Date for TMPEdit

Dan, a brief question on the 2271/2273 issue - what should we list as the date when making entries based on references in the movie? I've just added USS Revere and USS Columbia, and used the 2273 date, but wasn't too sure. -- DarkHorizon 14:05, 20 Jan 2004 (PST)

On the 2273 date, if Kirk's last star-hour was logged anywhere between January to June of 2270, then the 'two and a half years' would place it in 2272. would this be a preferable 'middle ground' between the widely accepted Chronology date of 2271 and the more recent assumption of 2273?
The ironic thing is that if they had skipped making the Q2 2270 reference, the Encyclopedia's 2271 would've still been possible, but now it has been blown out of the water completely... -- Captain M.K.B. 01:04, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I only found out recently that 2270 was made the canon end of the original series mission. I'm glad this is the case because the evidence (for want of a better word) suggested this all along, and the reasoning behind the 2269 date was weak (though I don't hold Mike Okuda to blame for this.) I also believe ST: TMP took place in 2273. For the 2270 and 2273 dates I refer anyone interested to the novelization of the movie. Roddenberry offers a loosely based timeline of sorts built around Dr. Chapel's appearance on the ship and Kirk's proximity to Earth. What I took from the passage was that Kirk took command of the Enterprise in 2264, the five-year mission began in 2265 and ended in 2270, and the V'GER incident took place in 2273.

Yes, but both the official site and Star Trek Magazine consider 2271 to be the official date. --ApolloBoy 04:43, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)
The official date is 2271, so I used that in the Summary. Ottens 11:26, 1 Jul 2004 (CEST)
Well, the simple fact of the matter is, Gene said the TAS is not canon. IF you don't count that, then perhaps 2271 does indeed, work. It could also be mentioned that the planing and such had already happend, what with times and such that are used one could speculate that planing and desinging happend during TOS season 3. In any case, I don't considar TAS Canon, hence the timline makes sense (I'm going by that I hear Gene said TAS is not canon so...) Terran Officer April 22, 2006, 12:38PM (EST)
You do of course realize that VOY: "Q2" established that the Kirk's first five-year mission ended in 2270, meaning the earlist possible year this movie could take place is 2272... --From Andoria with Love 00:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Since 2272 and 2273 are equally likely, how did we settle on 2272 ?
I am not was not advocating a change, (since the film came out late in 1979, I like it occurring in late 2272), but I noticed that Memory Beta uses 2273. —MJBurrageTALK • 01:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
The on-screen evidence makes 2272 and 2273 exaclty equal in probability, couldn't we use the 2.8 years quoted in Roddenberry's novelisation to settle the tie? He also has the lines about not logging a single star-hour in "two and a half years". (Which could be anything from 4–8 months given how people approximate and/or round things) However, on page 6 he gives a specific length of time for Spock's Kolinahr training as 2.8 Earth years. This makes the earliest possible date for TMP late-October 2272 (If the five-year mission ended in early-January 2270), with sometime in 2273 much more likely. —MJBurrageTALK • 19:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Years redux...
I have noticed that the 2271/2272/2273 date issue still shows up in page edits. While there is no fully cannon date, the closest thing we had was the Star Trek Chronology (and date of 2271, which we now know to be imposable. 2273 is more likely than 2272 (see above), and is now used by Memory Beta, and is considered official by Pocket Books according to Voyages of Imagination. As I understand it, we currently use 2272 because it splits the difference between the most likely date, and the former official one. Given the publication of Voyages of Imagination, and the growing use of its date elsewhere, that we either remove having an exact date, or switch to 2273. —MJBurrageTALK • 01:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I'd be tempted to put it as "2270s" and call it a day. We know that it isn't 2271. We don't know if it's 2272, 2273, or heck, it could even be 2275 for all we know. Thus, I'd be tempted to say "2270s" and leave it at that. -- Sulfur 01:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
2273 not upper limit
I just want to say that I prefer the later dates for the movie timeframe than the earlier ones. This would account better for the aging of the actors and space the first and second movies slightly more evenly. In fact while I have to concede 2272 as the earliest date ST:I could take place, there is nothing that I know of that could set the upper limit lower than 2277 when Spock is promoted to Captain, something we know happens after this film. Federation 06:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Where does a 2277 date for Spock's promotion to captain come from? —MJBurrageTALK • 01:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
At least according to the canon of this site 2270 is the accepted date of the end of Kirk's 5 year mission. But we are not told if he commanded the Enterprise for 6 months, a year or even 3 years after the end of the Five Year mission. Basically all we know is that 2273 is the minimum date the movie could have happened. it could have happened up to a year before STII. That comes from comparing the Stardate of the Genesis tape, which was recorded about a year ago, and the stardate of TMP. Be it a bit more dubious and unreliable, the data at least tells us somewhere between 2 1/2 years after the first movie, and 1 year before the second. -- 01:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
You can't count on stardates as definitive date place markers. Look how inconsistent they were throughout the original series and the animated series. --Alan 02:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Why has the dating been changed on TMP? Edit

