Talk:Star Trek Generations/Archive 1

Errors and Inconsistencies in the Film

 * Data refers to a joke that Geordi apparently told during the Farpoint Mission (the pilot episode), about a Ferengi in a gorilla suit. However, First Contact with the Ferengi did not happen until several episodes later.

I don't see this as an inconsistency at all. Physical first contact may not have happened until several episodes later (The Last Outpost, to be precise) but the race was mentioned in dialogue in Encounter at Farpoint, and the Ferengi had been encountered before this as evidenced in the episode The Battle by the loss of the Stargazer (Picard's previous command) in combat against them.

--Yotsuyasan, 11:19 E.S.T., 28 Sept 2005


 * I was unaware of the Farpoint quote, so I agree with the removal with this error (and I removed the same text I added to ). However, it was not known that the ship that attacked the Stargazer was Ferengi until sometime after official first contact. Indeed, actual first contact happened with Archer's Enterprise.

--ZeromaruTC 16:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

A few comments about errors and inconsistencies. Firstly, the article refers to the possible necessity of warp capability on the probe fired from the planet's surface. Earlier in the film, Worf states that a "solar probe fired from the Klingon ship or the planet's surface would take approximately 11 seconds to reach the star". This would seem to indicate that there was definitely some form of warp capability, as, assuming the star was 1 AU from the planet, the probe would have to travel at approximately 45x the speed of light to get there in 11 seconds - and that does not take into account the obvious few seconds that it was under rocket propulsion. This, of course, does not change the fact that Picard should not see the explosion for about 8 minutes, and if 8 minutes are assumed to have passed, Picard seems to have spent those 8 minutes standing on the same spot on the walkway. Then, according to the TNG Technical Manual (published in 1991 and written by Rick Sternbach and Michael Okuda), the Enterprise had an emergency warp core ejection system - similar to that seen used in a Voyager episode - I can't remember which one. No mention of this is made in the film, and its use seems to have not been considered. Finally, once the saucer section has separated, Troi states "full impulse". Since full impulse is theoretically capable of speeds in excess of 75% of the speed of light, the saucer section - even if its own impulse capability was considerably less than 75% - should have been well away from the explosion. --Kmwmtd 23:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow. Someone's done their homework!  *deep respect*  --71.219.51.225 04:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It depends how long it takes to reach full impulse speed for such a large mass. It's like putting the accelerator right down, but still takes a while to reach top speed! Marky1981 10:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This is related to the "probe reaching the sun in 11 seconds" issue, but not directly. When the first star is destroyed, they make a big deal out of the various effects the destruction of that star has had, including extra radiation of some sort throughout the sector, and the changes in gravity that are severe enough to require course changes for the USS Boseman (spelling unknown to me, not important) and of course alter the path of the nexus wave.

Unless that first star was some sort of weird "subspace magic hole", those effects could not possibly propogate faster than the speed of light, and wouldn't have any noticeable effect outside the originating system for some time. Even gravity itself cannot move faster than light.

Also related, but explainable is the fact that the nexus wave must travel at warp speed, except for whenever it's on camera. This can be explained by the wave slowing down to relativistic speeds when it enters the gravity well of a star, thereby becoming visible and dramatic. This fits in with canon as I know it, since warp fields are supposed to be limited in strong gravity wells. Prgrmr@wrk 04:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Stephen Hawking proved that time moves at different speeds in space depending on what you're next to. Considering that time appears to move slowly near the Nexus and that "time has no meaning (for) the nexus" it's fine for it to appear to change speeds in the confines of a fictional movie.


 * In addition, the time-loop demonstrated here appears to have been self-contained, in a similar fashion to the TNG episode "Cause and Effect" which did not per se create an alternate universe.

I disagree with this. I thought self-contained time travel was such that it didn't change future events; see causal loop. What happened in the movie is analogous to the grandfather paradox; Picard travels back in time to eliminate the event which caused him to travel back in time in the first place. I'm going to remove the above sentence if noone objects. - Evil saltine 11:25, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Time has no meaning in/for the Nexus, therefore paradox does not happen. Physicists like to wave the Grandfather Paradox around, but any time machine or time travel will skillfully avoid the grandfather paradox. It doesnt have to happen, and it likely wont. It has happened only once, on Futurama, and Fry is his own grandpa, but that's a cartoon.

My major issue I have seen is that Kirk remarks about the clock he gives to Dr. McCoy,"...Bones has been dead 7 years." This is inconsistant, since Dr. McCoy is in the pilot episode of The Next Generation, taking a tour of the ship with Data.

Incorrect, Kirk said nothing about McCoy being dead, he said it about Butler, his Great Dane that he was petting. TyVulpine (talk) 09:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Another error is that in this film Rene Picard's nephew appears to be 10 or so when in the tv show he was clearly well into his teens. (SnakeEyesNinja (talk) 12:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC))
 * Picards strongest memories and deepest feelings may have been for Rene in his pre teens, and that's what the Nexus gave him... after all, he had no wife or children to generate the "memories" or "feelings" for what the Nexus generated for him, and what about that oddball house? What made Picard wish for that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.174.83.232 (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a HUGE assumption that the star is 1 AU away.68.196.93.32 (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Notes about Generations
Having learned of the re-edit of the film, I promptly downloaded it. Has anyone seen it? It is aweful! I'm all for experiements in film, and re-mixing them is definetly that. But should the amateurish, clunky re-edit of this film be advertised here on wikipedia? I say no. I say get rid of that entry, and let people spread the crappy re-edit (of which there may be hundreds) amongst themselves. It's reference in this article adds legitimacy where none is deserved.

=max bz

Getting into the Nexus
''==Errors and inconsistencies in the film== *In the Stellar Cartography lab, Picard asks Data why Soran would want to change the path of the Nexus-- "why doesn't he just fly'' into it with a ship?" Data replies that any ship that's approached the Nexus has been either damaged or severely destroyed. Yet Soran entered the Nexus for the first time onboard the Lokul, and would have remained there had he not been pulled away by a transporter beam. The ultimate fate of the ship wouldn't matter-- Soran could fly into the Nexus with a ship at any time, and therefore there was absolutely no reason for him to attempt the destruction of a planet with millions of people on it.''

