Talk: Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home

Related discussions[]

Also see related discussions at:

• Talk:Federal Bureau of Investigation
• Talk:I Hate You
• Talk:Money

--Alan 06:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Loonkerian and Klendth[]

I created pages for most of the alien ambassadors we saw in Council chambers, but I don't see pictures for Locnaerians or Klendeth. Are those aliens and do we have images or is there something I'm missing there? Since they were referenced in the main area and not with the other aliens I'm guessing there is something more concrete to these particular references such as dialogue or other info. Anyone? Logan 5 22:45, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the names came from the script somewhere, because hardly any of the alien's names were actually mentioned on-screen. I've had a look at the pictures in the council, and I can't see any more clear pictures of the aliens. Zsingaya ^Talk 22:50, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Who are the Locnaerians and Klendeth, and where are they named? They're not from the FASA Star Trek IV Sourcebook Update... -- Harry ^t 23:17, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)

They're on the reference list at Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. Zsingaya ^Talk 23:23, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I can't find any reference to them anywhere online. Searching for either term by themselves brings up only the same Memory-Alpha page. They were added by Gvsualan on February 20. He's a pretty trusted source, so I'm hesitant to remove them without a word about their origin. Tim Thomason (sig added by Alan del Beccio)

They were mentioned in Spocks memory test:

• Q): "What significant contribution to bio-engineering was made on the Loonkerian outpost on Klendth?
• A): "The universal atmospheric element compensator."

The absence of accurate google results appear to be because I misspelled "Klendth" as "Klendeth"-- not to say that there isn't a certain satisfaction in knowing that the one search result for the word on google can be attributed to my handiwork! ;) I will change the links in the article to reflect the proper citations. --Alan del Beccio 02:02, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I do have an explanation for why "Loonkerian" ='d "Locnaerian" and "Klendth" ='d "Klendeth"-- I took the spelling from the closed captioning, whereas the script spells it quite differently. --Alan del Beccio 02:04, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Caitians and other Council aliens[]

While we're at it...in which scene do the Caitians actually appear? I don't recall seeing them on screen, or the Kasheeta for that matter. The image of the Caitian male looks like a screen shot but I don't recall seeing it. If it really is a screen-shot then we should be able to identify which division he worked for, etc. Similar to notes on the Zaranites and Betelgeusians. Logan 5 04:28, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Not sure about the Kasheeta, all of the references (and caps) I have on this subject are on my computer, which I currently do not have access to--however, I do know for sure that the Caitians are shown in two different scenes in the movie, both a black and brown colored one are shown before and during the trial. --Alan del Beccio 04:31, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)

In this picture, you can see the Caitian (infact, its Vulcan, Deltan, Andorian, then the Caitian at the end of the row.). BTW, any idea about the two aliens in the foreground? Zsingaya ^Talk 07:05, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)

This picture shows all the council. I know its blurry, but indulge me. On the left, there's an alien in the front row, third in, who has a black head and large ears. Is this a black Caitian? Now, you're going to have to squint for this, but on the right, on the back row, fourth seat from the front of the picture, I think I can see the orange head of something that could be a Kasheeta. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, we've got Rhaandarites on the left hand side, in the middle row, right at the end of the row. Zsingaya ^Talk 07:13, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)

For some reason I can't get into trekpulse, it keeps giving me the "movies.trekpulse.com could not be found. Please check the number name and dial again"-runabout. If I had access to my computer, I have images (that I capped myself) and all the references we need to complete the ST4 council aliens, unfortunately I don't have access to it because I'm technically not here. --Alan del Beccio 07:19, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Well, I was mistaken about the Kasheeta anyway, it turns out that this man (behind the Xelatians) is wearing a funky little red hat! Now we've identified so many of these aliens, I reckon the only ones that have the right build to be the Kasheeta, are the ones in this picture, almost directly behind the Xelatians. This picture also shows a better shot of the Rhaandarites. Zsingaya ^Talk 07:27, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)

No, the ones in the black hoods are the Ariolo. So, where are the Kasheeta? I've had a go at setting the aliens out in a plan for the council on my userpage. Zsingaya ^Talk 19:38, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)

it's all in the timing[]

