Talk:Star Trek Into Darkness/Archive 11

"the older version of Spock"
One of the final Plot paragraphs poorly explains the Spock Prime drop-in, explaining the character vaguely as "the older version of Spock." I tried to clarify with a copyedit a day or two ago, but my changes were reverted for plot bloat. I'm not watchlisting or particularly vested in this article, but perhaps those more attuned to it could address this vague, passing reference. Thanks. --EEMIV (talk) 01:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Does Old Spock need to even be mentioned in the plot? His cameo is pretty extraneous to the overarching summary. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the scene is important to the film(especially in how it explains who the Villian really is) and leads into the climax, especially by forshadowing a main characters' death... happens to be Kirk this time. Needs to be mentioned.Colliric (talk) 07:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * So I found this "Leonard Nimoy, the original Spock who plays an older version of the character in the 2009 film, stated he would not be making an appearance in the film.[21] Abrams was reportedly considering including William Shatner in the sequel." and nowhere does it mention that Leonard did have a cameo in the film in the end. I think that should be clarified somewhere.Mazetron (talk) 04:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Remake of Space Seed/Wrath of Khan
I don't think it would violate NPOV to characterize this film as a partial remake of the original Space Seed episode and of Wrath of Khan, considering the film includes beat-for-beat remakes of certain scenes, especially with regards to Wrath of Khan. 70.72.211.35 (talk) 04:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe not NPOV, but it would certainly smash to smithereens our policy regarding Original Research. However, if you find a reviewer that makes precisely this claim, you've got traction for inclusion. Otherwise, we cannot even hint at it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * "This was not a remake of The Wrath of Khan." - So says screenwriter Alex Kurtzman, who is backed up on this by screenwriter Bob Orci. See the comments from an interview here: "Alex Kurtzman and Bob Orci: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Is Not a Remake" 99.192.84.231 (talk) 10:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I think, though, there's plenty of coverage that asserts references, homages, and appropriation. "Remake" strikes me as the wrong concept, and I haven't heard/read any critiques use it; however, there's plenty of third-party content to reinforce the notion of the story/writers trying to evoke or make connections to prior work through echoing characters, locations, and even the most trivial of plot details (e.g. the Ketha region of Kronos). It's like that episode of DS9 when Quark quotes Picard's "The line must be drawn here -- this far, and no farther" -- not a remake, but meant to draw the earlier work to mind. That's what some parts of the film do, and what plenty of commenters have said. --EEMIV (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't forget, this movie's story takes place in an emerging new timeline in which the original Space Seed and Wrath of Kahn stories did not happen. On the other hand shark-jumping Spock Prime remembers that they did. Now that we know the villain is Kahn, I would support an editor adding a sourced line about screenwriter-producer Kurtzman saying it was not a remake to the development section. It does seem like an issue worth addressing. Maybe before or after this line that appears there: Writer Lindelof, who is also a producer, compared the sequel to The Dark Knight.[27] 5Q5 (talk) 14:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I think this is far less important than the discussion that must be had over weather or not the film is actually an adaptation of Conrad's book that happens to share almost exactly the same setup, plot and has a similar title. It's more of a reimagining of Wrath and Space Seed, rather than actually based on them. The former discussion is more interesting. Colliric (talk) 06:59, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * While it sure isn't a "remake" of Wrath of Khan, it is clearly designed to be similar. The role reversal in the ending is an extremely significant point and I am shocked to find that it is not mentioned anywhere in the article.  If you go and review the endings to both films, you will find that Kirk's death is an almost shot-for-shot duplicate of Spock's death.  This reference is extremely important and I am very disappointed to find that it is mentioned nowhere in the article.Mazetron (talk) 05:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Because that is original research. Unless it has a reliable source to back it up. Go and find one if you think it needs to be in here. -- MisterShiney    ✉    09:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Does this one count? http://popwatch.ew.com/2013/05/18/star-trek-into-darkness-khan-ending-cumberbatch/ Mazetron (talk) 05:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Request to consolidate lead
Hi everyone! The lead section contains the sentences "Benedict Cumberbatch, Peter Weller and Alice Eve round out the film's principal cast." and "In 2011, the supporting cast was rounded out with Cumberbatch, Weller and Eve brought in to portray key roles." Since these sentences are very similar, should they be consolidated into a single sentence to avoid the redundancy and repetition? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Box Office Success??
According to boxofficemojo.com the film was released on may 16 2013 and as of June 9 2013 has earned $396,000,000 worldwide.The wikipedia article states that this means the film is considered a financial success.But the production budget was $190,000,000.And studios only receive circa 60% of box office gross.So up until June 9 the films financial backers had raked in about $240,000,000.Which would suggest a profit of $50,000,000.($240 Mil-$190 mil).But that's without taking into consideration the Marketing costs(not revealed as of June 8 2013).A Big Movie Event like Star Trek Into Darkness can easily run thru a marketing budget of a least $50mil.So to my mind the film has just about broken even so far(June 9 2013).How can that be considered a financial success? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.225.199 (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NOR. If you have sources that support your claim you can edit it into the article, but as is the Box Office section more than justifies the claim that it is a commercial success.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.54.69 (talk) 23:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * See unless a reliable source says so, I find it a difficult thing to agree to. -- MisterShiney    ✉    16:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * According to this SNL Kagan report who do analysis for the film industry, a film generally isn't considered profitable unless it makes 1.75x the total costs (i.e. budget + marketing). It does seem that calling Star Trek a "financial success" is a bit of a stretch if that is the case; it looks like it won't make any serious profit until it hits DVD. Betty Logan (talk) 07:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If there's no source stating it has made a profit, it shouldn't be in the article at all; we can qualify a level of critical success via things like Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes., but unless we've got the sources the only thing we should be saying for its performance is numbers. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 12:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Potential source
There is an article on the film formats used on STID in American Cinematographer's June 2013 edition entitled "Boldy Captured". It is available on Questia for those that have access. Miyagawa (talk) 22:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Looks like it can be seen here. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 23:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Star Trek 3
According to this article, Zachary Quinto says that the third movie will start filming next year and Abrams will return. Should we include that into the article? Leader Vladimir (talk) 01:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

