The first two items in Background Information sound like they belong in Star Trek IV not Star Trek VI. Could this be a mistake by the person who placed it in the article? --TOSrules 07:30, 16 Jul 2005 (UTC)

In Background Information, you say:
Chang's description of Kirk, during his trial, as "the quintessential devil in these matters"....
This line was from Star Trek IV and spoken by John Shuck's Kingon Ambassador.
I changed it and added a pna because the background info is overwhelming with all of that info and no subsections. It needs to be organized further I think. --Vedek Dukat (Talk) 02:52, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)


I've roughly figured out the time of of the month for Star Trek VI. It takes place between the 18th to the 23ed of an unnamed month. The president can be thanked for this little tidbit, in his speech he said "As I imagine this work will occupy us threw out most of the week, it is my hope that the delegations can return to there capitols by the First of Next month". Tracking back a literal week the movie would have ended on the 23ed, give or take a day. Tracking within the movie would suggest that it may have begun on the 18th, Minus the Opening scene. TOSrules | Talk 12:58, 23 Aug 2004 (PST)

There's no point in including it without a month. I have removed it. And your logic is flawed. The full quote is "As I imagine this work will occupy us throughout most of the week, it is my hope that the delegations can return to their capitals to implement the conditions of Phase One (italics mine) no later than the first of next month". Phase One is preparation for evacuation of Qo'noS, so those conditions are to be met by the 1st of the following month. Doesn't mean that that date is a week away. -- Michael Warren | Talk 22:07, Aug 23, 2004 (CEST)

"Return to there capitol to BEGIN implementing the previsions of Phase 1" You are not going to wait a week or two to BEGIN to implement the previsions of Phase 1. TOSrules | Talk 13:13, 23 Aug 2004 (PST)

There is no "begin" in the line. I've just checked. The point stands. -- Michael Warren | Talk 22:18, Aug 23, 2004 (CEST)
Besides, the movie spans a few months (something they missed in VOY: "Flashback").. Spock states Excelsior monitored Praxis exploding a matter of months before the command briefing, Flashback places it immediately concurrent. So if its any consolation, ST6 probably occupies the 18th through 23rd of two or three months--Captain Mike K. Bartel 23:17, 23 Aug 2004 (CEST)
See, I forgot that too... "Two months ago, a Federation starship monitored a large explosion on the Klingon moon, Praxis." Ta for reminding me. -- Michael Warren | Talk 23:23, Aug 23, 2004 (CEST)

Brass tacks, President says this work will occupy them throughout the most of the week. He also says he hopes they will be able to return to there capitols by the first of next month so they can implement the prevision of Phase 1. This is basic canon, The Presidents Estimate for returning to the capitol by the first of next month is based off his idea that the work should a week. ALL Canon, and exacting. Basically a small margin for Error. --TOSrules | Talk 02:18, 23 Aug 2004 (PST)

Final appearancesEdit

As well as Nichelle Nichols, DeForest Kelley also makes his last Trek appearance here. Tough Little Ship 19:16, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Leonard Nimoy would also have made his last appearances here as well, as Unification was filmed before Trek VI wasn't it? Tough Little Ship 20:25, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Ooh, good catch... --Shran 20:47, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Trek VI finished filming in July, 1991. "Unification" was filmed after that. (September 1991, I believe.) The page here for "Unification II" says that it was Leonard Nimoy's final appearance as Spock. - Adambomb1701 16:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Thats the reason why there are all those signatures of the actors........because its the last movie of the "TOS" crew --D47h0r 17:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
It may have been the last planned, but three of them made an appearance in Star Trek Generations. --OuroborosCobra 18:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, this is not DeForest Kelley's last appearance. He cameo-ed as Admiral McCoy in Encounter at Farpoint.
...which was shot in 1987. In the Star Trek universe McCoy was last seen in Encounter at Farpoint, in real life, Kelley last appeared as McCoy in TUC. --Jörg 10:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This would not be Leonard Nimoy's final appearance. He would later appear in Star Trek (2009) and Star Trek: Into Darkness which definitely marked his final appearance as Spock before his death in February 2015.----The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Where does it say that? 31dot (talk) 16:42, March 14, 2015 (UTC)