I can't be the only one who noticed that they came back a good 20 minute before they left.. Just after the window breaks we see them entering the solar system, you have to figure about 10 minutes of discussion, another 10 minutes accelerating, and finally the approach to the sun, assuming there isn't any sort of time dilation involved, it could have easily taken them 45 minutes to an hour to get from the outer solar system to the sun. But when they come back, they're in the atmosphere within a few seconds of the window breaking... ...as strange as it sounds, it's the only way the movie makes sense anyway, it explains why they didn't lose power when they first entered the solar system.. the probe was already on it's way out by the time they got anywhere near the sun/earth--Memory epsilon 02:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, going back 10 or 20 minutes before they left is no problem, it is time travel, after all, they could pick whenever they wanted to return. In fact, one wonders why they did not pick a point before the probe arrived all together (perhaps so that they could return as heroes in preperation for their trials?). As for the probe leaving the system before they first arrived, I don't think there is any evidence of this. Rather, it would seem that they did not lose power by simply keeping their distance from Earth as they approached the sun. When they returned to the 23rd century, they had to go to Earth, and then lost power. --OuroborosCobra 21:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

That's my opinion on this subject. --OuroborosCobra 07:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The movie answers the question directly, of why they came back early:

• "You present the appearance of a man with a problem."
• "Your perception's correct, Doctor: in order to return us to the exact moment we left the 23rd century, I have used our journey back through time as a reference, calculating the coefficient of elapsed time in relation to the acceleration curve."
• "Naturally. So what's your problem?"
• "Acceleration is no longer a constant."
• "Well, then...I suppose you'll just have to take your best shot."
• "Best shot?"
• "Guess, Spock. Your best guess."
• "Guessing is not in my nature, Doctor."

– Bones, Spock

A short time later...

• "Oh, Mr. Spock...have you accounted for the variable mass of whales and water in your time-reentry program?"
  
• "Mr. Scott cannot give me exact figures, Admiral...so I will make a guess."
  

– Kirk, Spock

The accuracy required by NASA to bring Voyager 2 to within 3,000 nautical miles of the cloud-tops of Neptune was once compared to "a golfer sinking a putt from a thousand miles away." In the case of Spock's shot in '86, he apparently pulled it by 20 minutes, when he should've microscopically faded...and thus put it in the water. Go fig; knowing him, he was likely privately more annoyed than anyone else. --ChrisK 08:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Great golf analogy and explanation. I love it ;-) --OuroborosCobra ^talk 08:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

odd section[]

Someone added this:

'One of the most famous filming mistakes in Star Trek history is the shot of Kirk looking out the escape hatch of the Bird of Prey, through which you can clearly see the studio and not the storm. '

Isn't it more accurate to say that you can see a ladder outside of the hatch, which makes sense, I doubt even the klingons are reckless enough to keep a door that goes directly into space on their bridge, the thing was probably some sort of airlock, one hatch on the inside, a short ladder, then another hatch on top of the hull, I can't really see how that's a continuity issue--MƏmory Σþsilon 19:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The "someone" that added it would be me, and with good reason. Your suggestion that it is a ladder well to the outer hull is flawed.

If it was a ladder well then the lightning would have illuminated it, and not have shown into the ship at the angle at which it did.

Also, the water would not have poured in through the hatch, but have pooled at the bottom of the ladder well since it clearly has vertical depth below the edge of the hatch.

The script lists it as Kirk looking through the hatch at the rain. The light source for the lightning (given it's angle) was up and to the right. Therefore if your suggestion was correct, then the exit to the ladder well and the external hatch would also have been up and to the right. Yet when Kirk looks out, he looks up and to the left. If it was a ladder well he would have been looking at a bulkhead.

Also you're right that the Klingons would probably not have been that stupid, but then again the hatch was never put there by the Klingons. Since it wasn't on the bridge in ST3, it was one of the modifications added by the Vulcans (which makes sense anyway given that a normal Klingon's size plus armor would have had trouble getting through said hatch, not to mention running from a fight is "dishonorable"). If the Vulcan's added it it was likely just cut straight through the hull as they were only there for a few months and going through the trouble to add a ladder well would not have been a priority, especially given that they were only going home and not planning to run into trouble since they had cloaking capability.

