Talk:Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country/Archive 1

Name question
Shouldnt this be Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country?


 * Huh? Isn't that what it is? Kevyn 22:19, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Revised scenes?
What is the other revised scene in the Special Edition? The box says there are 2 revised scenes by Nicholas Meyer. There is one obvious change, the intercutting of the named co-conspirators during the mindmeld scene -- beneficial if you have no idea who they are, but it really interferes with the power of the take. Apparently the other change wasn't offensive enough for me to notice it -- what was it?

Versions?
Does anyone know if this film was cut for its video release. I remember seeing it at the cinema, then on video, and noticing both the new scenes with Colonel West but also that some stuff I remembered seeing at the cinema was missing. I can't for the life of me now remember exactly what, though.


 * No the film was expanded for video. They expanded Col. West scenes and actually added a reason for why the Klingon assassin had the wrong color blood (he was Col. West disguised as a Klingon and so bled red and not purple). You'd think they'd have kept that extra 60 seconds in the theatrical version. I think the video release is like 8 minutes longer than the theatrical release.

Trivia

 * Spock to Kirk: "There is an old Vulcan proverb. Only Nixon could go to China."
 * Spock's line about an ancestor of his saying that "when you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains must be the truth' is quoting Sherlock Holmes. One of Meyer's first books was a Sherlock Holmes story: "The Seven-per-Cent Solution" and there has been comsiderable fan speculation over the years that Spock's mother was a descendant of Holmes. CFLeon 00:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know about "considerable". There was an article in Trek about it once.  That's the only other place I've heard the theory.  If I recall correctly it was intended as a whimsical comparison of the two characters, nothing more.  Kasreyn10:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been to at least 2 West Coast conventions in different cities and almost a decade apart that had panels on the topic. It may not be a major theme in Fandom, but then I didn't say it WAS. Perhaps my choice of term wasn't the best, but I do know that some fans will speculate on ANYTHING if you throw it up at them. CFLeon 23:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * A large part of Kirk's animosity towards the Klingons comes from Star Trek III when his son David Marcus was killed by a Klingon, and reference is made to this by showing Kirk looking at a photograph of him. Merritt Butrick who played the part of David died in 1989, aged 29.

Spock's Mom
Spock's mom could not be a relative of Holmes, since Holmes is a fictional character. Spock was referring to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, at least in the literal sense. So perhaps she's related to the author of the Holmes stories and novels, but no "living" person can be related to a fictional character.
 * I hate to spoil it for you, but Spock is a fictional character, TOO! I just made the comment that there'd been fan speculation about a connection between Holmes and Spock BEFORE Star Trek 6 came out (and I have never heard any speculation that Doyle was an ancestor). Didn't say I BELIEVED it to be well-founded. But I did think it was a nice in-joke for the fans. CFLeon 23:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, you have a good point. But remember, within the ST world, they treat some known fictional works of our world as if they're fiction in the ST world too.  For instance, Spock gives Kirk a copy of "A Tale of Two Cities" for his birthday, and Khan quotes from "Moby-Dick".  My guess is that any fictional story presented within the ST world which predates the first 5-year mission of the original Enterprise is really considered to be fiction.  Which would mean that, within the ST universe, Sir Conan Doyle's stories would be fiction, not reality.  Within the (fictional) ST world, Spock is "real" and Holmes is fictional.  Does this make sense? Kasreyn 16:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In Star Trek: TNG, which is canonical with this movie, it was established that Sherlock Holmes was a fictional character penned by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (it was a genre that Commander Data visited more than once in the holodeck).
 * Absolutely. Holmes is fiction in the ST canon. However, as hinted at above, there's no reason that Spock couldn't be claiming descent from Doyle. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * How about this? The Marvel Comics Universe has a lot of characters who are publicly known but generally believed to be fictional, such as Dracula. Is it not possible that Star Trek might have something similar? In a TNG episode, Guinan, who likes to namedrop was comparing Wesley's out of control nanite experiment to someone she claimed to know once: a Dr. Frankenstein. Remember that Watson was writing about Holmes' adventures. Maybe Doyle knew Watson and took the credit. Kind of like, maybe the real H.G. Wells met that famous unnamed time traveller and was a guest at his house on that day the unnamed time traveller spun his tale.Mr. ATOZ18:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, but remember that Guinan will lie, especially if it involves communication, or lack of it. (Suspicions, Time's Arrow). Guinan might not even be herreal name (Q Who?). Besides, at her age she's had plenty of time to meet a doctor with ancestors from the town of Frankenstein who took on the town's name as their own. And he doesn't have to be the Dr. FrankensteinZerothis 01:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Decommissioning
Regarding "We're to put back to spacedock immediately...to be decommissioned." Although it's POSSIBLE Starfleet's orders meant Enterprise was being decommissioned, it is FAR more likely the order was referring to the CREW. Officers are commissioned as well, remember, and during the early briefing scene, it was clear that the crew was retiring (ref. McCoy's "Maybe they're throwing us a retirement party" to which Scotty replies "That suits me. I just bought a boat!") Kirk's agonizing over the realization that this is finally "the end" at least as far as his commanding a starship goes.

"Mothballing the fleet" is moot - the briefing dismisses that idea since the "scientific and exploration programs would be unaffected" - and Enterprises primary mission IS one of exploration, not combat.

Simply put, the crew knew they were done, were "volunteered" for one final mission, and were a bit surprised at the abruptness of the order, but they knew it was coming. It's not surprise, but sadness you see on their faces. And Kirk's final line is "making a point" to Starfleet (to hell with the regs, we'll come in when we're ready) which is very much in keeping with his character. The fact the crew was assigned such a mission was a surprise to them all during the briefing - they all figured it was retirement time.


 * I think there was supposed to be a bit of irony here. They all went on a mission they really weren't too happy about. Fought tooth and nail to accomplish it, even going above and beyond the call of duty to get it done. And now that's accomplished, they can celebrate a job well done. The celebration doesn't quite happen because of what they knew all along. The sad realization and irony is, they just gave it their all to work themselves out of a job.

The bugs encountered in ST5 have apparently been resolved. Keep in mind that the end of ST5 and beginning of ST6 allows for months or years to have passed. I don't recall a single real malfunction in ST6. In fact, the Enterprise holds up well under extreme stress.

