Noel Clarke: Star Trek Sequel Has Title + Poll: Does It Need To Include “Star Trek”? | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Noel Clarke: Star Trek Sequel Has Title + Poll: Does It Need To Include “Star Trek”? June 27, 2012

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Star Trek Into Darkness , trackback

There are many things that are still unknown (or at least unconfirmed) about JJ Abrams 2013 Star Trek sequel. Even the simplest things like who the main guest stars are playing is still a mystery, as is the title of the movie. However it appears (according to one of those guest actors) that a decision has been made on the title, but he isn’t saying what it is. Also TrekMovie weighs in with an opinion on if the next Star Trek movie needs "Star Trek" in the title, with a poll for you to have your say too.

 

Noel Clarke: I Know The Title of the Star Trek Sequel (But I won’t tell you)

Speaking to Digital Spy, actor Noel Clark (who plays father/family man in the Star Trek sequel) said he "had a great time" during the three months he spent in L.A. filming the movie, and he hopes he makes the final cut.  He was also said he knew the title of the movie but wouldn’t reveal it.

Star Trek without "Star Trek"?

As recently as a few weeks ago screenwriter Roberto Orci said they still hadn’t picked a title but they were close to one. Last weekend he said there is a "75%" chance the title would contain the words "Star Trek," which of course means there is a possibility it won’t. If Clarke is correct, then perhaps he knows the films subtitle, which could possibly stand alone or be presented as "Star Trek: Subtitle."

Personally I have long advocated for trying to find something that actually doesn’t include "Star Trek" in the title. My reasoning is that it would give the JJ Abrams films their own style, following his initial Star Trek film of 2009. The original crew films (following Star Trek: The Motion Picture) all had roman numerals and subtitles (like Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan), and the TNG crew films all had "Star Trek" and a subtitle, like Star Trek: First Contact. So perhaps the JJ Abrams films could have their own style, instead of returning to the TNG type of titles (which is also the traditional franchise film title format).

Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying they should try to hide Star Trek, but allow the film to stand on its own. Christopher Nolan’s two follow up films to Batman Begins don’t include "Batman" in the title (The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises). The upcoming Superman movie is simply called Man of Steel. And of course none of the 23 James Bond movies include "James Bond" or even "007" in the title, including the upcoming Skyfall. In a way, going with franchise + colon + subtitle feels a bit old-fashioned or passé.

The key is finding a title that is evocative of Star Trek without having to say "Star Trek." An example could be "Final Frontier" but of course that one was taken by William Shatner for Star Trek V. Like with "Dark Knight" and "Man of Steel" there are many words and terms that are associated with Star Trek, such as "warp," "mission," "boldly go," "starship," "beam (me up)," "USS Enterprise," "prime directive," etc.  And of course the associated imagery and branding around the title could clearly identify the film as a Star Trek film, like has been done for other films without the franchise name in the title (see below).

Will I be upset if the movie goes with the traditional Star Trek + subtitle format? No. But, I think it is worth considering something different.


The upcoming Batman, Bond and Superman movies are clearly identified without saying "Bond," "Batman," or "Superman"

POLL: What do you prefer?

Well I have given my view, but what do you think? Back to the traditional Star Trek + subtitle (maybe with a colon thrown in there), or try something new and go for a title that is evocative of Trek without having to say “Star Trek.” Vote in the poll and sound off below.

Should Spock & Uhura Break Up For Star Trek 2016?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

 

 

 

Thanks to James for the link

Comments

1. Drij - June 27, 2012

Yes. Star Trek needs to be in the title.

2. Ensign Ricky - June 27, 2012

It has to have “Star Trek” in the title.

3. Dr. Cheis - June 27, 2012

I voted for “Trek evocative title (w/o ‘Star Trek’),” but honestly beyond “Final Frontier” I don’t think there are any that people could associate with the franchise without being a die hard fan.

4. fiercey - June 27, 2012

Star Trek in the title. Seems like a no-brainer to me!

5. Eric Holloway - June 27, 2012

Maybe a third option of “No Preference” as I don’t care as long as the movie it good. Call it Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock as long as it’s a good movie people will remember it no matter what the name is. Of course look at all the Harry Potter movies, they did quite well and had the name in its title so there is the othjer side to your James Bond arguement, plus many more such as Star Wars.

6. Darrell - June 27, 2012

I really don’t care at all about the title. I just want a movie with Roddenberry’s heart displayed up front and not a bunch of action, explosions, and time travel.

But I did vote to have “Star Trek” in the title. Now let’s live up to that name.

:)

7. Clinton - June 27, 2012

I think having “Star Trek” in the title is something you can use/ignore as needed. I mean, who actually calls it “Star Wars, Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back”?

8. Mike Lynch - June 27, 2012

“Close Encounters of the Roddenberry Kind”

9. njdss4 - June 27, 2012

I’m not so concerned with whether or not “Star Trek” is in the title, but about what the subtitle will be. Won’t matter if “Star Trek” is in the title if the subtitle is really stupid.

10. Eric Holloway - June 27, 2012

@7 Clinton I mean, who actually calls it “Star Wars, Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back”? Exactly…most people when they go to the theater will call the movie whatever it really is such as Star trek, Star Wars, Batman, Superman or Harry Potter. I don’t imagine too many folks went up to the ticket window and asked for a ticket to The Deathly Hallows Part 2. They will call it Star Trek at the ticket window and mostly remember it that way. Hey dude remember that Star Trek movie with (insert villian name or plot point here) ? That’s what the average joe will remember.

11. MattR - June 27, 2012

“Dark Knight” and “Man of Steel” are synonymous (as in other names) for their title characters, so it’s a lot easier to go that route with those franchises. Bond is Bond, and the titles had their start based on the novels so there was already a connection.

“Star Trek” is a little trickier since a lot of the common phrases that are well known as actions word (“boldy go”, “warp”, etc.) or might sound boring as a standalone title (“federation”, “prime directive”, even “Enterprise” to a certain extent). I think a standalone title for Trek would work, but it probably wouldn’t be a common Trek phase.

12. NoKhanPlease - June 27, 2012

Why would they want to distance themselves from the franchise when they had a big hit?

That’s a dumb Hollywood trend. Berman and Braga tried that, thinking people would watch their drivel if they didn’t put Star Trek in the title. It didn’t attract anyone.

Of COURSE it should have Star Trek in the title. If they don’t want to make a Star Trek movie, do something else. It would be pretty ridiculous to not acknowledge the franchise after a big hit.

I don’t care if they call it Star Trek 12: Electric Boogaloo, but it absolutely needs Star Trek in the title.

13. Jon1701 - June 27, 2012

I’ve always thought

“Where no man has gone before”

would be a great title for a movie. I know its already been done in the TV series but it captures the essence of Star Trek perfectly.

Of course it depends on the plot, but I always thought it was quite evocative.

14. Harry Ballz - June 27, 2012

Yes, of course, Star Trek should be in the title.

Think about it……when Star Trek:The Wrath Of Khan came out, it only took a few years before people simply referred to it as The Wrath Of Khan.

Nobody alludes to Star Trek:Nemesis, they simply say, “wasn’t Nemesis gawdawful!”

Now, with the new movie, say it’s called Star Trek:Crapfesteroonie. A few years from now, people will say, “hey, when’s the last time you watched Crapfesteroonie?”

15. Curious Cadet - June 27, 2012

Leaving Star Trek out of the title accomplishes two things:

1) those who are Star Trek adverse for whatever reason may actually go see it, and before they know what they are watching, actually like it.

2) Star Trek is a brand that got a huge shot in the arm in the last film. But it’s not a big enough brand yet to go brand-less like Bond, Superman, and Batman. People who saw Trek for the first time and liked it enough to see more, may not realize the new film is Star Trek. This may also include some fans.

Obviously marketing would play an important role in going brand-less. Two different campaigns could pander to the two different groups. As long as the trailers are compelling, there’s no reason to even mention Trek for some. So it would be a real test of the merits of this film on its own. Of course that’s not how Hollywood works …

16. Jeyl - June 27, 2012

Well, if they don’t include Star Trek in the title, that would be the most honest thing they’ll ever do for this franchise. Leave Star Trek to the material that actually wants to deal with something outside of trying to stop a bad guy all the time.

17. Robert McDougal - June 27, 2012

Damn you Shatner for taking “The Final Frontier”. Also, why has no one made a Michael Myers movie called the Shape?

18. Red Dead Ryan - June 27, 2012

In the case of Batman and Superman, they both have alternate nicknames so its easy to leave Batman and Superman out of the titles and go with Dark Knight and Man of Steel instead. The James Bond movies originally began as novels so half the movies were named either after novel titles or quotes from the books. They’ve continued with the tradition even though they’ve exhausted the source material. They still use either the gun logo or the barrel, or both.

The thing with “Star Trek” is, you don’t really have many catchy phrases to use in place of “Star Trek”. The best known, “Final Frontier” has been used. “Where No Man Has Gone Before” has been used as the title of an episode, but on the other hand, “First Contact” and Nemesis” were both titles of TNG/VOY episodes before becoming movie titles. And the movies had nothing to do with the episodes. So there is precedent.

So if “Star Trek” is not included in the title, they should at least include the delta sheild logo.

19. Danya - June 27, 2012

Personally I’d like the title to just be Star Trek 2. Especially if Khan is the villain, then it’s kind of a “remake” of Star Trek II anyway. But even if it wasn’t I don’t think it matters. [Franchise]:[Blabla] always sounds corny, but I agree with everyone who has already said “Star Trek” absolutely must be in the title. I don’t think the brand is strong enough without it.

20. Christopher Roberts - June 27, 2012

STAR  TREK ————
T O   B O L D L Y   G O
——————————

21. loghaD - June 27, 2012

I’d like “Star Trek” in the title, but I recommend against giving it a number: If you call it “Star Trek 2″, you risk upsetting a lot of old fans, and if you call it “Star Trek XII”, you risk alienating newer ones.

22. The Quickening - June 27, 2012

Not having the brand name in the movie title is because a film, franchise or film series is popular enough it doesn’t need it. Don’t think TREKs recognition around the world is significant enough to risk that… especially internationally. STAR TREK definitely needs to be in the title.

23. Red Dead Ryan - June 27, 2012

#8.

“Close Encounters of the NERD Kind”

:-)

24. Adam C - June 27, 2012

thunderbirds is fine

25. Red Dead Ryan - June 27, 2012

I still think they should go with “Star Trek 2″ as the beginning of the title. Most people are referring to the sequel as that anyway. They’ll refer to it as the subtitle when they go see the movie. The Arabic 2 will be used for visual purposes. ie posters, dvd/Blu Ray covers, etc. No one will confuse it wtih “The Wrath Of Khan”, which is how most people refer to “Star Trek II” anyway.