Besides, how would it be unsafe in the first place? The hatch was clearly several inches thick. Given the advanced metals of the day, combined with structural integrity forcefields, combined with the deflector blocking interstellar debris, and combined with the shields, it would be more than sufficiently safe. Also given that it didn't just have a release button by it, but had to be "blown" open from a computer terminal, I think it's safe to assume it was securely fastened.

This issue is widely accepted among fans as a mistake, and I would not have added it had I thought it was only the opinion of the minority. I am going to revert it's removal unless you can refute the above evidence. --Matt72986 07:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Being widely accepted by fans really doesn't amount to all that much. We care more about facts here. There are many things "widely accepted by fans" that we do not allow, such as that "Spock's Brain" was the worst TOS episode. Now, I am not saying that your note should not go back, I am just saying that being widely accepted by fans is not a good reason. I am not sure the reasons stated by Epsilon are enough to remove it, though. When you put it back, it does need some minor re-wording. Take out "One of the most famous filming mistakes in Star Trek history". Half of the filming mistakes people are adding are for some reason "one of the most famous in history". Guess what, we are not here to determine or state which is the most famous. State the filming mistake, and leave it at that. --OuroborosCobra 07:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Since you put it back while I was writing, I'll re-write it for you (saves you the work of writing it again). --OuroborosCobra 07:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The line "In the shot of Kirk looking out the escape hatch of the Bird of Prey you can clearly see the studio and not the storm." still strikes me as being out of place--MƏmory Σþsilon 23:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Forum:Star Trek IV alternate title?[]

Does anybody know if the alternate title for 'The Voyage Home' was going to be 'Pursuit of the Renegades?' I have a t-shirt from Paramount that leads me to believe there was. I can't find anything online to back this up though... – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danbishop1 (talk • contribs).

Interesting. however, that shirt also has a Federation ship on it, which were scarce in star trek 4 (it wasn't the staring ship, a Klingon BoP was.) So what that could be is a promotional shirt for a VARY early script and nothing more. This is pure speculation. Send an email to StarTrek.com, they may have an answer for you that is more definitive. --6/6 _Subspace 07:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, very interesting. Keep this around until we can confirm it and hopefully there will be some more background info. --Bp 15:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

From the IMDB trivia section on ST:IV.

• "One early draft script was subtitled "The Trial of James T Kirk". This script involved Kirk being court-martialed at the request of the Klingons, who were indignant about the events in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984). One particularly interesting facet of this script is that it included the character of Harry Mudd as a character witness. When the time-travel script was approved instead, the trial was included as a minor sequence. The trial-by-Klingons idea (and portions of the dialogue) was later re-used in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991)."

There were probably multiple draft scrips with various plots at one point, its curious that merchandise would be prototyped before a script, much less a title was decided upon.--Cyno01 07:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It would have been cool if the plot took place on an Excelsior class starship. That was the problem with the old movies. They didn't show enough other starship's, other than the USS Reliant, the USS Excelsior, and the USS Saratoga.Captain Jon 02:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It is also possible that the ship was a ripoff created by a fan wanting to capitalize on the excitement of the new movie. Many copyright's and franchise's in the 1980s had problem's with vary illegal t-shirt's being made by people who were not creating or staring in the film's in question. -- Captain MKB 17:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Forum:Star trek IV Pamphlet[]

Hello there MA, I've been rummaging through my garage, and found something like a pamphlet. It has 3 pages, with a back picture of course. It has a silver border, and on the front, shows 'Star Trek IV The Voyage Home' running down through the atmosphere, looking to crash near the Golden Gate Bridge. Inside, it has a large list of the entire Cast and Credits on the bottom half, and pictures of the main characters. On the backing, it's black on silver, with copyright, and thanks to sponsors for assistance and co-operation for the movie. My grandmother says they used to place these pamphlets in movie theaters, in the window, to advertise the movie, however, the specific name for the pamphlet, escapes her.