Hello. I was recently looking at the date for Star Trek: The Motion Picture, which is 2272, then I saw in that page that the latest possible date for TMP is 2277. I then watched TMP again and heard Decker say that Kirk hasn't logged a single star hour in the past 2 and a half years. I know that Kirk's mission ended in 2270, since it was stated in VOY, but I can;t understand why 2277 would even be considered as a date for the movie. If I could have an answer I would appreciate it. -- 04:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to this? 2273 might be closer to the actual since the earliest possible would be mid-2272, assuming the 18 month refit began exactly at the beginning of 2270, when in fact, no true indicator was given as to when in 2270 his mission ended, Jan-Dec. As to why that was added to 2277, I can find no explanation, nor justification for it from Federation when he added it. --Alan del Beccio 04:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Latest possible date, because the crew of the USS Bozeman from 2278 was seen wearing the new uniforms. But really does belong to a background information at most. Sometimes chronology researchers prefer to put TMP after a second FYM rather than after the TOS one. I believe this is due to hints in some of the earlier novels and of course result from the actor's ages. -- Kobi 12:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

Number of imagesEdit

I hope I haven't uploaded too many images for this page... Ottens 11:26, 1 Jul 2004 (CEST)

I was just going to ask that. 15 images seems a little too much - I'd suggest to narrow that down to perhaps 5 or 6 (max), and to use some images that can be reused on other pages (for example Ilia, Decker, V'Ger, Refit Enterprise, San Francisco, Spacedock etc.). -- Cid Highwind 11:30, 1 Jul 2004 (CEST)

I'll see what I can do. Ottens 11:31, 1 Jul 2004 (CEST)

