Talk:Star Trek: The Motion Picture

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Witholding plot details isn't our operating status, see WP:SPOILER. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: The cloud and everything in it are all part of V'Ger, which has now become far more than just an old NASA space probe. 2.221.229.192 (talk) 06:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading plot summary in the intro 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Audio Sample 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree! Good idea! Simple and accurate. — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 16:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Agreed! Matzeachmann (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effects in Director's Edition rendered at 480i standard definition 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The Wikipedia page for Overtures in Film does list about a dozen during the 1980s and 90s, including the several soundtracks scored by John Williams.   Is there a clearer understanding of why this claim is being allowed to stand? Mikeymo1741 (talk) 17:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're talking about List of films with overtures, nothing there is referenced, and I find some of the entries highly suspect (I know The Lost World didn't have an overture when I watched it first-run.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overture Claim 

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 09:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Props and Models Section Needs Work 

message: The film's focus and narrative were enhanced by the film's remastering.  I believe it was of interest that a film that was critically a failure when rushed into theaters, was improved years later by craftsmen and the support of fans.  
The deletion of much of the text that explains this is, in my opinion, a mistake.  Is that neutral enough for you?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.74.210.13 (talk) 17:34, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of Remastered Material 

message: *The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise
I've been doing some research on this article, The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise, and found some interesting relevant source material discussing how it helped to motivate Gene Roddenberry to work on Star Trek: The Motion Picture.
Hopefully others may find this helpful to perhaps take a glance and incorporate into this article, here.
Thank you,
— Cirt (talk) 00:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise - relevant source material 

message: The lead in claims "The box office success of Close Encounters of the Third Kind convinced Paramount that science fiction films other than Star Wars could do well at the box office, so the studio cancelled production of Phase II "
Further on we are told "On November 11, just two and a half weeks before production on Phase II was due to start, the studio announced that the television series had been cancelled in favor of a new feature film."
The problem is that Close Encounters of the Third Kind didn't debut in theaters until November 16 at a minimum.  So how could Paramount know anything about how well Close Encounters of the Third Kind did some five days before it even hit theaters?--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconstant claim  

message: What date should we use for The Motion Picture: 2271 or 2273? 73.204.73.223 (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The official site gives the date as 2271, but that doesn't mean it's worth including. The date doesn't factor into any part of the film (and is never stated in the film itself.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:16, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: For all intents and purposes, lets use the former as the date since it is used in the official site. 73.204.73.223 (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: TMP Dating

message: I have much difficulty reconciling this dollar figure with the fact that the initial budget for the entire film was in the high single digit to low double digit millions. Why would Roddenberry be 'allocated' such a hefty sum for developing a single script? Mawazi (talk) 05:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  3-5 million dollars for Roddenberry to develop a script?