Star Trek 2 Has A New Title?
1 min read
TrekMovie is reporting that the second Star Trek J.J. Abrams movie has finally been named.
Paramount is not confirming the title yet, but “this is the title they are going with as of now,” sources told TrekMovie.
The title is “Star Trek Into Darkness.”
According to sources, two domains containing those words have been purchased by Paramount. A quick WHOIS search reveals that www.startrekintodarkness.com and startrekintodarknessmovie.com were registered on September 6 by Markmonitor, an anonymous domain registry company which Paramount has used in the past and more recently with movies such as G.I. Joe: Retaliation.
Star Trek 2, that is to say, Star Trek Into Darkness will open May 13, 2013.
About The Author
Star Trek 2 already has a title – “The Wrath of Khan”. As to the title of the 2nd Abrams Trek movie, to coin a phrase, “Yuck!”
Sounds corny and cheap, like a silly b-movie.
Not as yuck, corny, and cheap as farragut Films Star Trek Continues.
Well… NuTrek 1 was a ripoff of Star Wars… so of course the 2nd nutrek is gonna be the Empire Strikes Back downer. I wish dearly that all these new people who have come to the Star Trek sandbox would realize that the ONLY reason there is a Star Trek all these decades later is because a group of fandug the positive life affirming humanity loving aspects of the show and kept the homefires lit when all seemed lost after the 69 cancellation. STAR TREK LIVES… Just not in JJ’s dojo…
Why do the most negative fans feel the need to comment so frequently?
That’s a good question. One that I have been asking myself as of late.
Maybe someone ought to make a comments-filter, grouping the comments.
So, Star Trek is descending further into darkness. Very symbolic title. It sums up nicely where the franchise is currently heading with J.J. Abrams- not upwards, but downwards.
They turned it into a cheap, shallow cliche aimed at masses. They took away its soul. And the soulless entity is wandering now for the sole purpose of profit…
No, actually the socalled negative fans are actually positive about Star Trek and Trek-affirming, they are just not into the perversion of it by those who are currently practising it.
@Spooky Doo
Oh, you mean something like censorship? Very North Korean of you. 🙂
An option to sort comments, yes. Censorship? No, that’s too spooky 😉
You’re thinking of Rick Berman AFTER Gene R. died. That certainly was NOT the tide of the 70s Trekkie.
It’s funny you think Star Trek Continues is “corny.” As a 70s Trekkie – our mantra was Star Trek Lives… How does that one rate on your corny meter?
Nail meets head with this post. Star Trek was about optimism. A positive future. Fellowship. NOT rogue Admiral’s. Interstellar wars. Political intrigue. Darkness…
Spewing hatred towards Abrams on bit of news tangentially involving him is not helpful.
Ugh, you know Berman actually had a hand in some good shows. DS9 was on his watch. Voyager, while problematic, isn’t as bad as some think and even Enterprise had some bright spots. Berman overstayed his welcome and the franchise went flat. I used to hate Berman, amd still think Braga’s a man of VERY limited talents, but I’m of the mind that they didn’t just put in a half-hearted effort.
Feel good about it. Choosing a title for the sequel was always going to be a challenge – they already said “Star Trek: Something” was not the way they wanted to go, since it suggests ‘just another Trek sequel’, but not using the words “Star Trek” would probably be unwise (and they tried that already with ‘Enterprise’ back in 2001).
It uses the phrase ‘Star Trek’ in an interesting and original way, and is obviously very broad and memorable at the same time, perhaps even simple. But simple is often by far the most effective approach. Yes, a ‘darker’ sequel has perhaps become a bit of a cliche in these times after Harry Potter/TDK (and Empire of course) but there have already been comments promising similar fun, comedy and action.
Since Star Trek Continues didn’t even release an episode yet, it’s most likely someone’s paying you to badmouth it.
No, I’m actually referring to current writers and producers. Gene’s Star Trek had a vision, and Berman continued this vision as best as he could, but these people now are destroying this vision. One can see and feel this is not going anywhere. Actually, it is going somewhere – straight into darkness, as the title itself suggests.
I’m guessing “Star Trek Into Suck” was already taken.
Indeed… and even though Rick Berman didn’t really like Kirk, he still never tried to destroy the character and turn him into Han Solo… James T. Kirk isn’t a reluctant hero, an anti-hero, or anything of the sort… well… I should say he wasn’t…
I sincerely hope the title is “Star Trek: Into Darkness” and not “Star Trek Into Darkness.” Without the colon, I agree it would be awful.
