Help icon

Maintenance links

Memory Alpha talk pages are for improving the article only.
For general discussion on this episode, visit the ENT forum at The Trek BBS.

700th episode?Edit

I read on the IMDb that this episode is the 700th episode in the Star Trek saga. Is this accurate/true?-Rebelstrike2005 19:55, 30 Jan 2005 (CET)

  • TOS 79 + 1
  • TAS +22
  • Movies +10
  • TNG +178
  • DS9 +176
  • VOY +172
  • ENT +94
Yup -- but only if you disinclude the 22 TAS episodes and the 10 movies its #700 -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 21:33, 11 Feb 2005 (GMT)
Something interesting to be included on the page any way -Rebelstrike2005 21:47, 11 Feb 2005 (GMT)
It's the 700th live action television episode - Rebelstrike2005 15:29, 12 Mar 2005 (GMT)


This episode has not aired yet.

To avoid plot spoilers, the page has been protected from edits.

Any relevant production information you think should b in the episode can be added to this talk page for later inclusion. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk

Background InformationEdit

This is the seven hundredth live action episode of Star Trek.

I'm skeptical that Cully Frederickson reprised his role as the Vulcan from First Contact. His name wasn't in the credits, nor was there any note of his return in the production report of this episode on the Star Trek website. More likely, it was just a reuse of footage from the movie as with Cochrane's shots.

Episode Title Edit

The actual aired episode was simply titled "In a Mirror, Darkly", not "In a Mirror, Darkly, Part I".

While this goes against the convention that Star Trek has used since the beginning of time (think The Search, Part I/The Search, Part II), I think it would be more appropriate to accurately portray the episode titles as they actually appear(ed) on the air, and thus the ", Part I" should be dropped from the episode entry's title.

Thoughts? —Ian Adams 12:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Obviously I've moved. Ian Adams you're absolutely right, episode articles should always have the exact title. -- Krevaner 12:23, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I just noticed that the same should also apply to "Storm Front". So, uh, while you're at it...? :) (I'd do it myself, but I can't figure out how.)

I think this actually applies to a bunch of episode titles if you want to get that nitpicky, and I'm not sure that we do. -- Steve 16:40, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, actually it only applies to two episode titles: "In a Mirror, Darkly" and "Storm Front". Every other episode that is the first of two has "Part I" in its title (ref: Both pages have now been moved and the links in all pages that link to them have been updated. And it only took me two or three hours :) —Ian Adams 18:18, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's not right, though I don't own any two-parters I can check, and furthermore something like Mirror Archer is a meanie. (ENT: "In a Mirror, Darkly", "In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II") just looks clunky and confusing. -- Steve 03:15, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've actually just checked -- many TOS, TNG, DS9 and VOY two parters have a "Part I" officially printed in the episode credits, except for those that were released as feature-length originally ("Encounter at Farpoint", "All Good Things...", "The Way of the Warrior", "Emissary", "What You Leave Behind", "Dark Frontier", "Caretaker", etc)
"The Best of Both Worlds", "Descent" and "Redemption" are exceptions. -- this should be fixed . Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 17:11, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Unification I" and "Unification II" are official titles. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 17:17, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The tank was a T-90 Edit

In the intro of the episode the tank was a Soviet/Russian style T-90 tank, not an M1 Abrams. Nevertheless I fixed that.

Thank you,

Adam K.

Temporial Problem? Edit

The Vulcan who greeted Cochran was Spock's great-grandfather. But how could he have Spock as a decendent if he was shot in this universe? Was Spock's grandfather born before he made contact? Did alternate universe's Spock not have Solkar as an ancestor?Oh, the headache in mixing time travel and alternative universe plots.

That's what makes it likely that the Decipher CCG game is dead wrong and that Vulcan captain was not Solkar. That's why we don't consider games novels and comics to be a valid resource for article material. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 18:50, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Moved from Nominations for featured articlesEdit

"In a Mirror, Darkly"Edit

  • Self nomination. An article about a very memorable episode of Enterprise. --Defiant | Talk 19:30, 7 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. There's no question about this one. Certainly a memorable episode and a worthy write-up.--Scimitar 12:27, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Stong Support Tobyk777 22:20, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. - AJHalliwell 01:09, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. --From Andoria with Love 11:58, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral, I don't watch Enterprise. Cabal
  • Oppose--In the begining it says part one and two but there is only 1 part there so it is half an article.?. I will say that it is a fine article but only half written so i cant nominate it at thsi time until part two is complete-- Kahless 04:13, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Alteration Edit

"However, Hoshi is surprised to hear that Enterprise's confrontation was not as successful as she first thought. Forrest tells her that the Terran Empire lost twelve ships in the Tau Ceti star system."

