Talk: Star Trek: The Motion Picture

Fodder for bgnotes[]

Roddenberry.com just released this. [1]--LauraCC (talk) 16:14, September 8, 2016 (UTC)

Encyclopedia updates?[]

Anyone know if they changed the TMP dates in the new Encyclopedia? Never thought of extending the possible date range all the way to 2277, but it makes sense. Great catch with the Bozeman date. I myself like to think the second 5 year mission took place after TMP just because I dig the Refit Enterprise and TWOK look more. Dominator2278 (talk) 23:37, November 1, 2017 (UTC)

The dates were not changed for the Star Trek Encyclopedia. It is largely the third version with new information and none of the mistakes fixed.--Memphis77 (talk) 23:46, November 1, 2017 (UTC)

"Costs and revenues"[]

Any particular reason this section is given as a series of bullet points? Darth Prefect (talk) 02:08, March 5, 2018 (UTC)

The whole background section appears to be a mismatch of paragraphs and bullets. Personally, I prefer paragraphs however I know that the format usually adopted for episode and movies is a bullet point list, so perhaps they should all be changed to this? --| TrekFan ^{Open a channel} 03:25, March 5, 2018 (UTC)

Bullet points should really only be used for short pieces of information. The whole section should be converted into paragraphs (which is what it basically is - just remove the bullets). I just don't do a lot on this wiki and didn't want to step on any toes by "being bold". Darth Prefect (talk) 12:25, March 7, 2018 (UTC)

Concerns addressed, not only for this, but some of the other sections as well--Sennim (talk) 15:29, September 29, 2018 (UTC)

Vulcan Language[]

In the background section it states the movie was the first time the Vulcan language was spoken on screen, but if I recall correctly, wasn't it spoken in Amok Time? 192.107.156.196 15:47, January 23, 2019 (UTC)

bits and pieces in Amok Time, yes. Just not exclusively as inTMP.--Alan (talk) 17:53, March 10, 2019 (UTC)

Dates 2019[]

Moved from User talk:Sulfur

Can you let my dating of TMP date of 2273 to stand? The chronological canon even though it is not confirmed, does allow for the 2273 date. We should be more specific with this film's date as we are with other movies.73.204.73.223 03:13, March 9, 2019 (UTC)

No. - Archduk3 03:16, March 9, 2019 (UTC)

How does this apply to The Motion Picture?73.204.73.223 20:11, March 9, 2019 (UTC)

He keeps forgetting that he's the only one here with teletypathy. First because those sources you are mentioning are not canon. Secondly, someone somewhere sometime ago decided it was better to keep the date painfully vague on MA, because it was stated on VOY that Kirk's 5 year mission ended in 2270, but figures it's too hard to add 2.5 years to that and not settle on one date, nevermind the fact that the dates from TOS Season 3 and all of TAS are essentially riding along the same track, but we've managed to settle on a date with those. So yeah, MA copped out on establishing a date, because unlike everything else we do when it comes to justifying vague time references, like "about 10 years ago" = "-10 years from the current date", we couldn't do the same for this. --Alan (talk) 20:20, March 9, 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time to revisit this topic? Attitudes and thinking change over time, and Alan brings up valid points here. Either way, we should be consistent. -- Renegade54 (talk) 23:42, March 9, 2019 (UTC)

There's a bit more to it then the points Alan brought up though. Most major problem imo is that we don't know the ship went for the refit immediately after the five year mission ended. -- Capricorn (talk) 01:42, March 10, 2019 (UTC)

That's not so much the issue, the refit took less time than how long Kirk had been admiral. As an aside, I don't even care to look at discussions from more than half an MA lifetime ago, and not on someone's talkpage. --Alan (talk) 02:29, March 10, 2019 (UTC)

Setting the date:

• ICHEB: Finally, in the year 2270, Kirk completed his historic five year mission and one of the greatest chapters in Starfleet history came to a close. A new chapter began when Kirk regained command of the Enterprise.
• SCOTT: Admiral, we have just spent eighteen months redesigning and refitting the Enterprise. How in the name of hell do they expect to have her ready in twelve hours?
• KIRK: Two and a half years as Chief of Starfleet Operations may have made me a stale but I wouldn't exactly consider myself untried.
• KIRK: My experience, five years out there dealing with unknowns like this, my familiarity with the Enterprise, this crew.
• DECKER: Sir, you haven't logged a single star hour in two and a half years.

We can surmise without any stretch of the imagination that Kirk began life as a deskbound admiral almost immediately after his 5 year mission ended, with TMP occuring 2.5 years later. Likewise a year into Kirk's admiralty, the Enterprise began it's refit. Doing straightforward math 2270+2.5=2272.5, which I believe should be rounded up to 2273, and here's why:

First of all, keep in mind how truly dubious the division lines are between how we date the rest of the original series, which only has one solid date specifically placing a single episode (TOS: "The Trouble with Tribbles" via DS9: "Trials and Tribble-ations") anywhere within that 2265-2270 timeline.

