Talk:Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home/Archive 1

Pizza Parlor
Does anyone know what the actual name of the Pizza parlor is that Kirk and Gillian visit? If so, is it still standing? For the record, the hospital and glass factory are both still active buildings in San Francisco, in case anyone is planning a visit. -Husnock 07:53, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * For the record, no longer an active question. Apparently the pizzia parlor was a set built on a sound stage. -Husnock 03:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the trivia tidbit claiming that the people on the street in the "nuclear wessels" bit are actually random passersby in SF, and not actors: Though ST was not yet the cultural juggernaut it is in 2005, wouldn't Koenig and Nichols be recognized in their twentieth year as Chekov & Uhura? -Troy McClure SF


 * Well, the thing is, under SAG (Screen Actors' Guild) rules, anyone who speaks on camera has to be paid for their time as an actor. Anyone crossing in front of the camera was probably asked not to speak.  The story goes that the brunette lady who tried to be "helpful" ("it's across the bay, in Alameda"), was a stranger whose response was considered so worthwhile that she was paid for her speaking role.


 * Nevermind, I found it! From IMDB:


 * The scene with Chekov and Uhura asking passerby where Alameda and the U.S. Enterprise were was completely unscripted, as was the young lady's clueless response, "Ooh, I don't think I know the answer to that one - I think it's in the bay, in Alameda." Crew had to chase her down after the shot was taken to get her to sign a SAG waiver and permission to use her in the film.


 * -Kasreyn 07:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I could have sworn they were all extras except for the woman who actually answered the question...  Oh well..--03:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Lexan
Can someone verify that the molecule is one of Lexan? DBBell 20:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Trial? What trial?
"It is evident that a number of months must elapse between the crew returning to Earth and later taking command of the NCC-1701-A, in order to allow for a trial ..."

There should have been no lengthy trial after Kirk and crew returned to Earth. Almost immediately upon entering the council chambers, Kirk pleads guilty to the charges, on behalf of himself and the crew". Trials take place after the entering of a plea (of not guilty) - not before. Upon entering a guilty plea, a court moves to sentencing, much as happened in the film. hehe ""The justice system works swiftly in the future now that they've abolished all lawyers." Not the right sci fi series, but probably accurate. I mean, star trek doesn't have money do they? and without money, what would lawyers do it for? WookMuff 09:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * right, because this only takes place a mere 300 years in the future, I can't imagine that they would ever make any changes to the US criminal justice system in a mere 3 centuries.. It's a movie! for all we know they don't enter pleas at all, and they're judged by flipping a tribble, heads you're guilty, tails it's a mistrial, no pesky juries getting in the way--205.188.116.195 23:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the question remains, what would anyone do anything for? For love of doing it, I suppose.  The concept of a money-less society is a very complicated idea which I don't think the show's creators ever really thought much about.  Especially since sometimes they mention "credits", which sure sounds like a form of money to me!  My guess is that it's possible that "credits" are a form of money issued to Federation citizens who are coming into contact with members of societies that still use money (like the Ferengi); they give the others the credits, which can be redeemed for certain set goods by the Federation itself.  Ie., they're a government-backed security used for trade with less-developed societies.


