Klingonese in Transformers?Edit

In Transformers, when Megatron chases Sam into the building with the statues on it, I'm almost sure he says "Qapla'!", or, "Success", as we know it, in Klingon. Can anyone else confirm this, or am I just hearing things? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

You probably just heard Uhura opening hailing frequencies. --Alan 09:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

(T)Raumschiff Surprise - Periode 1 Edit

There should be mention made of the German film (T)Raumschiff Surprise - Periode 1 see [1]

Austin Powers Edit

Is there anything to confirm the moments mentioned were aimed at Trek? It's not as explicit as, say, The Wrath of Farrakhan - I can see the fembots (even though the idea wasn't unique to Trek), but I'm not sure the time travel comment was necessarily related. Lucretia of Borg 21:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the time travel comment sounded to me like a more general reference to the Grandfather Paradox. 06:56, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
I think both "connections" listed in the Austin Powers movies are sheer speculation. The sexy android girls could came from a lot of source, but I think they've rather came from the mind of Mike Myers and the film's writers. I don't think they're a deliberate reference to "I, Mudd". Also, fans of many science fiction franchises and movies have a tendency for seriously analyzing things like time travel paradoxes. And of course other continuity errors. I don't think that specifies for Trekkies. I plan to delete this section from the article. What do you think? -- Ltarex 17:14, 19 September 2011 (CET)
I remember reading somewhere they wanted to call The spy who shagged me "Austin Powers II: The Wrath of Khan", but couldn't get the rights. Therefore, I'm sure there's some fandom for the series, but wouldn't say anything in any of the films is a specific reference. 16:02, September 20, 2011 (UTC)

The Search for More Money Edit

  • Near the end of the film, when Lone Star asks Yogurt if they'll ever meet again, Yogurt replies, "God willing, we'll all meet again in Spaceballs 2: The Search for More Money," a play both on the title Star Trek III: The Search for Spock and Trek's fondness for sequels. (It should be noted, however, that other Mel Brooks films, such as Robin Hood: Men in Tights, which co-starred Patrick Stewart, also teased sequels in this manner.)

Agree with whoever that it's a general sequel statement rather than a star trek specific reference. The only connection is "The Search For" which could be a reference though I think it's stretching. — Morder 18:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Sex Trek blankers: vandals, thoughtpolice or moral models? Edit

Sex Trek was added in February and expanded in May. Since then, it's been blanked at least three times. It will probably happen again. --TribbleFurSuit 23:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Protected Edit

This page has been temporarily protected due to constant edits. --From Andoria with Love 09:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Men in Black Edit

I was watching Men in Black with my kid and I found a Star Trek reference, although there are probably more. In the MIB headquarters, somewhere along the film you can hear something like "Q, there is a call for you in line 5"...

Is that a reference, given that all the agents had letters?--31dot 19:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. It's just as likely a reference to Q from James Bond... — Morder (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning Edit

I would like to draw attention to a Star Trek parody called Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning. [2]

Toy Story 2 Edit

The scene in the elevator shaft in Toy Story 2 reminds me of the scene with Spock's hoverboots in STV:TFF. It seems that the Toy Story scene was a deliberate reference to the Star Trek film, but I'd like a second opinion before I add it to the article. Dendodge 15:22, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Galaxy Quest: Should It Have its Own Page? Edit

In GQ, there are several gags that refer to specific Star Trek episodes and general in-universe mythology. There were also several references to behind-the-scenes Trek stories, some verifiable and some apocryphal. Consider the following:

  1. The IMDb trivia page and Wikipedia page both seem to indicate that a great number of the Trek references were intentional on the part of the filmmakers.
  2. The Wikipedia article contains quotes from Star Trek cast members about their reactions to the film.
  3. The TV Tropes Wiki page and sub-pages contain many of the film's several allusions to Trek.
  4. Michael Okuda has created a text commentary for the 2009 DVD release. I haven't seen it yet, but I would guess that it contains more allusions to Trek.
  5. There are likely even more references yet to be discovered by the more perceptive Trekkies amongst us.