26. DB7 - June 27, 2012

A New Frontier
The New Frontier
The Search For Porthos
Where The Enterprise Has Never Been Before
Where No One Can Hear You Scream
From the Shipyards to the Stars
Forever into Eternity

27. Remington Steele - June 27, 2012

The Dark Knight Returns?

Nolan has a secret Batman movie?? We have not been informed!

28. Chancellor Gowron - June 27, 2012

I think they should just go back to the original series style formatting, and call it Star Trek XII: Subtitle. Obviously they won’t, but I don’ t think that TNG should have broken the format.

29. Snugglepuff - June 27, 2012

Without ‘Star Trek’ please!!

Sounds old fashioned with it in.

30. Drew - June 27, 2012

Boborci boborci boborci you have been summoned. How about a clue? Give us 3 abbreviations for the subtitle (or potentially 25% main title)… only 1 is correct. That would keep us busy for a while.

31. Gary Neumann - June 27, 2012

Its not so simple as some put it here.

The movie has to:

1 – Make Trekkies go watch it (and do repeat viewings).

2 – Make the viewers of the first one (either DVD, TV, Cinema, Rental) go to and watch this new installment.

3 – Expand the Audience – Stand alone. – Part of what the production team has stated is that they want their movies to be able to stand on its own.

Depending on how you put the tittle, that alone will partly define how to do the marketing.

Finally, in the last movie, the words Star Trek had a Delta in the backround… so we hope they keep that up for both the Marketing and the film per se.

32. n1701ncc - June 27, 2012

Here are my titles

Escape from Talos IV
Warp Factor 7
Spock’s Beard – If this is a mirror movie
Federation
Alpha Quaderant
Butler vs Tango
or just
Star Trek : NCC-1701

33. Drew - June 27, 2012

Other than begging Bob for a clue, I think the title must strongly hint to the plot given the secrecy… Some dual-meaning word. One meaning would deal with the awakening or uprising of this genetic superman… the other meaning? I don’t know. This story has me pondering though…

34. Bernd Schneider - June 27, 2012

It would be kind of schizophrenic to name the first film just “Star Trek”, as if it were meant to replace/reboot/redefine everything Star Trek, and then make a 180° turn and drop “Star Trek” altogether.

35. p'trick - June 27, 2012

Didn’t they try that already? With a somewhat unpopular series entitled “Enterprise”

Of course, if they could find the IDEAL non-Star Trek title, i’d be impressed.

36. number6 - June 27, 2012

“Star Trek: Something” is totally fine. I don’t see why this is a big deal.

37. SoonerDave - June 27, 2012

If we’re afraid of putting “Star Trek” in the title, then its time to close up shop and go home. Good grief. Shall we give Kirk a new name, say, Smith? How about changing the “Enterprise” to “Generic Big Space Ship Because We Don’t Want Anyone To Think This is Really A Star Trek Movie”

What are you going to put in its place? “Kirk and Spock’s Second Great Adventure?”

38. I'm Dead Jim! - June 27, 2012

My Mother the Shuttlecraft

39. Commodore Adams - June 27, 2012

@35

Exactly! And then ‘Star Trek’ was put in the tile of Enterprise.

40. Drew - June 27, 2012

If this film/Cumberbatch’s character is in any way connected to Khan, I would appreciate a Milton reference ala Space Seed…

Paradise Lost
Reign in Hell (I know, but sounds more cinematic than Rule in Hell)

41. Gary S. - June 27, 2012

#13
I LOVE that idea!

42. Amhran - June 27, 2012

As long as it does not have a NUMBER associated I’m going to be happy.

43. Kirk, James T. - June 27, 2012

“The Continuing Mission: Star Trek”

44. Anthony Pascale - June 27, 2012

Always happy to spark a debate.

As I noted on Twitter, “Enterprise” isn’t really an example of it not working. In fact the show had higher ratings than Voyager when it started. So decline was more due to lackluster S1/S2. This argument is the same as those who said ST2009 would fail because Enterprise was evidence that a prequel is a failure.

My point is that they dont need “Star Trek” in the title after successfully rebooting the franchise, the associated branding should be enough. And so you dont have to go back to the old way which to me feels like backtrackiing

Hard to say if this approach would help or hurt in markets where ST2009 didn’t do as well, such as latin america, asia and Europe (outside UK and Germany). Maybe Trek-less branding would benefit the film. This is the approach taken with Star Trek IV overseas which was promoted as “The Voyage Home” with the Star Trek IV becoming the subtitle
http://trekmovie.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/star_trek_iv_ver2.jpg

45. Commodore Adams - June 27, 2012

With regards to the posters, James bond was never in the title of any bond movie, neither was 007, it was always so and so as James bond 007 in Goldfinger or Octopussy. And the dark knight is another way of saying batman. So dark knight is to batman as batman is to dark knight. How else do you say star trek? You can’t and you don’t.

46. Phil - June 27, 2012

Khan 2.0

The character you love, but not so wrathful….

47. Commodore Adams - June 27, 2012

Oh and man of steel is another is of saying superman as is the dark knight comparison. How else do you say star trek?

48. Dom - June 27, 2012

13. Jon1701: ‘I’ve always thought

“Where no man has gone before”’

Sounds like an ‘adult’ film, unfortunately. :( ;) (Seems the correct word for that type of film is getting my post blocked!!)

There are bits of the pre-title dialogue that could work:

‘Strange New Worlds’, ‘New Life, New Civilisations’ ‘Space: the Final Frontier’

But Star Trek is more about catchphrases than names. The Dark Knight, The Caped Crusader and the Man of Steel are all known alternate names for their characters.

Another way to do it could be Star Trek Part 2 or Title: Star Trek Part 2 of course . . .

49. Hugh Hoyland - June 27, 2012

“The Next Frontier”

50. Anthony Pascale - June 27, 2012

And yes the examples from Batman, Alien, Bond and Superman are not EXACTLY the same as Star Trek, but does that mean that therefore Star Trek must go back back to the the old way. Must any change be viewed as so challenging?

Is not risk the business of Star Trek?

If it must have Star Trek, then there is my even crazier idea, which takes the opposite approach and have JJ Abrams call all his Trek films “Star Trek”. This is the Peter Gabriel approach, as he titled his first four solo albums “Peter Gabriel”

51. Phil - June 27, 2012

@44. My understanding is that The Avengers carried the title ‘Avengers Assemble’ in some foreign markets. So the flick could be sans “Star Trek” in the title here but still carry the name overseas. What will be interesting is to see if it gets leaked sooner then later – eventually Paramount is going to have to register the domain names, I’m assuming some sharp eyed person will talk when they figure out what they are looking at.

52. SoonerDave - June 27, 2012

How about…

“Generic Space Based Movie Title”

“A Group Of Folks Doing Something Interesting On Something That Might Be Considered A Spaceship”

“Dramatic Ennui in a Warp 5 Brewery”

“A little bit of Star, a little bit of Trek, but definitely not together”

:)

53. SoonerDave - June 27, 2012

Coming soon: TrekMovie.com becomes “DeepSpaceFranchiseMovie.com”

54. Planet Pandro - June 27, 2012

I for one would argue just b/c Shatner used “The Final Frontier” for the subtitle of ST:5 doesn’t mean JJ et. al couldn’t use it as the primary title of their movie. “Final Frontier” has a nice ring to it as a standalone.

…of course there’s Diane Carey’s novel, so whose toes really get stepped on? (a novel which, I contend, would have made a fantastic prequel movie adaptation in its own right)

55. Christopher Roberts - June 27, 2012

——————————
T O   B O L D L Y   G O
—————– Star Trek

T O B O L D L Y   G O
——– Star Trek ——–

http://i696.photobucket.com/albums/vv330/Christopher_Pike/STARTREK2.jpg

56. Red Dead Ryan - June 27, 2012

#54.

The problem is, if they reuse “The Final Frontier”, people will still associate it with William Shatner’s bomb and stay away from it.

“The Final Frontier”, as cool as the title is, still represents what is seen as a joke by the mainstream media.

The supreme court might be courting bad publicity if they go that route.

57. Khan's Mullet - June 27, 2012

Perhaps Paramount feel that not including “Star Trek” in the title would help bring in new audiences who might feel uneasy. I personally don’t have a problem with no Star Trek in the title… I know what the franchise is. A title like “Strange New Worlds” or “To Boldly Go” can only be associated with one thing…

58. drumvan - June 27, 2012

wait for it…wait for it…wait for it…

@20

finally. wouldn’t be a true thread without it.

59. drumvan - June 27, 2012

@32 “spock’s beard”

great prog band.

60. Joel - June 27, 2012

@Anthony

I’ve pondered the idea of Abrams simply titling all the films “Star Trek” and then perhaps after the cold opening/credits, what have you, he gives the movie an episode title like the TV show.

It’s a concept that I’m not sure has ever been used in movies, but it would harken back to the TV days for Star Trek. Give us our big bold credits sequence that simply calls it Star Trek, then give us a catchy “episode” title card after the credits and bam, you’ve solved everything. I think…

61. Phil - June 27, 2012

Instead of some catchphrase, that in all probability will end up as fodder for Comedy Central, something related to the actual story might be the best way to do. If your story has Kirk and crew safely chugging around Federation space, references to boldly going to the final frontier will seem really pedisterian….

62. NuFan - June 27, 2012

Don’t expect the villain’s name in the title. JJ would never allow that.

63. Darkthunder - June 27, 2012

I thought Man of Steel was a 2013 movie. Has the release date been changed to 2012 ?

64. Craiger - June 27, 2012

The Enterprise Rises

65. filmboy33 - June 27, 2012

I am not sure you can get away with excluding “Star Trek” from the title like you can with the other examples that have been given for Batman, Superman and Bond. Star Trek lacks terms that make it instantly recognizable. Terms that are catchy and marketable. Sure, Star Trek has plenty of imagery that is iconic and instantly recognizable to fans and non-fans alike. Images like the Starfleet symbol, The Enterprise, and the color schemes of uniforms. The new team took advantage of two of those with their teaser posters for Star Trek 09.

You could try using old episode titles for the title of the film. Like Balance of Power, Space Seed, or something along those lines. Some other examples(some obviously meant as humor):

Starship Enterprise
To Boldy Go
You Got Khaned!!!
Of Humans and Vulcans
I’m giving it all she’s got, Captain!
Logical
The Logical Vulcan
Khan!!!! (using B movie fonts and style)
The Misadventures of Kirk and Spock
New Vulcan
James Kirk
Shadows of Nero
Warping into a trap!

Ok, just goofing on most of those. I am sure the title will have Star Trek in it and will be probably pretty boring. Not that the title really matters to me as long as the movie attached to it is good.

66. danielcraigismywookiebitch - June 27, 2012

50 I will counter with, why should star trek follow another movie franchise’s path?

just because that works for the Nolan universe Batman and superman films doesn’t mean it will work for Star Trek .