I'd like to now what it's called, and if it's considered a rare item? --208.118.24.64 13:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what the pamphlets are called, though they sound similar to the playbills (you may know them as programs) handed out at live stage productions. As for it being rare, I would certainly assume that it is rare – I have never heard of anyone owning anything like that. "Keep it secret. Keep it safe." ;) --From Andoria with Love 18:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the keep it secret part may be hard now ;)

In all seriousness though, this could still be a rare item. They probably made a lot of them at one point, but I bet most theaters didn't bother to keep them around, just tossed them. Kind of like the first version of Windows. Lots of copies made, but next to none still exist... --OuroborosCobra ^talk 19:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, or like Molly Ringwald. She used to be a hot commodity at one point, but now she's practically non-existent. ;) --From Andoria with Love 19:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This is -not- a Playbill, or program. It is only the front cover, an inside (Two 'pages') and a back. It is of the movie, and made of a heavy paper, almost similar to cardboard. I'm thinking, it may be part of a record or so on, that came out during the time as the sountrack, as on the back, in the credits, it mentions the soundtrack. --208.118.24.64 17:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've found something -similar- to it. Soundtrack is there. It has that as it's front, though the Star Trek IV in silver, is absent at the top,and instead has a silver border around it. However, that is the image on the front of whatever this is. --208.118.24.64 18:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I never said it was a playbill, just that it sounded something like it. The booklet included in CD cases like the Star Trek IV soundtrack, on the other hand, is called liner notes. I know that's not what you have, though; I still have no idea what the thing you have is called, but if I find it I'll let you know. :) --From Andoria with Love 23:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

...sounds like it might be part of a press kit to me, though they used to have programs for some movies and i think in foreign countries they still use them. Deevolution 23:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

First female captain?[]

Why is Madge Sinclair's character here listed as the first female captain? The Romulan commander in "The Enterprise Incident" was female and appeared way back in 1968!.

To be technical, Sinclair's character was the first female Starfleet Captain seen. However, I don't believe the Romulan was referred to as a captain, making the statement correct.31dot 22:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

True, she was referred to as a "commander", though her position in charge of a small fleet would make her more akin to a commodore, or even an admiral. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 22:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What fleet was she in command of? The only ship seen in the movie was hers, the Saratoga. 31dot 11:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I war referring to the Romulan commander, the one only referred to as "commander", the one you even mentioned as such... --OuroborosCobra ^talk 12:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so you did. My bad. 31dot 12:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I just added in "Starfleet" to clarify the statement, making it correct either way --umrguy42 22:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Layla Sarakalo myth[]

I edited the section dealing with the supposedly spur-of-the-moment response from Layla Sarakalo ("Ooh, I don't know. I think it's across the bay..." etc.) to Chekov and Uhura. The article tells the old "The people that Koening and Nichols spoke to didn't know they were being filmed" story, but the link to the Sarakalo interview dispels this, as she quite clearly states that she went down to the location to join the other extras in the scene in order to make money to get her impounded car back. She states she was warned not to answer Koening and Nichols but did anyway, to the annoyance of the other extras who did as they were told and blew them off. So, a long-held legend needs to be put to rest. My edit did that. Sir Rhosis 14:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Not trying to dispute you since I'd have to check it out first...but the 25th anniversary video states that she wandered on set and afterwards the producers went up to her and had her sign a bunch of stuff to keep it in the film. I'd believe the video before I believe a document but not sure. – Morder 10:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

But it is not just a "document." It is an interview with the woman herself who states in no uncertain terms what happened. The other version makes a better story, but I tend to believe her. And I think we should accept her word as a primary document in this encyclopedia. Sir Rhosis 23:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone brought the myth back here and created a new bullet point in the "Background" section about a hidden camera and none of those people knowing they were being filmed for a movie. IT'S AN URBAN LEGEND, PEOPLE. It never happened. They were all hired movie extras. They all know they were in the movie. Sarakalo took it upon herself to ad-lib a line, despite being told not to. Anyway, I've removed that note. Let's keep it out.Gotham77 18:35, March 4, 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know that the "I am not sure... I think it's across the bay, in Alameda." line was ad-libbed, and instead she was not supposed to say anything! That is a great moment in the film, but I got a little confused with that statement. I know that things aren't supposed to be written "In Universe", but at the same time the bullet paragraph as it is, is too technical sounding. In Correct (talk) 03:41, November 11, 2012 (UTC)

So what happened to the whales?[]