Costume errors Edit

It appears by the time this film was made new actors and extras got whatever uniform pieces fit - whether they matched or not. Tunics and jacket straps don't match and rank pins don't match the ranks for the characters wearing them. Why, for example, is Valeris wearing red "trainee" tunic under her sciences uniform?--GreatBear 09:25, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)

well William Shatner kind of confused the issue with Trek V, where the colored tunics disappear all together, and they're all just white tunics, under red jackets.. with the occasioanl trainee red for good measure, but no pale greens, or yellows. My guess is that Shatner probably never even noticed they were tinted different colors in the first place. You're lucky they're wearing uniforms at all {-: by the time they got to number VI-- 06:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
odd that you ascribe this mistake to shatner -- he wasn't in charge of art or wardrobe! actually, Mccoy wore his standard medical green, sulu his standard helm gold and Chekov and Uhura wore ops gray, just as called for. i think Kirk's adjutant, played by Melanie Shatner, wore gray also. there was even a new color introduced for ST5, dark blue for the troopers. the only person who switched to white for ST5 was Scotty, because he had been promoted to captain (sulu would make the same change in the next movie). -- Captain M.K.B. 15:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
That's odd, I honestly couldn't tell, the only copy I have of V is an old VHS recording from back when it first showed up on cable TV, I guess it's too washed out for the colors to show up-- 17:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Summary Edit

I deleted the summary as it was taken from Wikipedia (though with a few edits since). I'll tackle it a little later, though if anyone else wants to start, go right ahead. 9er 22:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I made a bit research in the version history, it seems the summary was copied from the Wikipedia article on 14. July 2005. I can't believe that a key page was plagiarized and went unnoticed for almost a year! -- Kobi 18:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Not only that, but somoene put back the plagarised summary a few days later, and it had to be removed again. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Is a bit shocking. (Well, maybe not that shocking.) I did the history research that Kobi also did before I removed MA's summary. Before anyone takes the drastic step of removing something from MA because of a copyvio, they need to be sure that the plagiarism is on our side. Particularly when the source is another wiki, it's possible that we had the original and they plagiarized us. But, as they edit histories show, that's clearly not what happened in this article. 9er 19:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Paper? Edit

I could be wrong, but I'm fairly certain that VI is fairly unique in its use of paper. I'd write a background entry myself, but I wanted to check about how paper was treated in past films. But watching VI today, I had to say that there's a lot of "antequated" notions in the film that don't seem to fit into Trek. One is paper - the Prison Rescue plan Colonel West presents is printed on a large flippable pad of paper, the bridge crew stumbles through a number of paper books to translate Klingon over the translator, Scotty inspects some paper plans of the ship near the end of the film, and several other uses including a number of books, and a number of things that should be computerized. It seemed quite abnormal watching today. I thought a few other things seemed antiquated but now I can't remember what they were, but at very least the use of Paper seemed excessive (considering most other Trek doesn't even show paper).

Also, I forget if the sensors were damaged while the incident occured, but if they have "footage" of the torpedos firing, and they know where on the ship the "camera source" is, I'd think they could do some mathematics and tell if the torpedo could have come from the Enterprise by the angle it travels at. They do it all the time on CSI or Law and Order ;) TheHYPO 20:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as the films go, I don't remember any paper used. In the series, paper came into use several times. Karidian's voiceprints in "The Conscience of the King" was one. And, Spock's library-computer spewed out a sheet of paper with info on Talos IV in "The Cage". -- Adambomb1701 15:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether they could have used electronic clipboards/PADDs for the Klingon dictionary, they didn't. Picard and Janeway are frequently seen reading books made out of paper rather than on a PADD, and seeing as they have replicators (the food slots from TOS are essentially replicators without the voice-activated function, right?), trees wouldn't have to be chopped down for the purpose of manufacturing paper. It's mainly used for dramatic effect, having them need to flip through books to find the right words rather than just go "Computer, tell me how to say 'we're carrying food' in Klingon". Just enjoy the film for what it is! Kitface 20:35, January 20, 2011 (UTC)