67. Darkthunder - June 27, 2012

As for the subject of the question…

I really don’t care what the name of the movie is, as long as it has a good story, and the characters are played well.

However, I could see some merit in going with just a “subtitle” name for the movie, with the posters reflecting that it’s actually a Star Trek movie. You have ~800 episodes of Star Trek, each with different names. Pick one of the episode titles that best matches the movies plot.

68. Gary Makin - June 27, 2012

Dancing with the Star Trek or Star Trek on Ice.

69. Emperor Mike of the Empire - June 27, 2012

They tried that with Enterprise and it did not work. By the time they used Star Trek Enterprise it was to late. I think they should use Star Trek with a Subtitle.

70. Emperor Mike of the Empire - June 27, 2012

Hey Anthony. I have to disagree with you. Star Trek should be in there. But as Scotty said. Everyone is entitled to there opnion!. Lol, But in this case. Bob Orci and the court’s opnion is the one that count’s.

71. CJS - June 27, 2012

They should call it Star Trek: Hey JJ Get That Light Out of My Eyes or ST:HJGTLOMY.

72. Thomas - June 27, 2012

I myself am intrigued by the idea of the title being evocative of Trek without having to spell it out. If it can be done, I’m for it. I tend to agree with those that say it would probably just be called Star Trek anyway at the box office.

73. Captain Smarty Pants - June 27, 2012

I like seeing ‘Star Trek’ so that + subtitle for me please!

74. Cody - June 27, 2012

If someone could provide an actual good reason why a Star Trek film sho9uld not contain the title Star Trek, then that would be something. But since it is a Star Trek film, I see no reason why it should not be called Star Trek. I don’t agree with doing more to make J.J.s Star Trek films stand apart from the rest of the canon any more than they already do. Just let them be Star Trek, and don’t try to be too different. Classic Trek is hard to improve upon.

75. Calastir - June 27, 2012

If they’re not even sure about calling it Star Trek, then maybe they should simply stop whatever they’re doing and just back away from the franchise before they ruin it completely.
Getting more worried with each bit of info that leaks out, guys. I have a bad feeling about this. Looks like they don’t actually want to make Star Trek, but rather some other, more mainstream movie. I wish they’d just pick up the courage and do that.

76. Crusade2267 - June 27, 2012

Call me superstitious, but I think it’s bad luck to drop the words “Star Trek.” We all remember what happened the last time they dropped the name Star Trek from the title. And how it didn’t really get good until they restored it, by which time almost nobody was watching.

77. BoltBait - June 27, 2012

Star Trek: Sherlock

78. Bradford matt - June 27, 2012

I think we will definitely have something for the 20th July. For Paramount not to put a teaser up for The Dark Knight Rises would be mad. It’s going yo be the biggest film of the year and be a great start to promotion

79. Mike - June 27, 2012

They tried leaving out the “Star Trek” when they first broadcast “Enterprise” to try and distance themselves from the franchise. We all know what a dumb marketing move that was.

80. crazydaystrom - June 27, 2012

I voted ‘Trek evocative title’ because I like and agree with the idea of the JJ Treks having their own distinct style of titling. But that’s nothing against the name Star Trek at all. I’m a proud and outspoken fan. Truth is, the title I’d most prefer is the one that will have the most positive affect on ticket sales. It’s just that there’s noway of telling really, only guesses can be made about that. Hopefully they’ll be apt and well educated guesses.

Right now I’m craving the title badly! NEED the title! Either form factor, I’ll be happy.

AS LONG AS it doesn’t contain a ’2′ or a ‘II’. Or a ‘Wrath” or a ‘Khan’! That would drive me totally sane! And believe me, you wouldn’t like me when I’m sane. Not a pretty sight ;-)

81. ben - June 27, 2012

I could see them going half and half. I would. No one asked me, of course, but here’s how I would do it:

TREK 2: Subtitle

Maybe that’s what they meant by 75%? A four word title, but they took out “star”, so 75% of the title was left? Okay, maybe not . . .

Anyway, I like “Trek 2″. It’s catchy.

82. ben - June 27, 2012

I do think it’s silly to rebuild the franchise brand by calling the first movie “Star Trek” and just lose the branding altogether.

The Superman, Batman, and Bond examples are false examples. For Batman and Superman, those “renamings” are not NEW names, they are closely related names the, for anyone who is interested in the character, are probably already known or at least evocative of the mood of the film. Man of Steel has been Superman’s subtitle for decades and if not part of the public consciousness, close to it. Even though it IS the only movie title, it really is, all things consider, just a subtitle. Same with The Dark Knight and Dark Knight Rises — those ARE subtitles.

For Bond, the difference is that the branding always contains “007″. Always. I think something similar could be done with Star Trek 2, but not as successfully.

Enterprise is perhaps the only subtitle that could stand alone as a successful title. Remember, it not only has to evoke mood and content, but be catchy and interesting. A movie simply called “Final Frontier” or “Strange New Worlds” is not going to bring in new eyeballs. It sounds boring.

No, they have to build on what they’ve already built, in my opinion.

Still my vote: Trek 2!!!

83. Ryan Thomas Riddle - June 27, 2012

I’d prefer without STAR TREK. Something like:

“Where No Man … ”

or

“Final Fronter”

or

“New Civilization”

84. Jeyl - June 27, 2012

Why does it always have to be “Where no man”? Don’t we have aliens amongst the crew? I knew Star Trek 09 was the one movie that totally hated aliens with a passion, but at least it had the decency to say “no one”. We are sharing the journey after all.

85. Josh - June 27, 2012

I don’t care what it’s called because no matter what, i know it will be a great movie. I just want boborci to give a little tease…

86. Odradek - June 27, 2012

In Germany it was always “Raumschiff Enterprise” anyway. The first time I heard “Star Trek” was when I saw Star Trek lll. Then I thought:”Pfff, it’s only Raumschiff Enterprise. They only call it Star Trek now to chum up to the Star Wars crowd”. On TV it was not called Star Trek until DS9.

87. Will Johnson - June 27, 2012

Star Trek : Warp Factor Fun

In the latest installment of JJ Abrams’ revamped Star Trek series, Captain Kirk and crew set off to face their greatest foe yet… but they won’t do it alone.

Adam Sandler stars as the computer generated Flarf, a Demondiosian third grader with a heart of gold. As Kirk, Spock, and McCoy learn from Flarf about the magic within an alien child’s heart, the evil Space Dictator Gen’eri C’Ba’dguy plots his revenge on Kirk… though no one knows why as they have never met before.

The action warps onto screens, Summer 2013.

88. thepyramid - June 27, 2012

I kind of like leaving out Star Trek. They could still put it on the poster below the title in a small font for clarity (like the Bond poster does have 007).

“To Boldly Go”
“Strange New Worlds”
“Live Long and Prosper

“Khan” (to the point after all the b.s.)
“He’s Dead Jim” ;o)
“Beam me Up” ;o)
“Illogical Actions”

Any of these might catch some of the thematic stuff of the movie, depending on what the plot actually is.

89. Phil - June 27, 2012

Where did all this misconception about Enterprise’s ratings come from? That show started off well in the ratings without the Star Trek tag on it. Things were spiraling down the drain when they re-branded it ST:ENT, but by then it was too late.

90. I'm Dead Jim! - June 27, 2012

Star Trek: This Bud’s for You

91. Mike - June 27, 2012

Howabout
Star Trek II: Really Star Trek XII

92. PEB - June 27, 2012

@12 how exactly would that be distancing themselves from the franchise when the film itself revolves around the original crew that sparked the entire franchise? if this was a movie that had nothing to do with the uss enterprise or had COMPLETELY new characters and set in a completely different era, then i’d totally agree with you. and it’s true, at the end of the day, it’ll be promoted or talked about as a star trek movie. you cant say kirk, spock, bones, scotty, chekov, sulu, or uhura without thinking ‘star trek’ so either way works for them, but as long as it’s a cool title, sure i wouldnt mind them not having star trek up front in bold letters. it is what it is.

93. Mike - June 27, 2012

or
Star Trek II: On The Rocks
Star Trek II: Lost in New York

or the James Cameron Aliens route:
Star Treks

94. PEB - June 27, 2012

most fans dont even say star trek when talking about the show, we all just say TOS, or TNG or next gen, or Voyager, DS9, etc….so really what should it matter?

95. Thorny - June 27, 2012

I vote for and fully expect the movie to have “Star Trek” in its title. I really think there is zero chance Paramount will have it any other way. Their one flirtation with ignoring “Star Trek” was, to Paramount’s view, a miserable failure (“Enterprise”.)

Star Trek is not like Batman, Superman, or James Bond. And thank heavens for that. Batman and Superman’s alternate titles use common/widely known names for their characters. James Bond titles are from existing media (novels or short stories.) There are very few Trek phrases that are really appropriate, i.e. “He’s dead Jim” or “Beam Me Up” don’t really make for good movie titles. “Enterprise” was already used and Paramount will certainly want to distance itself from the failed Captain Archer series. I suppose had they set up to tell their story that way from the beginning, “Five Year Mission” could have been a decent title for a series of movies, i.e., “Five Year Mission: Strange New Worlds” followed 2 years later by “Five Year Mission: New Civilizations”, and finally “Five Year Mission: Where No Man Has Gone Before”, but they evidently aren’t planning more than one movie at a time.

I can’t offhand think of another franchise movie that didn’t have their primary title in it somewhere, i.e., the upcoming “A Good Day To Die Hard”. “Prometheus” is an odd case.. a movie that seemed to have internal struggles over whether it wanted to be part of the franchise or not. That’s not the case for Trek 2013.

96. Mike - June 27, 2012

I know it’s long, and it needs some work, but howabout:

Star Trek XII: Doesn’t The Fact That The Last One Didn’t Suck Disprove The Theory That The Odd Numbered Ones Suck

97. Keachick - rose pinenut - June 27, 2012

Star Trek is iconic. The words themselves are very evocative and always have been.

Star Trek: Of Good Heart (?)

98. La Reyne d'Epee - June 27, 2012

Probably should have Star Trek, it covers all bases then.

99. dalek - June 27, 2012

No Star Trek in the title. In fact I would like to put forward that the film has no title at all and is simply called:

May I even go further as to suggest that Trekmovie drops the Trek from the URL and is now known as movie.com

100. Captain Courageless - June 27, 2012

I followed Eproms link and by the trailer teaser, I’d call it
”The wrath of Joachim…………………………………………….?”
Why didn’t I hear about the teaser trailer guys?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31OS4dVUv3A&feature=plcp

101. JR - June 27, 2012

i do think it is time that Star Trek can be consdiered a ‘type of movie’ all on its own. Other films may take place in the Trek Universe too.