Furthermore, there are only two instances I'm immediately aware of that keep the dates of TOS episodes in check. The first being "Day of the Dove" being three years after "Errand of Mercy", per:

• KANG: For three years, the Federation and the Klingon Empire have been at peace. A treaty we have honoured to the letter.

Yet we date those episodes as occurring approx. mid-2267 and late-2268, respectively. That's hardly 2 yrs, much less three.

The second reference being from "The Deadly Years", which is supposedly the last episode to be featured in 2267:

• SPOCK: Mister Sulu, how long have you served with Captain Kirk?
• SULU: Two years, sir.

This, along another consideration that should be given to the fact that only one TOS episode allegedly took place in 2265 ("Where No Man Has Gone Before") might be a good indicator to say that he took command late in the year, again supported by Sulu's comment, late-2267 - 2 = late 2265, meaning, we could safely say that Kirk's five year mission probably took place late-'65 to late '70, allowing ~2272.5 to be comfortably rounded up to 2273 (late 2270 + 2.5 = mid 2273).

With this, alongside further corroborating evidence that clearly demmonstrates how poorly supported the dating of 78 out of 79 TOS episodes are, we shouldnt be so quick to balk at dating this film with a truely reasonable date such as 2273.--Alan (talk) 05:49, March 10, 2019 (UTC)

Actually, it is established in the canon when "The Doomsday Machine" and "The Deadly Years" occurred, in 2267. Both are from this Okudagram seen in the Star Trek: Voyager episode "Tinker Tenor Doctor Spy".--Memphis77 (talk) 09:50, March 10, 2019 (UTC)

Fortunately that doesn't change anything other than to say 76/79 are questionably dated. --Alan (talk) 17:51, March 10, 2019 (UTC)

I can see how reading comprehension could be confused with a super power these days.

I also happen to agree that 2273 is easily the best date that works, and I'm pretty sure the "real" reason we don't use it is because the Star Trek Encyclopedia, including the 4th edition, uses 2271. That said, I'm not going to overturn this consensus, even if I don't agree with it, just because somebody asked nicely. There has to be an argument that is better than one that justifies the vague date, and VOY was already out when MA decided on not hard dating this. - Archduk3 22:10, March 10, 2019 (UTC)

I made my response in reaction to something Alan wrote, in which he said that we have only one episode with a solid canonical date. I was correcting what I perceived to be a mistake on his part. For myself, TMP takes place in or after 2273 and before the last 23rd century voyage of the Bozeman, which "disappeared" in 2278.--Memphis77 (talk) 23:03, March 10, 2019 (UTC)

And as I said, those references helped as much as they didn't change the stated facts. As again, it is rather apparent that Kirk served 5 years, was out of space for 2.5, then back. The STE be damned, and anything Harry and Dan were involved in be damned too. --Alan (talk) 23:21, March 10, 2019 (UTC)

The STE had a purpose long ago. A purpose it no longer serves as there is Memory Alpha. I felt the last edition was a money grab. They added some new information, while not correcting or aligning the text in with the latest canon information. The dating of TMP is an example of this. Who are Harry and Dan? I do not recognize the names.--Memphis77 (talk) 00:47, March 11, 2019 (UTC)

Harry Doddema and Dan Carlson, the founding fathers of MA--Sennim (talk) 10:35, March 11, 2019 (UTC)

I like how this stalled. --Alan (talk) 11:17, July 11, 2019 (UTC)

Biased?[]

The whole VFX part seems a bit biased against Abel. "One RA&A visual effects sequence made it into the movie though, that of the wormhole (an early and primitive CGI effect)" - primitive CGI? Says who? "Apogee was entrusted with the opening Klingon scene, the digitizing of Epsilon IX station scene, the wormhole mishap sequence" - how did they make the wormhole scene if it was alreay done by RA&A? --5.146.192.250 18:17, May 11, 2020 (UTC)

Wilhelm Scream[]

When V'ger fires at the Enterprise, a crew member in the engine room gets hit by an energy bolt, a Wilhelm yell was heard. But it's only in the Director's edition. OperaSinger (talk) 21:08, July 4, 2020 (UTC)

Title — em dash or colon?[]

Forgive me if this has previously been discussed, but I can't find any mention of it in the archives. In this article, Sherilyn Connelly, author of The First Star Trek Movie, says that Paramount's house style for the title of this film at the time of its release was Star Trek—The Motion Picture, with an em dash, rather than Star Trek: The Motion Picture with a colon, as we have it. The article includes clippings from contemporaneous Paramount publicity supporting this.

I know that our house style discourages em dashes, favoring en dashes even when grammar and common usage call for an em dash (though I don't really understand why). However, we have also been punctilious about not using colons in the titles of films 7 and 10–13, and as I understand it the reason is that that's how they were styled by the studio at the time of the films' release.

I have no idea whether any of the other films we currently have styled with colons should have dashes instead, but Connelly makes a pretty convincing case that for this film, at least, the proper title is Star Trek—The Motion Picture. Shouldn't our article reflect that? —Josiah Rowe (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)