Final point - "this ship, and her history, will soon become the care of another crew" (or something along those lines) at the end of the film strongly implies that the Enterprise herself will be re-crewed. This is somewhat borne out by the number of years that pass between ST6 and Generation. At the time of ST6, the Enterprise A may be 5-10 years old, so if another 10-15 years pass between the end of ST6 and the launch of 1701B, the ship could be 25 years old. It certainly makes more sense that a 25-year old ship based on a 40 year-old design would be retired at that time.
 * 10-15 passing between ST6 and the 1701B does not seem too likely. The articles on Memory Alpha for ST6 and Generations put both movies in 2293 based on the references in the movies and the Star Trek Chronology (full explanations for the arrival of those dates in the talk pages). Assuming these dates are even roughly correct (within 2-3 years), it seems likely that the ship herself was to be decommissioned as the 1701B was already planned or even already being constructed. Andrew McIntosh 18:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * From what I recall, STV takes place in 2285, and STVI takes place in 2291. Generations takes place in 2294.  Gene Roddenberry always said that the Ent-A was a refit of an old constitution class ship, usually referred to as the Yorktown.TEG (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Worf
Kirk and McCoy's attorney is quite clearly referred to as "Counsilor" not Colonel."
 * In a military trial, an attorney can be both a counsel as well as hold active duty rank such as "Colonel", in which case Worf's ancestor could be both. Kasreyn 21:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I reviewed my DVD recently, with the audio, subtitles, and closed captions on. During the early part of the trial, the Judge clearly states "Colonel Worf, we are interested in facts, not theories" and all 3 (audio, subtitles, closed captions) agree that he says "Colonel."  This is the only time his name is mentioned in the movie.  In the closing credits, he is refered to as the "Klingon Defense Attorney."  The Memory Alpha website refers to him as "Colonel Worf."  Even the official Star Trek website calls him "Colonel Worf."  I have a hard time finding him refered to as Counselor outside of WP.  While he is also a Counselor, he is refered to by his rank: Colonel.  I would suggest avoiding the use of Counselor for him in WP, because the title of his own article in WP is Colonel Worf. CALQL8 03:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Shakespearian themes
In Hamlet, as noted in the Trivia section, "the undiscovered country" refers to death, but Chancellor Gorkon states that it refers to "the future" (as do others taking their cue from him). Is this just a mistake, or are "death" and "the future" unified themes in Klingon culture, and possibly even the same word in their language? (They do, after all, have sayings like "this is a good day to die!")

A list of Chang's Shakespeare quotes and their origins would also be a good idea -- I don't know them (apart from the obvious "To be or not to be", which comes from the same play as the film's title quote), but someone with more time on their hands than me might ;-) Perhaps a subsection on "Shakespearian themes", containing the appropriate bits from Trivia? Dave-ros 21:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad suggestion, since his character seemed a bit obsessed with quoting Shakespeare, even when it didn't really make a great deal of sense (e.g., his final scene, in which Hamlet's question about suicide is not really one that Chang can reasonably ask of himself. His options at that point would at most be limited to [a] death by torpedo, [b] death by fellow crewmembers, etc., but it's hard to see how he had any reason to think he had a "to be" option). Either way, most of the quotes are fairly basic, such as the "dogs of war" (Julius Caesar) reference, so it wouldn't take a great deal of digging, especially for a lit major (a lit major who also likes Trek I guess). C d h (talk) 05:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:General Chang.JPG
Image:General Chang.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used underfair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Biblical themes
Food for thought. Perhaps someone not as bias as I am will agree with some of this and post the most relevant info or a summery for the article.

Spock starts out naked (symbolically that is, he is out of uniform) then covers himself (with his uniform) as he speaks with Valeris. Spock shares a drink (fruit) with Lieutenant Valeris. He talks about | The Fall of Man and his faith which is slightly different (rebellious) from the faith of logic. All the while he does not realizing the person he is conversing with is a kind of serpent in the Federation and a kind of Judas. Valeris coaxes Spock to voice these heresies by using questions.

Later Spock and Kirk discuss their pride and how it was their downfall and how they are 'only Human'.

Valeris manages to get the whole command crew to sample, indeed abuse, the symbolic 'forbidden fruit' (Illegal alcohol, Romulan Ale) by suggesting it is a good thing.

Valeris' first command to her 2 willing followers: “You men have work?” Salvation is by faith, not works. And the command is in the form of a question. The majority of Valeris' lines are in the form of questions. One of the Devil's first and most often used tactics, is questions. “Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?” he also used questions against Job, Joshua, and Jesus.

Valeris' plan demands a human blood sacrifice (an important idea to the film is that Kingons are 'human' too). She calls Klingons animals, thus its an animal blood sacrifice by that point of view. Klingon blood is featured in the sacrifice scene. Its floating everywhere. Once gravity is restored, it splashes like a kind of baptismal sprinkling over the Klingons, including the chancellor. Her plan backfires as the chancellor's sacrifice proves not in vain.

Valeris makes a lot of accusations against many of people. Finally she accuses everyone on the bridge of betrayal. And then accuses entire Klingon race of David's murder. One of the Devil's titles is 'The Accuser'.

She uses people's own words against them. “Did you not wish Gorkon dead? "Let them die" you said. Did I misinterpret you?” (again with the damned questions) Earlier she had used a recording of these words to condemn him. Before that she suggested Kirk had motive to fire on the Klingons. Like satan, she keeps hammering away at the same sins, condemning over and over. An example is satan's use of lust of the eyes, lust of the flesh, pride of life. He used these three (successfully) on Eve, he used them again (successfully) on King David, he used them again (unsuccessfully) on Jesus, he used them again on John (apparently), and he used them again on Paul (probably).

Eris is the Greek goddess of strife, Val is a Vulcan prefix for female names. Her name means “Vulcan goddess of strife” Valeris claims her motivations are an ordered universe. A favored M/O of demons wanting to mess up the current intended order.

Valeris practically takes command after Kirk leaves the ship. Through manipulation and lies she usurps Spock's authority and manages to get the command crew (who sampled the forbidden ale) to do everything she wants them to do. Her manipulations are such that Spock is actually very pleased with her and the results she has achieve. At least for a while. After being found out, she blames the crew for doing what she wanted them to do, “Enterprise has disobeyed orders and harbors two escaped convicts.” Another of the Devil's tactics, blaming the sinner for surrendering to the temptations that _he_ offered.

