Talk:Star Trek Into Darkness/Prerelease archive

Uncited title
I removed the title "Star Trek: Edge of Forever," because it is uncited and doesn't appear on any Trek news sites. If I'm incorrect, and it can be cited, it should be placed back in the article. But until then, we should keep only citable information, like was done with the last film.--Tim Thomason 07:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought about removing it outright...but I didn't know about that "rule". &mdash; Morder (talk) 07:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Roberto Orci's Khan Comment
I was not certain how it could be cited (sourced, whatever) but Wikipedia links to an article where Roberto Orci has seemingly said (I haven't read it myself due to it being online and having glare issues) "why take the chance" in recasting Khan. I feel that maybe that should get a mention on this article somewhere as J.J. Abrams comment of it being a possibility is mentioned. PS, sorry for not linking the page, I don't know Wikipedia's code (if it even has one).--Terran Officer 00:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope they don't use Khan, not as much for the danger in recasting, but the simple fact that, once he was on Earth, Spock Prime probably spoke with Starfleet Command and the Federation Council, and among other bits of advice (find some way to get humpbacks, get to Bajor before the Cardassians, let Admiral Archer know that the threat he "postponed 'till the 24th century" is very, very real, and help prepare for it), including, "Any ship that comes across an ancient derelict called Botany Bay, with about 80 people in stasis, DO NOT revive them - trust me on this one." (okay, maybe not the last part)--Ten-pint 08:19, November 29, 2009 (UTC)
 * Spock (main timeline) seemed to be going to the Vulcan colony, not to Earth, and seemed very intent that the universe play out the way it is supposed to. In fact, the "warning" actions you suggest go against everything we have ever seen of the Spock character, especially the breadth of them. --OuroborosCobra talk 09:24, November 29, 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, keep in mind that the timeline's already messed up so much, it's a futile effort to try to let things play out the way they originally happened by keeping silent about them. Sort of like how in, the Captain and Tuvok didn't see it as a violation of the Temporal Prime Directive to have Kes give them a few pointers about the Krenim--after all, the original timeline that Kes would be describing was already quite different from the one that was playing out. -Mdettweiler 19:56, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * Ten-pint isn't suggesting "a few pointers" as much as an encyclopedia of the main timeline given to Starfleet, and Spock's behavior throughout the whole movie was to set people up in the right place they are "supposed" to be. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:33, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, I see what you mean. Though, at that point, one could consider the fact that Spock Prime had just arrived in that timeline, and had had hardly any time to soak in just how different it was from the original one. It wasn't until the end of the movie that he'd had time to step back from the action and evaluate the situation completely. Actually, I personally would think that after he'd gotten the chance to fully analyze the new timeline, Spock Prime would surely make it his goal to restore the original timeline and undo the damage. It's not like the new timeline is somehow "better" than the old one; on the contrary, in the old one the entire planet Vulcan and all its inhabitants were spared. Thus, it would seem logical for Spock Prime to take any necessary measures to restore the original timeline. IMO, that would be a good subject for the sequel. :-) -Mdettweiler 20:58, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and this has what to do with improving the article? There's no point in speculating what the new movie will be about until we have confirmation - in that case we won't need to speculate. &mdash; Morder (talk) 21:11, December 1, 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be cool to have the movie start with the Enterprise finding the Botany Bay, and Kirk about to beam over then the main plot of the movie starts, and Kirk telling Spock "Well it's over 100 years old what could be inside that ship that we would care about?"

next gen fantasy
i think it would be cool if they went a hundred years ahead (not the next film but hopfuly if there is one, the one after that) we would get to see how the alternate reality would effect the next gen characters lives, because without kirk getting pulled into the nexus what will happen to picard when that evil dude wants to blow up the star, thats one factor that may not work but otherwise i think it would be cool to see what direction j.j.abrams will bring it, that is if he conciders the same idea. who else thinks the alternate reality should be stretched into the next gen or do you think its a stupid idea. just let your voice be heard!


