Memory Alpha
Register
Memory Alpha
No edit summary
Line 267: Line 267:
   
 
I have added the summary. Since the film has been released in North America for a few days now, I felt it was now the right time to post it. To prepare myself to write it, I watched the film twice yesterday. I'm fairly certain there are minor errors in terms of the order of events, since I am neither {{alt|Spock}} nor [[Data]], but it is roughly at the same level of detail as the other film summaries. I'm sure somebody will change the format of the subsections. I did my best to properly link it, and keep it in present tense except where appropriate. &ndash;[[User:Kitch|Kitch]] <sup>([[User talk:Kitch|Talk]] : [[Special:Contributions/Kitch|Contrib]])</sup> 14:48, May 17, 2013 (UTC)
 
I have added the summary. Since the film has been released in North America for a few days now, I felt it was now the right time to post it. To prepare myself to write it, I watched the film twice yesterday. I'm fairly certain there are minor errors in terms of the order of events, since I am neither {{alt|Spock}} nor [[Data]], but it is roughly at the same level of detail as the other film summaries. I'm sure somebody will change the format of the subsections. I did my best to properly link it, and keep it in present tense except where appropriate. &ndash;[[User:Kitch|Kitch]] <sup>([[User talk:Kitch|Talk]] : [[Special:Contributions/Kitch|Contrib]])</sup> 14:48, May 17, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
Oh, my word, this movie is great! BEST ST I have seen!
  +
Anyway, I see that Admiral Marcus is called the head of Starfleet Command. Does that not make him the CinC? Or must this have been actually stated in the movie to be said on MA?--[[User:Crimsondawn|Crimsondawn]]<sup>[[User Talk:Crimsondawn|<span style="color:#00FF00;"> ''Talk yuh talk''</span>]]</sup> 12:46, May 18, 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:46, 18 May 2013

Talk page help

Maintenance links

  • T: I AM ERROR
  • A: I AM ERROR
  • N: I AM ERROR
  • C: I AM ERROR
  • CR: I AM ERROR
  • D: I AM ERROR
  • M: I AM ERROR
  • Y: I AM ERROR
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.


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 (talk).

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. - Archduk3 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. - Archduk3 23:15, April 26, 2010 (UTC)


Nimoy is in this film via a cameo...The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.87.239.18 (talk).
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. [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 (talk).

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)

Tell me more about John Harrison, T-888.  ;-) Khaaaaan! (talk) 15:17, May 16, 2013 (UTC)
72. That's all I've got to say about that. (UTC)The preceding unsigned comment was added by 108.18.29.81 (talk).

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)

Wikipedia has plot synopsis and reveals Cumberbatch's role

SPOILER ALERT--It seems that he is Khan after all. I know the film has been released internationally and they will put the plot info in when a film is released, but I want to make sure that this is correct. Because over at Wikipedia, editors have been going back and forth and having it say Cumberbatch is playing Khan then reversing the edits. T-888 (talk) 06:14, May 9, 2013 (UTC)

It is now released in some places, so have at it. :) 31dot (talk) 11:55, May 9, 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)– The preceding unsigned comment was added by 108.18.29.81 (talk)." T-888 got pwn3d! 151.188.213.205 16:59, May 13, 2013 (UTC)

I understand he is Khan, T-888 was my old wikia account name. The reason I sounded so passionate against him being Khan was I was half-way expecting him not to be as the same time as I was wanting him to be. I have read articles on this wikia as well as wikipedia before I have even seen the film, it does not come out here in America until the 16th so I am waiting to see the whole thing and take it all in, and no need to sound like a 12 year old playing Call of Duty with saying "T-888 got pwn3d" Matt Seay (talk) 19:02, May 13, 2013 (UTC)

Your "old" wikia account from 4 days ago? Ha! 151.188.213.205 14:01, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, I used that account because it would not let me use my new one at the time, now let's drop this because this is going far away from the topic of the Film. Matt Seay (talk) 18:27, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

Sure brah, although to be honest your comment that there was nothing in the trailer to suggest it was Khan when the last trailer noted the 72 "torpedoes" was a bit foolish.