 * As for the moneyless society, my guess is that they probably have a lot less need for lawyers. The reason we need lawyers in our society is that the laws are deliberately made to be incomprehensible without specialized training (by using archaic forms of language, for instance).  The only logical reason to make the laws incomprehensible to the public is to provide a reason for lawyers to exist.  After all, if you could understand the law yourself, why would you need a lawyer?  It's the most brilliant, and obvious, scam in our society.  The Federation, though, seems to me to be a society that would be pretty intolerant of large-scale scams.  My guess is that the laws in the Federation are understood by the citizens, so no one needs lawyers.  If accused, they defend themselves.  Kasreyn 01:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I suppose. I was mostly thinking of personal injury, contract law, corporate law, and divorce attorneys. I don't think that laws would be all that simple, after all contact with the various alien species, with complex societal, cultural, and legal differences differences from humanity, both inside and outside the federation, would be such that lawyers would surely be more like cultural experts for various societies. No one person could know all the rules and regs for any given situation, not even spock. WookMuff 01:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, but if you were going to be involved in a case, all you would have to do would be to do some basic research on the applicable laws. The laws wouldn't be written in today's deliberately-incomprehensible lawyerese code, and it's already been demonstrated that Federation citizens are far more literate than people are today.  I think it'd be no problem at all for people to do a little research and then competently defend themselves.  It'd be no harder than compiling a master's degree thesis at a modern university, and plenty of total idiots can manage that.  Now, I'm not saying there wouldn't still be experts on law and even law specialists.  But the current system, where the law as a system is closed to outsiders, where buying a lawyer's services isn't a free choice but is forced upon you, would definitely not be allowed to exist in the liberalized society depicted in Trek.  Kasreyn 02:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I suppose you are correct :) WookMuff 05:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Continuity
I'm surprised to see no discussion of the drastic change in appearance of interior of the Bird of Prey between Search For Spock and this movie. Is there anything out there about the reasons for this? --129.74.161.50 20:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Trivia
Twice now I have posted up an item in the Trivia section talking about a particular scene. The scene in question is where the Klingon ambassador says, "Remember this well! There shall be no peace as long as Kirk lives!". As he storms out a voice, Leonard Nimoy, calls out "You pompous ass!" This is verified in the subtitles.

Twice posted, twice removed. What is unacceptable about this most trival bit of trivia? Wilybadger 02:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That it sounds bogus. Wahkeenah 03:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * One basic problem with it is that at the time the Klingon ambassador says it, to the Federation leaders, Spock is on Vulcan being picked up by the rest of the crew, who are flying a Klingon vessel and heading back to earth. Maybe somebody yells it, but it's not Spock. Wahkeenah 03:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it's not bogus. Listen closely to the dialogue. Once you know what it is, you can't help but hear it. Plus, as I said, it's verified in the subtitles on the DVD version.

Additionally, I said it was Leonard Nimoy who said it. I didn't say it was Spock. An important distinction. Nimoy said it while directing the scene, and the sound folks left it in, either as a joke or cause they didn't notice it.

I assure you, it's there. Go listen. :) Wilybadger 03:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's there, it's just unlikely that it's Nimoy unless he's effecting a different voice. I just put on my DVD (I don't have closed captioning). Obviously it's not Spock, who in the very next scene is still on Vulcan, nor does it sound like Leonard Nimoy to me. Nimoy was directing, so maybe he decided to alter his voice and throw that line out. But I don't think it's him. Wahkeenah 04:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounded to me like it was him, I've been told by people it was him. But even if it's not, the mere fact that someone's shouting "You pompous ass!" at an ambassador is trivial enough to be trivia. :) Wilybadger 23:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Massive blanking
Why was the entire trivia section blanked? Maybe send it to a separate article, but not blank the entire thing. -Husnock 09:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It wasn't. Those items which could be sourced or which were relevant were integrated with the rest of the article. Paragraphs are good. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and we're especially not a carbon copy of IMDb, nor Memory Alpha. Mackensen (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Whalers' language
I am almost, (but not absolutely) certain that the whalers do NOT speak finnish. it sounds to me like swedish. this is approximately what I hear as the harpoon is deflected in "mid air" - "vilket helvetes tull..." -        approximate meaning:  "what the hell is this nonsense..."

I am unable to make out the next comments.

are any scandinavians able to confirm or reject this?

Edgjerp 17:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm Swedish, and listening to the two whaler-phraces I found: I can tell you it does not sound like any Swedish I've ever heard :) And besides... the geographic location of Sweden has provided for a very small population of whalers.

And "vilket helvetes tull..." is 1. Not pronounced that way. 2. Total gibberish :)

If I would have to guess (without any real linguistic knowledge), I'd say it sounds like Icelandic. This could be way off, though. But I can rather confidently say that it is not Swedish. Not the words, pronounciation, nor "speech melody" fits into it.