Lonely butthurt spammers who have nothing to do but sit in their momma’s basement and thumb down any pro-JJ Abrams comments.
I’d gladly say how corny and cheap Star Trek Continues looks without the money.
Actually I found it to be an interesting exploration of Kirk’s character. If you knocked a major part of Kirk’s upbringing away, being his family and his Starfleet upbringing, would he still be Kirk? it was a different approach for a reboot, and I was suprised at how well K&O (those knuckleheads) handled it. It wan’t destroying Kirk’s character at all; in the end, he is still Kirk.
Either someone is who they are through genetics or they aren’t. Star Trek cannot have it both ways, and they cannot, in particular, have it both ways in consecutive films… If Kirk is Kirk simply because his genetics make him so, then why was the Mirror Universe Kirk Tiberius instead of the same old guy? Obviously the difference in stimuli shaped who that person was… but even moreso, because it doesn’t involve an inherently different universe, care to explain Shinzon in that context? So, James T. Kirk is some amazing guy no matter what happens to him, he’ll still be that guy… But Jean-Luc Picard? Nah, he’s just a bum who needed to be raised on a palatial estate in France in order to become the man he was… The whole point of Nemesis is contrary to what you suggest is the point of Abrams’ reboot… So, either you’re showcasing in stark detail the departure from real Trek, or you’re making excuses. We’ve seen plenty of people who we thought we knew, only to have the reveal be that we didn’t know them at all because they weren’t formed the way the people we know were… Oh, and lastly, Abrams literally said he found the character of Kirk to be boring and wanted him to be more like Han Solo… more rogueish… So, you can pretend they didn’t do what they’ve done all you want… Trek itself begs to differ on the fact based merits of the discussion.
While not admirals, Lt. Commander Ben Finney, Commodore Matthew Decker, Captain Ron Tracy, Captain R. M. Merrick, and Fleet Captain 7Garth of Izar would like to have a word with you about rogue Starfleet officers.
The Klingons, Gorn, and Romulans may have something to say about interstellar war and intrigue as well.
While Star Trek always espoused a positive view of humanity’s future, and its heroes were the epitome of the ideal, they always stood against a fairly dark universe.
Really, Kirk’s upbringing between the two universes wouldn’t have been that different. His mother was still there, and one can assume that his father in the Prime universe would have been gone for long periods of time serving in Starfleet anyway. We don’t really know how long his stepdad was around or how much influence he had.
Besides, the idea that James “Never Met a Problem I Couldn’t Punch, Shoot, or Screw” Kirk wasn’t fairly roguish to begin with is pretty silly.
It’s simply the nature of nerddom.
The very examples you cite in terms of rogue admirals were presented as abominations… Yet take something like Section 31 in ds9 and Enterprise – which were presented as necessary evils. It’s all about CONTEXT. I stand by my comments – since my feeling was influenced by Gene Roddenberry’s very remarks on the issue.
Also… out of 79 episodes – how many did the Klingons and Gorn appear in… very few actually – the majority of trek episodes were about things much more interesting than interstellar wars.
Section 31 doesn’t make your point very well. While the members of S31 think of themselves as necessary, they’re never presented as very sympathetic by the story, and the main characters always do everything they can to take them down. Sisko, Bashir, Archer, etcetera, consider them to be as much an “abomination” as any other corrupt officer.
Section 31 doesn’t make your point very well. While the members of S31 think of themselves as necessary, they’re never presented as very sympathetic by the story, and the main characters always do everything they can to take them down. Sisko, Bashir, Archer, etcetera, consider them to be as much an “abomination” as any other corrupt officer.
When the real reason that it is being made is known. It’s Vic Mignogna’s and Farragut Films’ way of seeking a personal, petty vendetta against James Cawley and the hard working professional staff at Star Trek-New Voyages/Phase 2. That incident where Mignogna with held and released the P2 episode ‘Kitumba’ without permission from its rightful owners(the P2 staff)being one of many controversial issues committed by him and more than likely certain FF staff members.
And no, nobody is paying me to badmouth it.
Tell me about it. These people certainly give new meaning to Star Trek’s I.D.I.C. and in a very negative way. Another reason why I thumb down any pro-Starship Farragut/Star Trek Continues comments. Only in that particular case, it’s justifiable. J.J. Abrams did not committ any controversial and questionable acts. FF and their business partner did.