Valeris manages to add to her uniform, the rank insignia of a lieutenant commander, and indicators on her uniform of helmsman, navigation, and communications. She is merely a lieutenant helmsman.

“Congratulations, Lieutenant. That must make you very proud....” Valeris: “I don't believe so, Sir.” She denies her pride using a phrase with religious connotations, instead of using a logical statement. Its a lie, note her hesitation while she decides what to say and the distinctly un-Vulcan expression on her face when she says it. She's obviously prideful to believe she can control the order of the universe. Also, technically, a statement of faith is not easily definable as lie or truth by logical means. A lie loophole. 'The devil is in the details', they say.

Valaris: “I always wanted to try that.” “Don't try putting words in my mouth.”

In the end, Valeris proves to be small. Not nearly the powerful beast (or avenging angel, or hero) she imagined herself to be. She does not have the power to crush her enemy, the best she can do is bruise (Spock's ego). She is merely a defeated foe forced to admit her guilt. Much as the Bible promises about satan.

Spock: “Faith ... That the universe will unfold as it should.” Revelations says the universe will fold up in the end. Symbolically opposite to Spock's hopes and false religion. Remember the plot depends on Spock and Kirk being wrong for most of the movie.

Spock has tried to set himself up as a messianic figure, a peacemaker. He assumes authority over the enterprise and crew when he 'volunteers' them. He imagines Valeris as his most beloved disciple to carry on in his absence while goes to prepare a new post cold-war federation (John 14). He offers himself up for betrayal and execution (He tells Valeris to shoot him, John 13:27). He believes at the moment all the pieces are now in place, mystery solved. His work is finished and no longer requires him and he can die. Indeed, Kirk takes over the peacemaker role after this point in the film. Later he mentally crushes Valris' ego, who had only managed to bruise his. Spock even manages to work in the phrases "I've been dead before" and "go to hell"

Other phrases of note: "I'm a great one for rushing in where angels fear to tread",

Kirk says “Bless you, Sulu”, in a softer voice not directed at Sulu, this is a prayer. Besides, Sulu can't hear him anyway ;)

"You've restored my father's faith", and "You have restored my son's"

Kirk: “Everyone's Human.” Meaning we are all flawed (he includes Vulcans and Klingons in his meaning of 'Human'). He is also attempting to remind Spock that he's not supernatural/Jesus/perfect.


 * Fascinating, but speculative and OR. Do you have a source? --Hemlock Martinis 07:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as the lines from the movie, the script is available online. I'd be happy to site each line in message if: this is appropriate for a talk page; and someone points me to how this is technically done on Wikipedia (citing individual lines from a script). I'm also happy to site the relevant Biblical verses, I've seen it done on other Wikipedia pages. A few of the Biblical references in my rant are interpretive enough that a biblical commentary about the verse might make a better citation (if this is appropriate for Wikipedia). Kim Cattrall has stated that the much of the Valeris character came from her input, including the name Eris, and that the Val prefix came from Nicholas Meyer. Its also spelled Val'eris in the script. I can find these references. As for motives of the writers, that's a bit trickier. I've never seen the idea of intentional biblical themes expressed> Thus the main reason I did not bother formatting this info for the main page.
 * The script and the Bible verses is not what I meant, although you would need sources for those as well. I'm talking about the idea of this as a Biblical allegory - do you have sources for that? --Hemlock Martinis 02:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, "I'm a great one for rushing in where where angels fear to tread" by Kirk is a reference to Alexander Pope's An Essay on Criticism, where Pope writes, "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread." For more information, please look at this movie's Wikiquote page, which is one of the finest articles there. --Hemlock Martinis 02:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Apocryphal?
The following is written on this page - "Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry was on record that he considered elements of this film to be apocryphal and therefore not necessarily canon, however it is not known exactly what he objected to; the film remains an official part of the Star Trek canon." - but I was sure that that was said about Star Trek V, not VI?? I mean, the film was (I believe) only finished 3 days before Gene Roddenbury's death, so it seems like very little time to make such a comment, although Memory Alpha does state "Gene Roddenberry saw the movie three days before he died. According to William Shatner's Star Trek Movie Memories, Roddenberry, after seeing the film, gave thumbs up all around, and then went back and phoned his lawyer, angrily demanding a full quarter-hour of the film's more militaristic moments be removed from the film, but Gene died before his lawyer could present his demands to the studio."... the part in the article is cited to "Star Trek Chronology: The History of the Future, revised edition", does anyone have that book to check it? And even if it does say this it may just be an error, as I'm *positive* that exact same statement about parts of the film being apocryphal was made about Star Trek V...ie, the one where they supposedly travel to the centre of the galaxy which'd be roughly half the journey length Voyager had done, etc... Xmoogle 12:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"Star Trek Chronology: The History of the Future, revised edition", in fact does not support this assertion, as noted above. It does state that Roddenberry considered events in Start Trek V to be apocryphal. The "canonicity" section should be deleted or heavily revised. 67.149.106.135 (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge in stubby article (Khitomer Accords)
It has a small bit of notability, but not nearly enough for its own article, so it should probably go here.Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it should be prodded or merged. There are plot continuity issues meriting it to stand on its own (for example, references in the Klingon war arc on DS9 and the "Second Khitomer Accords" from Insurrection). It doesn't fit neatly into the ST6 article in terms of its place within the overall Star Trek universe. Plus when ST6 ended, the accords did not yet exist - if you recall, the climactic battle took place as the conference was just starting. You could merge it into Law in Star Trek, but I don't know if it fits there either. Wl219 (talk) 06:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What about merging it with Organian Peace Treaty andTreaty of Algeron into a new List of treaties in Star Trek? - Fayenatic(talk) 13:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would be cool with that too, it would make sense, and would round up a few stubby articles, so feel free.Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea, go for it (let me clarify that as go for the list of treaties suggestion).--UESPArules (talk) 01:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it would be appropriate here, tbh, it's a topic which is more than just part of this film. I think that if we could focus on simply improving the Khitomer Accords article it would be better. -Toon05 23:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Rura Penthe
Someone seems to have tagged this merge but then not discussed it (grr!) but I personally believe it would be a bad merge, as Rura Penthe is mentioned in Enterprise and an episode takes place there, so it has meaning beyond this one film. I will remove the merge as it has been up there for ages. SGGH speak! 21:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It was PRODded and nearly deleted; I merged it into the relevant List of planets instead. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Worf's bloodline
The article says that the identity of Colonel Worf as the grandfather of Dorn's same-named character on TNG is not proven. There was an anniversay special about Star Trek that aired that year and showed Michael Dorn in his Star Trek VI make-up stating in a Behind-the-Scenes interview that he is playing the grandfather of his TNG character. Since the actor was confirming it in a BTS interview, why would it be said to be fan speculation? Medleystudios72 (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Add a cite! Be bold! Lots42 (talk) 04:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Poster image
Please stop replacing the infobox image with the alternative version you have uploaded. According to the WP:Film style guidelines, an original "one-sheet"-style poster is the preferred image to illustrate a film article. A suitable image was already present, and regardless, the one you have been substituting is of inferior quality as it lacks the title, etc on the original poster. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 06:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The version I uploaded is a one-sheet style poster, albeit without the title and such. In fact, as far as fair use guidelines go my version is better under fair use as it does not depict copyrighted logos or trademarked text. I'm the one doing the grunt work on the article, so allow me a bit of discretion, thanks :). (Also, really, what is the point of having little tiny credits no one can read?) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 11:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. What you uploaded is the artwork by John Alvin which was used on the final poster. Sorry, but there is a difference. Logos and such on a film poster are already covered under the fair-use rules for the poster image itself and are thus not an issue. The "little tiny credits no one can read" are encyclopedic and significant as they were a part of the image which was used to promote the film.