102. Keachick - rose pinenut - June 27, 2012

Or
Star Trek: Heart and Soul

Star Trek: Seeking Solace

Star Trek: Reconcile

I have no idea what the story is about, but I hope that themes like faith, hope and charity have some place. Without having at least two of those operating within each of us to some degree, not a lot is possible or bearable.

103. Jamesspock1 - June 27, 2012

What a movie that would be, better that the previous Trek, not hard to beat.

104. Check the Circuit - June 27, 2012

Personally, I’ve always liked having Star Trek in the title. I’ve always felt that the movies were an extension of the TV show I grew up watching. The latest movie was simply a new episode to me. And I get a kick out of going into a theater and simply asking for a ticket to Star Trek. (I don’t EVER remember using a numeral or subtitle when handing over my shekels.)

On a related subject, maybe TPTB should have different marketing plans for domestic and international audiences. Call it Star Trek in the States and Boldly Go (for example) in the rest of the world where the name brand (inexplicably) seems to work against success.

105. PEB - June 27, 2012

“It’s about the future, Madame Chancellor. Some people think the future means the end of history. Well, we haven’t run out of history quite yet. Your father called the future the undiscovered country. People can be very frightened of change.”

fans, listen to the good captain

106. Matt - June 27, 2012

No Star Trek in the title. Make it something more exciting. The franchise name in a title can, these days, imply branding over story. Like branches of McDonald’s.

I like the suggestion of “Boldy Go” or “Where No Man Has Gone Before”

107. SherlockFangirl - June 27, 2012

Jesus Christ, give it a rest with this “it doesn’t need to have ‘Star Trek’ in the title” BS.

108. Jobryant100 - June 27, 2012

Hey if they want to differenciate it from the 2009 movie and are trying to attract people who are not very familiar with Star Trek, why not call it what half of them do anyway;

“Star Track”

109. Check the Circuit - June 27, 2012

On the other hand, you have more fingers.

Sorry.

On the other hand, the title almost doesn’t matter. Instead of trying to “leverage a strength” or trick people into going to a movie they normally won’t with a non-descript title, just make a great movie with great marketing support. IMHO opinion, The Avengers exceeded box office expecations (wildly) for those reasons. It could have easily earned $200mm-$250 on its name and connection to the earlier solo movies alone. It became a PHENOMENON because of picture perfect marketing, outstanding reviews, great word-of-mouth and repeat viewings.

If the Supreme Court accomplishes the above, the name is virtually inconsequential.

110. I'm Dead Jim! - June 27, 2012

Star Trek: Emotional Architecture

111. agentm31 - June 27, 2012

Star Trek: Strange New Worlds

Or just

Strange New Worlds

112. I'm Dead Jim! - June 27, 2012

@108 Love that! Better yet:

Star Track: Search for Dr. Spock

113. shamelord - June 27, 2012

51. They names it The Avengers Assemble not to confuse the audience with the famous Avengers television series (John Steed and Emma Peel, remember?)

“Boldly Go” would be nice
“Final Frontier” too, even with the Star Trek V association
“When Harry met Kirkie” (tribute to Nora Ephron)
No numerals please

But didn’t they say it would sound like Star Trek: Something Something?

114. Phil - June 27, 2012

@102. So, I’m guessing ‘Star Trek: Curb Stomping Alien Garbage Back to the Stone Age’ is out?

I’m kidding. Though it doesn’t seem to be in the making this time around, it would not bother me to see the crew of the good ship Enterprise exploring strange new worlds again.

115. Xai - June 27, 2012

IMO, there are only a couple phrases that could stand alone as a Movie title that the general population would “get”, without a Star Trek main title.
“To Boldly Go” & “The Final Frontier” would work.

116. ST Fan - June 27, 2012

It won’t be the same if they don’t use Star Trek in the title! It should be something like:
Star Trek: The Return of Botany Bay or something like that. Nothing with numbers or roman numerals.

117. Dee - lvs moon' surface - June 27, 2012

Star Trek: Enterprise Ready For The Fantastic Villain

……………… definitely… ;-) :-)

118. NCC-73515 - June 27, 2012

—-Not Star Trek—-
-Because We Could-

Just kidding XD

119. Ahmed - June 27, 2012

They should use Star Trek in the movie title, I don’t see why any one would object to that.

I hope Abrams team will not change that just because they could !

120. Stokiespock - June 27, 2012

The wrath of batch !!!

121. Montreal_Paul - June 27, 2012

How about:

Star Trek: These Are The Voyages

I know it was the title of the last episode of Enterprise, but that doesn’t matter.

122. be flat - June 27, 2012

How about simply “Transformers 5″?

123. shamelord - June 27, 2012

How about “Klingons Like Us” ?

124. Ciaran - June 27, 2012

They tried not putting the “Star Trek” title on Enterprise. Obviously that didn’t work.

125. BoltBait - June 27, 2012

Star Trek: Aliens Gone Wild!

(I’d pay to see that.)

126. AJ - June 27, 2012

Star Trek: No Soup For You!
Star Trek: The Nexus Penetration
Star Trek: Now with Real Sugar!
Star Trek: I’m Not Changing the Channel Again
Star Trek: Better Late Than Never (Sorry)
Star Trek: A Gaggle of Brits

Star Trek: I Got Nuthin’

127. Tomh, Esq. - June 27, 2012

Star Wars: Episode 7

(I mean, that’s the movie the filmmakers REALLY want them to make, so why not let them?)

Either that, or “The Shaggy Mugato.”

:)

128. Keachick - rose pinenut - June 27, 2012

Maybe my title suggestions are not anything great, but titles like “Where no man has gone before”, “Final frontier” etc are so old, tired and just plain boring. The thing is that it is more than probable that any story will have someone going where everybody else HAS been before and what the hell does the “Final Frontier” even mean?

be flat – sorry, this is a Trek movie site, not a Transformers site. Wrong franchise. Just so you know. I know that the K/O writing team are acutely aware of the difference.

129. The Troubled Tribble - June 27, 2012

I would be happy to see Star Trek lost from the title. It does seem a bit passée in light of the other franchises.

130. shamelord - June 27, 2012

124. I respectfully disagree. Enterprise didn’t find its audience just because it was not good.

131. Bryan in Indiana - June 27, 2012

Why not make “Star Trek” the subtitle and have something evocative of the plot,or of ST in general,as the main tagline?

132. LordOfTheArchons - June 27, 2012

I’ve got to throw in my two cents worth without knowing much about the story.

Humorous:
Star Trekkin: Across the Universe
Planting A Space Seed
She Khan’t Take Anymore Kept’n
Star Trek 2: +10=12
Meet The Klingons
The Cumberland Gap

Semi-Serious:
A Wolf in the Fold
Enterprise
The Klingon Crucible
The Klingon Gambit

133. Rico - June 27, 2012

First, the important thing is that the film is good – the title doesn’t matter that much. But, my preference is the TNG style with “Star Trek – something, something, etc.”

134. Jonboc - June 27, 2012

Star Trek 2009 was a smashing success….the words, proclaiming to the world that Star Trek is back, leave no doubt as to what is about to be seen on the silver screen. The words “Star Trek” do not need to be hidden…the title doesn’t need to be cryptic or clever. I can see the desire to adopt a more unique title….but in the end, it’s an artsy choice but not a necessary one. Star Trek is a badge of honor. I think JJ and company should continue to wear it as such.

135. Chuckunit - June 27, 2012

“Sulu and Chekov go to White Castle”

136. Bucky - June 27, 2012

Giant ATM Machine For Paramount & Bad Robot.

137. LizardGirl - June 27, 2012

I think that Star Trek should be attached to the Title. To draw in the marketing power of Star Trek.

Okay a few ideas. This feels kind of silly….

Star Trek: Nova Fata
Star Trek: Through the Stars
Star Trek: One and the Many/ One and Many
Star Trek: A Resolution
Star Trek: Conversion Shift

Through the Stars: Star Trek 2
Virtus: Star Trek 2
Resolution: Star Trek 2
Conversion: Star Trek 2

Nova Fata– New Fate (thought the Latin translation sounded a little more better)

Virtus– Pretty much the same idea as Nova Fata. It just means Virtuous in latin.

One and the Many/ One and Many–famous Spock quote that could apply to the movie if the Enterprise finds itself on its own again. Or if a character is sacrificed.

A Resolution– or Resolution for short. Thought this would describe the crew more than the villain vs. crew. According to Alex, the characters are still getting to know and trust each other. This title would apply to the crew, most likely towards the end of the movie.

Conversion Shift or Conversion– this is for the villain. If he’s some kind of augmented Klingon or any entity infiltrating the Federation then he would probably adopt (superficially) the ideals of his prey as well as the physicality. Hence *conversion*.

138. Phil - June 27, 2012

We could take a page from Indiana Jones….

Captain Kirk and the Augments!

139. Kelso - June 27, 2012

Call it whatever you want… just make a great movie!

140. Newman - June 27, 2012

I agree with you on this one, Anthony. I want a new and hip approach.

141. Christopher Roberts - June 27, 2012

Paying my respects to the Governor

Happy Birthday today, J.J. Abrams.

142. Ma00145 - June 27, 2012

Hmm this is a good question I think it would be cool to see a star trek without using it in the title. But I don’t know if it would work I remember a TV show called Enterprise lol it was not startrek til I think season 4 it had to add it back in because somebody probably a tv exec couldn’t figure out that this “Enterprise” show was set in the star trek universe.

143. David - June 27, 2012

@86

“Raumpatrouille – Die phantastischen Abenteuer des Raumschiffes…. Enterprise!” ;-)

144. David - June 27, 2012

@86

By the way, as an Australian, I have never had a chance to see Raumpatrouille Orion. :-(

145. MJ - June 27, 2012

I think it would be cool for “Star Trek” to not be in title this time. At least so long as the title is not something like, “The Harry Ballz Rises,” or “The Wrath of Montreal Paul,” or “The Undiscovered Pine-Keachick Country.”

:-))

146. Emperor Mike of the Empire - June 27, 2012

Star Trek. Cloverfield!.

147. Punkspocker - June 27, 2012

The title will most likely be something from the film none of us are familiar with. Its going to be new. Then a few people will complain that they dont get it.

148. Montreal_Paul - June 27, 2012

145. MJ

I’m touched that you thought of me. ;)

149. J.A.G.T. - June 27, 2012

As a matter of fact MOST James Bond movies didn’t have “(James) Bond” in their titles.

150. Magic_Al - June 27, 2012

Star Trek (2013)

151. MJ - June 27, 2012

@148

Paaaaaaaaaaaaul ! ……..Paaaaaaaaaaaaul !

;-)

152. Dom - June 27, 2012

84. Jeyl: ‘Why does it always have to be “Where no man”?’

Because that’s what Kirk said in Star Trek.