I'm changing the word Enterprise to "the", since the Enterprise is unlikely to have been at the battle - if it had been, then the crew would have known that the battle had not gone very well for the Empire.

-- 20:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Background Info Deletion Edit

I have deleted the following two bullet points:

*This episode marks the final use of the "red alert klaxon" that had been used throughout the classic Star Trek series and through Star Trek: The Next Generation. Its last use was in DS9: "Trials and Tribble-ations" aboard the U.S.S. Enterprise, NCC-1701.
*This episode marks the first appearance of a phaser in the Enterprise series.

The first bullet point actually belongs in the background section for Part II - the red alert klaxon was never heard in Part I. But instead of moving the bullet point, I deleted it and the second bullet point for the following reason. While I'm all for including interesting and arcane trivia, I think we have to draw the line somewhere. One could fill up page after page with this sort of info for this particular two-part episode. For example: "This is the first time we've seen the TOS green wrap-around tunic since "Trials and Tribble-ations," or "This is the first time we've seen a blue phaser beam since..." You get the idea. --Trekker2006 16:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


i reverted the removal of some background info regarding this being the first ENT appearance of a phaser -- one of the reasons given was that it was not this episode.. however the phaser appears 36 1/2 minutes into this very episode. -- Captain M.K.B. 16:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe you reversed the edit before I could finish my explanation in the comments section. With all due respect, I stand by my rationale for the deletion of the phaser comment -- too trivial even for the trivia section. (I was well aware that we do see a phaser in Part 1). But maybe there's a happy medium. I would remedy it this way:
*This episode marks the first appearance of a phaser pistol and a TOS communicator in the Enterprise series. The phaser prop was an off-the-shelf toy manufactured by Art Asylum, modified with a strip of velcro to allow it to adhere to Scott Bakula's trousers. The communicator was obtained from Master Replicas, a company that sells officially licensed prop replicas.
Now it seems there's enough real info to warrant its inclusion (at least in my humble opinion). :-) However, I re-deleted the red alert klaxon bullet point as the sound effect was not heard in this episode. --Trekker2006 17:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Whoops, someone beat me to it and already deleted the red alert info. Also, I screwed up - the communicator was actually only seen in Part II. My bad. --Trekker2006 17:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Background Information Formatting Edit

Can someone explain the significance of the dividing lines currently in the background of this episode and Part II? Right now it seems rather random to me. Would anyone object to grouping the background information under sub-headings (like Script, Story, Effects)? Even if there is some logic to the dividing lines, sub-headings would be clearer. – Cleanse 06:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Really the first episode with no regulars? Edit

The Background Information section claims that "This is the first episode of any of the series where none of the regular characters appear – only their mirror counterparts are seen." Technically, that honor might belong to VOY: "Living Witness" instead. As the background information on that page states, "This episode could technically be considered the first Star Trek episode ever not to feature any regular characters as they all appear only as holograms in Quarren's recreation of Voyager with the exception of the Doctor, who also appears as a backup version of his program." Even though the backup copy and his revised account of historical events are more authentic representations of the "real" people aboard Voyager, they are, in the end, re-creations. BlueResistance 22:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right. I'd welcome the change if you cared to make it. – Hossrex 22:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. – BlueResistance 23:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Opening credits Edit

Don't the opening credits show the HMS Enterprize and then two sailing ships firing on each other. Also does any know what the two ships are flanking Enterprise when it destroys the city?– UESPA 02:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it was that seaship or not, I'd imagine it was. The two ships flanking the NX-class vessel in the opening sequence were not identified by class or name.--Terran Officer 01:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The flanking ships are Warp Deltas (unofficial name). --OuroborosCobra talk 03:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Enterprise "In a Mirror Darkly" promo songEdit

Hi, I am sorry if this dose not belong being asked here but this is my first time doing this. But for the last 4 years I have been looking for someone who can tell me what rock music was used in the original promo trailer for part one of "In a Mirror Darkly". Many other people on the Internet as well as myself have been wanting to know and so if anyone dose know please add it as trivia or something to the article on the episodes page. Please. Thank you.