DVD/Blu-Ray release date?
Does the release date stated and cited article refer only to the North American release date? Amazon.co.uk has a release date of 2nd September for the release date there. 82.25.170.209 (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding fan ranking
Re: this editing exchange:
 * First, receiving largely negative reviews from Star Trek fans is a horrible claim to make, and I'd expect a lot of sources to back it up (what constitutes a Star Trek fan? How does one poll decide the feelings of all involved?) Secondly, as to the reliability of the source involved; I'm sure we can get a better one than this. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 18:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Content being deleted based on "souce is unreliable"
user:108.45.117.58 added cited content that was of value to the article, User:PrairieKid then delted the content with the explination "Badass diet isn't a good source", I then reverted his revert, not seeing any reason that badassdigest.com was a "bad source". Someone needs to justify why badassdigest.com is a worse source than half of the sources in this article, for example: Screenrant.com Movieweb.com Comingsoon.net Trekmovie.com Deadline.com, they seem no more or less reliable than badassdigest.com. CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * One rule of thumb is to look at ownership in the websites' footer. Screenrant.com has Screen Rant, LLC. Movieweb.com has MovieWeb™, Inc. Trekmovie.com has SciFanatic Network. Deadline.com has PMC Network (and is probably the most reliable of the whole bunch, too). Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 19:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Badass Digest is not a RS. I did find another source and have readded the content, in a more appropriate section and not in a Bare link URL cite. PrairieKid (talk) 20:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for finding annother source (that is undeniably reliable). but why is badass digest not reliable? It's the internet anyone can buy a domain and set up an llc so the argument of looking at the ownership is specious. This is a socratic question about wikipedia in general: How do we decide what makes a site relable because WP:RS is pretty ambigious on the subject? CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You look for evidence of an editorial staff (not just bloggers who can post whatever they want with no theoretical oversight), you look for said authors being considered experts or qualified sources in their own right, you look for the owners being reputable themselves, and you look for their opinions or news being cited by other reliable sources. It's not a hard and fast rule because each case is different. Many sources might end up becoming considered reliable after they have an established track record. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 03:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

"Into"
Can someone please explain to me the reason why this article, unlike Journey into Fear (1943 film), Long Day's Journey into Night (1962 film), or He's Just Not That into You (film), is not named Star Trek into Darkness, but Star Trek Into Darkness? I think "into" is a preposition... --114.145.190.224 (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: In He's Just Not That Into You (film) "into" is not a preposition and is capitalized. --SmokeyJoe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There was a discussion on this earlier (see archives), and popular use won over manual of style. DonQuixote (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah... Don't poke that dragon. drewmunn talk 20:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * -> http://xkcd.com/1167/ XD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.221.168.212 (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