- I've used three of the V'Ger images on the V'Ger page. I removed two of the images that were previously there (because the images I added were of higher-quality) and nominated them for deletion.
- :File:TMP 6.jpg is also used on the Constitution-class page.
- :File:TMP 5.jpg is now also used on the Ilia page, and is also used on the Constitution-class page.
- Nominated File:TMP 12.jpg for deletion.
- :File:TMP 2.jpg also used on Constitution-class.
- :File:TMP 11.jpg also used on Constitution-class.
- So that leaves the following images for the TMP page only: :File:TMP 1.jpg, :File:TMP 3.jpg, :File:TMP 8.jpg, :File:TMP 7.jpg. Ottens 12:13, 1 Jul 2004 (CEST)
Holy cow, Ottens! I think that you've got way too many images on this article! Our image use policy says that generally a maximum of only three images per page is the acceptable limit. I know we've been exceeding that elsewhere, but I think that this is an example where the images need to be trimmed WAY down! -- Dan Carlson 14:41, 1 Jul 2004 (CEST)
I didn't know about that rule, sorry. As I posted above already, most images are used on other pages also, so for most there's no reason for deletion. And if we have them anyway, why not post them here also? Ottens 14:43, 1 Jul 2004 (CEST)
Interesting point. You're probably right; if the image is already used elsewhere, then there's no harm in having it used in a second article -- heck, that helps justify the image by using it more often! Okay, you've convinced me... but I'd still hope that you can avoid going overboard, because since Memory Alpha is only on a shared hosting account, we still have limited disk space! (Actually, it's one gig worth, which is plenty, but I'd rather not splurge it on costly images when we can have lots of articles instead. You know what I mean?) -- Dan Carlson 15:08, 1 Jul 2004 (CEST)
Yes, I understand (heck, I have a website myself :P). Though one or two images could still be removed. Well, let's continue that here... Ottens 15:55, 1 Jul 2004 (CEST)
(Re: Dan) If the only problem is disk space, then yes, using an image that is already used elsewhere should be fine - if we are (also) talking about bandwidth issues and/or a general guideline (write about something instead of just uploading pretty pictures), this might not be a solution... -- Cid Highwind 18:47, 1 Jul 2004 (CEST)
I don't know how Memory Alpha is on bandwith, but concerning general guidelines: If, for example File:TMP 6.jpg is used on the Constitution-class anyway, why not include it on the TMP page? Ottens 13:28, 2 Jul 2004 (CEST)
Regarding guidelines: this is an encyclopedia - in my opinion, images should be used to illustrate specific important points that can't be described otherwise; they should not be included just to have some image on the page. Here, the included images look more like a picture story due to quality and quantity. I'd rather have an image of Enterprise in drydock than one of Kirk seeing his ship in drydock, for example... -- Cid Highwind 13:46, 2 Jul 2004 (CEST)
You are right, MA is an encyclopedia, not an image gallery. But as I said already, as these images are used on Memory Alpha elsewhere anyway, and as they are related to TMP, why not post them on that page also...?

Let's discuss the images image by image to see if they're useful.

  • "Kirk sees the Enterprise again". I think that specific image was quite important, as it was quite an important moment for Kirk when he saw "his" Enterprise again.
  • "Dr. McCoy arrives." I used this image on the Constitution-class page to illustrate the Transporter Room, but on the TMP page, it serves little use indeed. But it's not like the image is for the TMP page specifically. We have the image anyway...
  • "The officers on the bridge." Shows the main officers and the refitted Enterprise bridge.
  • "The Enterprise enters the cloud." Think that image is quite important. Shows both the V'Ger cloud, and the Enterprise.
  • "The Ilia probe in Sickbay." I used this image to illustrate the Constitution-class Sickbay, and it shows Lt. Ilia/Ilia-probe.
  • "Spocks enters the cloud." Shows Mr. Spock in a spacesuit, illustrates a part of the story, and shows V'Ger cloud interior.
  • "V'Ger". Used on the V'Ger page also, shows the centre of V'Ger.
  • "The walk to V'Ger." One of the most important scenes of the movie.
  • "Decker and Ilia merging." Used on the V'Ger page also, shows the climax of the film.
  • "Merging with the Creator." Shows the centre of V'Ger, and used on the V'Ger page also.

If you'd much rather like to see an image showing the Enterprise in spacedock, why don't you copy that image from the Constitution-class page then, and paste it on the Star Trek: The Motion Picture page? If you think it's relevant, use the image (we have the image anyway), and post it on the TMP page... Ottens 13:55, 2 Jul 2004 (CEST)

Because I think that there are much too many images on this page already and don't want to make it even worse by adding yet another one. I also still think that images should not be included just because they are available anyway - if an image is useful on more than one page, that's great, but we shouldn't include all images from TMP here just because they exist. After all, this encyclopedia is "hyperlinked" for a reason: if someone is interested in seeing something that isn't really important on this page (such as the appearance of McCoy/the transporter room in 2271) he/she can always follow a link to another page. -- Cid Highwind 14:16, 2 Jul 2004 (CEST)
Hmm... Yes, you convinced me. "Just because the image is available" isnt necessarily an excuse to add the image to the past. Still, I think most images used are useful, though I agree that two or three could be removed... Ottens 16:32, 2 Jul 2004 (CEST)

Image sidebarEdit

I've temporarily moved the image sidebar here, since with the removal of the copyvio summary, it makes the page layout wonky. Once a unique summary goes up, it should be put back -- Michael Warren 19:11, 27 Jul 2004 (CEST)

/temp page contentEdit

this summary was part of a temp page associated with this article:

A large, unknown "cloud" headed for Earth is believed to be violent when it destroys a group of Klingon cruisers. Admiral Kirk reunites with his old crew, and assumes command of the Enterprise, creating tension between him and Commander Will Decker, who previously commanded the Enterprise.