I'd like to comment on this. If you'll perview the film, you'll see someone (can't remember who) telling the bridge crew that the people on the Lokul are phasing in and out of reality. Now, here's what I think would happen: The passengers are still half-there. The ship would have been destroyed in a moment, and since the passengers are still half-there even though their conciouses are in the Nexus, they would be killed along with the Lokul. What I'm saying is that they got a taste of the Nexus without being actually completely in the nexus. If the Lokul had been destroyed, the passengers would be taken with it regardless. Sorren can't fly a ship into the nexus, therefore, because the ship would explode before he could be completely brought into the nexus. A space suit would rupture after a few seconds if not less, with all of those gravitational fluxes, I think. This theory fits well with what is said in the movie. What do you think?

-Jetman123 06:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

XXX

The following passage is a mistakenly presumed error or inconsistency:

--Errors and inconsistencies in the film--

''In the Stellar Cartography lab, Picard asks Data why Soran would want to change the path of the Nexus — "why doesn't he just fly into it with a ship?" Data replies that any ship that's approached the Nexus has been either severely damaged or destroyed. Yet Soran entered the Nexus for the first time onboard the Lakul, and would have remained there had he not been pulled away by a transporter beam. The ultimate fate of the ship wouldn't matter — Soran could fly into the Nexus with a ship at any time, and therefore there was absolutely no reason for him to attempt the destruction of a planet with millions of people on it.''

For this reason:

Soran and Guinan were already in the Nexus before the Lakul incident took place. The Enterprize (which also became stuck, albeit temporarily) locked on to "lifesigns" and energized, beaming Soran and Guinan out of the Nexus. They were mistakenly presumed to be passengers onboard the Lakul, when in fact they had already been in the Nexus for an indeterminint amount of time.

XXX

That is true, since in the TNG episode, "Time's Arrow", Guinan is shown to already be on Earth in the 19th century. TyVulpine (talk) 09:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree it's a mistakenly presumed error but don't agree with your reason why. As far as canon-interpretation goes, Jetman123 above has what I would agree is the best explanation. Soran and Guinan were never completely in the nexus. As Scotty put it, they were "phasing in and out of our space-time continuum". Soran didn't know what the nexus was until he was on the Lakul and got a taste of it, which is why he later mentions about 'trying to get back', later in the movie. Anyway, if it hasn't already been removed, I'll remove it now. ῤerspeκὖlὖm   in ænigmate  ( talk )  10:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Tuvok
This there canon which establishes that it is Tuvok (the character) on the Enterprise-B, or is it merely Tim Russ (the actor) playing someone on Enterprise-B? The article Tuvok does not mention it, and implies that Tuvok was elsewhere and, of course, Tim Russ has played multiple characters within Star Trek. Brian Sayrs 16:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It is Tim Russ playing a different character, it is not meant to be Tuvok (you can tell by his ears)! As you pointed out, he has played other roles (such as an enemy on Starship Mine). Marky1981 16:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I just removed the following until I view the movie again: "Tuvok (played by Tim Russ), a main character of the subsequent Star Trek: Voyager series, makes an appearance in the film as Enterprise-B's Tactical Lieutenant, delivering a number of lines in scenes on the bridge." Brian Sayrs 17:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Errors in the main article
"This film portrays the first time the word 'shit' was used in Star Trek. The line is uttered by Data just as the Saucer Section hits the planet surface."

Neither of these statements is true. In Star Trek IV, Gillian Taylor wants to know if Kirk and Spock are with the military and if perhaps they want to teach aquatic mammals to "retrieve torpedoes or some dipshit stuff like that?" and Kirk replies, "No, ma'am, no dipshit."

When Data says, "Oh, shit" the saucer section is still in orbit. He utters the imprecation upon seeing that they're not going to be able to maintain the orbit and the ship (OK, the saucer section) is going down.

Kirk's dying words
I read somewhere that, given the circumstances in which Kirk found himself near death, William Shatner wanted Kirk's last line to be "Bridge on the captain," but he was overruled. I have no citation. It does sound like something Shatner would say, though.
 * Don't you mean "Captain on the Bridge"? What I always found interesting was how Kirk died with Picard at his side...  am I the only one who remembers him saying how he's always "known" he would die alone?
 * It was still a really stupid death. He should have gone down giving orders on the bridge of a starship, not falling off a bridge like a dirtsider.  Kasreyn 01:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I certainly do not mean "Captain on the bridge." I meant what I said: "Bridge on the captain." Think about it for a minute.
 * As for the "dying alone" thing, I hope you're not thinking that's an inconsistency or something. Kirk did say, "I've always known I'll die alone," but unless he was prescient, that doesn't mean bubkes.
 * Oh, right... bridge on the captain.  Sorry, I remembered that he fell, but not that the bridge fell on him.  And as to dying alone, I actually intended that I thought it was a good thing that his premonition didn't come true.  Kasreyn 03:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Kirk did die alone in the sense he was not with any of his original series friends or in his time. Marky1981 11:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If I come back across it I read an interview with Malcolm McDowell where he wasn't complimentary about working with William Shatner. I think it mentioned Kirk's death scene as an example.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davebesag (talk • contribs) 22:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Current version of Plot Summary
Is it really necessary to go into that much detail regarding the plot? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 04:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The edits that have been made to the section are good, but there's still a lot more work that needs to be done. Honestly, the summary that was up prior to the super-long one was sufficient for the article. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 19:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes I agree...this should be a plot summary (2 paragraphs max) not a line-by-line description of the movie.Blipadouzi 09:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I never saw the version prior to the "super-long" one. I have attempted to independently create a short version that hits the main plot points and still makes it possible to read in one sitting. Obviously, there were a great deal of information that had to be left out, e.g. Data's emotion chip, Picard's family trouble, and Guinan. We are left with the bare bones of a story that was, frankly, all over the map. This is my first attempt, so be honest, How did I do? 74.138.210.158 22:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Kjdamrau


 * Film plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words (see WP:MOSFILMS). I think that two key threads are important: Guinan's involvement in important in that she's the one that connects Soran to the Nexus, and it is important to mention the Duras sisters as they're the ones that ultimately destroy EntD.  As already is done, Data's emotion chip is well regulated to the "themes", and Picard's family bits could be put there as well, since these have glancing effects on the plot.
 * I've taken the above and added some of these, cleaned up a bit, added some proper names that are known, etc. --Masem 21:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The version that is up now is quite good - an admitted improvement over my poor attempt. It is short, clean, and hits all the plot points.  Good job.