4 years on, I'm sure people care. --OuroborosCobra talk 00:22, January 21, 2011 (UTC)

Its not Klingon Writing on the bolts Edit

It was not Klingon writing on the bolt heads, it was the Klingon Tri-point Crest, and they where infact molded onto each bolt head it's self when the rubber was poured. A making-of documentary that was around during the movie's release made it very clear what it was and actually showed the creation of the bolts themselves.

I have made the edits to reflect what was really on the bolt-heads. While the poster may have had writing on each one, it was very clearly the crest thanks to the behind the scenes documentary.

Added PNA Edit

The Summary only goes up to the dinner party. Needs to be completed. --Captain MAJ =/\=|**** 15:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed nitpick Edit

Toward the end of the film, Uhura mentions "All that equipment we're carrying to catalogue gaseous anomolies." This seems to bring the story full-circle from the opening scene but for the fact that it was Captain Sulu and the crew of the Excelsior, not the Enterprise, that was on a mission to "catalogue gaseous anomolies." Big, big OOPS!

The [above] was removed as per a Ten Forward discussion where it was decided not to include nitpicks. Also, it doesn't really make much sense since the Enterprise, being a vessel of scientific exploration like the Excelsior, would also carry equipment for such activities as well. --From Andoria with Love 05:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the Excelsior didn't have a monopoly on interstellar fart-mapping. I'm sure Starfleet could afford to put long-range sensor whiffer-sniffers on Constitution class and larger wessels. Kojiro Vance | Talk 20:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Differences between theatrical release and vhs/dvd releasesEdit

I remember being surprised at the differences in the ending between the theatrical release and the VHS release in 1992 ("It's Colonel West!", and the whole "Operation: Retrieve" skit). I'm surprised the differences aren't mentioned here.

I don't know why, either. Maybe someone could...I would guess those scenes were cut for time, although that extra footage adds only four minutes to the original 109 minute running time. Incidentally, when HBO first ran this film in January of 1993, it was the video version. For its most recent HBO runs, in late 2005, the theatrical version was used. -- Adambomb1701 20:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I found some information about this on the page, buried in "Miscellanous". I decided to break it out into "Different Versions", a section which should probably exist for all of the movies with "Director's Cuts", and soon for all of the TOS episodes.  :-/

I seem to remember seeing the extended version on TV here in the UK. Does anyone know if it was broadcast in the USA and when? Igotbit 22:05, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

Spock's lineageEdit

After the mention of Spock quoting Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's axiom, I added the quip "It may also jokingly suggest that Spock is a descendant of Holmes himself.". It was removed, with the criteria being that Holmes has been established as being fictional in ST canon. I understand this, and it's quite obvious that in any fictional universe, you likely would either have to establish that Conan Doyle is real, or Holmes, but not both. This is why I said "jokingly". Spock is a quirky sense of humour, as evidenced by claiming that there is an "old Vulcan proverb" regarding Nixon's visit to China. The idea that Spock might consider Holmes an ancestor in spirit, despite being a fictional character, is not unthinkable, nor is the possibility that the writers may have wanted it to be interpreted this way. For the record, the Holmes character stated this rule of thumb several times throughout the stories, but there doesn't appear to be any evidence that Conan Doyle said it outside of the Holmes stories (it sometimes appears as a quote attributed to him, but it is a quote from the stories). I may or may not restore the theory to the article, but I am starting to get tired of having nearly everything I do dismissed on what I consider to be very flimsy grounds. - Ugliness Man 18:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