Hopefully I was of some help.

85.225.27.109 19:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I happen to be Finnish and can confirm that the whaler's DO speak Finnish. The whalers are deffenitely yelling "Mitä helvettiä!" (What the hell?) when the Bird of Pray turns off its cloaking device. Additionally when the harpoon hits the ship one of the men clearly says "Mitä hittoa tuo on?" (What the heck is that?). Finally the guy on the crow's nest actually says "Siellä se puhaltaa!" which would literally translate as "There it/she blows!" which sounds rather ridiculous in Finnish, but the over-all pronounciation seems to indicate that the whaler's were not professional actors. -TheHande 20:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

leningrad
Not really a gaffe. Many Starfleet ships are named after battles, such as Saratoga and Yorktown (well, they're really named after famous warships, usually USN, but that's a detail). It's not out of the question that the Leningrad was named after the siege of the city during the second world war. Another thing Star Trek is good for is coming up with lame explanations.
 * If you can accept the concepts of the matter transporter and of backwards time travel, nothing else presents any serious logic problems. Wahkeenah 14:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, are there any names for Saint Petersburg that do not revere the icons of an authoritarian repressive regime?
 * For about a week after the October-but-it-was-really-November Revolution, the city was called "Libertyville". Wahkeenah 02:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think they serve 'freedom fries'.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 01:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Aliens conacting Whales
What did the aliens contact the whales even want? Arthurian Legend 18:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you read the novel version, you can find part of the answer. it appears that they simply wanted to converse with the whales, but that the whales alkso performed some sort of role as story-tellers, and perhaps philosophers. --Steve, Sm8900 18:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"The one with the whales"
Perhaps not an appropriate source to fill in the cite that's left wanting, but nevertheless an amusing one: Everything2 node titled "I liked the one with the whales". And yes, it is in popular use.

Andrew Rodland 04:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And Superman 3 is "the one with Richard Pryor in it"... yet its just not apropiate or encyclopedic to place it here. Though when there are 10 or so Star Trek movies and numerous episodes, "the one with whales" seems to be a good way to recognize it from the bunch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.83.56.249 (talk) 05:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I was going to bring this up. More specifically, I was going to ask if its referred to as 'the one with the whales' outside the UK. However, where should this piece of info be included in the article? WikiReaderer 18:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, I've never heard anybody refer to Superman 3 as "the one with Richard Pryor in." It may just be me, it may be that he's slightly less of a celebrity in the UK, I don't know. And as you say, SineBot, given the number of Trek movies, it may be a good way to distinguish it from the bunch. Surely we could have a note somewhere in the article - not necessarily in the leading paragraph - but somewhere on the page, that ST:IV is often referred to popularly as "the one with the whales". WikiReaderer 22:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The article refers to whales as a major plot element; that is enough, in the article itself, to confirm once a reader has found it that this is "the one...". The other thing required is a redirect; enter the one with the whales in the Search box and click Go - this was set up a year ago. - Fayenatic (talk) 12:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Many people know this movie solely as "the one with the whales", and thus cataloging it as such would aid users in searching for and finding the correct article. -Tombrend (talk) 00:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear Wessels
The scenes in which Uhura and Chekov asked passersby (including a police officer) where the "nuclear wessels" were located were filmed via hidden camera. The passersby were not actors and were unaware that they were being filmed. It was intended that Chekov's Russian accent combined with the unusual nature of his request would dissuade people from offering assistance. In the end, when a young woman does stop and offer some directions, the directors felt it was so comical that they decided it had to be included.