‘Don’t we have aliens amongst the crew?’

Yes, but even TMP talked about ‘the human adventure’!

‘I knew Star Trek 09 was the one movie that totally hated aliens with a passion,’

No it didn’t.

‘but at least it had the decency to say “no one”.’

That piece of skanky late-1980s political correctness ended the last movie on a sour note. It was annoying in TNG, but unacceptable polluting a modern Trek film.

‘We are sharing the journey after all.’

Aliens don’t exist. Star Trek is a fictional show where even the non-human characters are there as a reflection on us.

153. MJ - June 27, 2012

Good points! “Where no Sentient Being has Gone Before” and “The Sentient Being Adventure is Just Beginning” just don’t have good rings to them. LOL

Sheesh, now I guess we have galactic-level political correctness to worry about?

154. Obsidian - June 27, 2012

I just don’t think they should use numbers. Star Trek: Your Title Here.

But I’d like to keep Star Trek in the title. Remember the Enterprise debacle. In later seasons they added the Star Trek back in.

155. captain spock - June 27, 2012

the T.V. series Enterprise dint have star trek in front of it for a couple of years , then they added it to say its a star trek series, for the first three seasons with the exception of a few episolds it was crappy series
then when many coto come in the forth season its stared to look like a better trek series..
yes i’m one of the old fans of 46 years , would like to see star trek in the front of the title of this movie.
so they have a title for this movie better be a good one…

156. Captain Karl - June 27, 2012

Star Trek 90210
Star Trek Place
Star Trek: Delta Vega
The Days of Our Star Trek
One Trek To Live
The Trek Is Not Enough
Keep On Trekkin’
JJ & The Giant Trek (You could also go with JJ & The Giant Enterprise)
JJ & The Star Trek Factory
Star Wars: Trek
Pew Pew Pew

The list is endless

157. Andy Patterson - June 27, 2012

Aren’t we trying to sway and educate the uninitiated, unwashed masses?! Isn’t what this reboot/ alternate time line/ bad, lazy writing,….or whatever we want to call it,….is all about? Of course it needs “Star Trek” in the title. A dumb question.

My first sentence was irritated sarcasm. But as someone who is in the know I’d still like it in the title.

158. Thomas - June 27, 2012

100. Captain Courageless

You didn’t hear anything about it because, in the words of Senator Vreenak, it’s a fake. The discription refers to it as fan-made.

159. dmduncan - June 27, 2012

Well you can’t say “where no being has gone before,” because how do you know no being has ever been there before? We know where we have been, so you can say “no man,” but you can’t speak for all beings everywhere in the universe, because it is quite possible that one of them, at least, has been there before, wherever there is.

I was going to cave and say how about “where no man, or woman, has gone before.”

But somebody would probably get upset that “woman” was parenthetical.

160. T'Cal - June 27, 2012

I like all the standards too such as “To Boldly Go,” “Continuing Mission,” and “These are the Voyages,” but the title should refer to the central theme of the plot. If the story is based on some classic tale (Shakespearean or other great writer’s work), then the title should include a line from the classic tale such as “The Dogs of War” or “The Tameness of a Wolf.” If it’s an original story, then the title should be an original phrase; TWOK, TSFS, TVH are great examples of that.

161. Jack - June 27, 2012

‘Aliens don’t exist. Star Trek is a fictional show where even the non-human characters are there as a reflection on us.’
Yep. It started as no man and it should stay that way, because ‘one’ is, well, lame. Man includes all of us: men, women, children. Mankind. Humanity. I think it’s far more inclusive than we sometimes realize.

I also wondered who needlessly complicated the ‘where no man’ mission statement in TWOK (and TNG, Trek ’09) — adding ‘ongoing’ to mission, and ‘forms’ after life. Fine, take off ’5-year’ but why not just keep it at mission, period. Why add extra, unnecessary words.

And, besides ‘where no one has gone before’ just doesn’t ‘t have the same power. Compare Nimoy and Stewart’s version to I’m all for change that makes things better, but putting a PC spin on the mission statement didn’t add anything. The miniskirts were far more sexist than that word in the crawl.

Plus, in universe, they went to plenty of places where others, but not humans, had been before — it’s a bit arrogant to presume that since we’re there, no one else has ever been there.

No man is an island.
No person is an island.
No one is an island.

By the way, I was once accused of being inflexible, against change, nitpicking, crazy and of taunting others on here because I asked (out of curiousity, after a post saying Quinto should give the ‘where no man’ spiel if it’s in the next movie): ‘Why would Quinto do it instead of Pine?’

162. cyrus - June 27, 2012

My sources tell me the new movie will be called “Wrath of Khan”, no “Star Trek” in the title.

163. somethoughts - June 27, 2012

#55

I like.

I hope the title includes Star Trek, people who loved the first one will see the sequel and sci fi and movie fans will want to check it out regardless of what it is called. Word of mouth is powerful.

I will watch the movie if it includes the words Star Trek or not but I think it would be more epic when the title comes up shortly after epic music and paramout stars/logo/mountain STAR TREK……

164. somethoughts - June 27, 2012

You can also just called it,

WHERE NO ONE HAS GONE BEFORE

165. Jack - June 27, 2012

128. Btw – totally agree. Enough with taking titles from words/phrasesfrom the opening spiel, already. It’s lazy, they don’t mean a hell of a lot on their own, and, well, it’s just too easy. Can you imagine if every bloody TOS episode used a line from that crawl as its title? Episode 23: Her Five-Year; Episode 29: To Seek Out New.

Trek was a show known, to me at least, for interesting titles. Yes, there were pretty literal titles like Charlie X, Miri, the corbomite maneuver, the ultimate computer and Operation:Anihilate… butr there was also;

The enemy within
The man trap
City on the edge of forever
Requiem for Metheusela
Amok Time
Day of the dove
Balance of Terror
The devil in the dark

And, actually, as the shows got worse by the third season, the titles got better…

My point: Trek had nifty episode titles. Enough with obvious variations of The Final Frontier etc.

166. ben - June 27, 2012

None of the serious suggestions I’ve read sound like enticing titles.

Where No One Has Gone Before is just asking for bad jokes on late night TV.

Final Frontier sounds like a western.

To Boldly Go or just Boldy Go sounds like half a statement. And is.

These Are the Voyages is, again, half a statement.

They work as subtitles, but not as titles.

My money would be on Star Trek: Subtitle. Or Star Trek 2, no subtitle. Or Trek 2.

Trek 2 — that one’s grown on my. I think I’ll be calling it that just because I like it!

Anyway, back to reality . . . everything here requires visual cues in order for it to relate to Star Trek IF those two words aren’t in the title. If you see Skyfall on a list, you wouldn’t know it was a Bond movie. Dark Knight and Man of Steel you would know, because those phrases, while not as recognizable as Superman or Batman, are synonymous.

I think the ONLY title synonymous with Star Trek, and that could allow those two words to be removed, is Enterprise. As a title, it REALLY works. it is the name of the setting, the name of the home base, the name of the one constant from story to story. There are no phrases or names that would instantly evoke Star Trek . . . and that would also look good on a poster, t-shirt, action figure, etc. They just sound so stiff and boring! A movie called New Civilizations? Sounds like something you’d show in a sociology class!

167. Billiam - June 27, 2012

I feel the name of the installment is better remembered standing apart from the franchise title or whatever sequel number it might be. To include one or both dates the style of movie naming in my opinion. People don’t want to socialize and say “Hey! Did you see Awesome Franchise 4 yet?” or “Did you see Awesome Franchise: Coolest Evil Bad Guy 2″ yet? Doesn’t that sound awful when you say that long winded title out loud?

168. Justin Olson - June 27, 2012

Whatever the title is, it should be — above all else — relevant to the story they’re telling. If the story they’re telling is compelling, then they should have no problem (given the huge amount of time remaining) in finding a descriptive title that works for this particular film.

169. JP - June 27, 2012

#7: That’s a very good point!

170. Phil - June 27, 2012

Am I the only one seeing the obvious contradiction with the subtitle “Where No Man (one, person, Being, Horta, whatever) Has Gone Before”? Federation space, especially as depicted in the movies, is just packed full of spaceships, space stations, research outposts, and inhabitated planets, and everyone jets around fairly quickly with transporters and warp drive. It’s more like where EVERYONE has gone before…..

171. Jack - June 27, 2012

166. Seriously, I’d be fine with Star Trek 2 or Trek 2. eventually, we’ll just call it “the one with…” anyway.

Nobody hit me.

172. Red Dead Ryan - June 27, 2012

#159.

“I was going to cave and say how about “where no man, or woman, has gone before.”

But somebody would probably get upset that “woman” was parenthetical.”

Read the posts above by MJ and Dom. Political correctness has no place in “Star Trek”.

#84.

I’m glad you’re not in charge of Trek. All we’d get from you is European style neo- fascist PC propaganda with boring characters, and sterile plotlines.

173. Sean - June 27, 2012

I voted for a title without star trek in it….but how bout going all godfather with it and just have it be ” Star Trek: Part 2″?

My guess “where no man has gone before”

174. Red Dead Ryan - June 27, 2012

It’s simple. You can’t have “woman” without “man”. You also can’t have “human” without “man”.

“Where no MAN has gone before.” The way it should be.

175. Jack - June 27, 2012

172. Agree on “Where no man” — but what’s with the anti-Europe stuff?

176. Captain Otter - June 27, 2012

I’m amazed at this thread in both good and bad ways. But my personal thoughts, which other cooler heads seem to share is, I don’t much care.

Frankly, this is a non-issue. Give me a tall bucket of popcorn and a great movie to eat it during.

177. Richard Daystrom - June 27, 2012

Star Trek: “I Think We Have Been Here Before, But I’m Just Not Sure. It Feels Like Deja Vu”

178. 750 Mang - June 27, 2012

I don’t care if they call it Jim and Spock’s Excellent Adventure, just please no more bad contemporary country music dialogue like “either they’re going down or we are” or fat tongues or hands or whatever. Fat hands is Star Trek V or (even worse) Insurrection (remember Worf’s zit?). “I don’t think these kids can steer.” – James T. Kirk, 2285

179. MC1 Doug - June 27, 2012

I’d vote, but the polling seems to be closed. I’d vote for including “Star Trek” in the title.

Marketing is important… for example, “John Carter,” a film I consider to be very good. If one reads that title, does it give you any indication of its science fiction roots? No. I think part of the reason the film tanked was ad marketing and its name. If it had been properly named “John Carter on Mars,” I think it would have done far better at the box office.

I echo others’ sentiments, “Star Trek” needs to stay true to its roots, not hide from them.

180. Keachick - rose pinenut - June 27, 2012

#145 – You said the Pine-Keachick name. I’ve never see our two names written together like that.