 * I would suggest you look at other featured film articles to get an idea about how this issue is usually treated. Also, I hope you keep in mind that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Just because you happen to be doing the majority of the work on a certain page does not give you exclusive dictatorial rights in regard to it. Thanks. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 02:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And just because all you do is upload posters doesn't give you exclusive rights to revert multiple editors to your own version. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 02:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Spock
The bit about Spock being uncharestically hurt and angry seems to be original research. It's confusing. So many years of Spock being so logical, then he flies off the handle for one movie? Lots42 (talk) 10:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * An IP added in the info, I removed; it's true, he seems visibly perturbed about being betrayed, but it would be better to have a reliable source state that as its less apparent than open for interpretation. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 15:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Citations for use
As per User talk:Steve:

O'HARA, Helen: At Home/The Top 10: Courtroom battles Empire n.211, January 2007, p.184-185, English, illus Top ten listing and brief critique of the best movie courtroom scenes (and one entry for the worst).

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

J.B.: In Review: DVD in brief Cinefantastique (0145-6032) v.36 n.2, April 2004, p.60, English, illus

RICHARDSON, David: DVD reviews StarBurst (0955-114X) n.308, March 2004, p.87, English, illus Review of special edition.

DVD for 2004 StarBurst (0955-114X) v.Spec n.61, December 2003, p.120-124, English, illus Brief reviews of DVD releases.

ATKINS, Ian: Trek babes StarBurst (0955-114X) n.266, October 2000, p.32-36, English, illus Brief profiles of female Trek characters.

Bijzondere platen: Star Trek CD-overzicht Score Filmmuziek Magazine (0921-2612) n.96, September 1995, p.10,11, Dutch, illus On soundtracks available for STAR TREK films and series

Sight and Sound (0037-4806) v.3 n.7, July 1993, p.61, English Video note

Sight and Sound (0037-4806) v.3 n.6, June 1993, p.69, English Video note

Sight and Sound (0037-4806) v.3 n.1, January 1993, p.58, English Video note

BACAL, Simon: Undiscovered Matte Worlds StarBurst (0955-114X) n.166, June 1992, p.24-27, English, illus Part Two of an interview with Craig Barron on the secrets of effects for STAR TREK VI and BATMAN RETURNS.

BACAL, Simon: Undiscovered Matte Worlds StarBurst (0955-114X) n.165, May 1992, p.24-27, English, illus Interview with the partners of Matte World, a company who combines matte paintings with live-action footage and whose latest project is STAR TREK VI: THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY.

ALTMAN, Mark A. & MAGID, Ron: Star Trek VI: The Making of 'The Undiscovered Country' Cinefantastique (0145-6032) v.22 n.5, April 1992, p.24-55, English, illus Extensive piece on STAR TREK VI, featuring reviews of all films in the series, comments from Harve Bennett, Kim Cattrall and Nicholas Meyer, plus a tribute to Gene Roddenberry and a look at production design and makeup.

Sight and Sound (0037-4806) v.1 n.11, March 1992, p.54-55, English, illus

ERRIGO, Angie: New films Empire n.33, March 1992, p.26, English, illus

MARTIN, Kevin J.: Letting slip the dogs of war Cinefex n.49, February 1992, p.40-60, English, illus On the special effects work on STAR TREK VI: THE UNDISCOVER- ED COUNTRY, particularly by Industrial Light and Magic and make-up supervisor Michael J. Mills.

1992: the ultimate 'Empire' guide to the movies Empire n.32, February 1992, p.66-77, English, illus Brief details as part of a guide to upcoming films.

MAGID, Ron: Narita Leads Enterprise Camera Crew. American Cinematographer (0002-7928) v.73 n.1, January 1992, p.42-50, English, illus Article looking at cinematographer Hiro Narita's involvement with the film STAR TREK VI, in which he discusses the background to production, the creation of particular effects and sets, the equipment and techniques he used & problems.

MAGID, Ron: Director Meyer Explores Familiar Country. American Cinematographer (0002-7928) v.73 n.1, January 1992, p.52-54, 56, English, illus Article looking at director Nicholas Meyer and his association with the Star Trek films, and mainly at his approach to the storyline and filming of STAR TREK VI.

MAGID, Ron: ILM Gets 'A Piece of the Action'. American Cinematographer (0002-7928) v.73 n.1, January 1992, p.58-65, English, illus Article taking a detailed look at the special effects used in the film STAR TREK VI, including the personnel involved in their creation from Industrial Light & Magic, who discuss particular models, effects and shots.

