Talk:Stargate: The Ark of Truth

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First Plot Details[edit]

Some days ago, the first longish spoiler summary appeared on Solutions, and yesterday on Gateworld. I only scanned the articles shortly (because I don't want to overspoil myself) but on both sites, it was not made clear where those spoilers come from. But since gateworld has posted them, they seem to be genuine. I think now is the time for someone to work them in (not me - just don't copy from gw or solutions!) – sgeureka (talk • contribs) 15:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a related subject, the film leaked recently. Is it against Wiki policy to post spoilers, and specifically spoilers from a leaked film? Sorry, I'm new :-\ JamesTwisleton (talk) 04:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When the beginning of Season 4 of Atlantis leaked online, attempts to add a spoiler writeup were reverted. The reasoning I guess was that there are no sources (gateworld, interviews, New York Times etc.), and that the primary source (the film/episode) officially didn't exist yet. – sgeureka t•c 08:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image removal?[edit]

Should we stop using the ori in the flames image, apparently it has been confirmed that that image will not appear in the movie. I'm getting this information from comments on a youtube page, that is why I say "Apparently" I dont know their original source, (supposedly the special effects people) my source = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5Lc0U_0bso&mode=related&search= —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baaleos (talk • contribs) 03:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral If you believe removing the image makes the article better, go ahead. The image will likely be removed once the movie is released, so it's not like it will have a long life either way. – sgeureka t•c 09:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UK Release Date[edit]

It appears that it may well be being released worldwide on the 11th of March. Amazon UK have it listed (can't be pre-ordered but there is a sign-up for a email notification when it's available) as "All Regions" for the region and the release date is started as the 11th March 2008.--Heruur (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't put much weight behind Amazon's dates, they frequently put up a date then change it at the last minute. Notable examples are Black and White 2, which had its date put back 3 times, and Spore, which has had it put back 5 times to date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.141.116.91 (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
UK online shops are currently split over the release date. Some say April 14th and some say April 28th. Meanwhile Sky's own magazine SkyMag has the film scheduled for Easter Monday or March 24th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.206.91.73 (talk) 02:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Film Leaked[edit]

Today the film was leaked - 24/12/07 Is it ok to edit the plot? Im sorry but I am unfarmiliar with wiki policy regarding this 89.100.233.32 (talk) 23:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't. Since the source (the leaked version) officially doesn't exist, no-one can check whether the updated plot is made up. Or it's something about copyright infringement, I don't know. Maybe there are already spoilers in the article, but I cannot read the plot section because I'm trying to stay spoilerfree. Anyway, it's better to err on the safe side. – sgeureka t•c 23:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree. Just because the film hasn't be released, doesn't mean you can't put a plot section on this page. As long as it's correct, it shouldn't matter. Remember "Be Bold". And we can just change it later if they alter the film before it's released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.1.40.169 (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it is doubtful that the plot should be added, the released version may not be a final edit, also there is the question of how the person who added the plot learned it, do you really want someone asking you that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NIKKKIN (talk • contribs) 20:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moral and legal issues aside, NIKKKIN is correct -- the leaked and final versions may be(and probably are, since there are still some months remaining) very different. =David(talk)(contribs) 20:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the movie's been out for months now and available worldwide. Does anyone have any objection to removing the part about the movie being leaked? Let's have this discussion before anyone does anything.Thinkbui (talk) 03:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I just argued on Talk:Stargate: Continuum#Internet, I went ahead and deleted it right away. --Amalthea (talk) 21:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And that conversation doesn't automaticlly carry over to here but I cut it back to mention of the workprint being leaked as that is more notable because workprints don't leak all the time .Garda40 (talk) 21:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. --Amalthea (talk) 22:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

visibly pregnant[edit]