Given that the Trek references in Galaxy Quest are not only numerous, but verifiable, perhaps the film deserves its own page. It would be great if some senior contributors could comment on whether such an article would be appropriate for MA. (The Wikipedia article is good, but I imagine that the MA community has the in-universe knowledge do even better.) Also, we would need to decide if all of the references to Star Trek must be verified by GQ production, or if fan observation would be sufficient for glaringly obvious references.

I'm happy to contribute, if the community gives the OK, and we can agree on the parameters.

Cheers to all...I mean, never give up, never surrender ;-)--PalindromicAnagram 20:16, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

I think these pages were created precisely to avoid having seperate pages for non-Star Trek works. --31dot 12:51, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
It's been discussed before that these pages are far too long and entries with significant content should be moved to separate pages. I don't really think there is any clear consensus right now, as efforts to have a central discussion on the topic garner little response. My advice is just make the page, in the style of Doctor Who and Babylon 5, and let the chips fall. - Archduk3 20:24, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
Those who've been following this question know that I'm an inclusionist on this sort of thing, so my response won't be a surprise to anyone: I think that an article on Galaxy Quest and its many deliberate homages to Star Trek is an excellent idea, and would make a fine addition to MA. I suspect that others will disagree, but I think this falls within the project's scope. —Josiah Rowe 03:15, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I don't mind working on something preliminary until a consensus can be reached. This would be my first page, started from scratch. *bites fingernails* I'm a newbie, so I usually just fill-in missing data and add quotes. LOL The Babylon 5 and Doctor Who pages are well done, but I don't think that format would work for Galaxy Quest - only because both shows contain a lot of non-Trek content, and the pages primarily contain references to Trek within those works. Galaxy Quest exists for the sole purpose of parodying Trek. I'm at a bit of a loss for what template to use. Is there an existing MA article that would be a good reference for Galaxy Quest? - that is, an article about a feature-length Star Trek parody, with a format for plenty of references and cast quotes. If the answer is obvious, please forgive my ignorance. Thanks to everyone for responding - it is so reassuring to get responses when you are new to the community. Cheers. --PalindromicAnagram 01:58, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we have any articles like that, so you'll mainly have to work it out for yourself, I'm afraid. If I were you, I'd use one of the Star Trek movie articles — perhaps Star Trek: First Contact, since that's a featured article — as a starting point for the format, but use your own judgment on what sections to include or add. What would be particularly useful would be any quotations or citations in which the Galaxy Quest cast and crew talk specifically about the Star Trek elements of the film, and reactions from Star Trek cast and crew about Galaxy Quest. The Wikipedia article has several cited quotes in both categories, which should be helpful (but remember that MA doesn't generally use footnoted citations — just put the source in parentheses after the quote).
One more thing: when you write on talk pages, don't forget to sign your comments by hitting the signature button (button_sig.png) or by typing four tildes like this: ~~~~. Also, on MA the convention is that in talk page conversations, each user indents to the same level (so, since I was the third person to comment on this topic, I indent three times; since you started the topic, you don't need to indent). This last is different from the convention on other wikis, and it's not at all a big deal, but I wanted to let you know.
And again, welcome! It's good to see new people with enthusiasm on the wiki. :) —Josiah Rowe 02:31, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I'm grateful for all of the corrections and info I can get. I'm glad you'd even take the time to give me feedback. I'm still getting used to all of the etiquette here, so I'm bound to make mistakes. I'm a newbie, but I'm well-intentioned - if that makes any difference, LOL. I will start drafting something as soon as I can. A plot summary will be the easiest thing to start with, I think. The links I posted will be the sources I cull from, in case anyone else is interested. Sorry about forgetting my signature. And again, thanks for responding.--PalindromicAnagram 01:58, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

The Man From Earth (2007)Edit

The film features Star Trek alumnis John Billingsley, Richard Riehle & Tony Todd. At some point the character played by John Billingsley says: -All right Spock, I'll play your little game-. At some other point, towards the end of the movie, the character played by Tony Todd says: -I'm gonna go home and I'm gonna watch Star Trek for a dose of sanity-. Jerome Bixby was inspired by Star Trek episode Requiem for Methuselah for the story of this film. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Droid Army idea taken from ST-TNG? Edit

About 15 minutes into the episode of Star Trek:TNG - The Ensigns Of Command, Data is in the females room, as he is leaving there is a bust that looks suspiciously like the Droids from StarWars Ep1-2-3: Please excuse the screenshot photo - it was taken with a phone camera.