MAGID, Ron: Specialized Departments Add Artistic Touches. American Cinematographer (0002-7928) v.73 n.1, January 1992, p.66-75, English, illus Article taking a detailed look at the many different crafts- men and specialized departments involved in the film's production, including art direction, production design, storyboards, makeup effects, and props

Hollywood Reporter (0018-3660) v.320 n.21, 06 December 1991, p.9, 69, English

PAYNE, Stephen & BRIGGS, Nicholas: Spock's woman StarBurst (0955-114X) n.160, December 1991, p.12-15, English, illus Interview with Kim Cattrall about her roles in SPLIT SECOND and STAR TREK VI.

TEITELBAUM, Sheldon: STAR TREK VI: The Last Hurrah? Cinefantastique (0145-6032) v.22 n.3, December 1991, p.23, 60-61, English, illus Production report.

TEITELBAUM, Sheldon: Nicholas Meyer, Franchise Mr. Fix-It Cinefantastique (0145-6032) v.22 n.3, December 1991, p.24-26, English Interview with Nicholas Meyer, director of STAR TREK VI.

Premiere's ultimate fall preview. Premiere (0894-9263) v.5 n.2, October 1991, p.98, English A brief, light-hearted preview of the film as part of a series of previews of autumn releases.

CHAPPELL, Mark: Entering Star Trek's Undiscovered Country StarBurst (0955-114X) n.157, September 1991, p.16-18, English, illus

LOGAN, Michael: Star Trek VI: a sneak preview TV Guide (0039-8543) v.39 n.35, 31 August 1991, p.10, English, illus

Hollywood Reporter (0018-3660) v.317 n.20, 07 May 1991, p.16, English

Hollywood Reporter (0018-3660) v.317 n.4, 16 April 1991, p.20, English

Screen International (0307-4617) n.796, March 1991, p.5, English, illus

PTACEK, Greg: Par beams up 6th `Star Trek' Hollywood Reporter (0018-3660) v.316 n.19, 21 February 1991, p.3, English

Screen International (0307-4617) n.792, February 1991, p.17, English

JONES, Alan: Star Trek VI StarBurst (0955-114X) n.149, January 1991, p.6, English

URAM, Sue: Star Trek VI: Starfleet Academy Cinefantastique (0145-6032) v.20 n.5, May 1990, p.10,60, English, illus Interview with Walter Koenig about possible cast changes.

URAM, Sue: Star Trek 6: Paramount seems poised to dump old cast... Cinefantastique (0145-6032) v.20 n.4, March 1990, p.5, English Rumours about changing the orginal cast.

Lally, Kevin. "Star Trek VI: the Undiscovered Country." The Film Journal 95 Jan (1992): 44.

Greene, Ray. "Star Trek VI: the Undiscovered Country." Boxoffice 128 Jan (1992): bet p25 and 35 [pR1-R2].

Hutchinson, Tom. "Star Trek VI." Film Monthly 3 Mar (1992): 10.

Maslin, Janet. Review/film: aging Trekkers to the rescue one las time. Really. The New York Times 141 Dec 6 (1991): C1+ [2p].

Davis, Erik. "Star Trek VI: the Undiscovered Country." The Village Voice 36 Dec 24 (1991): 81-82.

Teitelbaum, Sheldon. "Star Trek VI": the last hurrah? Cinefantastique 22 n3 (1991): 23+ [3p].

Lowry, Brian. "Star Trek VI: the Undiscovered Country." Variety 345 Dec 9 (1991): 75.

Schweiger, Daniel. Cliff Eidelman performs the Enterprise's swan song for "Star Trek VI." Soundtrack!: the Collector�s Quarterly 10 Dec (1991): 8-10.

Van Gelder, Lawrence. At the movies. The New York Times 140 Aug 30 (1991): C6.

Stevenson, Richard W. A "Star Trek" solution. The New York Times 140 Apr 14 (1991): 6 sec 3.

Tusher, Will. Final "Star Trek" to roll in spring. Variety 341 Nov 19 (1990): 4.

Hope these help! Steve T • C 10:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Source check...
David asked me to check the sources prior to FAC, and I've done so. They all look fine. Need to double check the pp., p. and suchlike usages, though. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 01:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Home video releases
I see this has already become FA, but a couple of suggestions... This section mentions that the various releases include extra scenes. As far as I remember, the original VHS and first DVD had some extra scenes added, and then the SE released in 2004 had even more changes. With how it's written now the section fails to say which scene was added to which version, the changes are all just lumped together. I don't own all of the older versions anymore, so I can't check, but maybe someone else can and make the section a bit more specific?

All home video widescreen releases have also been in 2.0:1 so far, from what I know, compared to the cinema release which was in 2.40:1. Not sure why they did that (looked too wide on 4:3 TVs?), but if a source can be found, the change in aspect ratio should be mentioned. Davhorn (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what scenes were added when; in regards to the widescreen comment, however, not all the home video releases were in 2:1 ratios (as far as I know, none of them were). For example, TWoK is an anamorphic 2.35:1. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 21:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, as the article says, The Undiscovered Country was shot on Super 35 instead of anamorphic so it could be transferred in anything from 2.39;1 to 4:3. From the releases I've had (or maybe still have hidden in the attic somewhere), the 35th. anniversary VHS box with the first 8 movies has TUC in 2.0:1 and so do the original barebones DVD release and the later special edition. With all I meant specifically all the releases of this movie, not any of the other Star Trek movies. Davhorn (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Image check

 * File:Hiro narita.jpg - The description accompanying this image should be more objective. Also, the licensing is a bit strange. Who amended the license? Why isn't the image just licensed under CC-by-sa 2.0, which would match with the source?
 * The photo's author wanted to license the image under CC-by-3.0, but is unable to do so by Flickr licensing on-site.
 * Yes, but there is no evidence, as far as I can tell, of the author adding that information. What assurance do we have that the author wants this? Awadewit (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * File:Hollywood Walk of Fame.jpg - This image needs a source and author.
 * Removed.