That film title couldn’t surely be any worse than many others thrown out here, including mine. I mean, who knows, you really could be on to something…;)

Anyway, I am just throwing out possible titles, whatever comes to mind – good, bad, indifferent…

Star Trek: Conscience Redeemed
Star Trek: Reprieve
Star Trek: Welcome to People…oops….hmmm
Star Trek: Cycles
Star Trek: Kirk’s Mascot or Beagles Rule
Star Trek: Samsara’s Edge
Star Trek: All For One (One For All)
Star Trek: Surfing the Cosmic Ocean
Star Trek: Journey of Love
Star Trek: Sexploration
Star Trek: Where to Begin…

Oh and Happy Birthday and many happy returns to Jeffrey Jacob Abrams, 46 years old on 27 June 2012. Have a good one, JJ!

181. Red Dead Ryan - June 27, 2012

#175.

Fascism is making a comeback in many European countries.

182. LBC - June 27, 2012

If the film was blatantly Kirk-centric I’m all about “Tiberious” as a title, but clearly the story – as has been shared by numerous insiders – tracks the progression and growth of the ensemble. As it should.

Such a title sounds too much like a biography in any case.

Got nuthin’.

183. LBC - June 27, 2012

Er, “Tiberius”. Duh.

184. Douglas - June 27, 2012

One of the many great things that was wonderful about TOS were the titles of the episodes.
All Trekkers will see the next film and know it’s a Star Trek film no matter what the title. I would like to see a more evocative title, something that relates to the film plot, to spark the imagination of those on the fence of whether or not to see the next Trek film. I agree with #61 that it must be chosen with care so as not to easily become a joke. I found the suggestion of #132 “She Khan’t Take Anymore Kept’n” to be hysterically funny. Inspired lunacy. But obviously, just a joke and I don’t want Trek to be a laughing stock to the general public.

I’d like the title to be something inviting. I don’t know the general idea of the plot so I’m at a loss to suggest anything at this point.
However, recently in regard to the latest Planet of the Apes franchise film the title changed several times before its release. I hope all options are kept open to give Trek the best chance at the box office.

185. 750 Mang - June 27, 2012

Here’s a good one, Star Trek: Either They’re Going Down Or We Are.

186. cd - June 27, 2012

‘Star Trek: Episode II – The Federation Strikes Back’ or ‘Star Trek Meh’

187. The Orginal Spock's Brain - June 27, 2012

@ 95 “Their one flirtation with ignoring “Star Trek” was, to Paramount’s view, a miserable failure (“Enterprise”.)”

That’s some Paramount executive’s excuse. People knew it was Star Trek. The “failure” was due to uninspired/derivative writing and wooden acting in seasons 1-3, with season 4′s writers/showrunner shake up coming too late.

188. Chingatchkook - June 27, 2012

Star Trek: To Infinity and Beyond

…what..? It’s been used? Ok…nevermind….

;-)

189. Jar Jar Binks - June 27, 2012

star trek sux

190. Ctrl-Opt-Del - June 27, 2012

I seem to recall that at one point some people actually thought the first movie was called “Star Trek: The Future Begins”, or even just “The Future Begins”, due to a bit of confusion over the tag line…

191. xai - June 27, 2012

I think this is a test.

192. Miles R. Seppelt - June 27, 2012

It’s gotta have STAR TREK in it…

193. Khan was Framed! - June 27, 2012

If it isn’t “The Rise of Khan” then they’ve made a horrific marketing error.

Titles are advertising, they must evoke a desire to connect with the product, this one would have the widest reach in terms of audience.

194. 750 Mang - June 27, 2012

Star Trek 2.0: The Wrath of Numb Tongue

195. Chris J - June 27, 2012

‘Where No One Has Gone Before’ or ‘To Boldly Go’ would really be the best non-Star Trek-in-the-title titles, because they are well known and invoke a sense of adventure. Especially TBG; it *is* a Trek phrase and you couldn’t hear it and not think of Star Trek.

You could also have ’1701′, although I think that would be a better choice for a mini-series or comic or something like that.

196. Walt Kozlowski - June 27, 2012

Star Trek: Warp Factor 2

They would be limited to make only more 8 films! Or Not!

197. Phil - June 27, 2012

How about this….

“So You’re All Astronauts on Some Sort of… Star Trek?”

Cue the music…..

198. Walt Kozlowski - June 27, 2012

Sorry , only 8 more that is.

199. Harry Ballz - June 27, 2012

A title?

Star Trek:The Return Of Cupcake

200. Bob Tompkins - June 27, 2012

Title?
No Star Trek?
Berman tried that with Enterprise. Hmm. How’d that work out for him?
Not only yes, to Star Trek, but Hell yes… F*** yes!

201. 750 Mang - June 27, 2012

@199

Wrath of Cupcake?

202. Walt Kozlowski - June 27, 2012

Why was the last movie called STAR TREK? It should have been called> RESCUE 1701 .They tried to save Vulcan and and did save Earth, they had no time to trek!

203. Bob Tompkins - June 27, 2012

199 And is Cupcake a dead man walking?

204. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - June 27, 2012

“I’m glad you’re not in charge of Trek. All we’d get from you is European style neo- fascist PC propaganda with boring characters, and sterile plotlines.”

You mean TNG. ;)

205. Walt Kozlowski - June 27, 2012

Coffey-Cake?

206. 750 Mang - June 27, 2012

So if they created the alternate timeline to free the writers of cannon and put everyone in jeopardy will Chekov finally get killed? Burned in ST:TMP, Ear wormed in STII, Forced to wear that horrible pink page-boy costume in STIII, fell off an aircraft carrier in STIV. I guess he was safe for V and VI but let’s just do it this time and kill Chekov and that goes for his imaginary brother too!

207. Captain CHIP of the Federation Starship USS Crescendo NCC 4816 - June 27, 2012

I have the most perfect and fitting title ever…
“STAR TREK XII : STAR TREK II : STAR TREK 2 : THE SEARCH FOR PLANET VULCAN”

208. Brian A. Tyndall - June 27, 2012

#12 and #35

Please don’t say that NOBODY watched “Enterprise” (which then became “Star Trek: Enterprise”) , because unlike some Trek fans, I watched every single episode of TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT on the night of the first airing. And I would take ENT over VOY any day of the week. Also, the working title of Star Trek V was “An Act of Love”, so I think we should all be happy Shatner settled on “The Final Frontier”!!

209. Jackson Lake - June 27, 2012

I know that geek culture in general can be pretty sexist but I expected better from Star Trek fans. Oh, who am I kidding. Star Trek fans are the only thing I can’t stand about Star Trek. I must have imagined Uhura, Chapel, Troi, Dr. Crusher, Kira, Dax, T’Pol, B’Ellana, Seven & Captain Janeway

210. Sebastian S. - June 27, 2012

Remember what happened to the TV series Enterprise. No ST in the title hurt it, IMO. Or at the very least it didn’t do the struggling show any favors…

A Star Trek movie NEEDS Star Trek in the title. Simple as that. Anything less is a slap in the face to the legacy of the franchise.

Just my opinion….

211. freezejeans - June 27, 2012

He spent THREE MONTHS filming, and doesn’t know if he’s in the final cut?! Wish I had that kind of job security, eesh.

212. Sybok'sSecretBrother - June 27, 2012

Star Trek: The Search for Box Office Cash

213. Sybok'sSecretBrother - June 27, 2012

or…

Star Trek: Still Trekkin’

214. Challenger - June 27, 2012

I don’t agree with anybody that refers to this newest movie as Star Trek XII, though…..there were 6 TOS movies, 4 TNG movies, and now 2 JJA movies….so, yes, 12 total…..but it is NOT Star Trek XII!

215. DonDonP1 - June 27, 2012

Quite frankly, it may not matter to me whether the title of next year’s “Star Trek” movie would include or exclude the words “Star Trek.” Yet, it may be called “Star Trek: Enterprising New Worlds” or “Star Trek: Prime Directive” or “Star Trek: New Missions.” It may not matter to me anyhow.

216. Red Dead Ryan - June 27, 2012

#209.

WTF??

217. Smike - June 27, 2012

It was done for the first two seasons of ENT and it didn’t really work… YES, it needs the words “Star Trek” in the title. Full stop.

218. Smike - June 27, 2012

BTW: The title Clarke doesn’t want to give away is:

STAR TREK 2 BOLDLY GO

Yep…Maybe there’ll be STAR TREK 3 ARE THE VOYAGES and STAR TREK WHERE NO ONE HAS GONE B4 next (no, Brent Spider won’t return!)

219. Smike - June 27, 2012

Spiner :-)

220. MJ - June 27, 2012

@170 ” It’s more like where EVERYONE has gone before…..”

Phil, I think you are confusing Star Trek with Joan Collins.

221. MJ - June 27, 2012

@210 “Remember what happened to the TV series Enterprise. No ST in the title hurt it, IMO.”

Then there is that “minor fact” that that series just plain stunk. Perhaps that played a role???

222. p'trick - June 27, 2012

#44

thanks for your thoughtful debate-points, Anthony. i certainly never meant to suggest that the series “Enterprise” failed simply because of the absence of the words “Star Trek” in the title. as has been debated endlessly, there were many reasons for the failure/success of that series.

however, it does suggest that simply negating Star Trek from the title just to be different and provocative, doesn’t necessary entice people to the franchise. especially, if you’re not really offering a radically different product.

if i recall, Enterprise was going to be an edgier, sexier TREK. maybe even feature a gay-character. but, in the end, it became a bit of a clone of the other modern-day TREK-series.

likewise, despite it’s increased budget, new cast and new timeline, TREK2009 took few daring chances. there was no suggestion that it was geared to a more adult audience, it’s action sequences were devoid of significant gore (people still got knocked out after a punch), etc.

Nolan could drop the “Batman” from his titles because he is making films that stand out from the Batman-films & tv that preceded it. he continues to break new ground in the action-hero genre. his films are violent and gritty.

i see no evidence that Abrams’ TREKs are headed in that direction. if they’re simply remaking the Star Trek of old with better effects and a younger crew, then keeping the name is all the more appropriate.

223. Jackson Lake - June 27, 2012

#216
Specify.

224. Gary Neumann - June 27, 2012

Raumschiff Enterprise was a nice name after all. I wouldn’t mind “Starship Enterprise” in the title… but it would have to be a big mission. I like the Idea of calling all of them Star Trek

225. Jackson Lake - June 27, 2012

You will agree that there are women characters in Star Trek, yes? The people who complain about political correctness are just upset that women can have jobs, get educated and be places besides the kitchen and that polite society frowns on open sexism. Star Trek is egalitarian. It posits a more enlightened future and it’s fans are supposed to work for and try to live by that future so reading primitive thinking by so called Star Trek fans makes me sick.

