Talk: Star Trek V: The Final Frontier

September date suggestion

Star Trek V occurred on September 21st 2279. Of course this is rejected by most fans. So to figure the day you'd have to find the September full moon for that year. September is easy to prove. They filmed the Yosemite Scenes in September 1988. If you were an expert, and you could tell the season by looking at the Valley, you'd always be lead to that month. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.148.161.21 .

Star Trek V took place about a Month After Star Trek IV. They were docked at Earth for Repairs for 3 weeks, but the fact that Scotty would mention the line from Star Trek IV "Let's see what she got said the Captain" it could not have been that far from ST4. I understand you not accepting 2279, but at least move it to the same year as STIV. I'd like some debate on this idea. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by TOSrules (talk • contribs).

Ok, so we have some facts to ponder here:

based on the full data of the season when filmed, and the fact they showed a full moon(?), then we can assume that ST5 took place on a date near the full moon for september of the year it took place in. this is reasonable. (the exact date i would hold off on, for now, since its hard to tell the days before or after a full moon)
a month after ST4: what's your source for this?
repairs for 3 weeks: what's your source for this?
how can you rule out the possibility that there was actually an intervening year of shakedown, or another mission, or any other events at all, since there was no reference to any of that in the film?

.. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 05:35, 21 Aug 2004 (CEST)

The Three weeks comes from the line "you said you could have her repaired in 2 weeks, I gave you 3 what happened?" Proving she docked 3 weeks ago for repairs. The fact that Scotty says, "Let's see what she got said the Captain" Quoting the last line from Star Trek IV it had to be in a short period of time. If it was a year or 2 later it would have been totally forgotten. A week is conjecture, but given the line, I think it is a safe bet. Adding 3 weeks and 1 week you get about a Month.

As Said before you get September from the fact that the Yosemite Scenes were filmed that month. If you were an expert whom could tell by watching the movie, All data would have to lead to that month. TOSrules 01:08, 21 Aug 2004 (PST)

Though no dates were actually given, I feel TOSrules is on to something here. Unless other data is found to contradict his findings, I think this info can be added to the article, perhaps with a note on how the assumption can be proven. -- Redge | Talk 11:56, 21 Aug 2004 (CEST)

Well if all agree then I guess we can move back this movie to the same year as Star Trek IV. But If you do that, then that means Star Trek IV occurred somewhere in August, and since Star Trek 3 is about 3 month earlier it occurred roughly in May of the same year. The Funny thing is, when you account for all the time, I find that ST2 must have been in a minimum of April, but since the information is sketching at best at that point, it is just an Educated Guess. The Number has enough play in it, that it could have begun on March 22ed just like the profile for Kirks suggest. - TOSrules 19:21, 21 Aug 2004 (PST)

Well, I don't fully agree.. i find the logic to be faulted. Just because he said he was given 3 weeks doesnt mean that the repairs hadn't already taken 36 weeks giving the ship a full overhaul, including a new bridge module. They stated an estimate, not how much time had actually elapsed. It's also possible that the ship was semi-operational for a period of time despite the outfitting flaws, and then had returned for 3 week overhaul after an intervening, indeterminate, length of time. And if a captain took me out to get stranded on a shakedown cruise that would end in a lengthy, complicated repair and overhaul process, his last orders would stick in my mind too, even months later.

Since the film doesnt explicitly establish any of this data, all of this (your scenario and my scenario both) is completely speculative. On the matter of the chronology, we'd have a problem as we'd be crossing an official reference, Okuda's chronology. I think we should find more data before making a hasty judgment. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 04:34, 22 Aug 2004 (CEST)

The Lynch pin of my argument is the fact that Scotty Quoits The Last line of Star Trek IV. Either he watched Star Trek IV recently, or he had heard that line in a relatively short period of time. Forget the 3 weeks, that's just a minor point that helps give us an idea of exactly how much time had passed. My argument still stands. TOSrules 19:53, 21 Aug 2004 (PST)