A semantic explanation
The title Star Trek Into Darkness is ambiguous (and perhaps obviously so) in the sense that: the title may refer to "star trek into darkness" hence Star Trek into Darkness, or the title's "into darkness" part may be a subtitle hence Star Trek: Into Darkness. The titles Journey into Fear, Long Day's Journey into Night and He's Just Not That into You, on the other hand, are contiguous parts of speech, which might not be the case with Star Trek Into Darkness. So, in hypothesis or theory: "Star Trek into Darkness" + "Star Trek: Into Darkness" → "Star Trek Into Darkness" -- Lindberg 16:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * A more probable explanation: Damon Lindelof | doesn't like colons, and used his power as a producer to omit a colon where it would traditionally have been placed in the title. RocioNadat 00:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Having a secondary source to cite is in line with the spirit of Wikipedia, I grant you that. (For that matter, the explanation found in the link you've mentioned could be incorporated into the article.) -- Lindberg 07:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindberg G Williams Jr (talk • contribs)

Cynthia Addai-Robinson and Nick Tarabay
As i mentioned in my Edit summary, these 2 make a "short" appearance in the movie (cameos) among many others, and most are not listed in the cameo section of the cast list. Cynthia Addai-Robinson's brief cameo makes the trailer as well (http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/187hw2nfqkvk8jpg/ku-xlarge.jpg). Both are credited in the end-credits as well..Nick (http://i.imgur.com/aBnOYju.png) and Cynthia (http://i.imgur.com/2IZNvGj.png) ....--Stemoc (talk) 02:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Are end credits accepted as a reliable source? -- Lieven (talk) 14:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Klingon language
User Justin.Parallax has reverted my addition to the page (see this revision), explaining it with "Pure fancruft I'm afraid, please remember that wp is for casual readers."

I do not agree, because I believe that it's an important fact (also for casual readers) that the Klingon spoken in the movie is true klingon, and not just any gibberish. It's part of the production, although a minor detail. If not here, perhabs there is a different page where this information might be more approriate? I might move it to Klingon language. -- Lieven (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd agree that it would be more relevant in Klingon language. It is far more noteworthy on that page than it would be here. Cool cool. Justin.Parallax (talk) 13:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * But nobody would go from here to there to learn about the klingon language with no reason, so it should at least be mentioned in this page that Klingon was used at all. Next, compare Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country and Star Trek III: The Search for Spock to see how much detailed "fancruft" is possible in only one article, talking about costumes, props, and makeup, I believe that a constructed language made only for the movie is also an important part of the production. -- Lieven (talk) 14:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "Pure fancruft" is not assuming good faith, and I also think it is unfair to call Wikipedia "for casual readers". Per WP:5P, "[Wikipedia] combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." We can discuss whether or not this information is indiscriminate, but I found this at MTV.com about the Klingon language in Star Trek Into Darkness. There are probably more sources to be found, and we could have a reasonable passage about the language in the film. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I am assuming good faith, I simply don't feel that a segment dedicated to this (very small) part of the film is noteworthy. We don't have a dedicated segment about Elvish in the Lord of the Rings films, and in general fictional languages are not of significant interest to anyone outside of the dedicated fanbase (hence why I called it 'fancruft'). It's not any attempt to disparage it, so please do not assume that. I have posted what I feel to be an appropriate compromise.Justin.Parallax (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * If we are talking about not having a section or subsection about the language, that's fine. I agree with weaving it into the production section. It's usually best to create a separate section if there is enough content in that particular scope. (For one example, Wolf Totem (film).) The problem with the word "fancruft" is pejorative; see WP:FANCRUFT. Our determinations on whether or not to include information should be based on explanations from independent sources, per WP:IINFO. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. It's included now either way. Justin.Parallax (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