226. MJ - June 27, 2012

@225. Sheesh, what old fashion thinking. Very sad. A lot of us have moved beyond those days. I would urge you to stop behaving like and victim and join the modern 21st century culture that most of us now live in.

227. Bob Tompkins - June 28, 2012

If the movie does not have Star Trek in the title it had better have some phrase that is immediately definable as something associated with The Franchise in a big way- sort of like the Superman symbol and the Man of Steel and the Dark Knight and Bond holding a gun in a circle of light in a tunnel – what DO they call an apparatus like that anyway?…

228. Jackson Lake - June 28, 2012

#226
Up yours. I was mocking people who have sexist views.

229. Aurore - June 28, 2012

The return of my beloved original crew, together with the presence of the words “Star Trek” in the title of the last movie did not convince me to watch Star Trek : The Future Begins.

One very enthusiastic review on a non Trek-related site did.
It was weeks after the film was released.

Therefore, I personally agree with the notion that the movie has to be good, first and foremost.

Call it T.R.E.K : The Ridges Embellish Klingons, and, I’ll see it provided it keeps its promises on all levels; it has to be brilliant…

230. Calastir - June 28, 2012

#226&228: “Fight! fight! fight!” (Cue TOS battle music) Dun-dun dun dun dun dun dun dun-dun dun dun! :)

231. Elelith - June 28, 2012

Yes, Star Trek should be definitely in the title.

All this secretiveness annoys me and also the fact that we have to wait so long. Why May 2013? One year for post-production? Seriously?

232. Arnold - June 28, 2012

THE SPACE VOYAGE

233. Clyde Cash - June 28, 2012

As long as it doesn’t suck as bad as the last film, I don’t care what they call it….

234. Alt-Spock - June 28, 2012

I say no, mainly because this isn’t Star Trek to begin with.

235. La Reyne d'Epee - June 28, 2012

For your amusement. Regarding the slowness of the sequel, you’re not the only fandom suffering…a friend tweeted this link about similar strife suffered by fans of the Game of Thrones series of books. :D

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/jun/27/game-of-thrones-musical-plea-author

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7lp3RhzfgI&feature=player_embedded

236. captain_neill - June 28, 2012

Star Trek has to be in the title.

They took it off for Enterprise but after a few years they added it back in.

Also The Dark Knight worked becausse it is what Batman is referred to in comics and it was a play on Batman being opposite than Harvey Dent who was dubed the White Knight.

Star Trek should be in there.

237. n1701ncc - June 28, 2012

After reading this thread I decided since Star Trek was born on TV let the new movie title honor a classic TV show

Happy Logs [Happy Days]
Green Orion Women [Green Acres]
All in the Federation [All in the Family]
The Golden Boys [ Only if Shanter and Nimoy were in it]
Sex in the Alpha Quadrant
The JJ movie
The Klingon Hillbillies
and finally a line from a TOS show

” You will be Absorbed”

238. Gorn Captain - June 28, 2012

“Wagon Train to the Stars” ;)

239. Captain CHIP of the Federation Starship USS Crescendo NCC 4816 - June 28, 2012

I have another brilliant idea!!! What if, when they decide NOT to put “STAR TREK” in the title, they also decide not to put “ENTERPRISE” on the hull of the starship, then in the next movie, which would have been “STAR TREK 3″ they should re name it “STAR WARS EPISODE VII: DOWNFALL OF RODDENBERRY” and paint “MILLENIUM FALCON – A” on the hull!

PEOPLE NEED TO STOP F***ING UP OUR FRANCHISE!!! Someone please bring back the true Gene Roddenberry vision!

240. Maltz - June 28, 2012

STAR TREK: The Search for Gary Mitchell and Janice Rand

241. No Khan - June 28, 2012

It better say Star Trek! I hate these non titles moves do they really think it sells better without Star Trek. I guess because of Nolans Batman everyone needs to copy that.

242. Chris Peterson - June 28, 2012

What the hell is wrong with humanity that some fraction of it can spend so much time debating a movie title? When did a movie ever fail because the title just wasn’t good enough, but the movie itself was spectacular?

243. star trackie - June 28, 2012

#239 “Someone please bring back the true Gene Roddenberry vision!”

JJ already has. But it’s the Gene Coon/ Gene Roddenberry vision, not the the Rick Berman/Gene Roddenberry vision. And I’m 100% thrilled with that.

And, yeah, Star Trek absolutely needs to be in the title…TOS font. Yep.

244. Tom - June 28, 2012

The thing about the examples given in the article is that the movies are about single characters (Batman, Superman, Bond), not an ensemble/concept like Trek. Even the first Bond movie (Dr. No) wasn’t called James Bond.

If Star Trek were simply the Kirk Chronicles, then, yes, it doesn’t need Trek in the title.

245. Weerd1 - June 28, 2012

No Preference. Well, provided it’s not just an obscure character’s name as the title. Disney did “John Carter” no favors leaving out “of Mars.”

246. VZX - June 28, 2012

“Star Trek” will be in the title. But maybe they’ll go for a different approach and do a “Trek Through the Stars” or some other play on the words “Star” and “Trek.”

247. Jeyl - June 28, 2012

@152: “Aliens don’t exist.”

Prove it.

248. No Khan - June 28, 2012

The worse all time name job was calling The Thing 2 the Thing. Now people have to research which is which. I almost bought the wrong one on Blu-ray.

249. Damian - June 28, 2012

Star Trek needs to be in the title. The popularity of Star Trek (2009) alone should be enough to encourage them to have it in the title. They should want to advertise this is a sequel to that movie, absolutely.

Not having Star Trek in the title was already tried with Enterprise and they had to put it back in by season 3. I know Enterprise does not have the same popularity, but I also believe history should teach a lesson. That little gimmick did not work then.

If they don’t have Star Trek in the title, they risk the general public treating this as a general science fiction film. Again, as popular as Star Trek (2009) was, they should want to get everyone who loved that film back in to see this one. I wouldn’t want to risk those people who loved that film, but maybe are not overall Trekkies enough to know this is a Trek film to miss out because they didn’t realize this was a sequel.

As far as Star Trek: Insert Name Here being similar to TNG way of naming movies, who cares. Unless you just came out of a deep sleep, everyone knows this is not a TNG movie. There is absolutely no risk of people staying home thinking this is a sequel to Nemesis or anything like that.

250. Mark Lynch - June 28, 2012

If Star Trek has to be kept out of the title, then how about

“Alternate Journey to the Luminous Points”

No ST in the title and acknowledgement of the new timeline to boot!

251. Randall Williams - June 28, 2012

Star Trek: The Path of Yon

[joke: The Wrath of Khan]

252. ben - June 28, 2012

Because it bears repeating:

Smike’s comment, #128, is possibly the best comment of the thread:

STAR TREK 2 BOLDLY GO
STAR TREK 3 ARE THE VOYAGES
STAR TREK WHERE NO ONE HAS GONE B4

Smike, that is a heaping mound of awesome!

253. KingDaniel - June 28, 2012

Coming May 2013…. Seventeen-oh-one.

1701. What says Star Trek better?

254. George Zip - June 28, 2012

Those examples use iconic imagery (James Bond Gunbarrel) and/or known catchphrases (Man of Steel) and/or established titling (Dark Knight). So Trek can indeed get away with it, if it stays in that lexicon.

The obvious choice, as many above have likely said, is BOLDLY GO, but wasn’t that used as the subtitle/tagline for ST’09?

STRANGE NEW WORLDS has a nice ring to it, but couldn’t possibly work as a movie title. Works great as a book series.

WHERE NO MAN HAS GONE BEFORE, despite the iconic-ness, is too wordy and gimmicky for a movie.

All that leaves is LIVE LONG AND PROSPER but that’ll never do.

The 80s TREKs had some back and forth titling. FINAL FRONTIER was a great title for a so-so film (Sorry, Bill). THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY was great; mysterious and “WTF does that mean?” buzz for it. I’m glad VENGEANCE OF KHAN got changed to WRATH. And ST:TMP should have just been STAR TREK.

Hey, how about PHASE II? :)

255. George Zip - June 28, 2012

“The Golden Boys [ Only if Shanter and Nimoy were in it]”

I’d like to see an episode of HOT IN CLEVELAND where Betty White’s character has a date with Bill Shatner one night and then Leonard Nimoy the next, but they both wind up at the house on the same night.

256. Sebastian S. - June 28, 2012

Star Trek: Gorn to be Wild (ST meets Easy Rider)

Star Trek: The Search for a Subtitle

Star Trek: The Wrath of Not-Khan

Star Trek Meets American Tail: The Fievel Frontier
(it could be the pre-feature cartoon, like in the old days)

Star Trek: Nimoy-sis

Star Trek: Not the One With the Whales

;-)

257. Sebastian S. - June 28, 2012

MJ # 221

I happen to think the pilot and 4th season of ENT were pretty good; far superior to all 7 years of VGR, at any rate.

But my point was (the part you didn’t quote me on) was that the show was struggling anyway, and NOT having ST in it’s title didn’t help.

Star Trek is a brand name, like Levi’s or Starbuck’s. Not to oversimplify it, but it’s true. And for a ST product to have the best chances of success, it needs the tried-and-true brand label. Simple as that….

258. Dr. Image - June 28, 2012

“Star Trek: Infinite Diversity.”
There.
Done.

259. Damian - June 28, 2012

257–Agree with you there. Star Trek is a brand name. Star Trek (2009) was hugely popular. Why wouldn’t you want to capitalize on that by having the name in the title? I would think you want the public to know, Yeah this is a sequel to that blockbuster movie.

I don’t like the Batman comparisons. Star Trek is not Batman and there are many differences. Like others have noted, there are other things that ID Batman. The same goes for James Bond. While Bond or 007 are not in the title, they are iconic enough that when you see a trailer for 007, you know it’s a Bond film.

Star Trek just does not have that universal following. You need to hit people with it. If I were the Abrams team, I’d not only use Star Trek prominently in the title, I would make sure everyone knows this is a follow up to the last film every chance I got.

260. rogue_alice - June 28, 2012

I voted twice.

261. Daoud - June 28, 2012

I WOULD VOTE FOR THIS ONE, BUT IT ISN’T THERE:

v ‘TREK’ in the title, but not the word ‘STAR’

This opens up possibilities such as “Trek to XXX”, or “Trek 2″, or even “Trek 2 XXXX” using ’2′ as leetspeak or txtspeak. It also creates things such as “Finnegan’s Trek” or “Kirk’s Trek” or “Trek of the Vulcans” or “Trek of the Klingons”, etc. “Klingon Trek”, there’s your animated series idea. ANYway…. How about just “trek”?