amanda tapping is visibly pregnant towards the end of the movie from the black uniforms to the filming technique her pregnancy was hidden well im wondering if they will will redo the scene because this is a leaked screener that isnt completely done in post production the music is probably the most impressive part of this movie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.110.55 (talk) 06:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well, that doesn't have much to do with the article, and since technically it hasn't been released it cant be mentioned. Also, perhaps the character was meant to appear that way, everything is just speculation until the final version is released or a source informs usNIKKKIN (talk) 20:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless she managed to kept a baby very quiet Amanda Tapping wasn't pregnant during the filming of this movie.However Claudia Black would have been in the early to mid stages of her second pregnancy as she gave birth to her second son in November 2007 . Garda40 (talk) 21:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would assume not as well. She did Ark of Truth and Continuum and presumably went directly into filming Season Four of Atlantis, so unless she happens to be an even more brilliant scientist than Carter and was able to bend the intervals of time to check into the hospital, have another kid, then check out all between filming sessions, I don't think there was time. Certainly, she would have had a much reduced working schedule if she was pregnant.Thinkbui (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe she is not pregnant, but in one of the shots of the leaked movie near the end she appears to be pregnant-like. Maybe just a bad angle/posture, but this is one of they things I hope they fix before the release —Preceding unsigned comment added by WarKosign (talk • contribs) 09:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, saying all that, you have to admit, she did have a very low key role in the Ark of Truth Movie. She didnt do any stunts, was not involved in any scenes that where very exerting, opposed to the other cast. Usually she doesnt mind being shot at, blown up, or put in harms way. But I admit, alot of this is just conjecture at this point, and unless she actually tells us her conception date, which not many stars do, we wont know for sure. Alot of her scenes in the Ark of Truth involved standing still, and talking. Baaleos (talk) 12:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conception date? Did I miss some big announcement of her giving birth recently? This movie was filmed in April/May of last year, so if she was showing in it, it'd mean she was at least 3 months pregnant. Which, in turn, would mean that she gave birth around October of last year, which I think we would've heard of by now. Even if she was just barely pregnant at the very end of filming (not showing, but still trying to be careful to avoid stunts and stuff), she'd have given birth by February of this year. So unless she's done a REALLY good job covering up the fact that she's got a new baby (which'd be pretty hard, since she went straight from filming Ark to filming Continuum to filming Atlantis to producing and filming her new TV series and hasn't visibly slowed down, let alone taken a couple months off for a kid), I don't think she was pregnant at any time during Ark of Truth. (okay, barring the unthinkable chance that she was and there was a problem with the pregnancy, but if that was the case it's doubtful we'll ever hear about it) --Maelwys (talk) 14:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Col Ellis[edit]

I know appearing in the prescreener doesn't mean anything, but has anyone heard through official channels if Abe Ellis is appearing in the final cut?Thinkbui (talk) 10:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

since it is only a prescreener that was released, it is not confirmed. It hasn't been officially anyway —Preceding unsigned comment added by NIKKKIN (talk • contribs) 15:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DVD Cover Art[edit]

I have changed the profile picture to the official DVD cover for the film. I tried to list all the fair use rationales I could.Obriensg1 (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I have expanded you fairuse rationale somewhat. Could you upload a smaller version of this image, like a 50kB image, or at least something smaller than 400px? Because that would constitute low-resulution which is preferred on wikipedia. – sgeureka t•c 23:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for reverting your new image before but it had got tagged as failing the rationale very quickly.I had seen a similar situation in a another article before where the image was changed ,the new image failed fair use and then the old image got tagged as orphaned which meant the article would have ended up with no image if I hadn't intervened .As I am unsure how to correctly fill out the rationale I thought it was best to revert to the old image .Garda40 (talk) 00:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plot[edit]

