Talk:Stargate: The Ark of Truth

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: First Plot Details

message: 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)
thread_title: Image removal?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: UK Release Date

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: OK. --Amalthea (talk) 22:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Film Leaked

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: visibly pregnant

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Col Ellis

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: DVD Cover Art

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: There's a little bit on  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: SG: Mythology & Behind the Mythology

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Updated Plot

message: Seems to have premiered on March 27, 2009. --Clark89 (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: SciFi channel