En-route to the entity, Spock leaves his logic training on Vulcan to join the Enterprise. His skills prove invaluable in saving the Enterprise from destruction by the cloud.

As they approach the core of the cloud, they find a massive structure of unknown and very advanced technology. Upon reaching the center of the structure, Lieutenant Ilia is killed, and replaced by a mechanical copy of Ilia, whose purpose is to investigate why "carbon units" have "infested" the Enterprise. The crew learns from the "Ilia-probe" that entity's name is V'Ger.

In order to gain more information about V'Ger, Spock, unknown to anyone else, attempts to mind-meld with V'Ger. Spock learns that V'Ger is sentient, but is searching for his creator.

is anyone still working on this, and is it non-copyvio? it's image heavy, so i'd recommend severe revision before its included in the article again

Background InformationEdit

I believe that the information about "The Defector" and other Star Trek: Phase II inspired movies and episodes belongs in the Star Trek: Phase II article and are not relevant to this article. Please post her before reverting to a previous version. 09:42, 3 Jan 2005 (CET)


I removed:

Mistakes: very notable mistake in ST:TMP is that when Kirk orders "full inpulse" the ship actually goes at faster-than-light speeds, going from earth to saturn in less than a minute, however, light waves take about 3 hours to travel that distance.

It was previously agreed that this type of information is not to be included in the background information of summaries. --Alan del Beccio 01:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Background Information (2) Edit

"Grace Lee Whitney (Janice Rand) and Mark Lenard (Klingon captain) are the only actors, besides the original cast, to appear in both this film and the final Star Trek: The Original Series film, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country."

What about Star Trek III: The Search for Spock? GLW appears as "woman in cafeteria", ML as "Sarek"... : [defchris] :: [ talk ] : 16:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

This note doesn't contradict that. It does not say that GLW does not appear in any other films (she also appeared in Star Fleet HQ in ST IV, I believe), and Mark Leonard does not appear in TMP, therefore they are not covered by this note, but they are not contradicted by it either. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Mark Lenard does indeed appear in TMP, he's the Klingon captain. --leandar 18:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. He's the only actor to portray each of Trek's main aliens - Klingon, Vulcan and Romulan. - Adambomb1701 16:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

background info Edit

it states here that saucer separation was mentioned in "The Apple" -- is this really the case? -- Captain M.K.B. 17:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Federation 02:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
In that episode Kirk told Scotty to discard the warp nacelles if he had to and to crack out with the main section but he wanted that ship out of there. The main section that Kirk is referring to is the saucer section. Gene Roddenberry always had it in mind that the Enterprise could separate, but that was never seen. Probably would have been too expensive and I seriously doubt the model was designed to ever actually separate. --leandar 17:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Summary needs helpEdit

I'm on it!  :) --leandar 17:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thought I'd submit a partial summary so I didn't accidentally try to delete much of the page by mistake like I almost accidentally did with the Generations page. --leandar 01:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
It's done. Whew! --leandar 02:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Kirk's rankEdit

I'm in the process of editing the summary and I'm curious to know just how it was arrived at that Kirk was a rear admiral. He was never said as anything else but as an admiral. Is there any information out there that can shed some light on this before I continue? Thanks. --leandar 18:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

His uniform had rear admiral insignia. Federation 01:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
But how do we know it's rear admiral insignia? Is there some reference to which this is made available that I'm unaware of? --leandar 01:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Well... we do have the fact, from TOS, that a commodore-insignia is 3 finished golden stripes. Kirk's uniform had four. We then also assume that he was not striped of rank for the move Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. there he was wearing the insignia that has been stated as rear admiral.
source: the original series, Star Trek: The Motion Picture,Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, logical speculation.
-- Örlogskapten... Channel Open... 15:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Decks... Edit

In the movie you can clearly see that they climb/fly to deck 70 something... It should be mentioned in the article, since the ship only has 24 or so...