But it doesn't jokingly suggest that Spoke has some literary character in his ancestry. It could be a wry joke ... Spock had clearly developed a sense of humor in his elder years. -- Keep trying, man, the canon dweebs can't keep an airtight vigil forever, and your next contribution could be golden. Remember the Five Pillars, and be bold. Kojiro Vance | Talk 03:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Let's not forget, one can refer to one's ancestor and not be related. Ancestor can simply refer to fellow members of the same race.--TOSrules 03:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Isn't the actual word used in Spock's quote "maintained", meaning to sustain or to provide support for? I think the context implies that his ancestor simply believed in the Holmesian proverb and did not coin it. - Jaleth 05:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


How was 2293 established as the date of this film? Federation 06:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It came from the Star Trek Chronology, which derived it from McCoy's line that he had been serving as chief medical officer of the Enterprise for 27 years at that point. Assuming McCoy began serving as CMO of the Enterprise in 2266 (when we first see him), then 2266+27=2293. --From Andoria with Love 09:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
There is a problem with that, however, in that McCoy's service as Enterprise CMO wasn't continuous. He retired from Starfleet for approximately 2.5 years between the end of the 5 year mission and his "drafting" at the beginning of TMP. This could push the date of STVI up to 2295/96, though that would conflict quite a bit with dates given during TNG... - General Grant 03:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's been brought up. Many thing are possible. McCoy may have just not considered those years, which would have made his service more like 25 years. It's also possible that McCoy was CMO of the Enterprise from the beginning of Kirk's mission and Mark Piper was just a temporary replacement. It's also possible that McCoy was CMO of the Enterprise for a few years before Kirk took command. Anything's possible. :) --From Andoria with Love 12:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I think it can also be established from dialog in "Flashback", which essentially stated that the events from that period were 80 years (2373-80=2293). --Alan 06:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Here are problems with this date: first of all, it forces you to believe that Generations happened right after Undiscovered Country, because we KNOW that the first scene of Generations DID happen in 2293 (since 2293 + 78 = 2371). Secondly, it forces you to accept the Chronology's claim that TOS takes place from 2266-2269, which does not jive with the information given to us in Wrath of Khan (if that were true, McCoy got the bottle of wine that he gave to Kirk from the future). Thirdly, it leaves an ENORMOUS gap of anywhere from 7 to 11 years between Final Frontier and Undiscovered Country…what the hell were the Enterprise crew doing during all that time?
Personally I'm more inclined to believe that Undiscovered Country was set in 2291 and that there was only a 5-year gap between it and Final Frontier, which along with Voyage Home, Search for Spock, and Wrath of Khan was set in 2286…thereby allowing for the possibility of a third 5-year mission for Kirk and Co. (although there is admittedly no canonical evidence to support such a thing). That of course moves TOS forward to 2270-2275…but at least that way there's no time travel involved in McCoy's acquisition of the wine. As for how McCoy's claim that he was CMO of the Enterprise for 27 years fits into this…well, either McCoy was actually senile as General Chang implied, or he had already been CMO for several years by the time TOS started (which does not explain the other doctor in TOS: "Where No Man Has Gone Before"). Take your pick.--Antodav 05:23, April 14, 2011 (UTC)

Tommyrot. It was certainly set in 2293 because "Flashback" tell us the scenes from Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country took place eighty years before 2373, three times. Count them [1]. This, retrospectively, means McCoy did start work as CMO in 2266. I’m aware of the time he was away from the Enterprise in general practice; maybe he still considered himself part of ‘the family’--Archer4real (talk) 11:56, March 29, 2014 (UTC)

Sherlock HolmesEdit

I just realized the reason for Holmes references in this movie. Nicholas Meyers used to write Holmes Pastiches. Federation 03:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Shran in the meeting room Edit

In the background information it is "speculated" that the picture of an andorian on the wall in the mess hall is Shran. This is simply fan made up mumbo jumbo. Shran was invented by different producers over a decade later. The rest of the "facts" are straight from Nick Meyer's commentary, and this speculation has no place.