This isn't exactly true. If I remember correctly, the people were all extras, with the exception of the one who actually gave them an answer, who just happened to be passing by because she lived in the area.--Vercalos 06:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It was a mix. There were some extras involved in that scene, but Nimoy has made it clear that they also took advantage of the hidden camera to get reactions from random passersby as well. It's not made clear how just how many extras versus non-extras were involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.131.128.180 (talk) 02:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The number of permutations of this myth makes it very difficult to figure out the truth. William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy recount a different version of this tale in the commentary on the DVD release. In their version, the woman was an extra who was determined to use this piece of dialogue which she had made up herself and so it was decided to sign her up as an actor and keep her dialogue in. I think it is doubtful these scenes were filmed with hidden camera as they also state that the policeman on the motorbike was a real policeman assigned to facilitate the filming that day and that he was drafted in as an extra.IP 23:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

If you read Nimoy's book, I Am Spock, he states that they did indeed use hidden cameras and that the woman was NOT an extra but that they loved her interaction with Nichols and Koenig so much that they later approached her to offer her payment for that scene's inclusion. Haven't seen the DVD interview you mention, but Nimoy's statement in the book directly contradicts what you assert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.131.128.180 (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

TNG
The article states
 * The popularity of this film with the general public, the highest grossing Star Trek movie to date, prompted the decision to make a new spinoff series, which became Star Trek: The Next Generation. A teaser for Star Trek: The Next Generation was played before the film in some theaters.

If the sucess of this film prompted TNG, surely the film would have finished its run before they would have a chance to develop trailers, and therefore couldnt have put them in before the film! The Fashion Icon 10:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The tralers wer placed at the start oif the VHS movie release —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.222.7 (talk) 03:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Transparent Aluminum
This is no joke, they really did figure out how to make transparent aluminum using lasers. Check it out in Science Daily :

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090727130814.htm

23 years after the release of Star Trek 4

Who would have thunk it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.177.174 (talk) 04:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The Punk on the Bus: contradictory information given
The article gives two contradictory origins for the bit with the Spock and the punk: one attributes it to a similar cut scene from Meyer’s Time After Time, the other to Nimoy having had a similar encounter in New York. Which is correct, please?Jock123 (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Both are reliable sources, so it's not a matter of who's "correct". I'm not seeing how they are necessarily contradictory. We simply don't know how much of it was written into the script (by Meyer) and how much Nimoy either contributed to during script development or during filming itself. Here's the quote from Meyer: "There was this scene with a boy and a radio that never made it into the finished film for various reasons" (Fischer 37). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Film poster
Using popups to revert a good-faith reversion? Perhaps a discussion would be in order instead of treating me like a vandal? Powers T 15:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As mentioned in the image fair use pages, the commonality in things like home video releases and the theatrical posters, merchandise and promotion, et al, is the art, not the poster. It's the same reason that entries I, II, III, VI, and VIII do so. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "commonality". Powers T 17:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you perhaps elaborate? I'm still not sure what you meant.  Powers T 13:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Commonality, as in the shared attributes. The NTSC DVD, Laserdisc, and VHS covers all used the same art work, although things like the logos, type, and text changed. In that way the art itself is the most representative aspect. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. But the fair use rationale says one of the purposes is "to provide the reader with a clear indicator they have reached the proper article."  That purpose is not well fulfilled by an image without the film's distinctive wordmark.  Powers T 17:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I am still of the opinion that the film's distinctive wordmark is a significant part of the identification of the film, and so to use a version of the poster without it is not maximizing the image's encyclopedic value. Powers T 15:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Soundtrack Citation
Is is absolutely necessary to provide a citation for an audio track? It is not likley printed anywhere that the composer reused or reworked parts of the animated Lord of the Rings soundtrack for use on this one, but it is evident when listened to. I'll post a couple of quick YouTube links here so perhaps it can be enough proof: Star Trek IV titles - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zn7qNOdyUSE Lord of the Rings titles - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AT18OJEPU9Q --RedKnight (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Especially when dealing with audio, in which different people can hear different things, a citation is absolutely required. Powers T 13:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Then since a citation is not likely to be found unless someone actually posts it, perhaps the line should simply be rephrased to something like "as the writer of the Lord of Rings (1978) soundtrack, the Star Trek IV soundtrack has many similarities to the previous work", or perhaps even something even less direct.--RedKnight (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The less direct we get, the less relevant it is. I'd remove it unless some sort of supporting evidence can be found.  Powers T 14:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It has taken some time, but I have reviewed more soundtracks by Leonard Rosenman, in particular Battle for the Planet of the Apes, and it is clear that Mr. Rosenman has a distinct sound that appears to carry through many of his films. Although similar musical phrases and styles are often used, they are often mistakenly stated to be the same but are not. --66.110.6.119 (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Either way, we need more than *just* a review to make most such assertions. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement that any similarity should not be indicated in the article.--RedKnight (talk) 14:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Non-free images
I'm going to try and push this towards GA or FA quality this autumn. One thing it's missing are some non-free images where they could be justified. Musing to myself (or anyone else) about what should be included: -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A short video clip of the Probe running around, making sounds would help the production design and audio section, esp. since the audio described is very abstract.
 * Otherwise a static shot of the probe
 * Since much of the film takes place in the present day, it seems feasible that real-world photos and free alternatives can be considered for many frames; likewie, the lack of many signature special effects sequences means that the opportunity for non-free images is less.
 * Video of the mind meld? Is it large enough/long enough to show the merging of different sourced content?