They do? When? Federation 21:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I think he's actually talking about Star Trek V: The Final Frontier. - Adambomb1701 19:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Video & DVD releases Edit

This is one of the most confusing cases ever for video and DVD, since there are three different "official" versions floating around -- plus letterboxed vs. pan-and-scan. Some clarification would help. (Several of the TOS movies are a bit confusing in this regard actually, not least because all have letterboxed and non-letterboxed releases.)

Is it correct that *all* the video releases prior to the Director's Cut DVD were the "Special Longer Version"? Was the theatrical version ever released to retail sale in any form? As for the VHS releases, has anyone straightened out which ones were letterboxed and which ones were pan-and-scan?.... - The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

The theatrical version was released on videocassette in October, 1980. The "Special Longer Edition" is the same version that was aired on ABC-TV in February 1983. It was released on home video in March, 1983, superseding the theatrical version, which was discontinued. The "Director's Cut" was released on VHS in letterbox at the same time the DVD was released. All other VHS (and Beta) versions, as far as I know, were pan-and-scan. The theatrical version is not available any more on tape or disc, but sometimes turns up on one of the HBO channels. - Adambomb1701 19:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Itunes is currently the only source of the original theatrical release. It is out there, so grab it fast --Nmajmani 13:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Between the "Special Longer Version" and the "Director's Cut" on home video, there was a boxed set of the first six movies, all in letterbox/widescreen. Although the cover art listed the timing for the TMP tape as the "Special Longer Version" length, it was actually the theatrical version. Therin of Andor (talk) 14:17, October 24, 2012 (UTC)

Does the cover of the original 1980 video release differ in any way from the later version, and does anyone have a scan of it for the gallery? – Sparial 01:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The original box art lacks the "Special Longer Version" wording that appears over the top of the rainbow coloured transporter beams. Therin of Andor (talk) 14:17, October 24, 2012 (UTC)

T'Sai Edit

I was under the impression that the name T'Sai was only used in the novelization of the film. If so, then it doesn't belong in this article, except possibly as a background note that says something like "In the novelization, the Vulcan master was given the name T'Sai." Is her name given in some filmed or aired version? - Bridge 20:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Not what I can remember from the movie.-- Örlogskapten. Qapl'a! 21:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
No, she wasn't given a name in the movie, not even in the credits. -- 23:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Fred Phillips and Robert Fletcher aliens Edit

TMP Aliens - screencaps from the film of the following species to supplement their screen test images: Arcturian, Kazarite, K'normian, Saurian (species), Betelgeusian. – Cleanse talk 04:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

We already have ones of the Betelgeusian and Arcturian, they just haven't been integrated into those articles yet because I haven't taken time to rewrite them. As for the other three, they are doubly difficult to find because they can really only be identified in the background of various scenes by the clothes they are wearing, such as the likes of the images of the Aaamazzarite and Megarite. --Alan del Beccio 04:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, just making sure you noticed the articles.– Cleanse talk 04:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Add: Rigellian and Shamin to the two that are not crossed out above. --Alan del Beccio 05:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course, the problem is most of their scenes were cut. This is from Therin of Andor
  • "Re: the San Francisco aliens: I once got to speak to makeup artist, Fred Phillips, by phone. His onset of blindness prevented him from meeting up in person, sadly, but he did say that there was originally a plan for a "Journey to Babel" style banquet scene in TMP, and that's when he and Robert Fletcher were given the order to start making lots of UFP aliens. They were all going to be told of the approaching Vejur cloud at the banquet. How sad that the elaborate Betelgeusian's robes got wasted. You can see him - over seven feet, plus hat - in San Francisco, but just not close enough, or long enough, to see his beautiful robes."
This might be a nice paragraph in the TMP article on the aliens that didnt make it into the final cut of the movie. -- Harry talk 14:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks like we have to do the Martin Madden to them then. Does this account for all the missing pictures unchecked above? --Alan del Beccio 15:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll slow-mo through the air tram scenes, but I suspect that we've got all that we can from those. Especially the elaborate Ambassadors (Rigel turtles, Kazarites) seem to not appear in the movies. And the K'norm in his Starfleet uniform is a mystery to me. Maybe hiding somewhere in the rec deck scene, but that's been over-analyzed already. Probably cut as well. -- Harry talk 09:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Update: I went through it a bunch of times. So far, I have found the Betelgeusian ambassador (with the hat), and probably his two attendants. I've also seen at least one of the Zaranites, and there's just an extremely short glimpse of the Shamin mask, but it's definitely him. Will be hard to capture in 1 screenshot. I'll see what I can make of it. So that makes the Rigellian and the K'normian the hardest (that K'normian is impossible, probably.. looks too Human and has a standard uniform) -- 12:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