The music was an original composition for the episode by Dennis McCarthy. It can be found for download in ogg format here It's listed as Alternate main title theme. You will need an ogg vorbis plugin (free) to play the song. --Nmajmani 01:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I think he's asking about the music that was played in the promotional ad for the episode, which can be viewed here. It's a high likelihood that the music was not written for the promo but was written for use in previews; if that is the case, you may want to search for the music at Immediate Music, where most productions get their trailer music. Their library is down right now, but it should be back up soon. If the music used in the promo is an actual song from a band, however, then it won't be included on the site. I wish I could help you more than that; I'm am doing my own search for the name of the music right now and will report back here if I find anything. --From Andoria with Love 08:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Summary Length Edit

Wow, I am dizzy from reading the summary page. I mean, could that have been _any longer_? It's called a "summary" for a reason. If it was supposed to be an abridged version of the original script it should say so. This is entirely too much detail and I doubt that readers interested in finding out what this episode is about would want to read a short-story/novel. Is this even encyclopedic? – Distantlycharmed 03:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, it needs trimming down. Taking a quick look at some of the other "featured article" episodes pages, and their entire summaries are sometimes shorter (or near in size) to just Act 1 of this summary. --OuroborosCobra talk

03:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that'd be an undertaking....– Distantlycharmed 03:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Moved from Featured article removal candidates Edit

In a Mirror, DarklyEdit

While this article has good background information, the summary is far too long, with paragraphs that are humongous chunks of text. It would probably be faster to watch the episode itself than to read the entire so-called "summary"! --Defiant 23:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Support: For reasons mentioned above: Too long, wordy and not really a summary. – Distantlycharmed 03:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Conditional support of removal, unless the summary is made shorter.--31dot 17:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Conditional support of removal, unless the summary is shortened. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The Defiant sets Edit

They are a reuse of the sets seen on Star Trek New Voyages aren't they? Link to an interview with STNV's creator:

It's obscure, but I'm sure I heard the interviewer say something about the sets being used for these episodes. – Jono R 19:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, no, the Defiant sets were built at Paramount. You can seen Mike Sussman's images from the construction at flickr, and Doug Drexler has stuff on his blog. As I recall, the Enterprise production team did borrow some props from NV, such as the helm tactical scope. -- Michael Warren | Talk 19:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Evan English appearance Edit

Hello, Evan English was flying the ship with Vaughn Armstrong in command on the mirror enterprise in this episode, and he is not credited as an uncredited co-star on memory alpha here. He has several closwe ups with Vaughn Armstrong... The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Audio commentary Edit

That's great information added from the audio commentary about the story and script. I'm wondering if instead of citing each note as being from it, that the entire section could be started (or ended) with a blanket statement saying something like "The following information comes from the DVD audio commentary"--31dot 11:06, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

I was specifically requested by Cleanse to add a citation to each fact from the audio commentary (see here) and so I did this, even though I'm not even finished yet. --Defiant 11:16, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
The way it is done now is fine -- especially since the commentary notes cover various parts of the production and episode and are found under the various different headings. Looks fine to me. -- sulfur 11:37, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
The citations could maybe be simplified to just "audio commentary", though, as the commentary's also available as a podcast from --Defiant 11:47, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

If you were advised a certain manner that's fine with me- I was just posing the question. :) --31dot 11:48, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for FA status Edit