Sick Child Character

I know this is a minor point that can be added to the article (or as a separate article) in the future, but Noel Clarke's character's daughter is named. The camera pans down, going past the biomonitor on the wall, as he kisses her on the forehead, and it looked to me to be an Indian surname. Someone who's got a good eye might be able to spot it. --usscantabrian (talk) 02:44, May 10, 2013 (UTC)

Chronology of starflight

dunno where this should go. But reference wise, the NX-01, NX Alpha, CV300 and Phoenix all appeared in Starfleet headquarters as a "Chronology of starflight" type model set up. :) - 15.195.201.90 03:44, May 10, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah and it ends with the USS Vengeance model at the end of the line.The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.87.239.18 (talk).
There was also the Enterprise (OV-101) there too, and I think an Apollo spacecraft. Wasn't a Kelvin type starship next to the Vengeance? --usscantabrian (talk) 23:17, May 10, 2013 (UTC)
Together with a Gemini capsule and an A4 rocket. 129.206.205.73 00:27, May 11, 2013 (UTC)
To confirm, there is indeed a Kelvin-type starship miniature amongst those others. --Defiant (talk) 08:47, May 11, 2013 (UTC)

US Release Date

Why is the Release Date set to the American one? Should it not be the initial release date of the 9th of May? --BorgKnight (talk) 15:25, May 10, 2013 (UTC)

The US release is considered the primary, but other major locations should also be listed. -- sulfur (talk) 15:33, May 10, 2013 (UTC)

Why is the US release date considered primary?. And I agree with you that other major locations should be listed--BorgKnight (talk) 15:38, May 10, 2013 (UTC)

Because it is a US film. I agree, the release dates of other major locations should be listed as well. --Jörg (talk) 15:42, May 10, 2013 (UTC)

Ah I see ok. Well I don't agree that it should be the country of origins release date but rather its initial release date worldwide. But I would suggest having an International Release date and US release date. --BorgKnight (talk) 15:48, May 10, 2013 (UTC)

Trouble is that there isn't a single "initial release date worldwide"; it has been staggered depending on the nation. Since the film was made by Americans, in America(just California), meant for Americans, and Star Trek was created by an American.....get the idea? 31dot (talk) 08:58, May 11, 2013 (UTC)
I agree with three of your points. But only meant for Americans? I beg to differ! ;-) --Jörg (talk) 09:06, May 11, 2013 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, the Wikipedia article merely lists "May" as the release date with the Sydney premiere date listed as well... So this might be the track to take, especially since quite a few countries had the release before the USA (despite where the movie was filmed and financed, technically, it opened here in New Zealand first). --usscantabrian (talk) 22:10, May 11, 2013 (UTC)
With it linked to from every AR bannered page, has no one actually read the spoiler policy? It makes it pretty clear you should all be thanking the US for sharing our franchise with you people, as the US is the only county that matters. ;) - Archduk3 07:45, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

Interesting point to make here for the release date is that when you Google the film it shows the initial release date which is 9th of May. I do think that the release date of a film should be set to its initial release date, regardless of where the film was made. A film like this is not for just an audience in one country, such as the US, but an International audience.--BorgKnight (talk) 00:20, May 16, 2013 (UTC)

That's why we list other release dates, but the film's origin is not irrelevant. 31dot (talk) 01:05, May 16, 2013 (UTC)

Yes but I am talking about placing the Initial release date rather than the US release date in the sidebar. Should it be the US release date just because it is the country of origin of the film? Other wikis show the initial release date of a program or film rather than the release date of its country of origin.--BorgKnight (talk) 01:56, May 16, 2013 (UTC)

Another example as well is that IMDB shows the UK release date of 9 May 2013 rather than the US release date of 16 May 2013. Interesting as well since IMDB is an American based website. --BorgKnight (talk) 02:10, May 16, 2013 (UTC)

No Archduk, that is a most illogical line of reasoning. It is because the Americans are so annoyed having to wait for a week longer than the Internationals, so it should be the US date in the article - to give the impression that this is actually the real date the movie was released to the public :P --[boxed] (P.O.Box) 03:19, May 16, 2013 (UTC)

So, I just saw the film

Saw the film tonight (March 15, 2013 8pm CDT) in IMAX 3D. SPOILERS FOLLOW.

MA 2009 Warning! This section may contain spoilers for new Star Trek material.

There are more hats than you have ever seen in Star Trek before.