I've added the plot of the film, as per the film itself. Jasca Ducato (talk) 11:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see #Film Leaked above. --Maelwys (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've read that; and the fact of the matter is that, leaked or not, the film is out. And so we can insert the plot into the article. Jasca Ducato (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Due to legal and copyright issues this cant be added in untill the official release, date and if you persist an admin will be alerted to this edit war which you have undoubtedly started. Pat (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What legal issues? Jasca Ducato (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well for one as the film hasnt been released one must assume that it was an illegal copy. Besides which the information you have provided is unverifiable and as such cannot per wikipedia rules be included Pat (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is still no way for the average reader to verify that the plot you posted is correct. Until the movie is publicly available, or we have a reliable published source confirming any facts about the plot, we can't publish anything detailing it. I could just as easily claim "no, you're lying. But I HAVE seen the pre-release version, and in it Mitchell and Carter both die, so I'll publish MY version" and there's no way that anybody can verify which of us is correct. --Maelwys (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you can verify the plot, you jst have to have access to a reward consideration release, which i'm assuming you do not, wheras I do. Whilst you might not be able to verify it, I'm sure others could. Jasca Ducato (talk) 21:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I said "... no way for the the average reader to verify ...". Which is the definition of verifiability. Which this plot information fails. Which is why it can't be posted there. --Maelwys (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I only reverted that edit because the discussion is not over, and by prematurely protecting it your trying to force your "rightness" on me. Jasca Ducato (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. I am an average user, but I can see that no one gives a shit, so I cant be arsed to carry on with this. I hope you realsie your mistake when the film gets released. Jasca Ducato (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no mistake to realize. I believe you already, so watching the movie won't make me believe you any more. But whether or not you're posting the truth is irrelevant, the basis for Wikipedia is verifiability, not fact. And this information is simply unverifiable. --Maelwys (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, if someone were to put in the plot under a heading saying "Leaked movie summary" or something similar, that would be verifiable, because any user can verify it by downloading the leaked copy and watching it. As long as it's made clear that the summary may not apply to the finished movie, I don't see how that would break any of the policies. Nothing in the verifiability policy says anything about sources having to be legal, as long as it's verifiable - and what's more verifiable concerning the plot of a leaked movie than the leaked movie itself? At any rate, I think the reverted summary should be re-added as early as possible on the release date, that way nobody else has to write out the whole thing from scratch. --Charax (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it doesn't explicitly say anywhere that a source has to be legal, I still think it's true. You can't say 'any user can verify it by downloading the movie' because what you're saying is 'anybody can verify it by breaking the law'. If you have to break the law to verify something as true, it's not exactly easily verifiable by the average (law-abiding) reader. --Maelwys (talk) 13:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Find me a jurisdiction where downloading a file is illegal. All prosecutions to date have been for uploading files, so as long as the user doesn't share the file. File-sharing is often illegal, file-getting isn't. Unless, of course, you'd care to prove me wrong (Using a verifiable source, naturally) --Charax (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you're using Bittorrent, chances are that you are uploading the file at the same time you are downloading it because it is a file-sharing medium. (And yes, I too broke the law.) BTW, the workprint prescreener is posted somewhere for direct download? I've only seen it on Bittorrent and other file-sharers.Thinkbui (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IF you're using bittorrent. It's been posted to Usenet and Rapidshare too, neither of which involve automatic sharing, Therefore you can get it without distributing it, Therefore you can get it without breaking the law, Therefore it's a verifiable source --Charax (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And it was posted on Bittorrent first so they only way to get it originally was through file-sharing .The fact that some people have decided to make it easier for others to obtain it doesn't make it legal.It's like me robbing a bank and giving you the money .It's still stolen property .Garda40 (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Therefore it's a verifiable source." Uhm actually it's not since the origins of that workprint cannot be verified at least until either MGM or Bridge releases some kind of statement or documentation, a paper trail leading directly back to the studios, or March 11 when the movie officially comes out, though in all likelyhood it is indeed an early draft edit. Verifiable is precise in an encyclopedic sense and probably doesn't cut it.Thinkbui (talk) 07:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, y'think that might be why I said "As long as it's made clear that the summary may not apply to the finished movie"?
EDIT: Oh, and if the veracity of the workprint is unverifiable, shouldn't all mention of it be expunged from the article? After all, nobody can prove that this is a workprint of the Ark of Truth and "probably doesn't cut it" --Charax (talk) 08:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did someone slam the door on your face tonight? No need to have that kind of tone here. If I came across as condescending, I'm sorry, but that was not my intent. Let's stay civil. It also wasn't clear to me that you were talking about the workprint alone in that response, which is why I responded the way I did. We could also go on for pages and pages of responses about spoilers and unfinished details of the movie, but honestly let's not 'Million Dollar Baby' this movie and instead leave the plot details that aren't in official press releases until March 11. As far as removing all references to the workprint, that's something I'd like to do since there's really no point in mentioning it at all except to point hardcore fans in the direction of getting an early look. Some of the other editors had removed it before, but someone else always adds it back, so I've had a "why bother" attitude about that since it doesn't really spoil anything. If we're going to maintain standards on this page, then yes it should be removed, but I don't know how long it will be gone.Thinkbui (talk) 08:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