 * File:St6-klingon dinner party.png
 * " To illustrate the appearance of main characters" - Please specify which main characters.
 * "to demonstrate the cinematography of the film" - Please specify what element of the cinematography is shown.
 * "to show the Klingon makeup and costumes, which were specifically redesigned for this film and are unique among Klingon costumes seen in the entire Star Trek franchise" - Please specify what is unique about the costumes.
 * "to demonstrate one reuse of The Next Generation sets for the film; and to show the blue "alien" food which caused considerable displeasure to the cast" - It is not easy to see either the set or the food in this image. Is there another angle that would make these parts of the image more visible?
 * Unfortunately, not really. The blue food (and the blue liquid, which for some reasons seems clear is some shots and deep blue in others) shows up spectacularly when there are no principal characters in the same frame. It's a choice between the setting/food or the characters; since there's a bit more substantial content about the character's appearance (from Spock's ears to Gorkon's questionable motives reflected in makeup choices to DeSoto's makeup being toned down to be less barbaric) I stressed that element.
 * Still doesn't explain uniqueness of Klingon costumes. Awadewit (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * File:St6-klingon blood.png - I'm not sure that this image really conveys the blood spurting in a weightless environment very well. I think this is because we are looking at the blood head-on. Is there another angle that makes the weightlessness clearer?
 * I've replaced the image with another one; the main reason I had the previous one was to illustrate the phaser blast, but then I added the galley shot so it's redundant. I know what's going on because I've seen the film, but perhaps it's still not the best shot; would you prefer this one?
 * I like the one you chose. Awadewit (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * File:St6-galley pot vaporization.png
 * "To illustrate the appearance of main characters" - Please specify which main characters.
 * "to show the aesthetic design, special effects, and cinematography of the film, including the lower lighting, worn appearance of the ship...textual stickers explaining the ship's function." - I can't see the worn appearance or the stickers in this image.
 * Once again, there are closer shots that show the character better and elements such as the worn edges and stickers (this one, for instance, but then you lose the special effect which is discussed. Which do you think should be given prerogative? -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 04:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the close-up is better, but, then again, I know what a phaser blast looks like. :) Your choice here - just make sure that the FUR and the image match up. Awadewit (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope this helps. Awadewit (talk) 03:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for your help. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 04:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. Awadewit (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There has been some controversy as to the author of the movie poster art in the top corner of this article. The poster is by John Alvin, not Bob Peak. As proof, I offer this link: http://www.johnalvinart.com/ProductionDetail.aspx?ProductionId=10. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tubist1996 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Slaters
First of all, congratulations on the FA, I've been a fan of this movie and it certainly had the layers and depth to offer FA material. But onto the question: The line in casting notes "Casting director Mary Jo Slater loaded the film with as many Hollywood stars as the production could afford, including a minor appearance by Christian Slater;". Should it be noted that Mary Jo is Christian Slater's mother? I found out about it several years ago and I thought it was interesting. --Bobak (talk) 16:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like nepotism, then. :) Davhorn (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, its sort of an open question. Though I believe I read somewhere that he was a big fan of the series. --Bobak (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it should be noted. I believe the reason why is on WP: BPAL. Better safe then sorry. Lots42 (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's interesting and suggests a more obvious reason for the casting than was stated (I think he's supposed to be a Star Trek fan anyhow, and lots of people do cameos on the show/get roles because of that), but mentioning it would be WP:OR and a bit POV (we're implying a reason other than what can be cited.) Thanks for the trivia, though. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Whats BPAL?--209.181.16.93 (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Lincoln the peacemaker?
Had some trouble taking that comment serious, considering Lincoln himself was quite belligerent and hardly a pacifist of any sorts (for Indians, Confederates and the Brittish he had ample showings of belligerance rather than willingness to have a dialogue). I was wondering if this was perhaps a quote from Nicholas Meyer himself, if so, shouldn't it be in quotes?.--142.68.48.201 (talk) 11:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The South Shall Rise Again, eh? --Bobak (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I was just wondering about this too...Lincoln is definitely out of place in that list, if for no other reason than that he wasn't killed by his own side for "going soft," but rather by the other side; Booth was a loyal Confederate. I've removed the mention.  Even if it's in the original quote, the examples of Sadat and Gandhi make the point so there isn't a benefit to repeating Meyer's inaccuracy (if it was his) just to illustrate his thoughts.  Postdlf (talk) 12:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because you disagree with the director's comments doesn't mean you can remove parts of them because you feel it's incorrect. I have restored the line. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 13:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is an incorrect characterization of Lincoln, and as I explained above, it serves no purpose in the article even if it was Meyer's characterization. As the article does not use his exact quotation, it's not necessary to use the full list of every example he gave, particularly where one of his examples is not a valid one.  You reverted other editors' changes besides my removal of Lincoln, btw; I don't think you intended to do so, but your edit summary doesn't explain what you were trying to do.  Postdlf (talk) 13:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No opinion on Lincoln or the other changes, but the link to The Search for Spock was an Easter egg link; readers shouldn't have to click/hover to know where the blue link goes. Erik (talk &#124; contribs &#124; wt:film) 13:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

classical
re: the use of shakespeare: these are shakespearian quotes, not "classical" quotes, as they are described in the text. classical refers to ancient greek (probably Roman too, I'm not sure) things. shakespeare lived in the early modern period in western europe. It's all very confusing, but they are definitely not classical quotes, even if they are spoken by classically trained actors, and accompanied by classical music. Duracell 76.109.129.235 (talk) 00:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what the stated source says: "Flinn was at first worried that Meyer's propensity for injecting the script with classical quotations [...]" (51). I understand what you're saying, but you'll have to take it up with Cinefantastique. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 00:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the same issue as I raised above re: Lincoln. Where there is a clear error in a source, we shouldn't consider ourselves obligated to repeat it, particularly where that source shouldn't be considered reliable for that subject; we wouldn't edit Classics to add Shakespeare to the canon with a cite to the Cinefantastique article.  We can't correct actual quotations, but where we are summarizing information, we can often sidestep the problem by our own word choice.  Nothing obligates us to use the word "classical" in the article just because the source does, where it is clearly understood as referring to Shakespeare, and we know from other more reliable sources on this subject that Shakespeare is not "classical."  It's an easy and proper solution to change "classical quotations" to "Shakespearean quotations" in that sentence.  Postdlf (talk) 14:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

When someone says something stupid that is then quoted verbatim the disclaimer "SIC" indicates a mistake made on the part of the quoted. rather than fight (yet another) wikipedia edit-war, why not use "SIC" instead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.174.83.232 (talk) 03:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Roddenberry viewing and death, release dates
"Roddenberry did not live to see the film's release, dying of heart failure on October 24, 1991. Two weeks before the film's release he viewed a near-final version of The Undiscovered Country, and according to the film's producer and Kelley's biographer, approved a final version of the film. In contrast, Nimoy and Shatner's memoirs report that after the screening he called his lawyer and demanded a quarter of the scenes be cut; the producers refused, and within 48 hours he was dead."