Yes, it still stands as pure speculation. I don't consider it at all relevant, since Scotty could very well remember how that that order was stated months later also: it doesn't "prove" anything. Just because its the kind of thing that is more likely to be said shortly after something was remembered from, it doesn't mean its impossible to remember it a further amount of time later. If i was instructed to do something, and it led to months of extra work, i would remember (and revile) the original instruction also. So the lynch pin of you argument doesn't really hold it together. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 17:49, 22 Aug 2004 (CEST)

An interesting point you make. But I am the one whom says it could be remembered within months. You are the one whom thinks it could be remembered in a year's time. Between time, and being busy for a repair Scotty would not have remembered. And do you think Scotty is so Incompetent that he would take that long to repair the ship? TOSrules 12:26, 22 Aug 2004 (PST)

I see no reason that STV couldn't take place a few weeks after IV and still be in the next year. IV could have been at the end of the year and V takes place at the beginning of the next.Ryan123450 07:30, 23 Aug 2004 (CEST)

That wouldn't work out since we already established (and I think agreed) that STV takes place in September. -- Redge | Talk 13:31, 23 Aug 2004 (CEST)

I know it is a radical shift in thought for some, but I've made a great case. I have a suspicion that the date given in Chronology, is based off the line from ST5 where it is said that Nimbus III was formed 20 years ago. My figure would push it into the 15 year range. But in truth, this Error, is one of my favs. Cathlin Dar was speaking in Romulan, not Earth years.

Gray Variable, There is a gray area that totally randomizes the factors. It also might explain the problem with the ship being built "So Quickly" There is no Proof of the Time period between The Trial ST4 and Kirk and friends boarding the Enterprise ST4. Neither is there proof between Landing at San Francisco Bay, and the Trail. Although I would not rely on that gap, because that would move quickly. The rest of ST4 was 5 days TMP Scotty said it would take 4 days to get to Vulcan from Earth. I've actually worked out as much of the Time as possible (http://groups.msn.com/StarTrekTheArcheologyMissions/startrekthemiddlemovies.msnw)TOSrules | Talk 12:42, 23 Aug 2004 (PST)

RE: Redge: "TOSrules is on to something here." – I don't. It's personal speculation.

It may be a great case, but it is still your personal speculation, with pretty much no canon support at all. -- Michael Warren | Talk 22:00, Aug 23, 2004 (CEST)

It is also the BEST data available for figuring out the date of ST5 TOSrules | Talk 13:01, 23 Aug 2004 (PST)

So? Doesn't mean it's valid. It's your personal take on when it is set. MA is not a vehicle for personal speculation. -- Michael Warren | Talk 22:12, Aug 23, 2004 (CEST)

So you take no case over best case. You also accept the speculation that ST2 occurred on 2385 despite that is more then 15 years after the date given on this site for "Space Seed" 2282 is 15 years after. TOSrules | Talk 13:15, 23 Aug 2004 (PST)

I take the Chronology date over fan speculation. Chronology simply states ST5 takes place 2287. That is enough for me. Only in events where a specific date is referenced in the canon should said information be included. Trying to narrow it down leaves us buried in semantics and arbitrary arguments over Romulan years vs. Earth years. If this data was included, half the article would have to be devoted to why, detailing the exact chain of suppositions that lead to that conclusion, and that is not acceptable. Where no canon evidence can be retrieved, the point should be left unanswered. Let the fans debate it elsewhere. -- Michael Warren | Talk 22:25, Aug 23, 2004 (CEST)

Could we at the very least both agree that it took place in September? May I suggest the following note to be added to the main body as a means of satisfying both.

By taking a close look at the angle and intensity of the sunlight in Yosemite Park, it can be established that Star Trek V: The Final Frontier took place in the Earth month September.