If people want to sp(eculate as to why something the way it, when it is not screen somehwere...they clearly just needed a picture to put on the wall for the set), I think you need to do it in yellow or blue text with clear markings that it is not confirmed and that a fan just "made it up" to fill a gap.If we want to keep this an encyclopedia that talks about the canon, this kind of speculation should not be allowed--SebastianProoth 07:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Does the picture look like Shran? Federation 12:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
It's never seen in the movie. There's a pic of Abraham Lincoln, one of Sarek and two pics of landscapes, but the alleged Andorian general is not seen in the movie. --Jörg 12:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


I've finally, after three days, finished updating the movie summary. I'm sorry if it's too long, but I wanted to make it real good, particularly since Undiscovered Country is my favorite Trek film. I hope the readers like it. --leandar 14:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Name GameEdit

Gene Roddenberry's lawyer was named Leonard Maizlish. Should his name be included in the article, in the line where it is noted that Roddenberry phoned him and demanded the film be cut? - Adambomb1701 13:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Vulcans or Romulans?Edit

Perhaps anyone has a good idea. Were the people behind Sarek and Nanclus at the Khitomer conference Romulans or Vulcans? – Tom 23:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... Looking at the trekcore pictures it's hard to tell. The "delegation" seems to be split up in three sections: The Klingons (red sash), Federation/Starfleet (blue sash), and Romulans/Vulcans (yellow sash). There's a fourth section, but it's more Starfleet members wearing blue sashes. There are two options as I see it:
  • Assume they are all Vulcans. Romulans were Vulcans originally anyway. You should note that there is a chance they're Romulans, but it was a Federation-Klingon treaty, so there shouldn't be many Romulans there.
  • Assume they are all Romulans. Vulcans are members of the Federation, so having their own section doesn't make much sense. Sarek could be making some sort of overture by sitting with the Romulan ambassador. Nanclus likely had some sort of delegation, even if small, and we know Pardek must be there, somewhere (although we won't see him. Maybe he's taking a restroom break). A note on each should still be included.
Maybe, just maybe, their clothing is separate enough to indicate some differences. Long, robe-likes are probably Vulcan, and tight-fitting would be Romulan, but this movie kinda had a weird fashion thing going on.--Tim Thomason 23:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Completely right. It's very hard to tell which of the two races. I suppose the sharpened ear men are Romulans. I've asked because i want to add a person. So I think I'll add him to Unnamed Romulans (23rd century). – Tom 00:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've checked the pics at trekcore. Nanclus wears something like a yellow sash...and all other sharp ear wearer too. So I suppose they are Romulans and Sarek is a "guest". – Tom 00:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


On DVD Timestamp ~01:18:00, the crew of the Enterprise-A uses BOOKS to help them speak without a UT to a Klingon lookout post.

What the p'takh'tha gre'thor!!! Haven't they even HEARD of a PADD???

Their year was/will be 2293. We, 285 years in the past, already have books in our laptops. More than that, we have a revolutionary new feature called a visual machine translator! I know our machine-translating devices are quite crude now, but they are absolutely flawless by 2293.

In fact, I assume we will sure as gre'thor have a machine translator with vocal recognition. If we ever need to speak to Klingons to clear ourselves through, we can speak into our laptops/companels/PADDs while our comm with the Klingons are muted for the moment, then have the computer read back the transliteration. Then we read from the display what we speak to the Klingons.

Though if they HAD to find a set of witty literary quotes, much like how "Ctrl+F" is your friend, they could've swiftly found what they were looking for on a PADD far more swiftly than by flipping through pages of an ancient, cumbersome, and unintuitive literary device!

Whoever the p'takh was that thought to use BOOKS in such a futuristic setting should've been fired for merely entertaining that idea.