Trivia trimmed
I got rid of a lot of redundant trivia (did we really need three Kirk-related spats?) and compressed some others.

Looks and feels much better now. TFX 04:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

trilithium
Why does trilithium link here? -- Sy / (talk) 13:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Trilithium in and of itself isn't particularly notable, and Generations is the bit of Trek where it plays the most significant role. Redirect seemed appropriate. --EEMeltonIV 15:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * According to Stephen Hawking: the easiest way to blow up a star is drop some iron into it. Larry Niven already had that idea (and the supermassive black hole in the 1970s —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.174.83.232 (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

move to Star Trek Generations. — TKD::Talk 20:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Unlike most Trek movies, the title to this movie does not have a colon. See the movie poster or soundtrack title to confirm this. It is properly listed as Star Trek Generations, not Star Trek: Generations. --Roger McCoy 21:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - Well according to the title bar at startrek.com it is called Star Trek Generations. See here. -- Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor  ( tαlk ) 21:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep. And another place you can check is on the back of the DVD.  The colons don't appear on the sides of any of them, but if you look at the credits listing it starts as:
 * PARAMOUNT PICTURES PRESENTS A RICK BERMAN PRODUCTION "STAR TREK GENERATIONS" ...
 * Contrast this with:
 * PARAMOUNT PICTURES PRESENTS A NICHOLAS MEYER FILM "STAR TREK VI: THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY" ...
 * PARAMOUNT PICTURES PRESENTS A RICK BERMAN PRODUCTION "STAR TREK: FIRST CONTACT" ...
 * PARAMOUNT PICTURES PRESENTS A RICK BERMAN PRODUCTION A JONATHAN FRAKES FILM "STAR TREK: INSURRECTION" ...
 * (An odd, related bit of trivia. The two-disc edition of Nemesis improperly lists it as having a colon in the title, while the original one-disc edition correctly features the title with no colon.) --Roger McCoy 01:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Resources to use

 * British Film Institute
 * WALDON, Dave: The Captain's Chair, StarBurst (0955-114X) n.344, December 2006, p.44-48, English, illus, Alan Ruck talks about his role as Captain John Harriman in STAR TREK GENERATIONS and in the new STAR TREK Internet film.


 * GERAGHTY, Lincoln: Creating and Comparing Myth in Twentieth-Century Science Fiction: Star Trek and Star Wars, Literature/Film Quarterly (0090-4260) v.33 n.3, November 2005, p.191-200, English, illus, Compares these two science fiction worlds and how they use history and myth.


 * RENICK, Kyle: Pet Sounds, Film Score Monthly v.10 n.3, May 2005, p.24-30, English, illus, An article exploring the combination of cats and dogs and music in films. Rather than musicals or animation, the focus is more on the use of music to accompany an animal featured in a film.


 * ALTMAN, Mark A.: In Review: DVD in Brief, Cinefantastique (0145-6032) v.37 n.2, April 2005, p.62, English


 * GERARD, Simon J.: The death of Kirk: Star Trek: Generations, StarBurst (0955-114X) v.Spec. n.66, November 2004, p.18-19, English, illus, Part of a section on death and the afterlife in science fiction films and television, this article looks at the death of Captain Kirk in STAR TREK: GENERATIONS.


 * Star Trek special, StarBurst (0955-114X) v.Spec. n.64, June 2004, p.[whole issue], English, illus


 * ERAMO, Steven: Warrior queen, StarBurst (0955-114X) v.Spec. n.64, June 2004, p.88-93, English, illus, Gwynyth Walsh talks about her role as Klingon B'Etor in STAR TREK TNG and STAR TREK: GENERATIONS.


 * ERAMO, Steven: Englishman abroad, StarBurst (0955-114X) v.Spec. n.62, February 2004, p.106-111, English, illus, David Carson talks about his work, especially on STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION and STAR TREK: GENERATIONS.


 * TAKIS, John: Where no note has gone before...the Trek film series gets a farewell salute (for now), Film Score Monthly v.8 n.1, January 2003, p.26-27, English, illus, Reviews of the Star Trek movies and series with a list of available soundtrack CD's.


 * LYONS, Steve: The future? It just ain't what it used to be, StarBurst (0955-114X) n.292, December 2002, p.50-54,57, English, illus, An overview of the time travel stories used in the STAR TREK franchise, questioning the alteration of some history events and their consequences in the timeline of the ENTERPRISE in particular.


 * RICHARDSON, David: Star Trek: generations, Film Review (0957-1809) n.600, December 2000, p.84, English, illus


 * Reviews: DVD file, StarBurst (0955-114X) n.268, December 2000, p.89-90, English, illus


 * SISKEL, Gene: Two popular series spawn sorry sequels, TV Guide (0039-8543) v.45 n.46, 15 November 1997, p.42, English, Video review


 * NAZARRO, Joe: Moore's Good Things... Part Two, StarBurst (0955-114X) n.210, February 1996, p.21-24, English, illus, Part two of an interview with Ronald D. Moore about his work; part one see January 1996 issue of Starburst


 * MCGILL, Stewart: Star Trek: Beaming into Vegas, StarBurst (0955-114X) n.208, December 1995, p.8,9, English, illus, On Star Trek: The Experience, a theme park in Las Vegas


 * Videofile, StarBurst (0955-114X) n.208, December 1995, p.48, English, illus


 * SHAPIRO, Marc: Independence data, Starlog n.221, December 1995, p.27-29, English, illus, Brent Spiner talks about his role as Data in the STAR TREK series, especially the feature film STAR TREK GENERATIONS and the kinds of roles he is now being offered.