 * It would be interesting to see. In fact the universe may not even exist if the alternate timeline Enterprise hadn't been in the right place at the right time to stop Lazarus in "The Alternative Factor" or if it did exist it could be completely different. For Example, if Kirk had Never met Mitchell than no one else might have been able to stop him, and Picard, Riker, and everyone else in the universe would all be his slaves. The possibilities are endless. I think it would make a good movie. -Yarnek 21:49, January 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * Posts on article talk pages need to be relevant to improving the article, and are not for general discussion on the subject. Speculation on the plot of the movie should occur on the Reference Desk.--31dot 21:51, January 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't even be done there as we're not the place for idle speculation. "Appropriate questions may concern the canonicity of certain facts, or requests for clarification concerning specific dialogue or actions, for example." &mdash; Morder (talk) 21:54, January 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * It won't happen again- Yarnek 22:41, January 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that may be a bit to much like the new Ant-Man movie for the writers to write. I have read that the new ant-man movie will feature the original ant-man gaining his powers, then a flash-forward to the modern ant-man, the only problem is I can not find where I read this. _Whovian_Trek_ 16:00, August 16, 2011 (UTC) WhovianTrek

Release Date
Alright! At least we'll get one more Star Trek film before the world ends!- JustPhil 03:09, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

--Maybe not. release delay rage comic Winn cochrane 22:20, November 29, 2011 (UTC)

Wish List
Hello all Memory-Alpha users,

I took the liberty of adding a "wish list" section on the talk page. Since the screen-writers seem to appreciate Memory-Alpha's contribution to the community, I thought this might be a good place to communicate. (Besides, I don't have Orci and Kurtzman's e-mail address.) Winn Cochrane


 * I'm sorry, but this is not the forum to speculate on the next movie. Posts on article talk pages need to be relevant to the contents of the article itself, and are not for general discussion.  If you have a specific question, you can use the Reference Desk to start a discussion, but for nonspecific discussion a chat room or site more oriented towards general discussion would be better.--31dot 18:11, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

OK... I suppose it would also be futile (no pun intended) to ask for some recommendations of sites, since such a suggestion could show favoritism towards a particular site. I am aware of the Memory-Alpha chat room, and will go there soon.Winn Cochrane 18:25, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Is there a link to the page for these speculations and wishes, the reference desk is hard to understand(well on searching specific topics). _Whovian_Trek_ 16:09, August 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * You seem to be missing the point, which is Memory Alpha is not the place to discuss or add wish lists and speculation. Memory Alpha is an encyclopedia, not a discussion board, like TrekBBS. - 22:34, November 29, 2011 (UTC)

John Cho's Comment
John just said during a G4 interview that work will begin (probably) next year.--Jeckrt 03:53, April 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Several of the actors have speculated when production on the movie will start. But that's all it has been thus far: speculation. When there is word on an official start date, then we can add that; but speculation, regardless of the source, doesn't belong here. --From Andoria with Love 04:43, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

Leonard Nimoy not in this
He explicitly said so in this interview. Is this worth noting? --Golden Monkey 22:15, April 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess. I don't know who was expecting him to be, but since it has a cite it was news somewhere. - 23:15, April 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * Nimoy is in this film via a cameo...
 * The above is a two year old discussion.... 31dot (talk) 23:10, May 10, 2013 (UTC)

Nolan North
Just leaving this here: we can use if Abrams lived up to his promise of giving Nolan North a cameo in the film. --Alientraveller 21:52, February 22, 2012 (UTC)

Peter Weller's character
Hello. My name is Henri Ducard. I have been reading the recent IDW continuation comics and analyzing their hints to the next film. I now, honestly, believe Peter Weller will most likely portray a much older Admiral Archer (as made famous by Scott Bakula). I have decided this after the reference in the 2009 film and the NX-01's cameo in the flashback on IDW's Operation: Annihilate, part 1 comic. What do you think?--50.41.137.237 22:22, March 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * Please pardon my bluntness, but what you "have decided" is completely irrelevant to this article. If you have direct evidence, such as a statement from those involved with the movie, or those that wrote the comic, then we'd have something.  Until then, it's just speculation not suitable for the article. --31dot 01:38, March 31, 2012 (UTC)


 * Why would he be playing anybody other than John Frederick Paxton, who is perhaps the greatest Trek villain since Gul Dukat.138.78.102.81 23:49, April 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * If we are speculating... Peter Weller will be playing Captain of the SS Valiant.--74.76.175.61 18:32, June 20, 2012 (UTC)


 * Since Karl Urban let it slip (So maybe Khan’s not 'Star Trek 2' villain after all?), there's no point in holding on to this anymore...


 * Cumberbatch will be playing Lt. Cmdr. Gary Mitchell from "Where No Man Has Gone Before" (TOS).


 * Trekkies (of the prime universe) will appreciate that the writers’ of the reboot series are showing great reverence for the canon of Star Trek: The Original Series (TOS). Whereas, Star Trek (2009) drew plot elements from the first pilot episode of TOS, Star Trek (2013) is inspired by the second pilot episode of TOS.


 * Fleshing out the roles integral to the second pilot:
 * Dr. Elizabeth Dehner	…played by Alice Eve.
 * Captain, SS Valiant	…played by Peter Weller.