Okay, let's time line this:


 * 0 days before release - Dec 6, 1991 - movie is released
 * 14 days before release ("two weeks") - Nov 22, 1991 - "Two weeks before the film's release, he viewed a near-final version"
 * 43 days before release (six weeks) - Oct 24, 1991 - Roddenberry dies
 * 45 days before release (6.5 weeks) - Oct 22, 1991 - 48 hours prior to Roddenberry's death, Nimoy and Shatner's memoirs say, Roddenberry called lawyer to demand a quarter of the scenes be cut; producers refused

Is it possible that it should be phrased this way?

"Roddenberry did not live to see the film's release, dying of heart failure on October 24, 1991. Two weeks before his death he viewed a near-final version of The Undiscovered Country, and according to the film's producer and Kelley's biographer, approved a final version of the film. In contrast, Nimoy and Shatner's memoirs report that after the screening he called his lawyer and demanded a quarter of the scenes be cut; the producers refused, and within 48 hours he was dead."

Alternately?

"Roddenberry did not live to see the film's release, dying of heart failure on October 24, 1991. Two months before the film's release he viewed a near-final version of The Undiscovered Country, and according to the film's producer and Kelley's biographer, approved a final version of the film. In contrast, Nimoy and Shatner's memoirs report that after the screening he called his lawyer and demanded a quarter of the scenes be cut; the producers refused, and within 48 hours he was dead."

Some clarification of the timing of Roddenberry's viewing would help determine the proper wording of these sentences. GBC (talk) 03:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I noticed this too. I seem to recall that he saw a cut two weeks before his death, but I do not have the Rioux book to verify.
 * I will remove the time reference in that line, maybe that will get the attention of someone who can check.

Kid Bugs (talk) 19:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Assessment of reviews should not be relative to other films
There is no reason why we should assess the reviews as "kinder" to the previous Star Trek film. Why not mention that Star Trek 1 got bad reviews in the Star Trek 2 article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Byelf2007 (talk • contribs)
 * Star Trek V, in the words of producer Ralph Winter, nearly killed Star Trek. It was for a while unlikely this film would be made. It is supremely important to mention the difference in reception. No film exists in a vacuum. Also, I suggest you read The Wrath of Khan, as it mentions throughout the article the reception of the first film. Simply put, your argument is flawed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 03:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Kim Cattrall Rumor
This rumor has persisted on Wikipedia for a long time. I was at a convention today where a few hundred people witnessed Leonard Nimoy debunking this story about Cattrall posing nude w/ Vulcan ears on the bridge to be completely false. He expressed shock at insinuations that it happened, that he had a negative reaction (this was quite funny, he implied he would have enjoyed the pictures - he often does nude photography), and explained that he had no memory of such an event and that he had never even heard of this rumor before. I would like to post this in the main article but what would constitute a reliable source? Jdng (talk) 01:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've had issues with this before. While it would be great if Nimoy did say this, the threshold is reliable, verifiable sources. Reliable means that the source can be trusted—Cinefantastique is a reliable source, which is why the bit is in the article, and Nimoy would be a reliable source too. But is this discussion at the convention verifiable? We need something along the lines of a news piece that says what Nimoy said. Because I can't go and verify what Nimoy might have said in a room necessarily, it's not verifiable, meaning that we can't add it. So if you see a news piece that mentions that, we can rephrase the article accordingly. Hope I was clear. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 01:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If you look at how that paragraph is written, I just don't like how it has been written for so long on the main Wiki page as if it were a piece of straightforward indisputable fact that did absolutely occur and not a rumor reported in a magazine. Nimoy himself lambasted the fan for: "where do you get this story???". I'm pretty sure he read it here. :) This style of writing is one of Wikipedia's greatest weaknesses in it's inflexibility just because it wants to be concrete and consise.Jdng (talk) 04:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's phrased as fact because that's how it was presented in the article; in fact, it's the lead-in to the whole shebang. To wit: "[...] On the empty bridge set of the Enterprise on Stage 8 of the Paramount lot, Cattrall [...] was said to have stripped off her Starfleet uniform [...] draping herself over the Captain's chair wearing nothing but her prosthetic Vulcan ears as a photographer snapped rolls of pictures [...] While Spock may have been disturbed when he discovered that his love Valeris was the treacherous plotter seeking to prevent an alliance with the Klingons, the conspirator's pointy-eared counterpart was considerably more disturbed, according to a source on the production, when he found out about this [...] The usually [stoic] Vulcan—in the guise of [Leonard Nimoy]—was enraged. 'Nimoy saw them and hit the roof,' said one member of the crew. Nimoy was said to have personally ripped up all the film and negatives from Cattrall's very unauthorized photo session, fearing harm to the franchise [...] Said Cattrall tersely, when asked about the special photography, 'I can't talk about that'." (p. 24) It's never reported as some rumor from the lot in the magazine. Honestly, given the purported reaction, you can see why Nimoy might still deny it ever happened. Of course, I'd be happy to add in his response if we could get a verifiable source about it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 13:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean to imply that it wasn't phrased that way in the magazine, but rather on the wiki format where facts are always written as straight facts without caveats, ie, something along the lines of "Altman reports that according to a source", etc. and the general reader does not have access to the full text which you have so kindly posted above. Regardless, I have added a video link to Nimoy's response for your enjoyment :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyV7rDzN9Yo#t=3m27s
 * I've left your rephrasing with the mention to Cinefantastique, but Youtube isn't a reliable source and characterizing Nimoy's comments is original research. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 21:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This seems ridiculous. Why is wikipedia repeating an internet rumour instead of using reliable sources?  The claim that this is stated as fact  "because that's how it was presented in the article" seems incorrect.  The quote you put in there "Cattrall [...] was said to have stripped off her Starfleet uniform" clearly indicates that this is an unverified rumour they are repeating.  "Cattrall stripped off her uniform" would be stating it as fact; "Cattrall was said to have stripped off her uniform" is stating it as a rumour.  A monster was said to live in Loch Ness; that doesn't mean it did.  Youtube may not be considered a reliable source in general, but Nimoy saying he is mischaracterized in this story seems reliable.  Him speaking is a primary source.  I know we want secondary sources but unsourced rumours repeated in gossip magazines should probably give way to them somehow. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 07:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay I at least edited the sentence so instead of stating as fact that Nimoy tore up the film (by the way that is a convenient story since it explains away the fact there is no evidence) it says that the magazine said he tore up the film: "Cinefantastique reported that during filming, Cattrall participated in a photo shoot on the empty Enterprise bridge, where she wore nothing but her Vulcan ears, and that Nimoy personally ripped up several of the photographs when he learned about the unauthorized photo session, because he feared harm to the franchise if it ever came to light." Even if we were to take a stance of including this with the Cinefantastique source with a rebuttal from a better source, claiming it is a notable rumour, I am not sure it passes notability muster, to say nothing of WP:BLP.  Then again if we took it out it will just go back in again and I prefer to add rather than subtract anyway.  I think we should be able to find a source that passes muster debunking this rumour.  Rifter0x0000 (talk) 07:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * One more change .. since the sentence in the article claims some of the pictures were destroyed but the quoted source says all of them were destroyed, I changed it again to reflect this: "Cinefantastique reported that during filming, Cattrall participated in a photo shoot on the empty Enterprise bridge, where she wore nothing but her Vulcan ears, and that Nimoy personally ripped up all of the photographs and negatives when he learned about the unauthorized photo session, because he feared harm to the franchise if it ever came to light." Awkward but at least it's factual now.  It's factual that the rumour was reported and that this is what the rumour said; factual as in happened we don't have good enough sources, I say.  It's an important part of the rumour because without that element to the story the question immediately arises as to who ever saw the pictures and where.  But see, all the negatives were destroyed and only Nimoy, Cattrall, and the photographer knew about it, and they are keeping mum! (except they aren't).  Do you have any idea how implausible it is that you could have a nude photo shoot on a set that is in use at the time and NO ONE saw it or knew about it and there's no proof of it ever happening?  Rifter0x0000 (talk) 07:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Backing up a space here. Okay I noticed that my edit got reverted, and I do agree the wording was bad. I tried to fix it again, but I think this needs to be discussed more. At issue here is that the sole source for this story is repeating a rumour. If we are going to have this in here at all, it should be something along the lines of saying that this was what cinefantastique reported, rather than asserting that this happened as absolute fact. There are a lot of reasons this story is improbable, but rather than get too mired in that how about we at least try to make this passage better. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you don't think that you can get on a set after-hours, you must have a very interesting view of the movie business. As to the actual text, it's couched in "Cinefantastique reported [...]". We don't need any other equivocations, because it's already attributing the story to its source. Mentioning the negatives is just extra words that don't add anything. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 13:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources - DVD commentaries routinely misinterpreted
More on reliable sources. I am finding as I go back and listen to the commentary tracks on the DVDs and also watch the featurettes that I come back to the wiki articles and see that well meaning but over-eager editors are completely misinterpreting what the commentaries are saying and reporting what they hear into the articles here. Wouldn't it be wise to put a moratorium on DVD commentary tracks as "reliable" sources, or at the very least require a direct quote for verifiability? Some of the conclusions being drawn are getting out of hand.68.144.172.8 (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Another source
If not already covered and cited to other sources: LA Times story with some anecdotes from Meyer about development conflict with an ailing Roddenberry. http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2011/06/10/star-trek-nicholas-meyers-explains-his-roddenberry-regret/ --EEMIV (talk) 23:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Jumping to conclusions
The current version of the article contains the following in the lead:
 * The Undiscovered Country was initially planned as a prequel to the original series, with younger actors portraying the crew of the Enterprise while attending Starfleet Academy, but the idea was discarded because of negative reaction from the cast and the fans. This idea was later used to create the 2009 film, Star Trek. (emphasis added)