 * NAZZARO, Joe: Dream Merchant part 3, StarBurst (0955-114X) n.202, June 1995, p.48-52, English, illus, Third part of an interview with Brannon Braga on STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION


 * BASSOM, David: Generations ahead, StarBurst (0955-114X) n.201, May 1995, p.21-25, English, illus, Article on Industrial Lights & Magic, the special effects company for STAR TREK: GENERATIONS and other science fiction films


 * MAGID, Ron: ILM creates new universe of effects for Star Trek, American Cinematographer (0002-7928) v.76 n.4, April 1995, p.78-88, English, illus, Article detailing the latest digital techniques used by Industrial Light & Magic to create the special effects for STAR TREK: GENERATIONS (1994).


 * STRICK, Philip, Sight and Sound (0037-4806) v.5 n.3, March 1995, p.55-56, English, illus


 * NAZZARO, Joe: Survivor, StarBurst (0955-114X) n.199, March 1995, p.16,17, English, illus, Second part of an interview with Marc Scott Zicree about the scripting of STAR TREK GENERATIONS and BABYLON 5: SURVIVOR See Starburst Special Issue 23A (February 1995) for first part


 * MARTIN, Kevin H.: Kirk out, Cinefex n.61, March 1995, p.62-77, English, illus, Article on the starship Enterprise models in STAR TREK, STAR TREK : THE NEXT GENERATION and STAR TREK GENERATIONS; landscape models and visual effects in STAR TREK GENERATIONS


 * NATHAN, Ian: New films, Empire n.69, March 1995, p.22, English


 * ERRIGO, Angie: New films, Empire n.69, March 1995, p.22, English, illus


 * RICHARDSON, David: Trekking in London, TV Zone (0957-3844) n.64, March 1995, p.8, English, illus, Details of the UK premiere and the first British Convention.


 * ZACHAREK, Stephanie: Short Takes, Modern Review (0964-2323) v.1 n.19, February 1995, p.18, English


 * CLARK, Stuart: Walter Koenig's generations, StarBurst (0955-114X) n.198, February 1995, p.26-29, English, illus, Interview with Walter Koenig about his performance as Mister Chekov in STAR TREK


 * McILHONEY, Lawrence: From one generation to another, StarBurst (0955-114X) n.Special, February 1995, p.4-9, English, illus, Article on STAR TREK, from the first episode CAGE to STAR TREK: GENERATIONS


 * CLARK, Stuart: The making of Generations, StarBurst (0955-114X) n.Special, February 1995, p.26-37, English, illus, Article on the making of STAR TREK GENERATIONS


 * BEELER, Michael: Star Trek Generations, Cinefantastique (0145-6032) v.26 n.2, February 1995, p.16-41, English, illus, Discussion of STAR TREK GENERATIONS including articles focusing on cast members, and the differences between the television series and the films


 * BEELER, Michael: John Alonzo, Cinefantastique (0145-6032) v.26 n.2, February 1995, p.27, English, illus, Discusses the photography of John Alonzo and his work on STAR TREK: GENERATIONS


 * URAM, Sue: Chekhov makes Captain, Cinefantastique (0145-6032) v.26 n.2, February 1995, p.32-33, English, illus, Walter Koenig discusses his role in STAR TREK:GENERATIONS


 * GOLDMAN, Steven: Patrick Stewart: when two captains meet, StarBurst (0955-114X) n.197, January 1995, p.25-29, English, illus, Interview with Patrick Stewart (Captain Picard) about the filming of STAR TREK: GENERATIONS.


 * NAZZARO, Joe: Generations' gap, Starlog n.210, January 1995, p.40-45, English, illus
 * Interview with David Carson, director of STAR TREK: GENERATIONS who was originally a television director.


 * SEGUIN, Denis, Screen International (0307-4617) n.986, 02 December 1994, p.16, English


 * RHEA, Marji and MAGID, Ron: Production slate: digital magic, American Cinematographer (0002-7928) v.75 n.12, December 1994, p.18, English, Details on the visual effects used by Digital Magic on the trailer for STAR TREK: GENERATIONS (1994).


 * HOUSLEY, John: Keep on trekking, Premiere (0894-9263) v.8 n.4, December 1994, p.92-95, English, illus, Article on the making of Star Trek generations


 * BEELER, Michael: Passing the franchise baton: Star Trek, Cinefantastique (0145-6032) v.25/26 n.6/1, December 1994, p.20-23, English, illus, On STAR TREK GENERATIONS as a sequel to the STAR TREK films; on the storyline, interview with George Takei, who didn't get a role, and with Malcolm McDowell on his role


 * KLADY, Leonhard, Variety (0042-2738), 14 November 1994, p.47, English, illus


 * RENSIN, David: William Shatner: farewell to Kirk, TV Guide (0039-8543) v.42 n.41, 08 October 1994, p.24-29, English, illus, TV Guide talks to William Shatner whose final appearance as Captain Kirk comes in STAR TREK: GENERATIONS in November, 1994.


 * Bridging the generation gap, StarBurst (0955-114X) n.194, October 1994, p.28, English, illus, Discussion on the relationship between Shatner and Stewart, whether STAR TREK: GENERATIONS will see the demise of Capt. Kirk, etc.


 * GOLDMAN, Steve: Bridging the generation gap, StarBurst (0955-114X) n.Special, October 1994, p.33-37, English, illus, Interview with Rick Berman who, since the death of Gene Roddenberry, has produced STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION, the second spin-off series DEEP SPACE NINE and the film STAR TREK: GENERATIONS.


 * BEELER, Michael: Changing of the guard: Star Trek generations, Cinefantastique (0145-6032) v.25 n.5, October 1994, p.4,5, English, illus, Article on the idea, planning, writing and casting STAR TREK GENERATIONS; short statements by the filmmakers


 * COURTLAND, Michael: Six-million dollar captain, StarBurst (0955-114X) n.190, June 1994, p.8, English, The proposal that Lindsay Wagner be the female commander of the USS Voyager in the new series STAR TREK: GENERATIONS is vetoed by Paramount.


 * Variety (0042-2738), 18 April 1994, p.22, English


 * Screen International (0307-4617) n.952, 08 April 1994, p.7, English, illus


 * Variety (0042-2738), 28 March 1994, p.24, English


 * Film Literature Index


 * Guilfoyle, Joe. "Star Trek V." Midnight Marquee n53 Spring (1997): 47-48.