 * --74.76.175.61 16:51, July 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * And as not a single one of these speculations in this thread ended up being correct, now we know why we should avoid adding such things to any articles prematurely. 70.72.211.35 07:25, May 27, 2013 (UTC)

Leonard Nimoy is back
Here's a link to a report confirming that Leonard Nimoy is returning as Spock.

http://trekmovie.com/2012/04/30/major-star-trek-sequel-spoilers-confirmed/


 * Among other things, apparently. 31dot 22:02, April 30, 2012 (UTC)

Recent deletion
Just FYI, I deleted this page and restored it to remove my edit summary which originally had a spoiler in it, then redid my edit to put a less spoiler-like statement. 31dot (talk) 11:49, July 10, 2012 (UTC)

Into Darkness
From what I can tell, Star trek Into Darkness hasn't been confirmed by the studio or an identified studio source. Just anonymous sources on one website only. Doesn't this violate the disclaimer at the top of the page? —Scott (message me) 17:10, September 8, 2012 (UTC)
 * Memory Alpha contains spoilers to released material only, so no information about this movie can be added until Paramount announces a film or identified studio sources discuss information with a press outlet, such as a news service.


 * It might have been premature to move it,(though not to put it in the article proper) but it's here now, and seems to be backed up by several sources and the purchase of domain names. 31dot (talk) 17:17, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

Okay, just wanted to make sure. Thanks. —Scott (message me) 17:20, September 8, 2012 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm concerned, the minute TrekMovie.com (a valid source) said it was confirmed, that was all the confirmation that was needed. Anthony (TrekMovie.com's owner & editor) has contact with the filmmakers and people at the studio and is not one to report false or unconfirmed information. All of his reports on 2009's Star Trek and this sequel have turned out to be true, and we've been using his information since the 2009 film was first announced, so I don't see why we should stop using him now. In any case, there's the domain names which Paramount has purchased for the film -- startrekintodarkness.com and startrekintodarknessmovie.com -- which we could, technically, take as studio confirmation. Especially that last domain; after all, what other movie would Paramount be calling Star Trek Into Darkness, hmm? ;) --From Andoria with Love (talk) 06:03, September 9, 2012 (UTC)

My Edit
Allow me to explain the edit I just made to this page. I saw the trailer. I saw the way Alice Eve looked, and Benedict Cumberbatch's character says that he has returned, possibly from the dead to have vengeance. Also, the synopsis says that it is someone within Starfleet who is the villain and Captain Kirk knows him. I guess this site needs more definitive proof.

Anonymous--173.57.37.111 18:12, December 6, 2012 (UTC)


 * That might be, but our articles are not for putting what we personally think or put together; they are only for putting what information has been released. 31dot (talk) 18:14, December 6, 2012 (UTC)


 * People have come up with "definitive" proof that the character is Mitchell, Garth of Izar, Khan, and others. As 31dot noted, keep it to only properly released information and keep speculation out of it. -- sulfur (talk) 18:25, December 6, 2012 (UTC)

The familiar face from A Nightmare on Elm Street
With the announcement of Heather Langenkamp costarring in this film, she should have a full MA profile instead of being this in the red nothing listing. IMDB confirmed Langenkamp's presence in the film on their site, so let us see this horror movie icon gets her due.--67.84.73.254 22:54, December 10, 2012 (UTC)


 * Instead of complaining about it, just do it. You know perfectly well how to do so. 31dot (talk) 02:48, December 11, 2012 (UTC)

I have never been able to edit a name in red. I need it in blue to do so & you know it. I need a live link.--67.84.73.254 05:34, December 11, 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe someone else will help you, but I am not inclined to provide you with much assistance. Your technical problems are not our problem. I suggest you seek out assistance, either by contacting Wikia or otherwise. 31dot (talk) 10:36, December 11, 2012 (UTC)

"List of facts"
I wonder if a section could be added with a straight forward list of all official statements, possible observations from the trailers, and other valid facts regarding the in-universe aspects of the film(plot, characters, etc)? That would give a very clear overview of what is known, and I suspect a large part of the community hungers for something like that.Thomsons Gazelle (talk) 00:20, December 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * Any observations from the trailer(s) beyond the date and mention of the things explicitly named on screen are just guesses and guesswork. Trailers tend to have large amounts of misdirection and clever editing to suggest things that aren't. Memory Alpha is specifically about certainties, not guesswork and speculation. Most of what you suggest falls under the latter. -- sulfur (talk) 03:14, December 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of sites that offer that sort of discussion and speculation; this isn't really one of them. 31dot (talk) 03:24, December 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * As for "official statements", as Sulfur said, they often involve misdirection. The James Bond producers and an actress kept insisting that this particular actress did not play a particular role right up until Skyfall was released, where we find out she actually was playing that role.  Something similar has been speculated to be the case with the name of the villain.  Trailers and "official statements" should be taken with a grain of salt; only the film itself can confirm them. 31dot (talk) 03:27, December 25, 2012 (UTC)

Did anyone notice the enemy starship latest trailer? The bad guy has a bigger Federation starship. How the hell does he take control of a bigger and apparently more powerful starship? Anyone have a name for the other ship?