"Khan" But Not "Khan Noonien Singh"?
Just saw this prohibition embedded in the main edit-page, and was wondering why this is &mdash; he's actually named/called "Khan Noonien Singh" onscreen in the movie (by Leonard Nimoy's character), so that's definitely canonical. Only curious, more than anything else, really. --The Bandsaw Vigilante (talk) 05:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * No. He is referring to the KNS of his timeline. Nothig else in the film supports him being the cannon KNS we all know. If you look at the closing credits - he is only credited as "Khan" and finally don't forget that Khan is a title and not a name. Just because he is Khan, doesn't make him KNS. MisterShiney    ✉    20:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's ironic that I'm tempted to say "he's obviously intended to be KNS" but have to catch myself as I realize that if any other editor said that I'd accuse them of original research. That said, it should be easy enough for any editor who wishes to do so to locate a third-party source establishing that it was the intention for the two Khans to be the same character. It's certainly been talked about enough. DonIago (talk) 13:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's getting incredibly nitpicky. Of course he's Khan Noonien Singh, who else would he be? He is called so in the movie; even if it's a name that comes from the "prime" universe, it's still totally canon. He certainly didn't legally remove the second part of his name while in the ice. &mdash;Will(B) 21:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think anybody's arguing as to whether it's a nitpick, but nitpicks are what starts original research arguments. The best approach would be to provide a reliable source and make the argument moot. DonIago (talk) 13:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "Don't forget that Khan is a title and not a name.." I'm intrigued, MisterShiney, what evidence would you advance to support that? I recall in the film that Cumberbatch says rather clearly, "My name is Khaaaan", and in Space Seed Montalban says, "Khan is my name". Have I missed something? Nsign (talk) 11:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be original research to suggest he isn't Khan Noonian Singh? All sources pretty clearly indicate that Cumberbatch was reprising the Montalban role. A character whose history prior to Abrams' reboot really hasn't changed at all. I don't get why that would even be in question. ——Digital Jedi Master (talk) 14:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Not just that, but the in-universe point of divergence between the original timeline and the reboot timeline is Nero's incursion into 2233. At that point, KNS had already been in suspended animation for over 100 years. The point of divergence between the KNS of the original timeline and the KNS of the reboot is the manner in which he was initially revived (by Kirk / by Marcus). There is zero justification either in or out of the canon for asserting that Cumberbatch is portraying anyone other than the identical individual that Montalban previously portrayed. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I really have to agree with most of the others here. Cumberbatch is playing the same character that Montalban did. That is why Spock(Nimoy) refers to him using his full name. If it is a different character that scene of the younger Spock asking advice of the older Spock is completely irrelevant. The assertion that it is a different character and that Kahn is a title and not a name is totally baseless and absurd. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I find it ironic that in the section where we're told not to use his name, we kinda have no choice but to link Khan to Khan Noonien Singh. We do seem to be using his full name in other sections of the article, but it's the plot summary where I don't think the warning is appropriate.


 * However, I want to comment on MisterShiney's assertion that "Kahn" is a title. I was wondering where this idea came from, as I've never heard this stated in-universe before. Turns out "Kahn", as a title, is from the Greg Cox novels. Not anything from official cannon. In either event, it's not really relevant. In addition, we're linking to the Khan Noonien Singh article, which lists Star Trek Into Darkness as one of his appearances. His divergent history is even mentioned in the lede, and he's never treated as, potentially, a different person. Why? Because his full name is stated out loud in the movie, with not even a minor inference that he's a different character altogether. No credible sources even suggest he's a new character. All discuss him as the original, including the film's production crew. His character has established Trek history with an established Trek backstory. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but waiting for sources to say he definitely isn't a new character would be an argument from silence. The Botany Bay part is probably okay to keep in, because it's true it wasn't mentioned by name. But the warning on Khan's full name, at the very least, should be removed. ——Digital Jedi Master (talk) 09:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * If I may interpose, here is a link to an official startrek.com "writer's log" with the writer of the tie-in Khan comic miniseries. The interview mentions that film writer Roberto Orci was involved in the making of the tie-in comic, and the comic writer refers to the STID character as "Khan Noonien Singh". As shown in this 6 page preview  the STID character identifies himself in-universe as "Khan Noonien Singh". Can I say that authorial intent, or rather film writer intent, is clear that the STID character is indeed named "Khan Noonien Singh"? Transphasic (talk) 01:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It doesn't seem an issue to describe Khan in Into Darkness as Khan Noonien Singh; logically, he's the same character, in terms of reliable sources and the primary text he's mentioned as the same character. That he's credited solely as "Khan" and that Khan in the film is cagey about it just seems to be an oddity explained by any number of factors, and doesn't seem like something we have to stress over, or try and divine authorial intent about. Insofar as he's credited in the film as "Khan", we regularly give full character names in the cast lists that don't specifically correspond to how they're listed in the film.  Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 17:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * What if we compromise with something like a line in the Cast section like "The original "Space Seed" episode gives his full name as Khan Noonien Singh."? Transphasic (talk) 00:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Now that the furor has died down perhaps the reception section can be revisited
The reviews launch "bounce" was as well stage-managed and manufactured as might be expected but the film's generally underwhelmed audiences. Now that the PR people are not watching Wiki, perhaps this section can be revisited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.172.72 (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really a need to, as I see it. Critical reception didn't change from those weeks because more time has passed, and that's what the article is reflecting. Mainstream reviewers had more positives to say about the film than negatives, and that's reflected here. General blogosphere fan reaction over a year later doesn't warrant revisiting those reviews unless they made some kind of significant impact recently. I can only assume from your comments that you think Wikipedia is easily swayed (and even monitored) by the movie studios putting the film out. I can assure you such an attempt would be a futile one. ——Digital Jedi Master (talk) 08:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

--You're asserting that multi-million dollar studios have no interest in gaming Wikipedia or skill at it. One does not need to be cynical to see that such a blanket assertion as the immediately preceding is a bit boastful. :)
 * Let's put this another way...do you have any reliable sources to support your own assertions with regards to Wikipedia coverage of this film? DonIago (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Remember all that nonsense about the title?
The internet (and reliably sourced media) remembered. Really, that was a lame discussion from beginning to end. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * And then those sources being rejected for inclusion, not because they failed to address the question of capitalization, but because they were also discussing Wikipedia. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