SG: Mythology & Behind the Mythology[edit]

Is there any evidence that these two videos are NOT to be confused with, and not the same production? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.250.174.76 (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I remember seeing something like that in a GateWorld article about the DVD, but I'm not sure.Thinkbui (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am fairly certain that Joseph Mallozzi said it in his blog once when a fan asked him the same question. – sgeureka t•c 02:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a little bit on [1] which references an interview on StargateSG1.com, but it's not totally concrete as he only says that they'll "probably" do it. It does say though that this one would intend to fill new viewer in on the story up to this point and not go into the detail of how much of the characters were extracted from Earth mythologies.Thinkbui (talk) 23:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having seen an advanced screener of the final DVD, I can tell you that whatever you want to call the Mythology special, it isn't on the DVD. Vader47000 (talk) 10:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever edited the article tonight seems to agree, though I can't give whoever that was high marks for reading comprehension.Thinkbui (talk) 10:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the frappin link to Gateworld that sources this info doesn't have ANY information on this Mythology special, I don't know why it needs to be mentioned. In fact, I interviewed the producers last July and they told me the Beyond the Mythology TV special would be on there. But it isn't.Vader47000 (talk) 02:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The bulk of my info comes from that link I posted in the the third response of this discussion topic. At the time I am writing this one, it's the 7th bullet from the top. Granted that may have been confusion of whoever originally wrote the article on StargateSG1.com and the error later quoted on GW, but whatever they were apparently talking about seems to now be called "The Road Taken".Thinkbui (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updated Plot[edit]

Ok guys, I know we are not allowed to write a plot on the main article YET. But I decided to write a "blueprint" of sorts. When the actual movie is released, we can take this Blue Print, copy and paste it in, and alter it to suit. It saves time writing from scratch. I hope you like it. I am just gonna post it here on discussion, so it can be used at a later date. This is taken from the leaked Movie. So some could be different, but I would say MOST is correct. Also, who ever wants to add this to the Plot, feel free to add in the Wiki Links to various Characters and locations.

Guys, I didnt see the long edit discussion above regarding the workprint version. I appologize in advance for the obvious reply I am gonna receive for posting the below information. But can I ask that this information remains in the discussion, at least until the movie is released, this Discussion page is "for discussing the article". I have posted a proposed entry to be made into the article, I am posting it here for people to improve upon, and/or edit in the hopes it can be made better and eventually be made part of the main article. If we were to work on the Plot Summary on this page, then on the official release we could have the Summary complete and all. If anything, working on the summary on this page, gives us preparation time. Let me know what you think, and please be gentle. Lol Baaleos (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed by sgeureka

Baaleos (talk) 15:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This summary is twice or three times as long as allowed. If you really want to offer this summary, trim it down a lot. You can work on it in your userspace and invite other people there. Since the summary is also copyright infringement at the moment, I have removed it from this talkpage for now. – sgeureka t•c 16:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, It was quite longwinded. But I have added it to my talk page, in case anyone wants to take parts of it for use in an "official" plot summary, when one wanted. It is easier to edit a plot summary, than to write one from scratch, and that was my reasoning behind making it. Baaleos (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I prefer to trim plot than to write it myself, but I didn't know whether you knew. :-) – sgeureka t•c 16:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SciFi channel[edit]

Seems to have premiered on March 27, 2009. --Clark89 (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(internal ads starting a week earlier, and Dish Network's on-screen TV guide) --Clark89 (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stargate:_The_Ark_of_Truth&oldid=1217234235"