Talk:Star Trek V: The Final Frontier

/Archive 1

Confused!

I'm very confused by the end of plot description. Can someone clear this up?

Realizing that the entity might escape from the planet, Sybok uses his telepathic powers in an effort to make the creature realize its own pain, but is apparently destroyed in the attempt. Intent on destroying the creature at all costs, Kirk orders the Enterprise to fire a photon torpedo at their location. Spock and McCoy are beamed back to the ship, but Klaa's vessel attacks the Enterprise before Kirk can be transported aboard. Kirk is about to be killed by the vengeful entity when Klaa's vessel destroys it in a hail of fire. Kirk is beamed aboard the ship and learns Spock and the Klingon hostage forced Klaa to stand down. The Enterprise crew celebrate a new détente with the Klingons, and Kirk, Spock and McCoy resume their vacation at Yosemite.

Ok, so:

• I assume the "is apparently destroyed" refers to Sybok and not the entity?
• Why are Spock and McCoy able to make it to the ship, and not Kirk? Wouldn't they all go at the same time?
• What does Klaa's ship destroy... the entity or the Enterprise?
• What ship does Kirk beam onto?
• Where did this Klingon hostage come from?
• What did they do to change Klaa's mind?
• Is Sybok dead or not?

And last but not least, why is "doubt a god" linked to confidence trick?!

Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

More Research is Needed

There's a lot of statements thrown around in this article with nothing to back them up. Did the producer (which one?) really think this film almost killed the franchise? Where did he say that? That's just an example of the sort of unverified thing that this article is full of. Gingermint (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

How about you read the entire article instead of the lead which, according to WP:LEAD, does not need to be verified beyond the statement's refs. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

Toolbox
dashboard disambig links external links See WP:DEADREF for dead URLs

This review is transcluded from Talk:Star Trek V: The Final Frontier/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GRAPPLE X 20:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Can't really say I've ever been a fan of Star Trek, but I do love William Shatner.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Prose style is impeccable, MOS is adhered to as well.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   References are well-made, well-sourced and everything is supported.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   Scope is grand, not too broad or too narrow.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Neutrality is fine.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   History is stable and uncontroversial.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Images are fine, all but the poster are free, and its fair use checks out.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   A very straightforward pass for this one - GA status might even be beneath it.

Nilo Rodis

Is a red link here - but given his work on Star Wars and Star Trek III and if Nilo Rodis-Jamero is the same person, quite a few other things, perhaps he is worth his own article? WillE (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

He probably is--but I don't want to create a low-traffic BLP without a lot of incoming links. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Fowl?

Sorry, but of all the ST movies this was the worst one of all (even worse than Generations). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.217.241.244 (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Anti-teamsters PoV

The line:

the production searched for non-union drivers, aware that the Teamsters might retaliate by sabotaging equipment or flying airplanes above the filming to ruin audio recordings.

is dubious, I tagged it as needing a citation, and my tag was removed because the following sentence is cited. As the citation is for a book, I tagged it as dubious, since we have n evidence that the production [team?] were aware rather than fearful that the Teamsters would behave in that way; as such, the claim smacks of a PoV. My tag was immediately removed wit no attempt at a remedy, so I'm disputing the article's neutrality The claim should be better-cited, reworded, or removed.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Why is a book citation any more dubious than another reference? The Teamsters have done the above-mentioned, so I think it's safe to say that they knew it was within the realm of possibility, even likelihood. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

That information is cited with a reliable source. The sentence is merely stating a fact which is verifiable in reliable sources. There is nothing non-neutral about the sentence. I have removed the {{POV}} tag. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Really? What, precisely, does that source say? And you shouldn't remove the PoV template while the matter is still subject to a dispute. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

That the production hired non-union drivers to keep up with deadlines, aware that the Teamsters might respond unfavorably. I don't have the book on my at this moment, but I am definitely not misquoting it--I didn't make up exploding cars out of nowhere. The material is cited to a specific page. It's up to you now to prove how that citation is wrong. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)