  • - was previously featured, but removed (on my recommendation) as the summary was found to be too long. The summary is now much shorter and there is a lot more background info, as I've thoroughly investigated the making of the episode. There is still also background info from a variety of other users, including writer Mike Sussman himself. --Defiant 12:36, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. - Archduk3 01:40, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support restoration of status.--31dot 09:55, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - looking good! If only we had such great info on every episode. :-)– Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 11:05, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
Actually, two very minor points regarding background information. First, I think the first couple of notes need some kind of heading, and/or be moved under existing headings. Second, the third note under "Cast and characters" (putting the Ho back in Hoshi) should specify which DVD special feature. I'm guessing Inside the Mirror Episodes. ;-) – Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 11:18, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
I've added the requested info. But I don't understand how the heading "Background Information" can be capitalized, yet its subheadings not be(?) Surely, one or the other would be preferable! --Defiant 11:59, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
Ha, I didn't note that inconsistency. Well, according to MA:STYLE, headings should only have the first word and proper nouns capitalized. There's an exception for episode and film pages, but I've started a discussion about removing that; there's no real reason to differentiate ep/film pages from the rest of the wiki format-wise. I changed all the subheadings because that's what's been happening in practice.– Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 00:33, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
As per that policy, I've recapitalized the section headings. The headings can be uncapitalized, if your proposal is accepted by the community. --Defiant 11:07, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
Is this a new guideline? When I started to submit my "Studio Model" articles a year ago, it was consistantly corrected to "Studio model". Personally I like the capitalization version better.--Sennim 12:42, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
As Cleanse stated, this current exception applies only to episode and film pages. --Defiant 15:30, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - Looks impressively well documented. A minor suggestion for a later edit, perhaps also a listing of the production staff ? They have poured their heart into the episode and it is also due to their efforts that this episode is such a fan-favorite.--Sennim 14:50, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - Good summary and much relevant background information. – Crimsondawn Talk yuh talk 21:29, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

TNG Alternate Credits Edit

  • At one point, Brannon Braga had suggested that an alternate title sequence be created for an episode of TNG, although this had not come to pass

Does anyone know which episode this is referring to? This would be an interesting note to add to the episode in question.– Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 00:28, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, but I would speculate it is Yesterday's Enterprise.--31dot 01:43, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

Since Braga didn't join TNG until Season 4, I think that is unlikely. ;-) Oh well, if anyone ever figures it out, it'd be kinda cool to know. – Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 03:10, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

Might it be "Rascals"? I always thought it would have been cool to switch the credits for Picard's name to the kid's for that one episode--just to mess with the fans a bit. ;-) -Mdettweiler 16:03, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

Tholians/Rebels Edit

In the article, it originally said that Archer wants the Defiant to give them the upper hand against the Tholians, while in the episode he says it's to beat the rebels. I fixed that. - Mitchz95 21:09, August 1, 2011 (UTC)

Scott Bakula's favorite episode - add or not? Edit

Scott Bakula has said at a convention that both parts of "In a Mirror, Darkly" were his favorite episodes, and that he greatly enjoyed playing the mirror universe Archer. Should I add this? Can interviews at conventions be used as a source? I have a DVD of the convention, so I could check for the exact quote and flesh it out a bit. --Kneazlegirl 04:44, April 3, 2012 (UTC)

If you specify which convention, the date and give some detail of what was said it would be probably be okay.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 06:08, April 3, 2012 (UTC)

All right, I'll add it as soon as possible... I have some problems with my PC at the moment, so I'm not sure if I can get to it before we leave for the holidays, though. --Kneazlegirl 10:15, April 3, 2012 (UTC)

Credits Scientist Edit

At one point during the credits, there's a scientist shown writing on a blackboard. Anyone have any idea who this might be? ProfessorTofty (talk) 00:24, May 16, 2014 (UTC)

This guy? Pretty sure he's in the regular opening too, btw -- Capricorn (talk) 16:57, May 16, 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one, and yes, now that you mention it, he is in the regular opening also. Thanks! ProfessorTofty (talk) 13:31, May 17, 2014 (UTC)

Music Edit

Although it's known that Dennis McCarthy wrote much of the music for the two-parter, then I think — beyond the alternate title theme — that the topic of the score used in the two-parter deserves to be expanded on, since the two-parter appears to have gotten very special treatment from McCarthy, too. -Mardus (talk) 00:51, September 15, 2014 (UTC)

Intro hints to the divergenceEdit

The intro to In a Mirror, Darkly had the symbol of the Empire appearing over WWII footage which later on has an atomic bomb explosion. More over the moon land footage has the astronaut holding the Empire's flag rather then that of the US. These point to the 1930s being the clearest divergence we can document.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:11, August 19, 2017 (UTC)