<Note: Images removed>

This is what I got. The Betelgeusian Ambassadors are pretty clear. The Shamin is hard to see, perhaps we can use the GIF instead. I'm not 100% sure that is the Rigellian (the head is just outside the frame). But he does seem significantly larger than a human, and the armor reflects more light than the similar-looking Starfleet guard armor. I'm not sure it's good enough, but maybe for a background piece. I haven't added these images to the articles yet. -- Harry talk 12:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Very nice! I spotted a second Saurian and second Betelgeusian in the V'ger briefing scene, they are on the upper balcony. --Alan 22:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

McCoy saw Transporter MALFUNCTIONEdit

Is it possible, in any scripts, that Dr.McCoy saw that mess on the malfunctioning transporter pad and had REFUSED to be transported that way due to the grisly malfunction ? 21:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

No, because the transporter malfunction happened long before the point where the last of the crew beamed in. Otherwise, what does it really matter. --Alan 05:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
For the record, that is why McCoy was so hesitant about using the transporter and why he had to check himself after he was beamed aboard. He had either heard of or laid witness to the malfunction. He's always been weary of the transporter, but the implication in the movie was that he was refusing to use the transporter because of what had happened earlier. That said... what *does* it matter? :-P --From Andoria with Love 17:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Size of V'Ger Cloud Edit

In the original version of the movie and the novel, the cloud is 82 AU in diameter. I was quite taken aback when I watched the newest DVD release a couple of years ago and heard it truncated to 2 AU. Why the change? Why should 186 million miles be any more realistic than 7626 million miles? Gcapp1959 05:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Because 82AU was stated to be about the size of the orbit of Neptune, and when they saw V'Ger approach Earth, it was obviously smaller than 82AU. Therefore, they cut it to say 2AU, which is still much larger than any ship we've seen before or after. Kitface 19:07, January 20, 2011 (UTC)

Darth Vader and Miss Piggy Edit

Shouldn't there be something about Darth Vader and Miss Piggy being in the movie? You can see them in the scene where Spock is going the V'ger. Miss Piggy looks like she is in a kaleidoscope, whereas Darth Vader is just a silhouette. Lt. T 13:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so, considering that it is untrue. There is an optical illusion that some people interpret this way. see the following link for the screen cap:[1] Also see the following discussion: Talk:Miss_PiggyJoeloveland 14:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it wasn't an optical illusion, since ILM already admitted to adding the characters in as a sight gag. --From Andoria with Love 14:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You sure about that? ILM didn't work on this film. Captain Spadaro (talk) 06:20, September 20, 2014 (UTC)

Meteor and Besch Edit

I am removing the following note:

These sound effects are very similar to the background music for Meteor, another 1979 film which also stars Bibi Besch.