Just curious.--74.199.46.65 04:59, April 21, 2013 (UTC)


 * I was wondering about that, too. I had thought it was maybe a reimagined Sovereign class like the Enterprise-E (Constitution class is 289 meters long and Sovereign class is almost seven hundred meters long, 1:17 in trailer #3 has a good shot), although that would be thoroughly boring and unimaginative to have yet another bad guy from the late 24th century.  *sigh*  We'll see next week I suppose.--24.176.52.246 22:34, April 25, 2013 (UTC)


 * General discussion about the film should take place elsewhere; article talk pages are for discussing article changes only. 31dot (talk) 23:48, April 25, 2013 (UTC)

John Harrison
Why does John Harrison not have his own article yet. I think we know enough, albeit very little about him for him to have one. T-888 (talk) 07:40, April 29, 2013 (UTC)


 * Once the film is released, an article can be created. 31dot (talk) 11:18, April 29, 2013 (UTC)


 * I will freely admit what I am about to say is pedantic. This film has been released already, in Australia and elsewhere. Do you happen to mean when this film is released in the US? Or is there another country that is the benchmark?Throwback (talk) 15:15, April 29, 2013 (UTC)


 * The showing in Australia and Moscow were not general releases, but private premiere screenings; but anyway, since it is a US film my thinking it we should wait until the general release in the US. I think that's what we did before. 31dot (talk) 15:24, April 29, 2013 (UTC)


 * The UK, Australian and German release is May 9th, so there will be people creating and expanding articles after that. Last time, the film was released in all major markets within 2 or 3 days, if I remember correctly, so it is different this time around. If we want to wait until the US release (that's still open for debate, right? en.memory-alpha.org is not a US site but an English-speaking site), we'll have to post a notice on the front page and basically lock the article on the film on May 9th. --Jörg (talk) 15:31, April 29, 2013 (UTC)


 * I realize this isn't a US site, but it is a US-made film. That was my thinking- but I'm not married to the idea of waiting for the US release; I just was suggesting it because that's what we did before. 31dot (talk) 15:46, April 29, 2013 (UTC)


 * I know. The situation is more tricky this time around, we have to get the others involved and work something out. I think blocking the article for 8 days is kind of tricky and wouldn't make wikia happy. Maybe we can lock it for a day or so on May 8/9th, like we did last time, and then let people edit after that time has passed. We'd definitely have to warn all others on the front page (and at the top of the relevant pages) that the pages will contain spoilers for the new film after that date. --Jörg (talk) 15:51, April 29, 2013 (UTC)


 * Forum discussion on this: Forum:Locking MA when Into Darkness is released?‎ -- sulfur (talk) 16:05, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

Okay, When the film is released. I can tell you that he is not Khan, that much I can tell you. There is nothing in the trailers to suggest that he is, last time I checked Khan was not "One of Starfleet's top Agents" T-888 (talk) 16:37, April 29, 2013 (UTC)


 * 72. That's all I've got to say about that. (UTC)


 * Tell me more about John Harrison, T-888. ;-) Khaaaaan! (talk) 15:17, May 16, 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of the John Harrison section
Why was the section about John Harrison getting his own article been deleted? I just want to know? T-888 (talk) 16:46, April 29, 2013 (UTC)
 * It wasn't. You just broke it in your last edit. :) -- sulfur (talk) 17:51, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

Oh, my bad, sorry about that. I did not realize I messed it up. That is the first time that has happened to me by the way. T-888 (talk) 18:57, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

Any more time travel?
In the trailers and Imax poster for the film, Harrison's ship looks like a federation ship but much larger than the Enterprise. In the last film the Enterprise was the largest ship in the fleet, is this a new type of ship or is there some time travel going on, if so why do time travel two films in a row? T-888 (talk) 17:08, May 1, 2013 (UTC)


 * Article talk pages are for discussing article changes only, not general questions about the film. 31dot (talk) 21:24, May 1, 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, I was wondering if anyone had any info on that as far as plot details to add to the article. I was all in the wording. T-888 (talk) 17:48, May 2, 2013 (UTC)