The discussion regarding which year it took place in can be read her by anyone who wants to know and make out which date to trust for themselves. -- Redge | Talk 23:34, 23 Aug 2004 (CEST)

There is more to figuring out when, then just the angle of shadows, it would also include the states of the plants, and other features I have no idea about. I think everyone agrees here it takes place in September. Redge I've proven there is Canon Evidence to suggest the ST5 occurred close to ST4, It is just not pinned down specifically. TOSrules | Talk 15:36, 23 Aug 2004 (PST)

Make you own message then, but keep in mind we don't all agree what year it was, and untill we do, the article should not include your conclusions. -- Redge | Talk 15:44, 24 Aug 2004 (CEST)

To keep the site totally as a reference, the best way to say it is, "From the evidence of the looks of Yosemite this movie must have occurred in September when the Yosemite scenes were filmed. Also it took place on a full moon." -- TOSrules | Talk 12:43, 24 Aug 2004 (PST)

I'd like to say one thing, I base my information off more Canon information then "Star Trek: Chronology". I never assume things, like that the TOS Episodes happened exactly 300 years after being filmed, or that the date on the Romulan Ale is an Earth date. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by TOSrules (talk • contribs).

I still think we should have Star Trek V Placed in the same year as ST4 because of Scott's line, "lets see what she got said the captain." It's not something you'd remember a year or two later.

But, here is a calendar for September 2287, it suggest the Full moon is on the 22ed, which is only one day off of my suggested date. [1]--TOSrules 05:37, 22 Sep 2004 (CEST)

With due respect, is it fair to place the movie in September because it "looks like" September in the shot, based on the "angle and intensity of the sunlight"?

By that logic, one could look at the diameter of certain trees, and the amount of erosion in the rocks, and conclusively place the events of ST:V in 1987!

Absent stronger clues to the specific month, I'd be reluctant to place much faith in what is essentially an artifact of the filming process.--Heath 06:45, 3 Mar 2005 (GMT)

You can not gauge the age of a tree by it's size. There are allot of factors to determine the size of a tree. But your point is that nature should not be used to gauge the date. If Yosemite was snowed over wouldn't you rule out the idea of it occurring in Summer? I would. The idea is that any location on earth changes from season to season, so here it has a fall look. If you were an expert on Yosemite you could determine a month by looking at things like the plants, and rivers and even shadow angles.--TOSrules 10:26, 3 Mar 2005 (GMT)

Weather modification network -- Seriously, who knows what time of year it really was. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.21.111.57.

The Travel to Galactic Core

Shouldn't the article contain a few notes about how impossible is the travel to galactic core? The Distances/speeds/Travel times are the worst sources of inconsistencies in Trek. But this travel is by far the worst ever!

Sisko once brought the Kai at the end of the wormhole and tells her "We are 70 000 lights years away from Bajor. Our fastest starship would take 63 years to get here without the wormhole". So, the fastest ships in the 2370's can cross some 1000 LY per year". This is consistant with various statements in VOY.

According to Picard in First Contact, the federation worlds are spread across 8000 LY. It is probably an extreme distance between two remote outposts, but this mean that a distance of, say, 500 LY between two poins in the Federation should be usual. Hence, 6 months for a very fast Starship like a Intrepied.

This is inconsistant with the general impression in TOS, TNG and DS9, where one can aparently get anywhere in the Federation or in the neighbouring "countries" in a matter of day, or even hours.

But STV has an far bigger flaw here. The Enterprise-A get to the Galactic core in 7 hours! and there is no miracle technology like the Caretaker's wave) involved here.

This is a travel of at least 25 000 LY. So, Kirk's E-A is travelling 31 000 times faster than the fastest ships Federation has 90 years later. what a shameful decline in Warp Technology!--Rami

There is no canonical way to explain Kirk's miraculous journey to the galactic core, other than to speculate that the "God-alien" provided Sybok with directions to or manufactured a spacetime shortcut, like a wormhole. The degree that some fans will quibble over some minutia, like trying to argue the month/year something was "actually filmed" versus what the story called for, is astounding.--Mike Nobody 12:03, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I agree. We could perfectly imagine "God" had a good ol' friend named the Caretaker and asked him to pull the E-A from Federation Teritory to the Galactic core... But if something that miraculous had happened, it should be mentionned in the movie, or at least someone should ask the question.

