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

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)

Hi, Alpha Quadrant

This is directed at the user Alpha Quadrant, who pulled my talk topic about the Original series episode, Tomorrow is Yesterday, and how its plot bore similarities to the plot of Star Trek V. I took the time to make a valid and thought-out comment that could have been used to improve the article. You decided it was irrelevant.

No big deal...I figured someone would shoot it down, murphy's law and all. The problem I have is...WHY does the inappropriate comment below (a withering amateur review of the movie, unrelated to the article itself) remain, while my comment, which pertained to the article itself, was cast aside as irrelevant? If you're going to chop down "irrelevant" comments, you'd better be consistent. Otherwise, it's pathetic. 75.106.72.221 (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

There's not only a similarity to the TOS(!) episode Tomorrow is Yesterday, but even moreso to the 1973 TAS(!) episode The Magicks of Megas-tu. In both Star Trek V and the animated episode, the Enterprise travels to the center of the galaxy, encountering a mysterious force field. Beyond it, they find a perceived devil (Lucifer) in The Magicks of Megas-tu, and a perceived God in Star Trek V. Both turn out as something else in the end. --2003:EF:1704:7205:99ED:8946:E187:2C71 (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Sybok use of force

Sybok is depicted as brainwashing the people he recruits. This, from the novelization: [1]. Of course, that is a primary source. So, here are secondary sources: [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6]. Sorry for the snippet views. Anyway, just search for Sybok within Google Books and Google Scholar and see the words used; "hypnotizes", "forces", "seduces", "brainwashes". Abductive (reasoning) 05:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

In the novelization you provide, whether or not it's coercive is indeed being debated in the actual text. The official plot synopsis keeps it much more neutral; he simply "uses his powers" and emphasizes the healing aspect. [7] Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is true. But a couple of things; Spock goes on to explain that the technique is forbidden and was used to impose one's will upon others. Spock should know what he is talking about. On page 237 Spock only agrees because resisting would "permanently damage" his "mental defenses" from Sybok's "invading mind." It is important to note that Wikipedia reports what the secondary sources say, not what Wikipedia editors glean from the primary sources. The official plot synopsis is a primary source, but some of the secondary sources that I can't link to show that Shatner wrote Sybok as a religious fanatic who did anything he could to get to the center of the galaxy. Going by the little bits of text returned by Google, there is "Psychological vs. visionary sources of myth in film" in the International Journal of Jungian Studies, which says In the third change, to separate the film from a twentieth century view of religion, they reshaped the evangelist to be a Rasputin-like character – called Sybok – who mistakenly believed God was on the planet and was able to use mind-tricks to exert power over the crew of the .... Many other scholarly sources take this tack.

Perhaps if the plot summary were to spell out that Sybok is not evil, but that his desire (and emotions) to meet God have lead him to take unethical and dangerous steps? This interpretation too is very well supported by the secondary sources. Abductive (reasoning) 02:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The novelizations are not canon, so they're less than useful as a source. As far as secondary sources go, I think that it's a poor idea to ascribe motives to the character in the plot section based on their interpretation. These aren't news articles reporting on an event, they're academics and scholars--just because they take the tack that Spock is Jesus doesn't make it true. Especially given that there's apparently some discrepancies it's best to keep it as neutral in language as possible. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Removed quotation

I have removed the following quotation from the start of the "Production" section:

Star Trek V is the epitome of my career, my experiences, my hopes and dreams. It is the quintessential me.

— William Shatner on The Final Frontier, 1989

(ref "Shatner, p. 33") for the reason that having it right at the start of the section, with no explanation of its context, places undue weight on it. Originally it used {{Quote box}}, which is prone to this sort of WP:NPOV issue. It's a useful quotation and the article would benefit from its inclusion, but I can't figure out where to put it - having access to the source to understand its context would help. It's short enough that it probably ought to be presented as part of the article's prose. Hairy Dude (talk) 11:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

MS-DOS game?

Star_Trek_V:_The_Final_Frontier#cite_ref-miami_herald-marketing_103-0:Marketing included an MS-DOS computer game, part of an increasing trend of game tie-ins to movies.[103]

I do not believe that this is correct and I cannot verify the source. There is however a cancelled NES game, that was meant to tie into the movie. It is mentioned here: History_of_Star_Trek_games#Console and here: http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Trek_V:_The_Final_Frontier_(NES)

Real Joe Cool (talk) 02:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I believe I still have the source in my archive. I'll double-check it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 04:51, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

For NPOV, should the negative evaluation comments be balance by positive evaluations?

Am I wrong for thinking that the negative evaluation content should be balance by positive? Actually those who evaluate are commenting on themselves at the same time. (PeacePeace (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC))

I'm not entirely sure what you mean. NPOV doesn't mean giving "both sides" equal weighting; it means giving appropriate comments per the weight of sources. There are a few people out there who think it's not really that bad a film (I'm one of them) but that's not the critical consensus. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 01:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Golden Raspberry Awards

I think the Golden Raspberry Awards should be included in the article but another editor said it was WP:UNDUE, and I'm now asking for further clarification.[8]

I noticed an older version of the article which included a table of awards, and the edit summary even said: "not really opposed to this info, but an "accolades" section that's just one organization's "worst of" awards seems like a weird place to do it versus prose."[9] So I restored that version and added proper reference.

I understand why someone might object to a big ugly table, WP:PROSE is recommended anyway, but I wasn't going to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Also there's a tag Template:table to prose that could have been used to encourage improvement if the table layout is the main problem. I also thought it strange that the article included two great big Navigation boxes, but no actual text in the article body (Navigation boxes are optional, entirely ignored by mobile Wikipedia). It seems strange to not include any mention whatsoever of the fact that this film was Worst Film at the Razzies that year.

I suggest something like the following text be added: "The film was nominated for six Golden Raspberry Awards, won three, including Worst Picture" (with a reference of course).

To avoid concerns about WP:UNDUE or WP:OVERSECTION, this small amount of text could simply be added simply as a one-liner at the end of the Critical response section (as many film articles do when there isn't enough for a separate Awards subsection). -- 109.78.218.56 (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

 Already done, I have just added a reference. Alexcalamaro (talk) 14:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)