Did George and Gracie survive in the 22nd century and revive the humpback whale population? --TribbleFurSuit 02:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Lots of incest! :) Never been mentioned in canon again. Specifically related to the whales that is. – Morder 02:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, it was the 23rd century. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 02:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Starfleet has many techniques to help with almost extinct animals, variations on cloning and genetic manipulations that prevent inbreeding. I doubt they would let the species go extinct again. The scientists would help them the best they can.--A Pickering 18:37, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

I hope so, or they would have to retrieve the sunken Klingon ship, and go back in time again to make sure that the whale probe doesn't bother them a second time. In Correct (talk) 03:44, November 11, 2012 (UTC)

A Horses's You-Know-What[]

The article doesnt mention it that I can see, but there is a long standing rumor that as the Klingon Ambassador leaves the chambers at the start of the film, someone shouts "You're a Horse's A*s!" Any truth to this? I watched the scene and heard something but for years I thought it was the Ambassadors aide shouting something in Klingon as they left...but it could be the other word. -FC 18:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The off screen dialogue that was shouted is actually: "You pompous ass!" Listen to it again--you'll hear it. No rumor. It's there to hear. Sir Rhosis 13:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I've listened to that section my whole life, and have never been able to make that out. Either one. How about a script reference, or some evidence? --OuroborosCobra ^talk 13:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not in the script. Script just says something like "With a flourish the Klingon ambassador and his aides leave the room." It's probably a "wild line" meaning it looped later. Pretty sure it is on the captions on the DVD. Sir Rhosis 13:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

As we all know, the captions don't mean much. They are written based on what people "think" they heard. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 13:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

No I wouldn't use the captions as a cite. In fact I wouldn't even mention the line in the summary. It's relatively unimportant. We can go back and forth on this all day. It's a line I hear, I don't "think" I hear it, I know I hear it. It's plain as day to me. You can't hear it. Well, so be it. Sir Rhosis 13:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

On second reading, the above sounds harsh. I wasn't meaning to sound, well, like a pompous ass. Acoustics are weird things, different to different people, is all. Peace. Sir Rhosis 14:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Phasers and high warp[]

OK, I grant that these are very nitpicky issues: First, I've often wondered about the phasers the crew are seen using in this film. The communicators are obviously Klingon, the same props created for ST3, and I'm guessing from the colour scheme the phasers are meant to be Klingon, too. But we all know Klingons carry the distinctive disruptor pistols as side arms, and are seen to use them also in Search for Spock. Second, how was the Bounty capable of reaching speeds in excess of warp 9? Surely a small attack/scout ship wouldn't be equipped with such a powerful warp drive, and would need to be much larger to accomodate one? As I said, not a huge deal, just odd. I was wondering if any of the apocryphal material (the novelization, behind-the-scenes stuff) might offer explanations- were the hand phasers Vulcan, for instance, or did the Vulcans in fact retrofit the Bird of Prey's warp drive..? They obviously gave its bridge an overhaul. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by TimeFire (talk • contribs).

Well, as far as the phasers go, maybe the Klingons had a well-stocked armory, full of different kinds of weapons. The Enterprise crew would have opted for weapons which had a "stun" setting, after all. As for warp, maybe the Bird-of-Prey could sustain high warp for brief intervals, all that would be needed for a slingshot maneuver. That, combined with the gravitational pull from the sun, could account for the tremendous speed. Of course, this is all speculation. -Angry Future Romulan 15:16, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Vulcans are a warp-capable species, although a "Vulcan" ship is rarely seen. When they repaired as much as they could including "replacing the Klingon food packs", they probably refitted the warp drive to reach faster speeds. And when it reached maximum warp, they almost flew apart. (something that even when The Enterprise-D was built, it could not reach "maximum acceleration" without "extreme risk".) In Correct (talk) 03:50, November 11, 2012 (UTC)

Teaching What Really Happened[]

I need an expert. I want to contest the author of the book, Teaching What Really Happened: How to Avoid the Tyranny of Textbooks & Get Students Excited about Doing History He says,

"In Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, Captain Kirk and his crew travel backward in time to our era. Explaining this feat to a present-day earthling, Spock (I think) refers to Columbus, whom he says added another dimension to travel when he proved the world was not flat."

Now it's been a while since i saw this movie, but i know Spock is not a "present-day earthling." I can't recall this line, but the author of this book is exemplifying the common myth that Christopher Columbus discovered that the world was round. Can someone point me to a time index for the DVD? I have to finish reading this book, but it really bothered me. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.55.39.193.