 * Pilkington, Ace G. "Star Trek": the search for God. Literature/Film Quarterly 24 n2 (1996): 169-176.


 * Greene, Ray. "Star Trek Generations." Boxoffice 131 Jan (1995): bet p69 and 76 [pR4].


 * Bond, Jeff. "Star Trek: Generations." Film Score Monthly n53/54 Jan/Feb (1995): 15.


 * Kelly, Peter. Dennis McCarthy. Film Score Monthly n53/54 Jan/Feb (1995): 19-21.


 * Beeler, Michael. "Star Trek Generations." Cinefantastique 26 n2 (1995): 16-17+ [10p].


 * Bick, Ilsa J. "Star Trek: Generations." The Psychoanalytic Review 82 n3 (1995): 458-463.


 * Larson, Randall D. "Star Trek: Generations." Soundtrack!: the Collector�s Quarterly 14 Mar (1995): 19-20.


 * Beeler, Michael. Feature vs. series. Cinefantastique 26 n2 (1995): 24-25.


 * Beeler, Michael. Spock speaks. Cinefantastique 26 n2 (1995): 20-21.


 * Martin, Kevin H. Kirk out. Cinefex n61 Mar (1995): 62-77.


 * Magid, Ron. ILM creates new universe of effects for "Star Trek: Generations." American Cinematographer 76 Apr (1995): 78-88.


 * Altman, Mark A. Kirk out. Film Threat n21 Apr (1995): 65.


 * Beeler, Michael. "Star Trek: Generations." Cinefantastique 25 n5 (1994): 4-5.


 * McDonagh, Maitland. "Star Trek Generations." The Film Journal 97 Dec (1994): 25.


 * Smilgis, Martha, Mark Shuman, Scott Norvell, Dan Cray, Richard Zoglin and Suneel Ratan. Trekking onward. Time 144 Nov 28 (1994): 72-79.


 * Gates, David, Charles Fleming, Gregory Beals and Yahlin Chang. The fang and the phaser. Newsweek 124 Nov 21 (1994): 84-85+ [3p].


 * Marriott, Michel. When time stands still. Newsweek 124 Nov 21 (1994): 88+ [2p].


 * Frankel, Martha. Patrick Stewart: the next generation. Movieline 6 Nov (1994): 52-57+ [8p].


 * Beck, Henry Cabot. "Star Trek Generations." The Village Voice 39 Nov 29 (1994): 73.


 * Beeler, Michael. "Star Trek: Generations." Cinefantastique 25/26 n6/1 (1994): 20-21+ [3p].


 * Uram, Sue. Where's Captain Sulu? Cinefantastique 25/26 n6/1 (1994): 22.


 * Uram, Sue. You're dead, Jim! Cinefantastique 25/26 n6/1 (1994): 23.


 * Housley, John. Keep on trekkin'. Premiere 8 Dec (1994): 92-93+ [3p].


 * Altman, Mark A. Heading to the big screen. Cinefantastique 24 n3/4 (1993): 31-34.


 * Lehti, Steven J. "Star Trek II the Wrath of Khan"; "Star Trek III the Search for Spock." Soundtrack!: the Collector�s Quarterly 10 Jun (1991): 17-18.


 * Mandell, Paul. "Star Trek V": sharing the pain. Cinefex n42 May (1990): 46-67.


 * Spike. "Star Trek V." Fatal Visions n7 Feb/Mar (1990): 5.


 * Elley, Derek. "Star Trek V - the Final Frontier." Films and Filming n423 Jan (1990): 59.


 * Vincenzi, Lisa. To boldy go where no man has gone... again. Millimeter 17 May (1989): 46-48+ [6p].


 * Kimball, George Robert. "Star Trek V: the Final Frontier." Films and Filming n420 Oct (1989): 51.


 * Moore, Suzanne. Starship stories. New Statesman & Society 2 Oct 27 (1989): 40.


 * Doherty, Thomas. "Star Trek V: the Final Frontier." Cinefantastique 20 n1/2 (1989): 100-101.


 * Scheck, Frank. "Star Trek V: the Final Frontier." Films in Review 40 Oct (1989): 486-487.


 * Newman, Kim. "Star Trek V: the Final Frontier." Monthly Film Bulletin 56 Nov (1989): 346-347.


 * Hutchinson, Tom. "Star Trek V: the Final Frontier." Film Monthly 1 Oct (1989): 24.


 * Magid, Ron. "Star Trek V: the Final Frontier": effects for "Trek V" explore uncharted territory. American Cinematographer 70 Jul (1989): 76-84+ [14p].


 * Magid, Ron. "Star Trek V: the Final Frontier": cinematography at the limits of the universe. American Cinematographer 70 Jul (1989): 58-64+ [13p].


 * Magid, Ron. "Star Trek V: the Final Frontier": Shatner at the helm for final voyage. American Cinematographer 70 Jul (1989): 50-52+ [4p].


 * Carmichael, Robert. "Star Trek V: the Final Frontier": mountain climbing in the 23rd century. American Cinematographer 70 Jul (1989): 38-40+ [7p].


 * Granger, Rod. "Star Trek V: the Final Frontier." The Film Journal 92 Jul (1989): 29.


 * MacLean, Paul Andrew. "Star Trek V: the Final Frontier." Soundtrack!: the Collector�s Quarterly 8 Sep (1989): 7-8.


 * Travers, Peter. Windbags at warp speed. Rolling Stone n556/557 Jul 13/27 (1989): 75.


 * Kipen, David. "Star Trek V: the Final Frontier." Boxoffice 124 Aug (1989): bet p98 and 109 [pR50].


 * James, Caryn. Film view: it's a new age for father-son relationships. The New York Times 138 Jul 9 (1989): 11-12 sec 2.


 * Ferguson, Ken. "Star Trek V: the Final Frontier." Film Monthly 1 Sep (1989): 14-15.


 * Ansen, David. The arts: movies: the Enterprise flies once more. Newsweek 113 Jun 19 (1989): 63-64.


 * Schickel, Richard. Cinema: time for the ants to revolt? Time 133 Jun 26 (1989): 89.