(Though I did find the "We is condemning food, things, and supplies" bit a bit hilarious. ;-) ) --K. Shinohara 02:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It's hardly anachronistic to have books around in the future. In the real-world present day, we still use books - a centuries old invention - despite the advent of computerized information, and I imagine we will do so in the future. In fact, books appear in numerous other episodes of Star Trek (see here, for example), proving that, despite their status as relatively primitive media, books do have some sort of lasting appeal and usefulness. The scene in question is not especially far-fetched. --Jayunderscorezero 13:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Samuel T. Cogley, a 23rd century lawyer, LOVED books and preferred to use them over computers. So take your Vulcan anachronism and bury it (to paraphrase the good Captain Archer). ;) --From Andoria with Love 18:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe it was a Nick Meyers thing... --Alan 06:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
It was something Meyer wanted in the movie. From as far back as Star Trek II, Meyer tried to put actual items such as books in the characters hands, giving Kirk glasses was another example of this. And as far as the books to translate Klingon goes, the movie clearly explains a universal translator would have been recognized by the Klingons so they couldn't use it. leandar 15:10, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, today we have laptops and PDAs and personal translators. We even have Apple iPads. But do you think you'll nessesarily find such gadgets on a Navy cruiser? The Enterprise had a universal translator, so they would not need PADDs or other devices setup for translation. Because they already have that tool. But they can't use that tool, so someone must have a collection of books, by chance.

iTunes Version of This MovieEdit

I noticed that the iTunes version of Star Trek VI has Operation Retrieve and the unmasking of the Klingon assassin was cut out. Can anyone care to explain which version of this moving is on iTunes? --Megamanfan3 17:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

If you read the article, you will note that those scenes were actually not in the original theatrical release either. iTunes has apparently decided to release the theatrical version, rather than the VHS and DVD version. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Just saw the SF-FI TV version-Colonel West unmasking as the dead assassin part was also cut out!!!!!!!!

Note that it was not cut out. SciFi showed the theatrical cut. -- sulfur (talk) 22:54, May 17, 2013 (UTC)

Dining Room / Mess HallEdit

Anyone else find it odd that in the movie we see a photon torpedo rip through the dining hall, destroying the room they all ate in not too long before, but if you look at models of the ship and cut-aways, the ship layout does not show the torpedo direction to be accurate? If the torpedo went the way it did, it should have started in the floor and exited through the ceiling - not across the room horizontally. I find it disturbing that there's no mention of this anywhere online that I've found so far... 10:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's possible that the torpedo didn't hit the Dining Room, but rather an adjacent room. The explosion could've been large enough to carry over and knock out the wall. We don't know exactly where the torpedo hit in relation to the hall. 01:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Romulans? Edit

What's up with the Romulans being at a conference between the Klingons (who, by the way don't exactly love the Romulans) and the Federation (who don't exactly trust the Romulans)?--UESPA 22:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Also now that I think about it what were they doing listening to a briefing between Starfleet and the Federation President.--UESPA 22:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, first of all, the Romulans were in on the Khitomer conspiracy, so they clearly had a stake in the whole scenario, and were therefore involved in the conference, perhaps due to the Neutral Zone Treaty or sometime of that sort. Also, at what point was it established that they "don't exactly love the Romulans" at that stage of the timeline? Understandably they didn't in TOS/TAS, and TNG/DS9, but we don't know much of what went on between the two/three powers between "The Practical Joker" and what was spoken of in TNG: "The Neutral Zone", "Sins of the Father", "Yesterday's Enterprise" – clearly things were at a stage between those powers to allow for such accommodations. --Alan del Beccio 23:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure the Klingons and Romulans got all friendly for 50 years and then the Romulans suddenly blew up Narendra III. Next off so what they were in the Khitomer Conspiracy they couldn't force themselves in upon Federation politics. Plus explain to me why the Romulan ambassador (sorry can't remember his name) was listening to Starfleet explain Operation Retrieve.--UESPA 23:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed text Edit

I removed the following text as speculative crap:

  • If what is stated in novels could be accepted as factual in on-screen events, then according to several Trek novels, Spock's forcing a mind meld on an unwilling Valeris would constitute a terrible breach of Vulcan law because of the required intimacy that a mind meld requires. If this were to be held up in some later canon source, then it seems likely that the Vulcans would make an exception in Spock's case because of the terrible ramifications for the Federation and the Klingon Empire if they had gone to war. (However, in the novelization of Star Trek VI, it is explained that Spock, in initiating the mind meld with Valeris, got "mental" permission from Valeris before extracting the names. In return, he showed her why he was the way he was, giving her glimpses of his death and rebirth. This was the explanation for her screams at the end of the meld when it seems that Spock is forcing his way deeper, and his statement of "I've been dead before" reiterated to Valeris how death and change is not an end but a beginning.)

