Talk:Star Trek: The Motion Picture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Star Trek: The Motion Picture is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 14, 2011.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Film (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
 
WikiProject Science Fiction (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Star Trek (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Misleading plot summary in the intro[edit]

The current intro states that "a mysterious and immensely powerful cloud called called V'Ger approaches Earth, destroying everything in its path". But V'Ger is not the cloud, it's the alien spacecraft within the cloud. The sentence as is implies that a cloud is destroying things when the cloud does nothing at all. The359 (Talk) 08:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's fine as it is, but if anything should be changed in the intro, perhaps call it an "entity", and remove its name. A lot of the film goes on with V'Ger having an ambiguous nature. Characters know that an "intruder" is on its way to Earth, it resembles a cloud, and the Enterprise crew operate on a belief that there is a vessel inside. The alien spacecraft, the name "V'Ger", and what V'Ger actually identifies isn't revealed until much later on. RobWill80 (talk) 11:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Witholding plot details isn't our operating status, see WP:SPOILER. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
True, but I don't think it is withholding information. It is mentioned further down, after all. I think the name isn't necessary here, and the text flows better without it. A large part of the film goes by without the entity being referred to by name, and when "V'Ger" is first mentioned, the crew aren't sure what exactly the term identifies. Alone in that intro sentence, the name itself doesn't actually explain anything. It doesn't really bother me though. Simply a suggestion. RobWill80 (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
But it is factually wrong to claim that the cloud is powerful, that it is called V'Ger, or that it is destroying anything. All of this is because of the ship within the cloud. The359 (Talk) 18:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I never said you were wrong. If you read what I said, the Enterprise crew aren't sure what V'Ger is for much of the film. That's why I suggest calling it an "entity". RobWill80 (talk) 23:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Audio Sample[edit]

Has anybody with the know-how thought about putting up a sample of the soundtrack by Jerry Goldsmith? Considering it is one of the most recognizable movie/television themes in history and this was its first usage, that might be something to consider. - Jg2904 (Talk) 15:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It's possible, but there isn't much critical commentary in this article to justify it—that is, there's no reviews specifically singling out Goldsmith's score, which makes it's fair use rationale here rather weak. That said, it may be a an audio sample is perfect for another location. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps a sample of a track with the Blaster Beam then? After all, The Motion Picture was the debut of that instrument, which was later used in Battle Beyond the Stars, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, 2010, Forbidden World, and Meteor. Just a thought. (Talk) 16:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Meteor was released on 19 October 1979, and therefore its use of the Blaster Beam was heard by movie audiences six weeks before TMP was released. MrNeutronSF (talk) 09:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Effects in Director's Edition rendered at 480i standard definition[edit]

I'd like to point out that it's technically speaking not correct that the new CGI effects for the Director's Edition were rendered at "480i standard definition"; and the quoted - not very professional - source is even more wrong, naming a non-existant 420i format. There is however a native PAL/SECAM version of the Director's Edition, meaning that the effects have at least also been rendered at 576i. I suggest removing the "480i" part and leaving in the "standard definition", which makes the claim correct at any rate. Nobody of us can say what technical format the effects were rendered in anyway. Matzeachmann (talk) 07:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree! Good idea! Simple and accurate. — UncleBubba T @ C ) 16:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the source entirely. The whole "They didn't release TMP director's because the effects were at SD" makes sense, but it's one of those unverified claims along the lines of "Shatner tried to do a directors cut of STV and Paramount didn't give him the money"—I've really only seen it in DVD review sites, aka not that great sources. They didn't release a directors cut for STII or VI either, so I don't think it can necessarily be relied on to be the issue (not to mention I'm doubting any effects company worth their salt would have done master renders at standard-definition and interlaced.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Agreed! Matzeachmann (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Overture Claim[edit]

The article claims that this and The Black Hole (both 1979) were the last films to have an overture until Dancer in the Dark in 2000. The source for this (item 115) seems to be the DVD commentary. This claim covers a lot of films, and I don't think it can be true - the Wikipedia page listing films with overtures gives 1984 (1984) and The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993) as having used them - can this be put down to an inaccurate commentary and removed please? P19981 (talk) 10:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, considering there's no verified source for 1984 or The Nightmare before Christmas, I'd rather keep it for now. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 23:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


Props and Models Section Needs Work[edit]

The mention of Ralph McQuarrie and Ken Adam's work on the ship design for the aborted The Planet of the Titans film seems odd given that these ideas were scrapped, and their inclusion in a Trek episode a decade later seems to be merely trivia.

The paragraph detailing Richard Taylor and Andrew Probert's redesign of the ship is also inaccurate, in spite of the sources cited.

1. The "television movie model" is more accurately described as the "Phase 2 series model".

2., It was not "Joe Jenning's" model. The ship was redesigned by original Enterprise designer Matt Jefferies for Phase II (Also, the name is Joe Jennings, so the possessive should be Joe Jennings').

3. Jefferies had largely redesigned the ship for the aborted Phase 2 series, and the blueprints for that design have been reproduced in several places, notably the book Star Trek Phase II: The Lost Series, 1997 by Judith Reeves-Stevens and Garfield Reeves-Stevens. It was Jefferies who changed the ship's proportions, including widening the engineering hull, adding the weapons mount to the base of "neck", tapering and sweeping back the nacelle struts, changing the cross section of the nacelles, and adding external docking ports, It IS true that Taylor and Probert refined the Jefferies design, notably the art deco detailing, changing the new Jefferies weapons mount into a twin-launcher torpedo deck, and refining the ship's lines and changing details (notably on the nacelles), but a side-by-side comparison of the Jefferies design and the final film design makes clear that Jefferies is insufficiently credited here.

4. Neither Taylor nor Probert are responsible for the "elaborate wiring system for the model's lights" so that doesn't belong under "design" .

5. Probert didn't add the"separating saucer" element, as that concept had been around for years before. He DID, however, design how it would work and added the landing details.

Given the above I suggest this section needs a solid overhaul. I will undertake this myself (with citation, naturally) in future if no one else does, but I wanted to raise the topic here in Talk first and solicit feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrNeutronSF (talkcontribs) 09:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC) MrNeutronSF (talk) 09:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: AS above, I have corrected this section and revised and added citations to support it. I believe it is far more accurate than before and corrects many commonly repeated bur factual errors about the design and construction of the models/

Early Development[edit]

I deleted the figure of 400,000 letters in favor of naming the space shuttle Enterprise because that number comes out of a Star Trek book and is contradicted even by Star Trek fan sites, some of which list the number as low as 10.000–40,000[1]

I deleted a reference to director Philip Kaufman "having impressive science fiction credits" because he didn't and doesn't. The only science fiction film he made was the 1978 remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers and that was after the events discussed here.

I reorganized this section to be more accurate chronologically, and added new citations to replace or reinforce the plethora of Sackett &Roddenberry ones, plus added details on the the production design from two books about the artists who worked on Planet of the Titans.

  1. ^ http://startrekdom.blogspot.com/2007/04/grassroots-enterprise-how-space-shuttle.html