Even Kirk and Spock don't seem to be astonished by this fast travel - I seriously thought those guys had some skills about space travel ;-)

Another nitpick : when two officiers (Spock and Kirk IIRC) are falling in the lurbolift conduit, someone shuts down the artificial gravity, and they instantly stop falling. That's absurd : this should just stop their acceleration, they should go on falling at constant speed.

Of course, the more blantant error in the movie is that the enterprise, whose eight is 73 meters, has a "deck 78", we are left speculating about what strange technique is used to number the decks.

The movie had two interesting concepts to start with : the idea of lookin for God in space, and the "rebel vulcan". But the script was very poorly written --Rami

Funny thing is, the original script was EVEN WORSE. Nimoy, Roddenberry, and Harve Bennet tried to clean it up a little while Shatner was occupied getting production going. But, probably what contributed the most to the outcome of the movie is trying to shoot a $40 million dollar movie with a $30 million dollar budget. There was no time for enough takes or preparation to get everything done properly. So, not only is it not everyone's best acting job, it was haphazardly thrown together as well.--Mike Nobody 08:41, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Let's not forget that when K-S-M first board the Enterprise-A and travel from the Hangar Deck to the Bridge, the turbolift wall indicator shows them traveling upward the entire time! As we all know, however, you must first travel horizontally from the Hangar Deck, then vertically up the connecting dorsal, then horizontally across the saucer section, then vertically to the Bridge.

Even Picard and the Enterprise-D needed help traveling to the center of the galaxy in TNG's "The Nth Degree," thanks to Lt. Barclay's "enhancement" by the Cytherians.

For me, the only way to reconcile all the errors in Star Trek V: The Final Frontier is to classify the bulk of the film as a "dream," from the time K-S-M go to sleep in Yosemite to the next time they're sitting around the campfire, singing "Row, Row, Row Your Boat" at the very end. --LordEdzo 15:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

A dream-maybe that could explain a lot-especialy after drinking wiskhey--and have all three of our heroes waking up in the same position and dressed in the same clothing they had in the begining!!! – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.53.145.119.

RE: Rami: "I agree." – I disagree totally. While the speed of the vessel is out of sync with TNG "established speeds", it is not out of the oridinary for a starship that casually wandered outside the galactic perimeter in "To go where no man has gone before". TOS never stated officially how fast Warp was, just that it was faster than the speed of light. For that matter, the speed of warpdrive has always been the speed-of-plot, however fast it needs to be to make sense in the story line. --207.229.11.58 23:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

RE: 134.53.145.119 – Cute explanation. But - I think you watched too many episodes of Dallas. And, Kirk wasn't wearing the same clothes at the end that he did in the beginning. I don't think Spock and Mc Coy were, either. Also, it's spelled "whiskey". - Adambomb1701 16:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

What's the problem, "Star Trek' is constantly disobeying and changing the laws of phisics, despite Scotty's protests to the contrary. After all in "Star Trek" "tere are always possibilities." - J. Sparrow 15:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

What is Kirk's secret?

McCoy's secret is the pain for the part he played in his father's death; Spock's secret is the knowledge of his rejection at his birth by his father; Kirk has one secret fear he refuses to let anyone know about. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.53.145.101.

I think kirk's secret is that he's a terrible director, and he didn't need sybok to tell him that--66.98.148.14 19:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

His "secret" could be any number of events from the original series. Maybe his being forced to kill Gary Mitchell? 67.171.163.212 07:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Prehaps it was publicly admitting to his everlasting regret in which he is forced to kill Gary Mitchell-after all he already expressed his how he feels regarding the death of his son David Marcus. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.53.145.119.

Rockmen

Ironic that this movie script featured "Rockman" which were not used in this movie, there was a "ROCKMAN" used in the Star Trek parody movie Galaxy Quest. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.53.145.129./– The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.53.145.122.