John Harrison is Khan Noonien Singh, and he was thawed out by Section 31 under Carol Marcus's daddy Admiral Buckaroo Robocop to build a USS Excelsior that works to fight the Klingons in a war he tries to get Captain Jerk to start.

Qo'noS is featured. The dialog specifically states that the Ketha Province, and by extension the Ketha lowlands, are uninhabited. A moon that appears to be an already destroyed Praxis is seen in orbit, it is supposedly possible to beam directly to Ketha from San Francisco or London in a matter of seconds, and the Enterprise travels to Qo'noS in less than half a day. Also, Klingons are not affected by the Augment virus and their appearance has been retconned.

Seems to me that, given Klingon lifespans as demonstrated in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, either a childhood Martok or young adult Urthog would be living in Ketha around this time period. Did Red matter black holes cause the galaxy to shrink? How does Enterprise get within 240,000km of Earth after being at warp from the edge of Klingon space for less than a minute?

Should an Appendices section with an Errors subsection be added to the main article? — Khaaaaan! (talk) 04:50, May 16, 2013 (UTC)

The anti-Abrams fanboy is strong in you. The only part of your little rant I will dignify with a response is this: Just because it was "less than a minute" in on-screen time does not mean it took "less than a minute" in actual time. You also make a lot of inferences that simply cannot be justified by the data provided. (For the record, I just watched the film, too.) –--Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 07:10, May 16, 2013 (UTC)
We do not have "errors" sections in articles, as doing so is nitpicking. If something can be cited as an error(such as Abrams or the writers saying so) then it could be Background information. 31dot (talk) 09:12, May 16, 2013 (UTC)
Scotty clearly states that the events of the film, from the time he objects to the mystery torpedoes and resigns to the time they are at warp returning to earth, took place in less than one day. And "just because it was less than a minute onscreen blah blah blah" — it was one continuous shot, so yes, that does mean that screen time in this instance translates directly to story time.
Have Abrams or the writers admitted that dialog saying the Narada "couldn't possibly be Klingon, we're 75,000km from Klingon space" was erroneous? I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for them to admit they are very bad at details. — Khaaaaan! (talk) 14:23, May 16, 2013 (UTC)
I've added a note to warp factor. --Alientraveller (talk) 14:56, May 16, 2013 (UTC)

Mini-synopsis

With the article about to transition from being about a film in production to a released product, I have written a mini-synopsis to be posted at the top once the plot is added to the page.

A series of terrorist attacks on Earth places Captain James T. Kirk on a mission to deal with the culprit. Nothing is as it seems, as the Starship Enterprise is entangled in covert machinations to ignite war between the Federation and the Klingon Empire, with an ancient enemy in the mix. With alliances tested, relationships strained and differing motives clashing, how costly will the thirst for vengeance prove?

–--Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 07:23, May 16, 2013 (UTC)

It's been released for several days outside of the US. 31dot (talk) 09:11, May 16, 2013 (UTC)
  • My understanding was that it wasn't posted yet because it hadn't been released yet in NA. i'm going ahead and adding the mini-synopsis. –--Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 09:23, May 16, 2013 (UTC)

Missing Supporting Music Credits?

Here's an article that likely aludes to the bar scene with Scotty and Deep Roy's character. I'm not sure if this music was credited in the actual credits (Just saw the early screening last night) or what but here it is:

http://www.entertainmentwise.com/news/114825/LISTEN-Bo-Bruce-Previews-Star-Trek-Into-Darkness-Song-The-Rage-Thats-In-Us-All --Spock78 (talk) 23:09, May 16, 2013 (UTC)

Summary added

I have added the summary. Since the film has been released in North America for a few days now, I felt it was now the right time to post it. To prepare myself to write it, I watched the film twice yesterday. I'm fairly certain there are minor errors in terms of the order of events, since I am neither Spock nor Data, but it is roughly at the same level of detail as the other film summaries. I'm sure somebody will change the format of the subsections. I did my best to properly link it, and keep it in present tense except where appropriate. –Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 14:48, May 17, 2013 (UTC)

Oh, my word, this movie is great! BEST ST I have seen! Anyway, I see that Admiral Marcus is called the head of Starfleet Command. Does that not make him the CinC? Or must this have been actually stated in the movie to be said on MA?--Crimsondawn Talk yuh talk 12:46, May 18, 2013 (UTC)