The fact that the 2009 does contain the cadets' experiences at Starfleet Academy is not enough to justify this statement. Look later in the article at this rejected idea. The following ideas were also included in the rejected "Academy Years" concept: None of these concepts were included in the 2009 movie, and I think the statement I am challenging is just someone's OR. I want to see someone high up say that the 2009 movie was the offspring of the earlier-rejected Academy Years if this statement is going to stay in. 98.82.194.33 (talk) 02:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Kirk and Spock meet McCoy and Montgomery Scott at the Academy and defeat a villain before parting ways.
 * George Kirk, James T. Kirk's father, was a pilot who went missing—presumed dead—during a warp experiment with Scott.
 * It was set before the "enlightenment" of the Federation; slavery and racism are common
 * Spock is bullied because he is the only Vulcan student at the Academy
 * Many of these are, in a different lens, a part of the 2009 film, except the "parting ways" and "experiment with Scott" parts. As early as 1989, I thought this idea was in no-way feasible, fans overwhelmingly hated it, but the different approach taken by the writers for the 2009 film proved me wrong. Despite the different approach, many of the elements are there. I have not heard that they used the AY story, nor was I privy to the details of crafting the 2009 script, but many the commonalities has made me wonder. By your standards, even the original Meyer concept of ST6 could be said to not be related to the final version of ST6. Scripts change and evolve to adapt to include new ideas, limitations, and freedoms... always do; always will. But, this is all beside the point as anything I say here is basically OR unless published in a reliable source, and should not be included, reliable sources take far precedence. If there is no reliable source, even if it is a common rumour (rumours, and even their existence, must also be backed by RS), then, by WP standards, it needs to be removed. This is WP, not a rumour mill, regardless of the truth or falseness of a rumour or speculation. — al-Shimoni  (talk) 12:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, an after-I-posted recollection, there is an element of the "experiment with Scott" in the film, just it's with transporters and Porthos, not warp and G.Kirk. This just leaves the "parting ways" part of your list not in the 2009 film. — al-Shimoni  (talk) 12:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Similarities aside, the line has been since removed (and rightfully so) from the lead as it was a) not covered in the body text, and b) not actually covered by the citation. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 18:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)