We know exactly what the implications of his father’s death are… he turns into a self-important loser. But I’m not sure what your point is… Are you suggesting that his father being dead and having this step-father wasn’t a big change? Then why do it at all? And if it was a big change, then what was the change? And why? See, either it was a change, which had a point, or there wasn’t much change. Which was it? I know I certainly don’t recognize the character. A few snide one-liners and a cock-sure attitude does not make-up the entire personality of James T. Kirk… That he gets into fights and into ladies beds doesn’t mean anything… Why is he fighting? For what? Jim Kirk wasn’t about fighting for the sake of fighting… that’s hardly Gene Roddenberry’s vision. He was a man willing to fight when it was necessary to fight. He was also willing to love. And? Why was this new Kirk willing to fight? To fight… fighting for the sake of fighting. And sure, Pike showed up and tried to redirect that… at which point a cadet was promoted to Captain of a Federation Starship… the Flagship, no less. Sorry, I just don’t see the justification for the changes… and I certainly see the changes. If you can’t, great… ignorance is bliss.
Well… of course they were presented as abominations… they were the badguys of the episodes. I guess I presumed that any scheming Admirals would be scheming against the heroes, not on their behalf… at which point, Trek is replete with schemers like that. The only time we get positive scheming is very loosely in TNG’s Conspiracy… but those good rogue captains were killed off almost immediately. But yeah, just for narrative purposes, those seen as schemers are usually bad guys. I don’t really think that’s a revelation.
All of DS9 was about scheming and interstellar intrigue and wars… True, not Roddenberry, but certainly Star Trek.
Priceless… IDIC, but in a negative way…. lol well, that actually made my day… I think everyone here can now take your posts with the appropriate grain of salt if they hadn’t already caught on…. What Star Trek fan would actually say that?
Ah, so just a loser with an axe to grind… good to know.
You have nothing better to add here? I’d like to remind you that not the fans commenting here are the topic and real issue here, but the new (crappy) title of the movie as well as the current degeneration of the franchise. Please, stay on topic and don’t get personal. Thank you.
More like hearing information from both sides, sifting through the facts, and coming to a conclusion. If anybody is a loser with an axe to grind, it is those who have repeatedly slammed, slandered, and harshly criticized J.J. Abrams and his work. Same goes for those who have tried to twist and pervert Star Trek and it’s good name by other controversial acts. That last description being in reference to Farragut Films.
I swear, you purists have a bad habit of tarnishing something fun just to satisfy your overblown egos!
Amen to that! Gene Roddenberry must be rolling in his grave at such utter stupidity.
You’re certain that you are not confusing this with something else different?
Boy your hatred for Abrams is not only disgusting but also appalling! If the franchise is currently heading downwards, you’re blaming the wrong person and group for it!
Berman and his people also damned near destroyed the franchise due to them taking way too many trips to the well. Deep Space Nine, Voyager, Enterprise, Generations, Insurrection, and Nemesis being fine examples of such studio greed and folly. That was a clear indication that the Star Trek franchise was going straight into darkness. Or should I say oblivion? Either one goes hand in hand.
Whether you purists care to admit it or not, Abrams did bring life back into Star Trek. You can nitpick all you want until hell freezes over. He did breath new life and energy to it, the film was a box office smash hit blockbuster, a sequel is on the way – with a third film in the planning stages(the actors are contracted to be in three films), that’s all there is to it!
From one 70s Trekkie to another, the mantra doesn’t rate anything on the corny meter at all. It was the slogan that helped keep the series alive in the Seventies and brought us The Animated Series(the 4th Season fans got four years late)and the first Star Trek film. The only meter that Star Trek Lives would rate on would be a meter of excellent television.
(I)nfinite (D)ickishness in (I)infinite (C)hatrooms.
if you don’t like JJ’s trek go watch
TOS…That is why JJ called his first film an alternate universe…so you have
an option.
I would advise you
to be an adult and pick the one you like instead of sulking like a child.
“current degeneration of the franchise”
That is just ridiculous. Putting aside the fact that this is just a matter of opinion, this is the equivalent of saying that the franchise is degenerating after watching 3 episodes you dislike. For every Trek show, I can think of a streak of disappointing episodes longer than the total running time of the 2009 film (127 minutes).
I am active in the Stargate community, so I am used to this kind of rabid hate, as SGU haters are like religious zealots, but I thought Trek fans were better than this. Ever heard of live and let live? Why should it matter to you if somebody likes Abrams’ film(s)? Besides the fact that complaining on the internet will get you nowhere, J.J. Abrams’ film may have very well opened the door for more prime universe Trek on T.V. Fans like you are the reason Enterprise was cancelled just as it hit its prime.