It's been awhile since I've watched the films, but according to an unofficial online transcript, this statement was actually in Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, and was said by Sybok: "The people of your planet once believed their world was flat. ...Columbus proved it was round". He didn't say it to a "present-day earthling" either. [1]–Cleanse ^{( talk | contribs )} 05:10, October 17, 2011 (UTC)

Your book isn't saying Spock is a "present-day earthling," by the way. It says that he's talking to one. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 05:13, October 17, 2011 (UTC)

I see that now, I guess the parenthetical threw me off. I sent the author an email. the help was appreciated, Cleanse.– The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.244.163.180.

Unique End Credits Segment?[]

Is Star Trek IV the only time in Star Trek which showed pictures and video clips of the film? If so, should it be added to the article? In Correct (talk) 03:57, November 11, 2012 (UTC)

references[]

In the reference section, would streetcar (of which no article exists as of yet) be just a synonym for cable car (of which an article exists) ? -- Capricorn (talk) 19:47, September 15, 2013 (UTC)

If the term was used, it can redirect to the other page, since I think they pretty much are the same thing. - Archduk3 19:57, September 15, 2013 (UTC)

The vehicle seen in the movie is identified as a cable car by a street sign. In San Francisco, MUNI considers a streetcar as a different vehicle from the cable car. They have a dedicated route for the streetcar. F Market & Wharves at Wikipedia Throwback (talk) 20:44, September 15, 2013 (UTC)

Corpsing at Plexicorp?[]

Is it just me, or are Kelley and Doohan having a really hard time keeping straight faces while talking with Dr Nichols? Don’t say “it’s just you” ;-) --Archer4real (talk) 10:50, December 28, 2013 (UTC)

Delete "Dyslexia" from references?[]

As far as I can tell, the only possible reference is Kirk calling LSD "LDS", and that may just be because he made a mistake as to what it was called, not because his brain mixed it up as a symptom of the learning disability. --LauraCC (talk) 15:13, August 5, 2015 (UTC)

It was in the script [2] but not in the movie. Meaning the reference doesn't belong there (and I've already removed it in fact) but dyslexia can still get an article of the type you'll find in Category:Unused production material: ie one from a real world point of view. -- Capricorn (talk) 15:59, August 5, 2015 (UTC)

It should be moved from the "References" section, but a background note wouldn't be an issue since it's script information. --| TrekFan ^{Open a channel} 16:32, August 6, 2015 (UTC)

Interference[]

Would this be worthy of a MA article? [3]. --LauraCC (talk) 21:02, January 14, 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if others wouldn't say no, but I for one think that would make for a wicked cool background note. But not in the format "some fans did a certain thing with the movie", but more like "The movie contains this thing (the identification was made by)", similar to when Ex Astris Scientia identifies a painting or something. The fans are not the info, they are the source. -- Capricorn (talk) 11:02, January 15, 2016 (UTC)

Well, I don't think I really understand it well enough to write the note. What I do get is that it was neat that they'd go to the trouble of using real broadcast and not just any old "chhhhhh" sound. --LauraCC (talk) 17:08, April 4, 2016 (UTC)

Other phyla[]

I can't find a screen grab on Trekcore for all the phyla listed on the Phylum search mode screen, only some.

When we do have articles for all these, maybe put them in their own section, as episodes of TNG, for instance, have a separate references section for okudagram info (see "Future Imperfect" for instance.) --LauraCC (talk) 18:06, April 3, 2016 (UTC)

Re the section, I suppose you can try being bold. Regarding all the phyla, I've checked with a set of screenshots of the scene I myself have made in the past, and comparing with this there indeed seem to be a bunch still missing here. I'm not sure what project you're wanting to attempt here, but I can provide you with a complete set of screenshots of every creature if that's useful to you. The only catch (and it's admittedly a bit of a shame for something like this) is that they would be from a dvd and not bluray. -- Capricorn (talk) 21:12, April 3, 2016 (UTC)

So each page gets a picture, and so we can compare the real creature the phylum comes from with the image shown. This for instance, says that the phylum in canon does not match the real world creature the name came from.

