Star Trek", is documented on Wikipedia in the article entitled Star Trek: The Original Series... even though you will search in vain through old TV Guides from 1967 for a show by that name. Similarly, Wikipedia has an article about Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, claiming that this was a 1977 movie, even though I was around in 1977 and can testify that even though I saw a movie named "Star Wars" half a dozen times that year, the subtitle "A New Hope" was completely unknown until many years later.

Meanwhile, the page List of Star Trek: New Voyages episodes uses the old name.

Would you agree with this? From 2004 to 2007, a show named Star Trek: New Voyages existed. From 2008 to the present, another show made by the same people named Star Trek: Phase II existed. Would you agree? — Lawrence King ^(talk) 23:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The correct name (when we (the STP2 Design/Web Team) all catch up from our latest shoot and have time to change it, our website will reflect it as well) is "Star Trek New Voyages: Phase II" though we have somewhat interchangeably used "Star Trek Phase II" or "Star Trek Phase 2" (as that is the domain name we managed to register) as well.

And yes, the old name would apply to all pre Blood and Fire episodes - while the new one was to reference some subtle (and perhaps not so) changes we are making as we move through the Phase II (aborted series) era ending right before TMP's events.

RobertMfromLI | RobertMfromLI 21:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

creator(s)

if the intro says "The series was created by James Cawley and Jack Marshall in April 2003.", why should the infobox say it was created by mr. roddenberry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.161.150 (talk) 03:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Our series was created by James Cawley, and then (until Marshall's departure) produced by Cawley and Marshall; and ST:TOS, which we are trying to be the continuation of, was created by Gene Roddenberry, as homaged to in the credits where our logo reverts to simply the "Star Trek" logo followed by the customary TOS "Created by Gene Roddenberry".

RobertMfromLI | RobertMfromLI 21:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Note regarding my identity

Hello all,

I've recently commented on a couple of things here in the Talk section. To ensure that no one presumes a hidden conflict of interest (though this information is on my User Page pretty prominently), I figured I should post this here:

I am Robert Mauro

Line Producer (and Webmaster, Forum Admin, Authorized Copyright Agent, Network Admin & Gaffer, etc, etc) for Star Trek New Voyages: Phase 2

   * On the STP2 Forums, I am RobertMfromLI
   * I am contactable via the "Contact Us" link on the Star Trek New Voyages: Phase 2 page or via PM

I am well aware of the terms of the COI, and intend not to violate them, hence also my openness about my identity and role in the production. I am available for any questions regarding content in the STP2 Wiki page and of course will attempt to obtain citable references for any answers I provide or advise if that is not possible (what you do with such, is of course up to you).

Thanks to you all for maintaining this - and thank you to whomever fixed the episodes listing for us (for some reason, the last two episodes were being thrown at the bottom of the page after the links - thanks for fixing it).

Best, RobertMfromLI | RobertMfromLI 08:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Minor Factual Changes by me today

I have made some minor factual changes in the cast section as follows:

Brandon Stacy

Fixed misspelling of Brandon Stacy (was misspelled as Stacey)

Changed ep appearance for Brandon from 6 to 6-8 as seen in still pics from actual footage for those episodes

Jonathan Zungre

Changed Zungre's ep appearances from 6-9 to 6-8 as casting and script details for ep 9 have not been released yet

As with Brandon, still images from actual episode footage confirm this.

Robert Mauro

Line Producer (and Webmaster, Forum Admin, Authorized Copyright Agent, Network Admin & Gaffer, etc, etc) for Star Trek New Voyages: Phase 2

RobertMfromLI | RobertMfromLI 23:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Similar to my above change, I have updated Root and Stinger to episodes #-8 to reflect the information already released and in video already released.

Best,

Robert Mauro

Line Producer (and Webmaster, Forum Admin, Authorized Copyright Agent, Network Admin & Gaffer, etc, etc) for Star Trek New Voyages: Phase 2

RobertMfromLI | User Talk 18:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Website

Is the New Voyages/Phase II website down currently? BratmanGodzilla (talk) 23:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

(I know this is an old post, but I am answering it before someone removes the links without checking to see if the server is up)

Yes, yes it was. I was away at a STP2 shoot, and during a massive storm (300 miles away where the office is located) power went out for 7 hours. When power was restored, WHILE the servers were doing database checks (and BEFORE the UPS units had recharged) power went out again for a few more hours. That left the databases in an unrecoverable state (MySQL had created the temp files for the database checks, and deleted the originals, leaving nothing to check until the temp/backup files were restored). A backup generator was ordered shortly after that incident, ;-)

Best,

RobertMfromLI | User Talk 05:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess you guys are still waiting for that backup generator. --69.180.37.163 (talk) 08:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The website appears to be permanently down. Is this a result of legal action on the part of CBS? If so, some major changes need to be made to this article. LyleHoward (talk) 10:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

No, it's only temporary - they posted about the downtime on Facebook. MikeWazowski (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

New Voyages

Does anyone know if the title "New Voyages" is a reference to the first published work of Star Trek fan fiction, Star Trek: New Voyages, edited by Sondra Marshak and Myrna Culbreth? It seems kind of coincidental that a collection of fan-created television episodes should have the same name as the fan-created short story collection.