First off, I don't think it is relevant to start listing movies with "similar" sound effects. Even if the effect was identical, it may not be all that relevant. Second off, Besch wasn't in TMP, she was in Wrath of Khan. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


Is it suitable to cite another publically editable wiki as a source? Should the entry in Background Info "According to Wikipedia, Star Trek: The Motion Picture was one of the last..." be deleted for this reason? Joeloveland 16:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't be deleted just yet; it should be reworded to remove reference to Wikipedia and an incite tag should be added until a valid source can be found. If no source is found after a short while, it can be removed. --From Andoria with Love 04:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Quick answer, didn't know I was supposed to put new topic on the bottom. Don't know how to put an incite tag. thanks Joeloveland 13:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

To add an incite tag, you simply type {{incite}} at the end of a sentence or paragraph. --From Andoria with Love 14:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Joeloveland 18:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed non-Apocrypha trivia from Apocrypha section Edit

Removed non-Apocrypha trivia from Apocrypha section

This process of traveling to a ship in a shuttle for a captain would be seen again in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home when Kirk and crew reach the Enterprise-A in a travel pod and in TNG: "All Good Things..." when Lt. Yar brings Captain Picard over to the Enterprise-D via shuttlecraft. It would also be seen in Star Trek when Kirk and Dr. McCoy are aboard the Shuttle Gilliam en route to the USS Enterprise. It would also occur (in somewhat of a retcon) when Jonathan Archer first inspected the Enterprise NX-01. Also in the alternate Universe created by Nero Kirk approaches the Enterprise in a shuttle pod.

Joeloveland 17:02, November 3, 2009 (UTC)

Removed Un-memorable quote Edit

This line is hardly memorable. It was as significant as any other line in the script. Too many articles are spammed with these "quotes"

It's closing up!"
- Sulu, after the large opening in V'Ger closes behind the Enterprise

Joeloveland 14:38, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

Nitpick Edit

  • Three ST:TOS "series rules" were broken in the movie (although the last two mentioned were, admittedly, never made canon). the "Enterprise arrowhead" was originally to be only for the Enterprise uniforms. Other uniform icons were used for other ships and places (ex. the gold sunburst icon for starbase personnel). In the movie, all Starfleet personnel were using the arrowhead design (although the Epsilon IX personnel did wear a different uniform icon). No explanation was ever given. Also, among the transmissions heard at the station was a call to "Scout Columbia, NCC-621". In Gene Roddenberry's original concept, according to the book "The Making of Star Trek" not all space ships were "starships". A Starship was a specific class of space ship, like a Carrier-class or a Battleship-class of today, and, although this was never made canon during the series, only Starship-class vessels were intended to bear the NCC registry, like CVN is specifically for Carrier-class ships of today (ex. USS Enterprise CVN-65). The distinction was noted only once during the series when Capt. Merik in "Bread and Circuses" mentioned Kirk commands not just a space ship, but a starship. Afterwards, all other movies and series now call most Starfleet vessels Starships no matter what the make or size.

This is worded way too much like a nitpick, and non-canon rules are just that, non-canon. I don't see why these rules would be worth mentioning in this context, but if it wasn't worded as a nit, I don't really have a problem with it. - Archduk3 07:20, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

Director's Edition Blu-ray release: myth or actual thing? Edit

Michael and Denise Okuda have posted on their Facebook page that they have not heard anything about a Blu-ray release for the Director's Editon of TMP, and another article on here says that because Paramount did not claim ownership of the material done for the remastering by Foundation Imaging, when that studio went under, the material was never taken off their servers when they were auctioned off, which I'm taking to mean that everything done for the DE would need to be re-done AGAIN. Can we get some confirmation on whether or not this is going to be done, because if not, I'm recommending that we delete the line about a Blu-ray release of the DE. Captain Spadaro (talk) 06:27, September 20, 2014 (UTC)

That Paramount does not have the new bits for the DE was confirmed by Adam Lebowitz here; that these bits may be still in existence is strongly implied by Robert Bonchune here ; was a DE bluray announced, yes; does the possibility of a bluray then still exists, yes, but it now entirely depends on the eventuality whether or not Paramount can make a deal with the former Foundation staffers. So, deleting the info might be a bit too crass, but I agree that info should be added to reflect that a possible release is still in limbo and that the initially planned release could not be met...--Sennim (talk) 10:03, September 20, 2014 (UTC)

Noted. Perhaps we should delete the April 2013 date, at least? I mean, its September 2014 now... Captain Spadaro (talk) 06:04, September 21, 2014 (UTC)

Not really necessary, it can remain as an announced date, now that I've made the additional note in the article...-- Sennim (talk) 08:11, September 21, 2014 (UTC)

Has the notorious scaffolding scene been reinserted with the scaffolding erased - and if not, why not!--Archer4real (talk) 14:17, September 4, 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't in the 2001 Director's Edition, so I doubt any BD release would have it... Captain Spadaro (talk) 21:20, August 13, 2018 (UTC)

Background information (3)Edit

What do you guys think about latest additions to the Background information? I feel that many informations don't belong here, and that some are not necessary and irrelevant.