 * Brown, Georgia. Keep on trekkin'. The Village Voice 34 Jun 20 (1989): 90.


 * Denby, David. Movies: sentimental journey. New York Magazine 22 Jun 19 (1989): 68-69.


 * James, Caryn. Review/film: the fifth "Star Trek," with old, new and evil. The New York Times 138 Jun 9 (1989): C10.


 * Clarke, Frederick S. "Star Trek 5: the Final Frontier." Cinefantastique 19 n4 (1989): 4-5.


 * McBride, Joseph. "Star Trek V: the Final Frontier." Variety 335 Jun 14/20 (1989): 22.


 * Svehla, Gary J. "Star Trek IV: the Voyage Home." Midnight Marquee n36 Fall (1987): 38.


 * Gire, Dan. Leonard Nimoy on directing "Star Trek". Cinefantastique 17 n3/4 (1987): 24-6+ [7p].


 * Anderson, Kay. "Star Trek III": Bob Dawson - special effects supervisor. Cinefantastique 17 n3/4 (1987): 75.


 * Anderson, Kay. "Star Trek III": Charles Correll - director of photography. Cinefantastique 17 n3/4 (1987): 52.


 * Anderson, Kay. "Star Trek III": DeForest Kelley - Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy. Cinefantastique 17 n3/4 (1987): 60.


 * Anderson, Kay. "Star Trek III": Tom Lay -illustrator. Cinefantastique 17 n3/4 (1987): 68.


 * others. and Nora Lee. Awards nominees for cinematography. American Cinematographer 68 Apr (1987): 59-66+ [14p].


 * Teitelbaum, Sheldon. "The Search for Spock". Cinefantastique 17 n3/4 (1987): 48-63+ [34p].


 * Bryce, Allan and Allan Bryce. Keep on trekkin'. Photoplay Movies & Video 38 Apr (1987): 8-11.


 * Clarke, Frederick S. Shatner directs "Trek V"? Cinefantastique 17 n3/4 (1987): 38.


 * Larson, Randall D. Leonard Rosenman scoring "The Voyage Home". Cinemascore: the Film Music Journal n15 Summer (1987): 3-4.


 * Magid, Ron. Special effects. Cinefantastique 17 n3/4 (1987): 40-47.


 * Doherty, T. What's wrong with "Star Trek"? Cinefantastique 17 n3/4 (1987): 27-8.


 * Duce, Eric and Steve Fobert. "Star Trek IV: the Voyage Home". Cinefantastique 17 n1 (1987): 4-5.


 * Magid, Ron. "Star Trek IV: the Voyage Home": matte painting. Cinefantastique 17 n3/4 (1987): 43.


 * Fischer, Dennis. Nicholas Meyer: the man who saved "Star Trek". Cinefantastique 17 n3/4 (1987): 34-9.


 * Gire, Dan. Why "Star Trek IV" leaves Lt. Savik stranded on Vulcan. Cinefantastique 17 n1 (1987): 4.


 * Magid, Ron. "Star Trek IV: the Voyage Home": miniature effects. Cinefantastique 17 n3/4 (1987): 46.


 * Shay, Jody Duncan. Humpback to the future. Cinefex n29 Feb (1987): 4-31.


 * Larson, Randall D. New music for Starfleet. Cinefantastique 17 n3/4 (1987): 30+ [3p].


 * Lehti, Steven J. "Star Trek IV"/Leonard Rosenman. Soundtrack!: the Collector�s Quarterly 6 Mar (1987): 19.


 * Malmquist, A. "Star Trek IV: the Voyage Home". Cinefantastique 17 n2 (1987): 31+ [2p].


 * Cunliffe, S. Howl! New Statesman 113 Apr 17 (1987): 23.


 * Frumkes, R. "Star Trek IV". Films in Review 38 Feb (1987): 102-3.


 * Hutchinson, T. "The Voyage Home: Star Trek IV". Photoplay Movies & Video 38 May (1987): 15.


 * Johns, I. "Star Trek IV: the Voyage Home". Films and Filming n391 Apr (1987): 43-4.


 * Newman, K. "The Voyage Home: Star Trek IV". Monthly Film Bulletin 54 Apr (1987): 124-5.


 * Summers, J. "Star Trek IV: the Voyage Home". Boxoffice 123 Jan (1987): after p38 [pR1-2].


 * Paramount's Yule sales campaign includes low-priced "Star Trek 4". Variety 327 Jul 15 (1987): 36.


 * Cardello, J.A. Observation post: "Star Trek III: the Search for Spock." Classic Images n139 Jan (1987): 20-21.


 * Teitelbaum, Sheldon. Coming: "Star Trek V": William Shatner to produce and direct. Cinefantastique 16 n3 (1986): 6.


 * Maslin, J. Film: "Star Trek IV: Voyage Home". The New York Times 136 Nov 26 (1986): C14.


 * Granger, R. "Star Trek IV: the Voyage Home". The Film Journal 89 Dec (1986): 40.


 * Denby, D. Movies: back from the future. New York Magazine 19 Dec 8 (1986): 106+ [2p].


 * Corliss, R. Cinema: sea shepherd from outer space. Time 128 Dec 8 (1986): 99.


 * Galbraith, J. "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home". Variety 325 Nov 19 (1986): 16.


 * Ansen, D. The arts: movies: trekking back to the future. Newsweek 108 Dec 1 (1986): 89.


 * McDonagh, M. Nimoy back behind the camera as "Star Trek" journeys to 1986. The Film Journal 89 Dec (1986): 8+ [2p].


 * Matthews, T. "Star Trek IV": the voyage towards big boxoffice. Boxoffice 122 Nov (1986): 20+ [4p].


 * Lee, Nora. The fourth "Trek": Leonard Nimoy recollects. American Cinematographer 67 Dec (1986): 42-8.


 * Edelstein, D. Film: black gold. The Village Voice 31 Dec 9 (1986): 72+ [2p].


 * others. and Charles Leerhsen. The arts: "Star Trek's" nine lives. Newsweek 108 Dec 22 (1986): 66-71.


 * Selley, April and April Selley. "I have been, and ever shall be your friend": "Star Trek", "The Deerslayer" and the American romance. Journal of Popular Culture 20 n1 (1986): 89-104.