Image removed.

Can anyone confirm or shed any light on this?

--Choma666 01:16, May 20, 2012 (UTC)

It's most likely a coincidence, but if there is any proof Star Wars based the droids on the one seen in this episode, the mention would need to go on this page. 31dot 01:20, May 20, 2012 (UTC)
That episode predates the Star Wars prequels by nearly a decade, and I doubt that George Lucas designed the droids off of a "wire frame" looking statue in a ten year old Star Trek episode. It might be worth it to find out where the statue first came from though. - Archduk3 19:57, May 20, 2012 (UTC)

Split / Galaxy Quest and other direct parodies Edit

There was a discussion on this talk page 5 years ago about possibly giving Galaxy Quest its own page, which seemed to end without much opposition to idea, but obviously it's still here. Having found this page looking for Galaxy Quest on this wiki, I'd like to agree with that discussion: It should be split. My point is not so much that Galaxy Quest necessarily needs its OWN page - although the number of references would certainly justify it. But at the very least there is a massive difference between a single throwaway "Beam me up!" in a random movie compared to a full-on parody. They should be on different pages.

The criteria for being moved to this split page would be whether the movie is primarily dedicated to parody of Star Trek and similar works, or its fandom. I should note that in the following lists, I have not seen all the productions in question, so people with more firsthand experience than me would be better off making those judgements. Scanning the current page, I would say Free Enterprise, Futurama, Galaxy Quest, Star Wreck, Turkish Star Trek, and, yes, the Star Trek porn parodies should definitely be split.

There is obviously a subjective decision about how much should be Star Trek related as opposed to a mix of franchises. From the sound of it, Star Warp'd and Airplane II might be included as being at least as much Star Trek as anything else, whereas Fanboys and Spaceballs may be more about Star Wars, and therefore the Star Trek components are simply references. They are all on the spectrum though.

There is also the question of whether isolated segments of a film that are full-on parodies should count when the full movie is not primarily spoofing Star Trek. I would say that if the segment is extensive enough to be the length of a short film, it could be included, since people looking for parodies would find it worthwhile to watch the scene. Futurama has an entire episode dedicated to Trek (in addition to the parody inherent in the overall concept and an incredible number of references), so that would count. Oddly, it sounds like the Three Musketeers scene is so specific to the Wrath of Khan that it could be included. Depending on the length of the Enterprise sequence on Stay Tuned, it might be counted as well.

Futurama is an odd case because it's a TV show and probably shouldn't even be on this film-specific page. Frankly I find it odd that the top-level distinction is between film and other media; I would say the much bigger difference is between things that focus on Star Trek vs things that don't. It is easy to repackage TV episodes as films (Futurama) or web series as TV shows; the technical distinction between these things may be relevant to industry businesspeople but are not of great interest to fans who simply want to know where to find Trek references. The difference in Trek-specificity between Swingers and Galaxy Quest is impossible to ignore (or even the difference between Swingers and the scene from Stay Tuned), so that should be the primary standard of organization for these pages. It seems to me that would be much more natural for readers to navigate and find what they want.

But that's a big ask. To start with maybe you could just section up this page a bit so that the dedicated parodies aren't interspersed among a slew of one-line references. Apologies for the essay-length writeup but I wanted to lay out all the factors :) And apologies for not sticking around to do all the hard work, after a few too many reversions and technicality-focused discussions with those of bureaucratic mindset, not to mention the wikia-fication of the site, I spend most of my time contributing to other wikis now. But I figured I'd at least throw in my 2 cents. - Jerodast (talk) 16:33, August 9, 2015 (UTC)

If this needs to be split up, I would suggest doing so alphabetically, perhaps roughly in half(wherever that falls). 31dot (talk) 19:47, August 9, 2015 (UTC)