“Sequel” section unnecessary
Is there any reason to keep the “Sequel” section about the formerly upcoming sequel to this sequel? It doesn’t seem directly related to this subject beyond being in the same series. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Because we don't delete whole sections because one person thinks it is unnecessary. We don't censor information, we provide it. Is there a good reason to censor this information? SonOfThornhill (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As there's a series article and this is not the only sequel in a franchise, it does seem like it doesn't belong in this article beyond a mention. We don't have sequel sections on any of the FA film articles because it's needlessly duplicative. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That is at least valid reason, not just one unregistered user deleting a whole section based solely on their opinion. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I did say, It doesn’t seem directly related to this subject beyond being in the same series. That’s not an IDONTLIKEIT reason. Please don’t dismiss a valid opinion merely based on its source. Pretty sure we have project pages discouraging that. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 16:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, see WP:ONUS. We don’t restore material just because one person thought it was unnecessary and removed it. We explain how it’s necessary, and then restore it. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 17:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:ONUS doesn't apply. Whole sections are not deleted based on one unregistered users opinion. David gave a valid reason for the deletion, you didn't. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * How is “not directly related to the subject” not a valid reason? How does ONUS not apply when I’m clearly disputing this content? And what does my registration status have to do with anything, besides being an ad hominem distraction? Anyway, if you agree that it doesn’t belong, why is there even an argument? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You deleted a long standing section in the article, so WP:ONUS doesn't apply. That threshold had already been reached long ago when it was originally included. David gave a valid reason for deleting the section, you didn't. And unregistered editors are often disruptive and have vandalized articles. If you want credibility to make edits, I suggest you register. SonOfThornhill (talk) 22:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I’m aware you don’t think I gave a valid reason. That’s why I asked how the reason I gave was invalid. And please drop the ad hominem line of reasoning rather than doubling down on it. As for the “long ago” consensus, the section is disputed now, so do we have consensus to include it now or not? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 14:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Only disputed by an unregistered editor. Thus, no consensus exists to delete the section. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As there's a series article and this is not the only sequel in a franchise, it does seem like it doesn't belong in this article beyond a mention (emphasis added). No, it is not only disputed by me. And I’ll ask you again to stop undermining your point with ad hominem arguments. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yet David never said to definitely delete it. Just that it doesn't "seem to belong". So at this point there is only one unregistered editor who wants it deleted. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What other interpretation is there? I’m trying to assume good faith, but you sound like you’re just nitpicking. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you think this is worth an RFC? I’m not sure where else we can go from here. But in the meantime, Do you agree with the removal? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 15:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * How about this? Become a registered user and then come back here and make a rational argument for the section's removal and propose a proper revision. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement for an IP to register in order to participate here. Stop suggesting this. --Neil N  talk to me 15:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If you don’t believe unregistered users should be allowed to contribute to Wikipedia, I suggest that, for the time being, you find a project that does not allow them to. Wikipedia does. And I’m still waiting for you to address the argument I gave in my first post, or to explain how it was not valid and rational. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No I'm suggesting that you would have more credibility if you did register. I'm also suggesting that you make a proper proposal for the deletion and post a suggested revision. Just stating your opinion that you don't think it belongs is not good enough. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Personal credibility shouldn’t factor into it. If the argument would be good enough coming from an editor whose name you’ve seen every day for the past ten years, it should be good enough to stand on its own merits regardless of who makes it. Does the identity of the proponent really bias you so heavily? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Instead of wasting time arguing about this, why don't you spend your time crafting a better argument to remove the section and proposing a proper revision. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