I would like to echo these old sentiments on needing to work in at least one screenshot into the article. As anal as we can be about having as few non-free images as possible, I think it's important to remember that the film secured an Oscar nomination for best cinematography. And as great pictures of set locations may be, they do not illustrate why it was recognized in this manner like a shot of the film does. I'd track down something myself, but this isn't my baby, so I'll leave the decision for the most informative shot to someone else. Remember guys, fair use isn't suffocatingly strict; we can justify an un-free image here or there (though the above suggested video is a bit excessive for the project).--Remurmur (talk) 12:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * One popular shot in other media is of the Bounty hovering (after decloaking) over the water in front of the whaling ship. Another possibility would be a shot of the crew walking down the streets of San Francisco, looking like a cadet review, as it would show what the cast looked like.  What aspects of the cinematography were lauded?  Powers T 19:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Impact on Whaling
Does anyone know if the movie Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home had any effect on conservation efforts or reduction in whaling? I think I once read that following the movie, hunting of humpbacks essentially stopped altogether. I'm not sure that could be correct the Wikipedia article on humpback whales article says the ban has been in place since 1966, 20 years before the movie was made. But, has anyone else heard of Star Trek having an impact? 150.203.110.172 (talk) 00:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't come across anything that touched on that topic in researching the article, so I'm going to tentatively say it didn't have any great effect. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk )
 * I'm going to say it definitely had no effect on humpback whale conservation. By 1966 there were at best only a few thousand humpbacks worldwide out of a population that once numbered over 125,000. The moratorium on commercial whaling did come into effect in 1986, but that had more to do with the little whaling of other species (particularly antarctic minke, sperm, fin, etc.) going on. SaberToothedWhale (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Probe Design (Rama)
The Star Trek probe looks like the Rendezvous with Rama spacecraft, except for the sphere. The comparison has been made thousands of times over the years, even back when the film was new. Yes. lots of journalists and film reviewers have made the comparisons, not just forum posts on Star Trek fan sites. It is a fact that both designs are similar (because they are both simple 3D shapes, you cannot dispute the similarity or you are disputing what a cylinder looks like). '''Keep in mind: I did not say they copied the idea, or used it as a reference or even as inspiration. I simply said they look similar.''' This is mostly relevant because Clarke is relevant as a Sci Fi writer, Star Trek is relevant as a Sci Fi multimedia franchise, and similarities between the 2 (intentional or unintentional) are worth referencing. 68.6.76.31 (talk) 01:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Where are these sources of which you speak? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 17:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Is it necessary to point any source (googling I found this one, but I guess it doesn't have much wegith: http://www.scifimoviepage.com/mar99pik.html and http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092007/trivia). I think the similarity is pretty obvious and has relevance. jackbravo 22 May 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackbravo (talk • contribs) 01:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Still needs to be sourced reliably. Whether you consider it obvious is not enough - but if (as you say) the comparison has been made thousands of times, then it shouldn't be hard to provide a more reliable source than IMDB - which is not considered realiable, and scifi movie page just says "reminded me of Rama" - which is not much better.  Don't get me wrong, I agree that the two are similar, but I don't think it's worth mentioning - there are literally thousands of fictional space ships out there, so some are bound to look similar, whether intentionally or not.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Main article correction