I've created the section now. --LauraCC (talk) 16:38, April 4, 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the screencaps, I hope it's not too unkind to say that sometimes I have serious trouble reading your posts and trying to understand what it is you want exactly. But I kinda possibly, probably, maybe understand you want to work on the phyla and are set back by not having the full set of pictures. I think I can help with that, I'm going to try to make sure we have a full set and put it as a gallery at Phylum search mode (seems a good place to collect info on what was seen on those screens anyway). -- Capricorn (talk) 07:17, April 8, 2016 (UTC)

I've been there, especially when there's a debate that goes on for eons and I'm just catching up on it. :) I would like to add the "phyla", as you said. To give you an idea of how confusing this is, I didn't realize Martes pennant was one of these creatures until I googled it (It's the scientific name for "fisher"). Thought it was some kind of award, like the Palm Leaf of Axanar Peace Mission. --LauraCC (talk) 14:15, April 8, 2016 (UTC)

A note: just because something there has a red link, doesn't mean it's not covered elsewhere. Redirects should be set up for any scientific names for animals which are already listed. Some of these creatures, it's difficult to tell what they actually represent (image wise). I made two. --LauraCC (talk) 14:31, April 8, 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I'm just torn how to handle the scientific names. You could go to the article for lion and say it was incorrectly called Alopex lagopus, or you could have an article on a creature called Alopex lagopus and have a picture that looks like it is just a lion on it. Both seem equally valid, and the latter might be the erring on the side of caution approach, but regardless which approach you choose there's cases where the other one makes much more sense. I kinda made a mess of the post-upload work because I just can't decide how to handle them, it's rather pathetic tbh, I just got demoralized and stopped. By the way, they all seem to be based on real scientific names, but they're often misspelled. -- Capricorn (talk) 19:23, April 8, 2016 (UTC)

That is one messed up computer. Typos, animal/name mismatch, "phyla" that are actually species...Klingon misintelligence of file corruption? Also see my MA:CS suggestion for some of these. --LauraCC (talk) 19:26, April 8, 2016 (UTC)

Dating the film's events[]

Is it a newspaper headline seen in the film that places these events as happening on Dec. 18-19?--LauraCC (talk) 20:57, August 16, 2017 (UTC)

Yes --Alan del Beccio (talk) 21:19, August 16, 2017 (UTC)

It's this to be precise. -- Capricorn (talk) 09:21, August 17, 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Do either of you recall seeing any Christmas shopping ads or decorations in any of the scenes? --LauraCC (talk) 14:56, August 17, 2017 (UTC)

Sad as it might be I think I've become quite an expert in small details in TVH, and no, absolutely nothing comes to mind. -- Capricorn (talk) 10:53, August 18, 2017 (UTC)

It being our 20th century, basically (and therefore not as "enlightened" as the 23rd), you'd think there would be a wreath in a window, an ad for Christmas sales, or something, even if it was something that had been put up by an average citizen where they were filming the outdoor scenes. --LauraCC (talk) 14:46, August 18, 2017 (UTC)

The film wasn't filmed around Christmas, and very few people in the production probably even realized that some minor prop had established it as being set in December. -- Capricorn (talk) 16:03, August 18, 2017 (UTC)

Didn't think about it that way. Thanks. *slaps forehead* --LauraCC (talk) 16:04, August 18, 2017 (UTC)

Starfleet Headquarters Personnel, Orions (and other aliens)[]

There's already been lots of discussions about the many species of alien diplomats. But none about the uniformed non-Humans in Starfleet HQ. There are at least three or four, unnamed and uncredited, hard to identify because they're just blurry backgrounders, but at the 1:47:08 celebration scene there appears to be a female Orion (or at least a female with olive green skin and reddish hair, maybe also forehead/nose prosthetics). Were any other Orions known to serve in (non-Kelvin) Starfleet circa ST:IV? 2001:569:7642:C200:E0FC:19C8:34F5:FD46 00:30, September 20, 2018 (UTC)

Advertisement on a sign[]

Anybody recognize this? It was a sign on a Flyer Industries E800 bus in San Francisco. It could be seen when Chekov and Uhura were looking for directions to the naval base in Alameda. I'm wondering if anyone might recognize the woman or the product that this might be advertising. -- Noah Tall (talk) 08:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)