Talk: Star Trek Into Darkness/Prerelease archive

Memory Alpha talk pages are for improving the article only.
For general discussion, please visit Memory Alpha's Discussions feature, or join the chat on Discord.

Please click here to start a new discussion

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". — 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 VOY: "Before and After", 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. — 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?" – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 156.33.195.254.

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!– The preceding unsigned comment was added by Megahypernova (talk • contribs).

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." — 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. - Archduk 3 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. - Archduk 3 23:15, April 26, 2010 (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. [1] --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)

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/ – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.251.141.194.

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)