 * Magid, Ron. The fourth "Trek": blue skies and starfields. American Cinematographer 67 Dec (1986): 62-70 + [11p].


 * Turner, G. and George Turner. The fourth "Trek": Jack Cooperman underwater. American Cinematographer 67 Dec (1986): 57-60.


 * Turner, George. The fourth "Trek": Don Peterman on earth. American Cinematographer 67 Dec (1986): 50-56.


 * Francavilla, J. Spock's "Who's got the katra?" routine lacks only a polka beat. Cinefantastique 15 n1 (1985): 40+ [2p].


 * Munson, Brad. The last voyage of the starship "Enterprise". Cinefex n18 Aug (1984): 42-67.


 * Newman, K. "Star Trek III - The Search for Spock". Monthly Film Bulletin 51 Jul (1984): 212-13.


 * Noble, P.c. "Star Trek III - the Search for Spock". Films in Review 35 Aug/Sep (1984): 436-7.


 * Scapperotti, Dan. Leonard Nimoy. Cinefantastique 14 n3 n/a (1984): 6-11.


 * Schickel. R. Cinema: space opera. Time 123 Jun 11 (1984): 83.


 * Strick, P. "Star Trek III: the Search for Spock". Films and Filming [n358] Jul (1984): 24-6.


 * Summers, J. "Star Trek III - the Search for Spock". Boxoffice 120 Aug (1984): R94.


 * Svehla, G.J. "Star Trek III: the Search for Spock". Midnight Marquee n33 Fall (1984): 29.


 * Wheen, F. Films: dog days. New Statesman 108 Jul 27 (1984): 28-30.


 * Dayton, E. "Star Trek III, the Search for Spock". Cineaste 13 n4 (1984): 60.


 * Maslin, J. Film: latest in the "Star Trek" series. The New York Times 133 Jun 1 (1984): C14.


 * Lor(L.L. Cohn). Variety 315 May 30 (1984): 12+ [2p].


 * Lee, Nora. "Star Trek III: the Search for Spock". American Cinematographer 65 Aug/Sep (1984): 54-63.


 * Lally, K. "Star Trek III: the Search for Spock". The Film Journal 87 Jul (1984): 20-21.


 * Kael, P. The current cinema: sneaks, ogres, and the D.T.'s. The New Yorker 60 Jul 9 (1984): 84-6.


 * Hesseldahl, P. Films. USA Today 112 Sep (1984): 90-93.


 * Fisher, Bob. Director Leonard Nimoy focuses on "Star Trek III: the Search for Spock". On Location 7 Apr (1984): 34+ [4p].


 * Fischer, D.K. "Star Trek III: the Search for Spock". Cinefantastique 14 n4/5 n/a (1984): 109.


 * Edelstein, D. Film: mind melds and warp drives. The Village Voice 29 Jun 5 (1984): 65.


 * Dewson, Lisa. "Star Trek III: the Search for Spock". Photoplay Movies & Video 35 Aug (1984): 45.


 * Dewson, L. "Star Trek III: the Search for Spock". Photoplay Movies & Video 35 Sep (1984): 21.


 * Denby, D. Movies: "Oh, Zuul, you nut|" New York Magazine 17 Jun 11 (1984): 66-7.


 * Delon, Michael. "Star Trek". Film: the British Federation of Film Societies Monthly Journal n128 Sep (1984): 3.


 * Dangaard, Colin. Leonard Nimoy. Photoplay Movies & Video 35 Sep (1984): 30-31+ [3p].


 * Cohn, Lawrence L. Par backs Nimoy, "Trek" to hilt; talks going re possible part IV. Variety 315 Jun 6 (1984): 5+ [2p].


 * Simak, Steven. James Horner on scoring "Star Trek III: the Search for Spock". Cinemascore: the Film Music Journal n13/14 Winter/Summer (1984): 16-17.


 * Anderson, Kay. "Star Trek III: the Search for Spock". Cinefantastique 14 n4/5 n/a (1984): 8-9.


 * Ansen, D. Movies: the trek continues. Newsweek 103 Jun 11 (1984): 80-81.


 * The A.V. Club: http://www.avclub.com/articles/star-trek-generations,56236/ —   Fourthords  | =/\= | 20:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Launch Date for Enterprise B
The only date I've mamanged to decern from the openning sequence, before "78 years later" is the date on the bottle of champagne, which would be previous to the sequence "present". Is the date derived from a Next Generation date which I have failed to discover and calculated backwards? --RedKnight (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The date's derived from the fact that the timeframe for "78 years later" is clearly 2371 Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 2371 is presented on the screen? Thanks, I'll look that one up. --RedKnight (talk) 14:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Title
Isn't it "Star Trek: Generations" and not "Star Trek Generations"? Byelf2007 (talk) 5 May 2012

Okay okay, so the article says it doesn't have a colon but the title says it has a colon. Which is it? Mainerd (talk) 13 September 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 22:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