My argument: The contents of the section are not relevant to this subject, and all three of us here have agreed that this is a valid concern. My proposal: Remove the non-relevant section (which actually should have been done as soon as Star Trek Beyond was created, if not sooner). Now can you directly address what I’ve been suggesting this whole time, now that I’ve reiterated it for you? Do you have any actual objections—to the argument? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * How is the film's sequel not relevant to the subject? Again your reasoning is just "I don't think it belongs". Come up with a better argument and a proposed revision. If they make sense, I support it. SonOfThornhill (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If a subject has its own article, there's no need to content fork it. I'm not aware of any high-quality film article as part of a series that spends paragraphs on its following films (especially just covering pre-pro and development information, which is already in and elaborated on in the following article). It reads exactly as it is—a section started when a new film was unknown and untitled, and it extraneous at this point now that the sequel has come out. As the IP suggests, should we start an RfC? This seems like a lot of circular arguing and unnecessary hostility over a subsection. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a proper argument and have no objection to it. There is no reason for an RFC. All I wanted was a proper argument for removing an entire section beyond "I don't think it belongs". The only think left is to propose the revision and this issue can be settled. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * (Same IP user on a public computer.) Please stop misrepresenting my argument. I never said it "doesn't belong" (and I've corrected you on this before). I said it's not relevant, and you have never even tried to argue for its relevance. Also, please stop ignoring my proposed revision. If you see a problem with removing the section, which contains old information that is better given elsewhere, then point it out so that we can address it, or propose your own remedy. —151.132.206.26 (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Not misrepresenting your argument but that is all it really boils down to. How is the film's sequel not relevant? David gave made a valid argument for removing the section. All that is need it a proper revision to the article to be proposed. I'm fine with leaving the section as is. But am ok with it being deleted and replaced with something else. I'm just waiting for that something else to be proposed. SonOfThornhill (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * David explained how it’s not relevant, you mean. I didn’t explain that because I thought it would have been obvious at a glance. Also, the lack of any explanation for how it is relevant, the fact that the only defense of it was simple negation, seems to indicate that it isn’t relevant. Anyway, as I’ve said before, I’ll suggest something to replace it with as soon as you explain why it needs to be replaced with anything. Or you could suggest something yourself. Or we could simply remove it, if there’s no reason to do otherwise (and there doesn’t seem to be one). So if there’s nothing else, we can remove the disputed content now, yes? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes David made the case for removing the section, not that a film's sequel is 'not relevant'. Still waiting for a proposal for the revision/replacement. Maybe if you focused on that instead of being endlessly argumentative, this issue could have been settled by now. SonOfThornhill (talk) 13:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the IP made it reasonably clear in their last message that they would like to see the section removed, not replaced with alternate text. At least one other editor has spoken in support of their perspective, and while I've kept quiet to this point, this ping-pong match is growing tedious. To that end, I'm going to support removal of the section per David and the IP. DonIago (talk) 13:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with David's argument for removing the section. I just don't think the film's sequel should be completely ignored in the article and would like to see a proposal from the IP for a replacement. I don't think that is too much to ask. And as I said before, had the IP focused on that instead of just being argumentative, this issue could have been settled by now. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I made an effort to avoid bringing up editor conduct in my prior post; at this point all I'll say is that it takes two people to have an argument. David noted that a number of FA-quality articles have no sequel section, so my inclination at this point is to support removing it wholesale. Might I suggest that if you feel there should be some discussion of it, that you provide a starting point? DonIago (talk) 14:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one advocating for the removal of the section. Based on David's argument, I don't have an objection to it. But I don't think that the film's sequel is not relevant and should be completely ignored. Asking those who are asking for the section to be removed provide a simple revision that at least mentions the sequel is not unreasonable. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * But it's also not unreasonable to ask that you come up with some ideas as well (I'd emphasize 'ideas' here). Or in other words, that you work with us to come up with text rather than forcing the matter onto other people...especially given that the other people have said that they don't think text is necessary. As the sole party arguing that some text should be retained thus far, surely you have some ideas for what that might be? It doesn't seem reasonable, to me, to argue that text should be in the article while not expressing any opinion as to the specifics. DonIago (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The article doesn’t ignore the sequel. It’s mentioned (and linked) right in the lead: A sequel, Star Trek Beyond, was released on July 22, 2016. What more is necessary here? