Talk:Star Trek Into Darkness

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 31, 2009Articles for deletionRedirected
November 24, 2011Articles for deletionKept

STAR TREK: INTO THE DARKNESS[edit]

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)

@SonOfThornhill: 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.

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

Brown, Scott (23 August 2015). "Video: First look at Vancouver-filmed Star Trek Beyond". Vancouver Sun. Abrams, who also directed 2013's Star Trek Into The Darkness, handed Star Trek Beyond off to Lin after he signed on to produce and direct the new Star Wars films

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

"Star Trek Into The Darkness Framed Movie Poster". Amazon.com. Star Trek Into The Darkness: A 2013 Movie released by Paramount Pictures

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

Reese, Aisha. "'Star Trek: Beyond' Spoilers: What We Know So Far About The Movie". Enstarz.com. Star Trek Beyond is the third entry in the rebooted sci-fi franchise, which already includes Star Trek (2009) and Star Trek: Into the Darkness (2013)

Also indicates use in a television episode: "Star Trek Into the Darkness Red Carpet Interview with Host Yi Tian" on IMDb

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 (talkcontribs)

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)

External links modified[edit]

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:

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


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

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Star Trek Into Darkness/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Seraphim System (talk · contribs) 15:44, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Symbol support vote.svg · Symbol oppose vote.svg · Symbol wait.svg · Symbol neutral vote.svg


1a: I see some general problems with the prose, the beginning of the plot summary is a bit clunky, ambiguous pronouns, After the battle, Harrison comes up to Kirk demanding to know the number of torpedoes on board the Enterprise and surrenders when Spock tells him. sentence fragments Inside is a man in cryogenic stasis. Awkward use of commas However, Vengeance suddenly loses power, sabotaged by Scotty, who infiltrated the ship. Not clear why a semi-colon is used here, the first clause is about the Enterprise how is that related to Vengeance Khan beams Kirk, Scott, and Carol back aboard Enterprise, but betrays their agreement by critically damaging Enterprise; however, Vengeance is disabled when the torpedoes detonate. Take this paragraph for example:

On April 12, 2013, iTunes Movie Trailers revealed the final domestic one-sheet featuring USS Enterprise, and announced that the final US domestic trailer would be released on April 16. In the days leading up to the trailer release, character posters featuring Kirk, Spock, Uhura, and Harrison were released on iTunes.[90] Paramount attempted to broaden the film's appeal to international audiences, an area where Star Trek and other science-fiction films had generally performed poorly.[91] Into Darkness was dedicated to post-9/11 veterans.[92] J.J. Abrams is connected with The Mission Continues, and a section of the film's website is dedicated to that organization.

It is not a paragraph with a topic sentence and related sentences as much as it is a collection of random and unrelated sentences. I would recommend having someone thoroughly copy-edit this to improve the prose before re-nominating, as the problems are too numerous to list one by one. This article needs significant work, and for this reason, I can not pass the article at this time.

2b: I'm not sure Filmonic is a WP:RS as it seems to be a minor blog, and for a claim that a particular actor was approached for a role that he ultimately wasn't cast in, without a stronger source, I can't judge whether this is rumor or gossip based solely on the Filmonic source. I also would not recommend using Buzzfeed as WP:RS, at least not for a GA article since it has been so controversial at RS/n.

Wasn't given much time to work on these issues before it was failed. A bit unfair, to be honest. Rusted AutoParts 12:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Lowercase "i" in title[edit]

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 | 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 WanderingWanda (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. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 02:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Sequel Section?[edit]

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

Directors' comments[edit]

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

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."[1]

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."[2]

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. WanderingWanda (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)
  1. ^ "The Triumphs And Mistakes That Got J.J. Abrams Ready For "Star Wars"". BuzzFeed. Retrieved May 14, 2017.
  2. ^ "Wrath of Khan Director Disappointed by Star Trek Into Darkness". November 25, 2018.