This article should be titled "Star Trek Generations". This is how it appears on the official website. Note that it is the first movie that appears on the website without a colon. The preceding movie is called "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country", i.e. WITH colon; earlier movies all have a colon. Note also that all movies AFTER this movie appear without colon. This move from using to not using a colon should be reflected in Wikipedia. 131.211.45.136 (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Someone apparently moved it back a year ago and I never noticed. I've reverted it back to the proper (no colon) title. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 17:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe the title should be reverted to have a colon. Let's please not have Into Darkness syndrome. All of the other films for TNG have a colon, and it is highly inconsistent that this film be without one. I saw what was referred to in the above argument pertaining to the Star Trek website, and I can't help but cringe. Star Trek: Generations has been marketed with a colon for years. Important: Seeing as every single other Star Trek aside from Star Trek Into Darkness has been placed with a colon on Wikipedia, and throughout the web, this is just crazy inconsistent. There are also inconsistencies on this very page, too. The Star Trek website is just rewriting history. A colon is how it should be, and is how it has always been. ~WB, July 03, 2013 Wesbrooks (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The article reflects the title as it is on the official Star Trek website: http://www.startrek.com/database_article/star-trek-generations. On the film's one sheet poster there is no colon in the title either: http://ryesofthegeek.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/generations.jpg. There is no colon in the title. The film is "Star Trek Generations" and the article should reflect that. SonOfThornhill (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree that it is a clear-cut case that there is no colon in the title. WP:TITLE says, "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. When this offers multiple possibilities, editors choose among them by considering several principles: the ideal article title resembles titles for similar articles, precisely identifies the subject, and is short, natural, and recognizable." Consequentially, it is not a criterion to stick to the primary source. We have changed other film titles to fit Wikipedia's Manual of Style. In this case, looking at secondary sources referring to this film in Google Books, News, and Scholar, there exist both Star Trek Generations and Star Trek: Generations. In short, both are viable options here. However, one can argue that the spirit of WP:RETAIN and WP:DATERET applies here, that making a change is inconsequential. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 22:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd further add that the title can be read as the phrase "'Star Trek'(Adj.) Generations" (or "Generations of the type being 'Star Trek'"), thus it is not that the colon is indispensable for the title and whomever dropped it was trying to be cool. (Just as with "Star Trek Into Darkness" can be read "'Star Trek'(v) Into Darkness", the colon not mandatory). The colon would be necessary if there was a number there, or if it was a split sentence (like Star Trek: First Contact), but that's not necessarily the case here. --M ASEM  (t) 22:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * As the saying goes 'you're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts'. And the fact is there is no colon in the title. 'Star Trek Generations' the name of the film. Just because some secondary sources got the name wrong and inserted a colon where is doesn't belong, doesn't mean that their error should be validated here. SonOfThornhill (talk) 22:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree that there is a objectively right answer here. Film titles will be styled certain ways that do not fit the Manual of Style. "Generations" has been treated as a subtitle by both primary and secondary sources; it was the filmmakers' choice to leave out the colon. It does not mean we are beholden to do the same. Seven (film) and Alien 3 are MOS examples of stylized titles. Here, I would say the matter is less crucial, but I would not oppose delineating the title and subtitle for this encyclopedia's purposes. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 23:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it bears repeating that 'you're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts'. Film titles are copyrighted and registered properties. Their title is their title, their legal title. That is a fact. And this is not a stylized title like Seven (film) or Alien 3 so your point is irrelevant. SonOfThornhill (talk) 00:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You could be more considerate in your responses. "Generations" has been treated as a subtitle, so it is a minor style issue to leave out the colon. Similar rationales are applied to how film titles are capitalized; the MOS overrules the stylized capitalization if reliable sources have done this. Sssssss and They Call Me Mister Tibbs! are examples of this; for the latter, "Mister" is fully capitalized or underlined compared to the other words. A line break-related example would be Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol, which I believe does not use the dash in advertising (just line breaks), but "Ghost Protocol" is treated as a subtitle and rendered as such. So I disagree that reliable sources are erroneous here in inserting a colon; it is just a valid alternative way to write the title. This and this are a couple of key examples that do this. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 04:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "Generations" may have been treated mistakenly as a subtitle by some, but that doesn't mean we have to legitimize their error. "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn" is sometimes refered to at TWOK, it is just a short hand. Same is true other films like "Independence Day", often refered to as ID4. That doesn't mean the title of the articles on those films is changed to reflect the short hand reference. But the titles of other films are irrelevant. "Star Trek Generations" is the official title of this film, with no colon. It is what the official website calls it. It the title the film is copyrighted under. And while some secondary source may erroneously insert a colon, many others do not. Such as: http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Star_Trek_Generations. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Erik, this sort of seems like a needless rehashing of the Into Darkness debacle. The official source uses Generations without a colon; so do many other official sources. Likewise many perfectly reputable and reliable sources use a colon. But it seems best to defer to the styling that the actual owners of the property use. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 17:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 22 December 2014
Star Trek Generations → Star Trek: Generations – There is a colon between "Star Trek" and "Generations". AdamDeanHall (talk) 23:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC) Oppose No, there isn't a colon between Star Trek and Generations. http://www.startrek.com/page/star-trek-generations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.65.196.20 (talk) 13:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * See the above discussion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Prototype Costume
Completly useless for Wiki purposes (unless anyone thinks we can get Wikimedia to donate $7,500 to a "research" project), but the prototype Captain Picard updated uniform for Generations has made its way onto ebay here. Miyagawa (talk) 16:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Haha, don't think I'd ever seen a real physical sample, just the Blackman sketches. Cool. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:16, 20 September 2016
 * It seems like the link is broken now. No archives were found, either. Just a heads-up to others. DoggieTimesTwo (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There's also this reddit post with a clear image of the Playmates toy versions. Even if we could get ahold of somebody with one or more of these, would photos thereof just be derivative works?  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 16:38, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 28 September 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved, WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 23:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Star Trek Generations → Star Trek: Generations – The title of the film Star Trek: Generations not Star Trek Generations — it instead appears to be an original research addition for some reason other than actual title accuracy. On more than one occasion now, an anonymous IP has gone around Wikipedia actively breaking links to this article by prematurely rewording them to the correct title despite the fact that it makes them redlinks, so I'm submitting this for discussion on their behalf since they likely don't know how to do it themselves — but if this is going to keep happening, then the title needs to be fixed. 115.133.111.192 (talk) 02:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * There's two sections on this page that explain why it is at the colon-less version. Also, if the editors linking to Star Trek: Generations, that redirects to here, so nothing should be broken. --M ASEM (t) 02:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Masem. I've always read this title of the film like a play on words, sort of like Into Darkness. Also, it's worth noting that this move request rationale likely does not actually describe a real linking problem. See this at Step Up Revolution from a bit ago, the move request summary is cut and pasted from there with no alterations outside of the film's title. Nohomersryan (talk) 03:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose The film's title doesn't and never had a colon. There is no colon on the film's one sheet and the official Star Trek website lists the film's title without a colon. SonOfThornhill (talk) 11:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the official and screen name of the film contains no colon. As an encyclopedia we should reflect the reality of named works of art. Randy Kryn 13:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose There's no colon in the title. It is already at the correct location. Miyagawa (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've gone around and reverted all those extra colons. Miyagawa (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.