There's probably a bunch more that should be removed as well, nitpicks, opinion, etc. -- Renegade54 19:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

About the Trailer... Edit

Should it be in here? --Lt. T 13:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Worf? Edit

Worf could not have been Kirk and McCoy's defense considering that This film takes place before the khitomer incident and at the time of the attach from the romulans that killed his parents he was a small child. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

You might want to check out Worf (Colonel). Two different people.--31dot 10:00, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

"Arrest yourself!" Edit

In both the article, and in the closed captioning, it says that Spock says "Arrest yourself" to Admiral Cartwright. But the voice sounds distinctively like Doctor McCoy... 07:33, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

  • It's Spock, not McCoy. Spock says "Arrest yourself!" then McCoy says "We've got a full confession." leandar 07:47, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Acts Edit

Where do the splits in the plot (and their titles) come from? 21:07, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

I, and a couple of others made them up, to make the summary not be one gigantic piece. leandar 21:09, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

Nude photos Edit

I removed the following recent addition:

  • After filming was through one day nearing the end of production, Kim Cattrall posed nude for some steamy photos on the bridge set, but Leonard Nimoy happened on scene and seized the film, destroying it and having studio security toss the photographer out.

I didn't want to even bother with an incite template on this. Serious claims like this should not be in the article unsourced. If someone can provide a source, it can go back. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:16, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

What's considered a reliable source these days? Imdb mentions this (copy and paste job) under their trivia for the Undiscovered Country. – Distantlycharmed 02:45, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

IMDb is a user edited database, pretty much just like MA. So on its own, it doesn't make a good source, especially for a claim as extreme as this one. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:13, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

An anon user added the same info to her Wikipedia article back in April. No cite though. The info also seems to be on various gossip "fact" sites, but nothing citable. Unless Nimoy or Cattrall said something, and I doubt the former would, it unlikely there's going to be a cite. - Archduk3 03:33, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
Somehow i think the nature of this particular trivia precludes it from being referenced. Like you said, I doubt Cattrall or Nimoy are going to comment on this some 30 years later and whoever is going to confirm it (someone on set etc) will just be immediately discredited as just spreading ugly gossip. If it is put under the trivia section it might be interesting as just that. I think everyone understands to take all these news, even the referenced ones, with a grain of salt. – Distantlycharmed 03:41, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

We don't state them as "with a grain of salt," we state them as fact. Is there a reason we should be assisting in the slander of an actress? Did we learn nothing from the April Rossi incident? --OuroborosCobra talk 04:05, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

No actually, I am not familiar with the April Rossi case. And...I doubt Cattrall cares or browses through MA. Anyway, i wasnt championing for having it there, I just found it interesting and wouldnt have minded seeing in an article like that. I dont care either way frankly. – Distantlycharmed 04:25, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
Having this on the talk page is enough without a cite. It's out there, and we acknowledged it by simply having this discussion, but it doesn't have to be on the page. - Archduk3 04:26, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on Kim Cattrall includes the photo shoot anecdote and cites an article in the summer 1992 issue of the magazine Femme Fatales written by Mark A. Altman (Free Enterprise). If so, the story did appear in print, written by someone with some professional stake in the franchise, and I'm unaware of any libel claim being made. 16:22, August 21, 2011 (UTC)

No footage? Edit

As written in the article:

"This is the first Trek movie since Star Trek: The Motion Picture to feature no footage from previous films. The Bird-of-Prey explosion from this film was later used in Star Trek The Next Generation, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and Star Trek Generations."