And regardless of whether or not this is true, should The New Voyages the collection have its own page? I found this site while searching for the other. The New Voyages is kind of a watershed moment in television and film fandom. I believe it was the first ever fan fiction to be professionally published. It spawned the entire collection of Star Trek published novels, not to mention novels that were spawned by dozens of other shows and movies, including Star Wars, The X-Files, Murder She Wrote, Monk, Roswell, Serenity, Psych, Buffy, Nightmare on Elm Street, and so forth. TychaBrahe (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Major new cast change - James Cawley steps down

The Star Trek New Voyages website still references James Cawley as portraying Captain Kirk. http://www.startreknewvoyages.com/?page_id=141

But on his own Facebook page, James Cawley himself offers a link to what appears to be a new episode of Star Trek New Voyages - starring someone else.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=4398950181820&set=pb.1530489018.-2207520000.1364166788&type=3&src=https%3A%2F%2Fsphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-prn1%2F775700_4398950181820_8373133_o.jpg

"Join The Crew of The Enterprise as Star Trek: Phase II boldly RE-LAUNCHES it's series with Veteran actor Brian Gross taking over the center seat as Captain James T. Kirk! along with Brandon Stacy as Mr. Spock and John Kelly as Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy!"

I just found this announcement on their official forum: tar Trek: Phase II Announces First Detail of Planned “ReLaunch” This Summer.

Senior Executive Producer James Cawley is thrilled to announce today that Brian Gross will be taking on the role of Captain James T. Kirk for Star Trek: Phase II. Starting with the twelfth episode, “Bread and Savagery”, currently filming in upstate New York, Gross will star as the iconic and most beloved captain in all of space as the award winning series continues to film and release new episodes, comprising the fourth and fifth season of Star Trek: The Original Series.

A talented and very experienced young actor, Gross has been in a number of feature films, including Red Tails, Knifepoint, and Big Mama’s House 2; and has a dizzying long list of guest starring and recurring roles on network TV shows including NCIS: Los Angeles, CSI: New York, Psych, NCIS, Las Vegas, Bones, Joey, JAG, Saving Grace, and Cold Case.

With Cawley’s career as the #1 Elvis impersonator in the United States swinging into full gear, he made the difficult decision that a re-cast was necessary to continue production of Star Trek: Phase II episodes. “I love performing,” said Cawley, “and at this point doing the work that pays the bills on this amazing adventure obviously prevents me from acting as the lead in this hobby.” With a change imminent on the horizon, the Senior Executive Producer decided it was the perfect opportunity to “ramp up” the production several notches. “Bringing in a solid, professional actor to play James Kirk will challenge us all to move things to the next level – and beyond,” he said.

The boundlessly energetic Cawley will remain Senior Executive Producer of the series, as well as continuing to perform the myriad of tasks he’s known for: set construction, props, costumer, costume designer, special effects makeup artist – to name a few.

The addition of Brian Gross as the new star of Star Trek: Phase II is only one of several planned changes to “re-launch” the series this year, which will be revealed over the course of the next several months. Fans can expect previously filmed episodes - including “Kitumba”, “The Protracted Man”, and “Mind-Sifter” – to be released when finished, while Brian will portray Kirk forward on the series that has already won numerous awards, including The TV Guide Award for Best Webisodes (beating out “Battlestar Gallactica”), two Golden Icon Awards (Best Web Series and Best Lead Actor on a Webseries), as well as both a Hugo and Nebula nomination.

http://s1002.photobucket.com/albums/af141/andriech22/?action=view&current=Kirk.jpg

http://forums.startreknewvoyages.com/index.php?topic=13161.0

RK (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The name, again

It looks like the name of this series has reverted to "New Voyages"?

http://www.startrekphase2.com/ redirects to http://www.startreknewvoyages.com/ (which we link to as the official website in the Infobox).

http://www.startrekphase2.de/ (listed as "Official website" in External Links) redirects to http://www.startreknewvoyages.de/

And on the episodes list page at the .com site, after adopting a "Phase II" logo for Episodes 4 through 8, the cover art for Episode 9 returns to the older "New Voyages" logo.

Ultimately, it really isn't that big a deal which name Wikipedia uses, since a redirect from the other name can always ensure that people end up in the right place. But the "List of..." article and this one are still in conflict as to the name. While I was thinking of finally renaming List of Star Trek: New Voyages episodes, now it seems that it might make more sense to rename (back) this article instead! -- FeRD_NYC (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes it has changed back according to http://www.startreknewvoyages.de/en/news-newvoyages.php 220.240.122.85 (talk) 03:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

 Completed Names here have been cleaned up. Someone else had moved the article to Star Trek: New Voyages, so over the weekend I requested an administrative move of this Talk page to match. User:Sphilbrick was nice enough to complete that request, and here we are. -- FeRD_NYC (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Revised to address some not very encyclopedic writing

The article—as with many related to fannish concerns—suffered from some clumsy writing, poor organization, and a rather un-encyclopedic tone throughout. For instance, the initial description of the show included trivial information such in which buildings it was filmed.

I've done some reorganizing and rewriting to improve it and to make it more encyclopedic.

.MrNeutronSF (talk) 03:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Other support section is a mess & Production Notes reads like trivia

Both need work.MrNeutronSF (talk) 04:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Cawley's sets in Ticonderoga, NY

This is apparently now a tourist attraction authorized by CBS. http://www.treknews.net/2016/07/14/star-trek-tos-bridge-set-tour/ http://startrektour.com knoodelhed (talk) 01:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)