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Link doesn't work but I checked the article and the sequel is mentioned. So the section can be removed. SonOfThornhill (talk) 13:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * …You mean you put up all that resistance for no reason and you never even checked the article? And what do you mean the link doesn’t work? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * SonOfThornhill was wrong to try to rub your nose in what he perceived as your mistakes even as he acknowledged that others were making good points in favor of your position, but now you're making a similar mistake by rubbing his nose in this. Wikipedia is not a battlegound. Your position prevailed, accept it in good grace and move on. Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I’m not, or at least not intentionally; I just don’t comprehend where he was coming from. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I as an uninvolved editor took it that way, so I have little doubt SonOfThornhill would, so consider yourself advised that it was not a helpful comment and move on. Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I’m not sure how else I should have put it. But thanks for the feedback! —67.14.236.50 (talk) 18:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You didn't need to put it any other way. He came around and removed the section himself, your objective was achieved, accusing him of "putting up all that resistance for no reason" and mocking him for "not even checking the article" after the fact served no purpose. Mmyers1976 (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There was no mockery there. He said he only recently checked the article and noticed the mention (unless I misunderstood, which is all the more reason to ask). I’m genuinely baffled, is all, because to me it seems like a necessary first step to discussion. If any derision could be read from it, I sincerely apologize. Just looking for an explanation, but if he chooses not to give one, that’s fine too. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Does the term "sealioning" ring a bell? Mmyers1976 (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Support removal of sequel section - The sequel has its own article, and mentioning the sequel in the lead (as it already is) should be more than sufficient. I don't seen other articles on individual films in a franchise that have a "sequel" section devoted to the film that immediately follows them. MOS:FILM has no provision for a "sequel" section, the only time it addresses sequels, it instructs to mention them in succeeding paragraphs in the lead section, so I believe we are covered. I also want to say I really did not like seeing an IP having to suffer repeated pointed comments about his unregistered status, and suggesting that registration was a partial requirement for his position being taken seriously. Wikipedia policy explicitly states that registration is not a requirement for participation, and we comment on content, not the contributor. Mmyers1976 (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Star Trek Into Darkness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/2013.01.11-212553/http://blogs.coventrytelegraph.net/thegeekfiles/2009/07/star-trek-2-writers-halfway-on.html to http://blogs.coventrytelegraph.net/thegeekfiles/2009/07/star-trek-2-writers-halfway-on.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111017214715/http://screenrant.com/leonard-nimoy-spock-star-trek-2-rob-24600/ to http://screenrant.com/leonard-nimoy-spock-star-trek-2-rob-24600/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111017175527/http://screenrant.com/star-trek-2-shoot-date-2011-sandy-69165/ to http://screenrant.com/star-trek-2-shoot-date-2011-sandy-69165
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111204161941/http://www.showblitz.com/2011/11/alice-eve-ready-to-beam-up-for-next-installment-of-star-trek.html to http://www.showblitz.com/2011/11/alice-eve-ready-to-beam-up-for-next-installment-of-star-trek.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121107160454/http://www.upcomingmovietrailers.org/star-trek-into-darkness-movie-trailers.html to http://www.upcomingmovietrailers.org/star-trek-into-darkness-movie-trailers.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121231153605/http://www.elimparcial.com/EdicionEnLinea/Notas/Entretenimiento/04062009/380282.aspx to http://www.elimparcial.com/EdicionEnLinea/Notas/Entretenimiento/04062009/380282.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130713134412/http://www.fastcocreate.com/1683071/how-to-write-and-produce-a-summer-movie-blockbuster to http://www.fastcocreate.com/1683071/how-to-write-and-produce-a-summer-movie-blockbuster
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121206043557/http://www.entertainmentwise.com/news/96982/Star-Trek-Into-Darkness-Trailer-Revealed-Will-Aliens-Invade-London to http://www.entertainmentwise.com/news/96982/Star-Trek-Into-Darkness-Trailer-Revealed-Will-Aliens-Invade-London
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141008025829/http://goldentrailer.com/awards.gta14.php to http://goldentrailer.com/awards.gta14.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Star Trek Into Darkness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130618043934/http://www.bbfc.co.uk/releases/star-trek-darkness-2013-3 to http://www.bbfc.co.uk/releases/star-trek-darkness-2013-3
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130606033131/http://variety.com/2013/film/news/star-trek-into-darkness-moves-to-may-16-1200470829/ to http://variety.com/2013/film/news/star-trek-into-darkness-moves-to-may-16-1200470829
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140102192856/http://www.motion.kodak.com/motion/About/The_Storyboard/4294971639/index.htm to http://www.motion.kodak.com/motion/About/The_Storyboard/4294971639/index.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140803051454/http://www.varesesarabande.com/servlet/the-1184/Star-Trek-Into-Darkness-cln-/Detail to http://www.varesesarabande.com/servlet/the-1184/Star-Trek-Into-Darkness-cln-/Detail
 * Added tag to http://www.popcorntaxi.com.au/2013/05/transcripts/karl-urban-the-story-of-neutron-cream-the-most-elaborate-film-prank-ever/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