I disagree with this assertion. By way of example, when Valaris engages the impulse engines in space dock following Kirk's orders to do so, the Enterprise is shown accelerating from the bow, a reuse of footage from Enterprise A's introduction in Star Trek IV. -- 19:22, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm...according to the hidden note in that passage, the shot of the Enterprise you're referring to is not, in fact, re-used footage. I think that's gotta be wrong, though. It sure looks like the same shot from STIV to me. -Angry Future Romulan 19:55, January 17, 2011 (UTC)
The scene is not identical but the shot of the Enterprise is taken from the previous 2 movies. I noticed the similarities in all three instances. MoffRebusMy Talk 22:40, September 17, 2012 (UTC)

Removed nitpicks and commentary Edit

  • By the clock over the viewscreen during the scenes where the Kronos One is attacked, the first torpedo hit is about ten minutes ahead of the second hit.
  • The Enterprise has some strange upwards-sliding doors. There's nothing wrong with them, but when they are opened they would also cut the flow of whatever is moving through the pipes running along the ceiling of most of the corridors.
  • Ironically Kirk would still need Sulu's help for his knowledge of where the peace conference was located.

First two are nitpicks, second is commentary. Also, I added a PNA-cite since there are many, many, unreferenced statements in this article. In addition, some of the existing references need some clarification (e.g. "On the Special Edition DVD..." - it should mention which special feature, or that it is from the audio commentary)–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 05:54, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

Kelley's appearance Edit

My edit summary got cut off, so I'll say that I removed the edit saying that Kelley later appeared in Encounter at Farpoint, since that was prior to this movie.--31dot 23:14, May 30, 2011 (UTC)


I was thinking about a couple of details regarding the StarDate System which I posted in another discussion

Talk:Stardate#Star Trek II,III,IV Star Dates

Considering that Star Trek II, III, and IV are essentially a trilogy with Star Trek V conveniently following the same timeline (The Stardate is in the 8000 range); considering that each number represents a day normally with a decimal representing a fraction of a day it makes it possible to establish a reasonable range of dates based on the fact that Star Trek II is 15 years after the TOS episode that inspired it (2267) and Kirk was supposed to be 49 (his birthday) which yields an exact date (March 22, 2282).

It would appear that the Enterprise-A was basically a refitted/rechristened vessel of the Constitution Class (USS Yorktown): In most likelihood the vessel had at least one more 5 year mission left in her, and Kirk seemed to be in command from Star Trek V on, the timeline would likely be around 2288 unless he commanded the Enterprise for 2 more five year missions (which would put it into 2293), which is possible: However it was stated that he retired, then returned at some point so, I don't know...

What do you think? 03:32, September 5, 2014 (UTC)

Signatures at the end of the film Edit

I notice nothing has been mentioned in the article about the sequence of signatures at the end of the film. I think it would be proper to include this, either at the bottom of the synopsis or as part of the production notes. For best presentation, I figure a list of the names in order, with a slideshow on the right, would present this final part best. Any thoughts, concerns, reasons not to do this? —WhosAsking (talk) 14:16, July 8, 2015 (UTC)

I'm not aware of those, but that sounds like a notable thing and something that would be valuable to add. I'm guessing the Miscellaneous section of the background information section would be the correct place to add this. Those kinds of sections don't support the kind of layout stuff you're suggesting very well, but do your best and I'm sure if it can be better someone will come in and tweak it further. (if it's valid information, we'll just have to find a way, to include it) In short, I'd say go for it! -- Capricorn (talk) 17:53, July 9, 2015 (UTC)

Reboot reference? Edit

Found on the "Story and production" section:

"In the alternate reality of Star Trek Into Darkness, Uhura — who may have had a different education from that of the Prime Uhura — does speak Klingonese (or as she and Captain Kirk refer to it, "Klingon"). "

Or the real life explanation, which is... JJ Abrahms admittedly never watched or conerned himself with the original Trek. He didn't know or care about continuity in the slightest. They were money maker action movies.

You'd have to devote an entire webpage to trying to explain every continuity problem those movies cause. It's so not even worth the effort to try and shoehorn them into canon at all. --Julie Bee (talk) 21:38, October 3, 2016 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.