  • There is so much information here how studio treated Roddenberry and generally about Roddenberry. Maybe that is somewhat relevant because it happened in the period of producing movie, but in my opinion those information should go to Roddenberry's article.
  • Why is one blooper so important to mention in Background information and not the others? I think this blooper is not important and it shouldn't be in Background information.
  • " In Gene Roddenberry's novelization of the film, the female lead Vulcan elder is given the name T'Sai. " - Again, how it this important for the movie? It should be in the relevant novel article.
  • There is also many unnecessary information between brackets, like this for Abrams: (who can be seen in the DVD's gag reel wearing a TMP production jacket) - why is this so important?
  • There are so much stuff talking about economy here, which I, and I'm sure many readers don't understand. That text should be minimal, not going into details how economy functions.
  • Speaking of irrelevant, why do we need so long example of Kevin Costner failure which is in no way related to TMP?

I always thought article should be quality, not quantity. I tried to remove those irrelevant stuff, but my change was reverted. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Igor871 (talk • contribs).

Removing relevant information, be it context establishing real world info or world building apocrypha, reduces the quality of the article, not just the quantity of text. "Important" isn't the criteria here, because if it was there wouldn't be much here at all. - Archduk3 03:25, November 5, 2014 (UTC)
Well, I think that there is too much information here now, and that quality of article is reduced. And there are more important information then some other. I'm sure that there are endless additions we could make, but where is the end? Also, as I asked, shouldn't almost all info about Roddenberry go into his article? --Igor871 (talk) 15:56, November 5, 2014 (UTC)
With all due respect, your assertion "that there is to(o) much information here now, and that quality of article is reduced" is a personal, subjective opinion and is not a consideration for MA. For MA there is no such thing as "too much information", provided it has relevance to the subject at hand which in this case it has, as MA favors long articles as stated in this policy guideline. As for the Roddenberry info being "somewhat relevant" and therefore having "all info about Roddenberry go into his article", I beg to differ; How Roddenberry carried himself before TMP, was very influential on production decisions for TMP by the appointment of producers and giving Wise executive producer rights (FYI, producers are critically important for productions, in case you wondered); How Roddenberry carried himself during the production was very influential on not only how he was treated afterwards, but also on how the studio treated the movie itself. Either way, TMP was in both instances the pivot, and as such the info is at its place here. It establishes context.-- Sennim (talk) 16:48, November 5, 2014 (UTC)
Well, I could say that you additions are also personal, since you believe those are important or relevant, but I don't. You are adding to much information, why so long example about Kevin Costner is necessary? Why is Abrams jacket important, I mean, come on. You are also making my life difficult by your constant edits and addition, and I can't keep up on Serbian wiki, when is the end? It's easy for you to copy/paste but I have to translate all that. And as I said, all those economy stuff are complicated, and not easily understood, you need to keep it simple.--Igor871 (talk) 17:52, November 5, 2014 (UTC)

Would there be any merit...Edit creating a redirect to this on a page called simply "[[The Motion Picture]]"? There currently isn't such a redirect, and I wondered (before I boldly do so, if this idea was ever discussed and rejected for some reason? --LauraCC (talk) 19:13, August 15, 2016 (UTC)

Possibly the vast wealth of pages referred to as "Star Trek: The Motion Picture (insert phrase here)" --LauraCC (talk) 18:16, August 25, 2016 (UTC)

Fodder for bgnotes Edit just released this. [2]--LauraCC (talk) 16:14, September 8, 2016 (UTC)

"Costs and revenues"Edit

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

Vulcan Language Edit

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? 15:47, January 23, 2019 (UTC)