Hi, I'm not sure how to fix this, but the main article lists George Lucas as the film's producer. Obviously someone has intentionally changed it. Someone should fix this, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianjcavanaugh (talk • contribs) 13:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks for pointing it out. It was changed in this edit here by an IP vandal. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Portals
I added relevant portals, as long as they themselves were fairly good quality. i did not add the portal for film in the US, as its nowhere near as developed as the film portal. (mercurywoodrose)108.94.3.63 (talk) 18:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Nimoy claims authorship of the punk rocker scene
In the article, the scene where Spock uses the Vulcan nerve pinch on a punk rocker listening to obnoxiously loud music on a bus is attributed to Nicholas Meyer, from a scene supposedly cut from a previous film of his, Time After Time. But in the commentary for Star Trek IV, by Leonard Nimoy and William Shatner, Nimoy claims he wrote the scene into the film after encountering a similar situation in real life, wishing he really were Spock, so he could shut the man up. This commentary occurs at 45 minutes on my version, during the specified scene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:484:c201:565c:1016:16f1:1455:dc91 (talk • contribs)
 * The content you speak of is mentioned in the article (under filming); however it's not mutually exclusive with the idea that the scene originated with Meyer. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Vijay Amritraj
I can't believe there is a dispute about this. I just checked on Netfilx and he is in the movie and listed in the cast list at the end as 'Starship Captain'. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No one has yet supplied a reliable source, unlike the other casting info provided. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 21:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Why is the film itself not a reliable source? SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia prioritizes verifiable and reliable secondary sources, not least because they help describe scope and coverage. Why would Amritraj's cameo be worth mentioning if no reliable source comments on it? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * But the film itself is a primary source. Why is a secondary source prioritized over a primary source? SonOfThornhill (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * There is no dispute whatsoever about Mr. Amritraj's appearance in Star Trek IV. He is fully credited, and is quite recognizable in the film. I have today restored the information citing multiple credible sources, including the Press Trust of India and the Rolex Awards of Excellence, which honoured Amritraj in 2010. That a top-ranked athlete (Amritraj won 16 international tennis titles between 1973 and 1988) appears in the film seems to me to be a cameo “worth mentioning”. It is ironic to me that previous contributors have removed references to Amritraj citing “unreliable” sources, namely Memory Alpha and IMDB. Yet both publishers are noted at the article’s close, presumably as ones the authors believed to have some credibility. Further, the names of several other cast members -- one uncredited -- appear in the article with no citations at all. One can only speculate about the biases of those who feel Amritraj’s name is unworthy of mention in this article. Ns kid (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If you would like to point out which minor roles or cameos are not cited, that can be addressed. I see none that are. I've cleaned up your citation spam. And your casting aspersions is pretty damn stupid. There's no conspiracy to spite you. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Correction of the Layla Sarakalo summary
If you read the cite, it says