That is...definitely not what I had in mind. The problem is not that there are too many examples, the problem is that some examples are almost completely unrelated to each other. The issue is subject, not length. This is like saying that lists of main cast members should be organized alphabetically instead of by series, lists of aliens should be sorted alphabetically instead of by sentience and race, or lists of technology were broken down by first letter instead of function. You have the power to make conscious, intentional choices about how to organize pages to help your readers! Don't just revert to mechanical, pointless alphabetization. Separate parodies from passing references, because they're different things.Jerodast (talk) 20:32, August 9, 2015 (UTC)

Cast lists or credits are different, as they are written in a certain way (starring roles, guest appearances, etc) though that usually involves alphabetical listing in some form. Organizing by series is also different. The subject of this page is references to Star Trek in film. That's how everything is related on this page. 31dot (talk) 22:27, August 9, 2015 (UTC)

Sure, and you could put all the Technology on the same page too. They'd all be related, because it's all technology. But you don't do that. Instead you separate Military technology from Computers. Why is that done? Because while they have SOME things in common (it's all technology), there are distinct DIFFERENCES that make splitting things up useful.

This is the basic principle of organization: When there are differences, you can categorize things. Hell, you could have the entire wiki on one page and defend that the way you just did: "The subject of this page is content related to Star Trek. That's how everything is related on this page." But you don't, because that's not useful to readers.

In this case, yes, single-line references and whole-movie references have SOME similarity to each other. But putting trivial references on the same page as significant parodies is not that useful to readers. I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it that a reader looking for movies like Galaxy Quest, Spaceballs, or Turkish Star Trek is unlikely to be interested in the fact that a character in Ice Age made the Vulcan salute for a second. Divorce yourself from pedantic defense of the status quo for a second and ask yourself, is keeping things in the "big glob of references" form it is now serving readers better than doing some more fine-grained organization? If so, please enlighten us how!

I don't mean to put pressure on you like "the page is a disaster and needs immediate fixing", just making a suggestion for the future. Noting things that could be improved, even if they are low priority, is better than brushing off concerns entirely because there aren't resources to deal with them.Jerodast (talk) 23:06, August 9, 2015 (UTC)

I am not pendantically defending anything, nor am I saying something doesn't need to happen here; I am stating a common-sense and widely accepted method of organization of subject matter with a common element. We should not change for the sake of change; it must be demonstrated to be better. You may or may not do that in this case- I don't know- but all ideas, including yours, should be considered. 31dot (talk) 00:27, August 10, 2015 (UTC)

Spaceballs is mainly a SW parody but yes there's quite a bit on Trek too. -RayBell (talk) 12:56, July 23, 2016 (UTC)

Split animated and live action movies Edit

Are there enough to justify it? --LauraCC (talk) 20:27, June 15, 2016 (UTC)

Also maybe put the porn on a separate page from the rest? --LauraCC (talk) 20:56, June 15, 2016 (UTC)

What happens if the porno is animated? Only joking. But yes porn probably needs its own page.-RayBell (talk) 10:38, July 23, 2016 (UTC)
I looked up some stuff on this. Seems there are quite a few porn parodies out there. Not all of them are listed on IMDB, but certainly some are. I think there are quite a few which could be listed here. But yes, I think splitting off the porn parodies would be a good idea.-RayBell (talk) 18:22, August 26, 2016 (UTC)

To allow people to opt out of reading it while perusing MA rather than scrolling and coming across it in the process of looking for something else.

What about the split suggestion between animated and live action? --LauraCC (talk) 18:27, August 26, 2016 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, but there is also the film-TV problem with animated material. Some of the divisions are a bit unclearly named - "prose" covers fiction, but doesn't seem to cover non-fiction, for example.-RayBell (talk) 19:17, August 26, 2016 (UTC)
Oppose both. Moving the porn would only highlight it, and MA is explicitly only for people over the age of 13 and contains "adult" material. If people don't want to stumble over porn, they shouldn't be on the internet. As for live v. animated, doesn't really help either potential page to split them, and I refuse to place Space Jam in one of those over the other. - Archduk3 00:50, November 5, 2016 (UTC)

Men in Black IIEdit

It's a while since I saw this film (disappointing) but IMDB mentions it ref's TOS. Any ideas how and why? In the third one they go to the 60s too I think. -RayBell (talk) 12:54, July 23, 2016 (UTC)