Pedantic

in the "background information" section, it says:

Star Trek V has provoked strong controversy among fans, many of whom consider this movie to be the weakest of the Trek films. In fact, Gene Roddenberry has stated that certain plot elements were "apocryphal," although it's not known exactly which elements he was referring to. Subsequent Star Trek writers have avoided referencing events from the movie for the most part. One of the rare exceptions is the Star Trek: Enterprise episode "Fusion", which features a group of Vulcans who express their emotions freely, an element seen in this film in the form of Sybok. Next Generation writer Joe Menosky has also suggested that the "God" alien in this film is a renegade from the Cytherians in TNG: "The Nth Degree".

"Fusion" and ST5 have similar themes and ideas in that both depict renegade vulcans that express emotion, but I would not call that a "reference" as implied in this text.--144.131.67.249 08:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Movie Theme?

Just what was this movie's theme supposed to be about? I heard it was supposed to a satire of fake healers and their followers! Could this have been written up in the begining then changed at the last second so Kirk becomes a hero by exposing how Sybok and his followers are dupes for an evil creature-suppesdly so powerful Sybok and company are "put under a spell" light years away-yet can't get released from a stone prision??? Preahps Captain Kirk should have been in the STNG Too Short a Season (episode) as the ancient admirial who dies at the end of a youth elixer-instead of appearing in all these Star Trek Movies!!! – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.53.145.119.

Turbolift Scene

The references to which deck they are at as they are flying up from the rocket boots do not seem to coincide with a Constitution class starship. And, for all intents and purposes... Deck 1 is usually the bridge-deck... and then works its way down. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.207.103.88.

Reputedly, William Shatner himself insisted on the excessive numbers of ascending decks despite other advice (I have seen a source, and will add it if I ever find it again). Various in-universe explanations have been suggested for the Neverending Turbolift, most notably by the "Canon Fodder" site [2].--Indefatigable 00:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Cytherian

I removed this from the article, because it had previously been removed from Cytherian and God (Sha Ka Ree) as uncited (see those pages' talk pages):

Next Generation writer Joe Menosky has also suggested that the "God" alien in this film is a renegade from the Cytherians in TNG: "The Nth Degree".

—Josiah Rowe 03:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Three-breasted cat women apparently screech like James Brown

Am I the only one distinctly hearing James Brown vocal samples when the three-breasted cat woman attacks the rescue party? --85.181.91.241 18:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I think so.--31dot 18:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright, so I revisited that scene (also to make sure it isn't a particularity of the German dub I was watching the other night), and I am absolutely positive that they have gratituously sprinkled two very characteristic James Brown samples all over the scene, repeatedly in various pitches and lengths. One is the scream from the very beginning of "I Got You (I Feel Good)", unfortunately the other one (a very long one, e.g. in the moment when the cat-woman is thrown in the water tub) I cannot pinpoint yet. Maybe a James Brown connaisseur can help out here, but I am absolutely positive about the use of his screaming.

Also, three-breasted cat-women die when thrown into water. Good to know. --85.181.79.249 19:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

If you find some proof, such as a producer or other crew member saying so, we'd love to see it, but I don't think you will.--31dot 02:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. I respect your approach towards a completely sourced wiki that does not allow for evidence by observation. --85.181.78.222 22:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Brig - Do not use while in Spacedock

While Kirk, Spock, and McCoy are in the brig, there is a panel above Kirk's seat that says "Do not use while in spacedock" Any speculations on what that is and why it shouldn't be used in spacedock? I don't see any reason why the brig or a simple seat can't be used while they're docked. Ctetc2007 08:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a toilet. And it's a joke, referencing the signs that used to be in train lavatories, saying "Do not use while train is in the station." They said that because when you flushed the toilet, it sent the waste directly onto the tracks — which is not that big a deal when you're talking about train tracks in the middle of the country, but is rather unpleasant when you think about a train station. Toilets on trains aren't set up this way any more, but they were only a few decades back.

The sign suggests that starships deal with human waste in a similar fashion, and would present the same problem if the toilet were used while the ship was in spacedock. It's not meant to be taken seriously, though. —Josiah Rowe 06:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)