""After speaking with the assistant director on whether she could get a day's work, she was told she could and was instructed to stand with the group of extras already hired for the day." "Layla said to the others that she had never engaged in this acting thing before and asked what she should do. They told her to act naturally. With the cameras rolling, Layla walked down the street into shot and soon came to the spot where Uhura and Chekov were unsuccessfully trying to find out from passing pedestrians where the nuclear wessels [sic] were. Most of the extras who were asked this question looked at the two like they were from another planet and carried on. Layla, however, answered them. Naturally." "The problem was, she wasn't supposed to say anything. But, because she did, the filmmakers decided that this was good, spontaneous stuff and that they should use it! A bit of rancor by fellow extras aside, Layla's star was now lit and hanging in the firmament.""

The most natural interpretation is surely that she joined the extras after they had been given the instructions not to speak to Checkov and Uhura, and so didn't get the instruction, and took her instruction to "act naturally" as including responding to questions. Perhaps we can see if we can find more cites to support this. At any rate, to say that she was told not to speak and disobeyed her instructions would not seem consistent with the cite - surely she'd have said if she had done so. I've "been bold" and corrected it. I'll see if I can find out more and do say if anyone has more cites on this. Robert Walker (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The source says nothing about whether the other extras had been given instructions before she joined them. Therefore, to say that they had been given instructions is OR and I've removed the sentence you added. We summarize sources; we do not provide readers with "the most natural interpretation" or indeed, any interpretation at all. Ca2james (talk) 20:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The one with the whales listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The one with the whales. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TheAwesome Hwyh  22:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Swearing in the future?
This part of the Trivia makes no sense. How many times during the original series did we hear "dammit" come out of Bones' mouth? I call that a swear. Swearing is clearly alive and well in the 23rd century. I'm thinking of deleting that paragraph from the trivia. (Even though the "double dumb ass on YOU!" line was hilarious) -Kasreyn 05:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The only time anyone swore in the original series was Kirk's "Let's get the hell out of here" in "City on the Edge of Forever". McCoy's well-known "Dammit, Jim" didn't come into existence until the feature films.

I think that swearing is probably more the scatalogical and vulgar swearing of today, not such harsh epithets as hell and damnit WookMuff 05:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

"The film marks the first use of the word 'ass' in a Star Trek production." True, but isn't it more significant that the film marks the first use of the word shit in a Star Trek production? While Kirk and Spock are riding in Gillian Taylor's truck, she wants to know if they 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." As far as I know, shit was not uttered in a Star Trek production again until Star Trek Generations, when Data, seeing the Enterprise-D's saucer section about to hit the atmosphere of Veridian III, says, "Oh, shit." I don't recall ass being used again until the premier episode of Enterprise ("Broken Bow"), when Captain Archer, fed up with T'Pol's prattling on about how humans can't control their emotions, asks her rhetorically if she has any idea how much he'd "like to knock [her] on [her] ass." User:24.168.150.118 00:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * One thing Star Trek has always done is to inspire intellectual discourse. Like dis. Wahkeenah 01:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, just to point out, I think this needs to be removed. I distinctly remember both Kirk and Scotty calling Harry Mudd a jackass in "Mudd's Women". Who came up with this anyway? I say we either edit it to say that it is the first time the word is said in a movie or get rid of it altogether. - Defunctzombie 01:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A jackass is a donkey, and maybe terms like "smartass" and "dumbass" have more to do with donkeys than with anatomy. In any case, it's kind of silly. Now, when Kirk told his crew in The City on the Edge of Forever, "Let's get the hell out of here!" that was something, by mid-1960s TV standards. Wahkeenah 02:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, the animal is an ass- the male is a 'jack', the female is a 'jenny'. ("Donkey' is a relatively late invention and comes from 'dun', referring to the animal's color.) The anatomical word is unrelated to the animal; it's an American corruption of the British 'arse'. Terms like "you're an ass" refer to the animal's reputation for stubborness and have no origin in anatomy. 'Asshole' as an insult is probably a convergent term, not of direct origin. CFLeon 06:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"Sounds like the goddamned Spanish Inquisition to me." -- McCoy to Kirk in the hospital elevator, on their way to save Chekov. -Radioflux 23:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC) - I just saw a Spanish-dubbed version of this film. Curiously (and disturbingly), the phrase "Spanish Inquisition" was changed to "African witchcraft" (brujería africana). Hmmm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.220.40 (talk) 03:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I find all this fuss over the question of swearing more than a bit ridiculous. All that was said about swearing was that Spock noted that Kirk's use of "colorful metaphors" had INCREASED. It was never stated or even implied that there was no swearing in the future or that Kirk himself never swore. It was NOTHING MORE THAN A JOKE, a dig at 20th century culture, that people swore so much and so often that Kirk believed he wouldn't be listened to unless his own speech reflected that of the times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.131.128.243 (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)