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
Yes, exactly, current degeneration. And it is not an opinion, it is a fact. The worst episodes of all Star Trek series taken together are not that bad as the new Abrams movie called “Star Trek”. It’s a shallow cliche, and I’m really sorry some people can’t see it for what it is. It has nothing to do with zealotry. It’s a matter of observation. Just look at the bad actors, this Trek has worst actors, even worse than those in “Enterprise”, and the plot is so corny that the worst Star Trek episode (of any series) appears really great. And not to mention it lacks the true spirit of Star Trek, where the true inspiration is found in exploration rather than in meaningless, infantile action. There is no reason to assume this is going to change in the next movie. Abrams’ experiment will obviously go on. But if this should lead to an equally bad Star Trek series, than I think we ought to say ‘No thanks’.
The only fact here is that you can’t admit you are wrong, even though you know you are.
Well, yes, then it should have been named appropriately: Star Trek Rip-Off.
I am aware that you, or those like you, might not like when obvious shortcomings of this badly made Trek rip off are mentioned, but try to be an adult and deal with it. 🙂
Most of what you said is accurate… Where you go off the rails is with regard to the potential for other Treks… Star Trek itself, in every way, is now dependent on Abrams. If his film does well, it’s possible that other Trek could be done. If his Trek bombs, Trek will be in a closet again for half a decade or more until someone can claw it back… But the idea that this production has no impact on other productions is laughably untrue. All other Trek is now dependent on the movie franchise… as that’s the only active Trek. Furthermore, if a TV series were to be done, would it be done in the prime universe? I doubt they’ll do that, to be honest, in either universe. Let’s be frank: the majority of people are kind of stupid. The majority of people that went to see Star Trek in the theatre last time out weren’t actually fans of the franchise, as opposed to being new viewers… after all, it raked in a ton more money than any Trek adventure before it… So, all those new fans would be incredibly confused if we just picked up at some point in the Prime Universe… which is where a vast majority of actual fans of the full franchise would prefer a show be set. Hell, they wouldn’t even make a movie when their own TV series were ongoing as it was deemed too confusing… they certainly won’t do another series set in a different universe than their cash cow… No, Abrams’ Star Trek is absolutely going to keep Trek out of virtually any other venue until it is done. Let’s hope 3 movies is all they decide to do and Spock can figure out a way of resetting things… He was willing to time travel to save some whales… you’d think Vulcan would merit at least some consideration.
Sorry, I meant that without Abrams’ franchise, Trek would still be dead, and that it is not taking the place of potentially good (in trekkie99’s opinion) Trek on TV, because that would still not exist without Abrams’ film. Most of the pitches for new Star Trek TV series have been set in the Prime Universe, although I think that they were talking about an animated series in the alternate universe.
As for the time travel thing, I think the best explanation that we are going to get is that it was an alternate reality. I suppose it makes more sense, but it is inconsistent with canon. Then again, there has never been time travel through a black hole in Star Trek before the 2009 film. As long as they don’t use black holes again, I think its okay to assume that it was because of time travel through a black hole. Perhaps they went back in time to an alternate, but nearly identical, universe. Or maybe the ‘alternate reality’ occupies the same spacetime as the prime universe. Remember the episode of Voyager where the two Voyagers are occupying the same space at the same time? I don’t remember the specifics, but maybe it is something like that.
Again, I agree with most of what you said, but there’s still that one little point… Difficult to see the future is, always in motion… Had Abrams & O&K not been given the reins, that’s not to say that someone else wouldn’t have been by now and that that vision wouldn’t have been equally or more compelling without doing what they did do… (what they did do isn’t a debate I’m really interested in having here and now). After all, that is an alternate timeline in itself, right? The universe in which Abrams didn’t get Star Trek… the one where something else happened… What happened? I dunno… I’m not there and neither are you… so speculation therein is rather…….. unfruitful. But the rights holders to Star Trek clearly wanted to produce more Trek… I don’t really think JJ stands for JesusJesus… he’s not the second coming. If it wasn’t him, it would’ve been someone else… at least that’s my speculation about that alternate reality. 😉
I agree 100%.