STAR TREK: INTO THE DARKNESS
The title is stylized this way in the advertisement for its screening on the Showcase channel. I took a screenshot of it here http://imgur.com/xR9pPzk and vidMe at /9Yvo so should we list this as an alternate title? --Ranze (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No a screenshot is not a credible source. All it proves is that a Technician at one cable channel got the title wrong. All promotion material from Paramount use the title 'Star Trek Into Darkness'. SonOfThornhill (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. There needs to be more than a single screen shot on some random cable station to invoke a change to the title. All other sources write it the way that the Wp title writes it.-- JOJ Hutton  14:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

the use of a title on a cable network broadcasting the movie does at least prove that this title is also used to refer to the film. "Wrong" or not, it should be aliased due to that. It's not like it's being presented as the primary title or anything, just that the introduction of "the" into the title (along with a colon) is significant to observe.

this is not an isolated case, others have referred to the film similarly, I'll cite some below for consideration.

So we have a 2015 newspaper, the 2016 ads by Showcase (Canadian TV channel)...

The poster lacks 'the' so I understand the 'this is a mistake' approach but if enough mistakes happen it's still notable to address...

Also indicates use in a television episode:

It's a consistent enough reference to the film to be noteworthy in SOME capacity, a lot of people think of the film as 'into the darkness' and it's been used in distribution. Ranze (talk) 18:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Just because some third party sources get the title wrong doesn't mean it should be justified by noting it here. SonOfThornhill (talk) 21:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I wound up here because xkcd said everyone was arguing about capitalization. But the thing that bothers me is this: I'm pretty sure "Into Darkness" is a subtitle, and there should be a colon, like "Star Trek: Into Darkness". -WhoNeedsAnAccount73 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.22.17 (talk • contribs)
 * That's not how it appears in the movie itself. DonIago (talk) 03:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * True, there's not actually a colon. Star Trek is the name of the series and this particular movie is "Into Darkness" (or "Into The Darkness). But most of the time with sequels, articles and etc. put a colon where there isn't one, and it strikes me as odd that people are arguing about the "official" format anyway when most movie posters these days use all caps because it looks cool.

-I still don't have an account. RIP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.22.17 (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

":Into Darkness" would be a subtitle, while "..into darkness" would be a prepositional phrase.Davidrei (talk) 18:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe Star Treck Into The Darkness should redirect? Svízel přítula (talk) 09:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Lowercase "i" in title
I just reverted an editor putting a lowercase "i" in the title. As near as I can tell, the title is usually spelled with uppercase "Into" but I will bring it here before reverting again. The revert of my edit was done by a different editor, so perhaps they know something I do not. Thoughts? --TeaDrinker (talk) 13:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * You did the right thing. This was debated to death a few years ago but every so often some IP user tries to change it. SonOfThornhill (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * We made XKCD fame as seen here, so it's likely that jokers seeing that elsewhere come by to make that change. For editors interested, there is media coverage listed at the top of this talk page. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Looking through one of the old debates about it, I saw people arguing about whether the title was supposed to be read as one sentence or as title: subtitle, and I wanted to shout: It's both! It's wordplay! The whole point is that it can be read one way or the other! :D Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 09:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As proven by the Colbert elephants vandalism, old stories die hard in the internet age. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Old edit wars must have some tribble blood. Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 02:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Sequel Section?
Hey, why isn't there a sequel section mentioning Star Trek Beyond? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystic Moore (talk • contribs) 06:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Directors' comments
This section was recently deleted, in an edit marked minor, with the rationale "This is utterly pointless, it isnt in other film articles":

{{tq2|

Previous franchise directors reception
In an interview with Buzzfeed two years after the film's release, Abrams addressed some of the film's shortcomings. He thought that the dynamic for Kirk and Spock's relationship in the film "wasn’t really clear." For keeping the identity of Khan a secret prior to the film's release, Abrams felt he "was trying to preserve the fun for the audience, and not just tell them something that the characters don’t learn for 45 minutes into the movie, so the audience wouldn’t be so ahead of it." In the end, Abrams recognized that "there were certain things I was unsure of.... Any movie...has a fundamental conversation happening during it. And [for Into Darkness,] I didn’t have it.... [The problems with the plot] was not anyone’s fault but mine, or, frankly, anyone’s problem but mine. [The script] was a little bit of a collection of scenes that were written by my friends.... And yet, I found myself frustrated by my choices, and unable to hang my hat on an undeniable thread of the main story. So then I found myself on that movie basically tap-dancing as well as I could to try and make the sequences as entertaining as possible.... I would never say that I don’t think that the movie ended up working. But I feel like it didn’t work as well as it could have had I made some better decisions before we started shooting." Wrath of Khan director revealed in 2018, to have been disappointed with the film. He was quoted saying: "In my sort of artistic worldview, if you’re going to do an homage, you have to add something. You have to put another layer on it, and they didn’t. Just by putting the same words in different characters’ mouths didn’t add up to anything, and if you have someone dying in one scene and sort of being resurrected immediately after there’s no real drama going on. It just becomes a gimmick or gimmicky, and that’s what I found it to be ultimately." }}

Personally, though, I think the quoted opinions are interesting. One is from the director of the film reflecting on his own work, the other is from the person who made the most acclaimed Star Trek film (and the film that Into Darkness is essentially based on.) Perhaps the section could be shortened somewhat and merged with the "Critical reception" section, though. Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 18:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It feels a bit like undue weight to have a whole section for rebuttals to critical commentary. It seems like it’d be better summarized within the reception section rather than a long set of direct quotes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)