I’d like to apologize for my original comment. It was uncalled for.
http://f14ace.deviantart.com/art/Obnoxious-Trekkies-256238152
Something for fans to think about, before slandering J.J. Abrams and his noble efforts.
Hello, it’s me again. I see the discussion continued here. 🙂 Some people really have a need to defend the work of Abrams-Kurtzmann-Orci, no matter how much it deviates from Gene’s original Trek. Well, I’m not one of those. I think Star Trek ought to be what it is and not prostitute itself. This prostitution began already with ENT and has reached its peak with the current Abr-Kur-Orc movie(s). Well, I’ m aware that the studio has the need to make profit out of it, and that the fanbase needs to grow, but does Star Trek really have to sink that low in order to reach that? That’s a rhetorical question. And, judging by its development so far, it has indeed sunk that low. But, I guess, since we live in decadent times, the franchise adapted itself to the needs of a decadent audience. It’s just selling itself, for the sole purpose of survival. No substance, only form. Hence, prostitution. I’d say that is bad for Star Trek, no matter how it currently appears on the surface. In the short term, this reboot might bring in money and success, and an apparent rejuvenation of the franchise, but in the long term it will most likely be the opposite of that.
And to answer to bradley’s reply to my previous post… Well, yes, I, too, have an opinion, of course, but I think there is enough evidence to support the notion that Trek indeed has degenerated rather than evolved further. Many Trek fans would concur with this, and I’d say that this observation, if made objectively, leads to an objective conclusion. Just because something bears a particular name, in this case Star Trek, doesn’t necessarily mean it is the original. This is the classic example of copy vs. original. To illustrate this with an example from a ST:TNG episode, Lt. Astor dies in an accident on a planet, and upon return to the Enterprise the little boy is seemingly reunited with his mother, i.e. Lt. Astor. Actually, an alien entity has taken the form of his mother which now wants to bond with this boy. But the child is naive and does not realize that it is an illusion, a copy. The boy wants his mother badly, and so the entity can trick him. However, Picard and Troi are aware that Lt. Astor is dead, and what appears before them is only a form without substance. It is a soulless entity which could never give the little Jeremy the true affection. So, in a similar manner, current Trek is a sort of soulless entity, lacking essence. As to your accusation that I am a zealot, that’s just ridiculous and unfounded. Regarding episodes, as a matter of fact I’ve seen them all, not just once. And by all, I mean all five series. So, I have some idea of what Star Trek isabout. I don’t think I’m reading too much into it, but exactly that much as should be read. In addition to being a fun, intelligent sci-fi, Star Trek is also about exploration – of human condition as well as of space. It is also a vehicle for examining some human issues philosophically. Star Trek ain’t Stargate, Star Wars, or something like that. I thought that was obvious enough. But, obviously, it doesn’t seem that obvious since this shallow and empty cliche, leaning towards the original idea only in form but not in substance, is considered genuine Trek. What a rip off. I just hope they reset the whole alternate universe thing and tell us this didn’t actually happen at all. 🙂 .
His “noble efforts”? You are kidding, right?
A rather obnoxious text. Nevertheless, thanks for the link.
I’m not going to argue with that. Everybody has the right to their opinion.
No, I’m not kidding. Maybe to some but to others not. Nevertheless, my pleasure.
More like being a Babylon 5 rip-off from the look of things. Including the scheming, interstellar intrigue, and wars.
Sorry, what? “it is not an opinion, it is a fact.”
Sorry but are you absolutely sure that’s a fact? Have they possibly changed the definition and not told me.
You absolute idiot. Why is it so difficult for people to understand that it’s possible to hold a valid OPINION other than their own? Your OPINION is that Abrams Trek is bad. Many, many other people hold an opposing OPINION. Does that make them wrong? NO IT DOES NOT. Get that into your head, please.