262. Daoud - June 28, 2012

@108/112 To really mix it up, you need:

“Star Track: In Search Of… Dr. Spock”, hosted by Lenny Nimoy. ;)

263. David - June 28, 2012

What about Star Trek X2 (or Star Trek-X 2)
It includes “12″ and also “2″, the X then indicates it is a new version related to the original Series which was simply called “Star Trek”.
Or Star Trek II²?

“Starship Enterprise” is funny but would have been the proper title for TMP in Germany, because that was how TOS was named in german TV (and even TNG!) and still is today!
In the 70s noone in Germany knew the title “Star Trek”

They used to translate the titles somewhat different…
They even named ST IV “back to the Present”, according to “Back to the future”.
Or STV: “At the edge/border of the universe!

264. Sebastian S. - June 28, 2012

# 259 Damien~

Agree with you as well; ST is not Batman or Bond.
Those films traditionally do much better overseas, because they are more universally relatable (and therefore require less ‘subtitling’ or ‘translating’) than ST; which is often about loftier and more ‘difficult-to-subtitle’ concepts such as time travel or other futuristic concepts. Bond is about (and even as a Bond fan I recognize this) action, cars, and girls. It’s wish-fulfillment fantasy for both geeks and non-geeks all over the world. Globally recognized, to be sure.

But ST (even as a brand name) is about all kinds of philosophies and ideas that are not easy to sell to foreign markets. It’s a much harder sell. How do you get people in Malaysia or Taiwan to get excited over a movie with a thin, rather nerdy-looking alien guy with pointed ears who doesn’t drive a nice car and doesn’t wind up in bed with Eva Green?

But in English-speaking countries (where the subtitles aren’t necessary and the concepts translate much easier), ST is kind of a big draw; both in form and in brand name recognition. So cutting off ST from the title would only take a finger away from the right hand of the franchise. It might survive, but why would you NOT want the franchise to have all of it’s fingers? It’s that brand name recognition….

You wouldn’t call Starbuck’s “Overpriced Gourmet Coffee for the Masses”, right? ;-)

265. Red Dead Ryan - June 28, 2012

#225.

You’re an idiot. Stop painting everybody with a broad brush. No one has the attitude you describe. We’ve all moved beyond that. Time for you to do the same.

SHEESH!

266. jo - June 28, 2012

As Ive just seen Cumberbatch in Frankenstein the moment where Victor asks the Creature “You Liked paradise lost” and the Creature responds “I liked it.” comes to mind.

I’d like a paradise lost reference in the title. Benedict is playing Khan. Even his main fansite knows he’s playing Khan. The webmaster was told and she’s very matter of fact about it.

267. jo - June 28, 2012

How about just ENTERPRISE

268. MJ - June 28, 2012

@265 (refering to @225)

Agreed, RDR. Based on their response to me (@228) it seems like this person has an axe to grind with society, and is very angry about it.

I’ve said it before on these boards, if you go through life seeing the world with the attitude of a victim (e.g. related to mutliple societal percieved injustices), guess what, you are always going to see the world that way, and a lot of what happens or that you see in life will reinforce that world view, whether correct or incorrect.

Treat people of all types the way you would like to be treated – person to person interaction is what improves societal unjustices. “It starts with me” is the solution, not “everybody should behave the way I want them to.”

269. MJ - June 28, 2012

@257. OK, Sebastian, fair enough. I kind of agree with you, but could also handle Star Trek not being in the title of the next movie, provided the title is very cool and “Trekish”.

270. n1701ncc - June 28, 2012

@ 255 what a great show that would be. 3 inmortal giants of television history in the same show. Betty white can have a dream and think she was on Password with Shatner as the host and Nimoy as a contestant. Nimoy is dressed as Spock. Then the dream can move to the newsroom of WJM where Valerie B. can be Mary Tyler Moore and Shatner can play Lou. George T. can play Ted Baxter and Nimoy can be Murray. Then in the final sequence we are on board the Enterprise where the room is dark and Nimoy yells its time for Pon Far and enters the room and Shatner and Betty White pop up out of Kirks bed and Shatner says Im not finished yet, can t you wait another 7 more years….

271. Fubamushu - June 28, 2012

My concern with not including Star Trek in the title is, “Will people get what this movie is about?”

Disney really screwed the pooch with their titling and marketing for their John Carter Mars movie. They were so paranoid with it being poorly viewed by audiences if Mars was in the title that they went out of their way to leave it out of the title.

I think most Americans are ignorant enough not to get the connection if Star Trek is not in the title.

272. dscott - June 28, 2012

I am absolutely on the fence with this one, I see both sides and cannot choose or defend either… I just hope it’s not retarded.

273. Andy Patterson - June 28, 2012

Well what do you know,…for you Firefly fans…http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/27/showbiz/tv/firefly-reunion-comic-con-ew/index.html?hpt=hp_bn9

No Star Trek panel at Comic Con but a panel on a show that’s not even on the air anymore.

274. Jason - June 28, 2012

I say call it “JJ-Trek.”

No, seriously, I am ok with this project not having the “Star Trek” name in it because it isn’t REALLY Star Trek anyway, and this would only push that reality more.

275. Jackson Lake - June 28, 2012

#265
So changing one word in the strange new worlds speech, turning “where no man” to “where no one” equals a return to fascism. It merely acknowledges that women have a place in our adventure. I don’t recall TNG turning into fascist propaganda.

276. Anthony Pascale - June 28, 2012

Well votes are 60/40…first time we polled on this my Trek-less titled Trek polled at less thatn 20% IIRC. So progress!

277. Captain Ransom - June 28, 2012

no star trek in the title? just look at john carter. maybe they could call it james kirk. see how well that sells, thus guaranteeing there will be no third movie.

278. Allenburch - June 28, 2012

I am a huge fan of the entire franchise, and I definitely agree that it is redundant to insist that “Star Trek” always be included in a title. Not including “Star Trek” in a title allows us to actually better focus in on…(drum-roll please…the movie. Go figure!

What do you think of when you hear/read the following:
Dr. No
Raiders
Empire Strikes Back
Children of the Gods
Bourne Ultimatum
Judgement Day
Batman Returns
Clear and Present Danger

When you read the above listing, what comes to your mind first? A story, or a number?

Now read the following:
X-Men
X2
X-Men: The Last Stand
X-Men Origins: Wolverine
X-Men: First Class

Number? Story? Little both of both?

Now, how about:
Star Trek The Motion Picture
Wrath of Khan
The Search for Spock
Voyage Home
The Final Frontier
Undiscovered Country
Of Gods and Men
(ooops, sorry bout that)
Generations
First Contact
Insurrection
Nemesis
Star Trek 2009

With the exception of “The Motion Picture” and “Star Trek 2009″, is “Star Trek” necessary in these titles?

279. Harry Ballz - June 28, 2012

If the new movie proves boring, they should call it………………………..

Star Trek:The Path To Yawn

yeah, I said it.

280. Mr. Anonymous - June 28, 2012

Yeah, ‘Enterprise’ did GREAT without ‘Star Trek’ in the title…

…Wait, no, it didn’t.

281. Greg - June 28, 2012

I’d like a title that helps me forget about the existance of JJ’s previous one. That’s assuming the new one is any better.

282. Sebastian S. - June 28, 2012

# 269

What could be “Star Trekkish” than Star Trek? My point is, why go to the well to get water when you have water coming out of the tap?

They really need to use ST; to not do so is just “illogical.” ;-)

283. Sebastian S. - June 28, 2012

# 279 HB~

LOL! ;-D

284. Harry Ballz - June 28, 2012

283.

Thanks, Sebastian!

285. spooky - June 28, 2012

Yes… so people can finally realize that this is not Star Trek anymore.

286. Captain CHIP of the Federation Starship USS Crescendo NCC 4816 - June 28, 2012

#278

Yes absolutely STAR TREK needs to be in those title otherwise no one not interested or familiar with the franchise would even know what you would be refering to with just the subtitle.
For example:

Nemesis, hmm makes me think of a generic adversarial foes movie that could be about anything in a war;

The Voyage Home, maybe that could be another sequel to the Homeward Bound: the incredible journey movies;

Generations…well that sure sounds like a family movie with a conflict between the kids, the parents and the grandparents.

BUT when you add star trek to those titles, it immediately grabs you and makes you think more about what is going on and what more it is about.
STAR TREK IS ABSOLUTELY IMPERATIVE TO THE TITLE!!!

287. Captain CHIP of the Federation Starship USS Crescendo NCC 4816 - June 28, 2012

Only us die hard trekkies who “knw everything” about the entire Star Trek universe would know and understand the subtitles without the Star Trek in those names, only because we are so conditioned to recognize that.

288. Jack - June 29, 2012

‘Welcome to People’ is available.

289. Jack - June 29, 2012

275. Didn’t wonen have a place in the adventure without the title change. Or, at least they were supposed to. Arguably, in the 2009 film, despite the ‘one’, women had much less of a place in the adventure.

I don’t think the change to ‘one’ was ‘pc nonsense,’ or fascist ribbons nobody seems to understand) but I also don’t think ‘man’ is automatically sexist. In that sense, it includes all of us. It’s inclusive, not exclusive — I’d argue.

What matters is substance — how are women portrayed in these adventures?

290. Mark - June 29, 2012

I’d go with “Star Trek 2.” No subtitle..

Yes, I know there’s already a “Star Trek II,” but since this series is a re-imagining (technically, if not canonically), why not use Arabic numerals instead of Roman ones? It makes sense, too, just like “Star Trek” and “Star Trek: The Motion Picture.”

Going the James Bond route seems like a fun idea, but it sits with me wrong. The whole point of the Jame Bond films is that they aren’t sequels, not really, they’re “episodes” in a series. It’s a flimsy distinction, but it’s there.

It’s especially odd because the first film is called “Star Trek.” Imagine if the first Bond film was called “James Bond: Secret Agent.” Wouldn’t it be strange to abandon that naming as the series went on?

291. Damian - June 29, 2012

I wouldn’t do Star Trek 2 for several reasons, not the least of which it would really tick off die-hard Trekkies and fans of TWOK who would think the writers were showing disrespect to one of the most popular Trek films. Also, if Khan really is in the film, that would make people who don’t read these boards really think this was a remake/reimaging of TWOK. They will say to themselves, hey, it’s called Star Trek Two and Khan is in it, must be some sort of remake or reboot of TWOK.

It also seems a bit lazy. Kind of like saying the writers really couldn’t come up with anything so they just called it Star Trek 2.

I also would not call it Star Trek XII because that implies a need to see the prior 11 which they want to avoid.

In any event, I think Abrams put that to rest some time ago. He was pretty emphatic that whatever it is called, it will not contain a numeral. He seemed partial to the Star Trek: Insert Name Here idea. I agree with that idea myself. Star Trek is not Batman, and I just believe the writers should want to tap into the Star Trek name because of the huge popularity of the last film.

292. Jack - June 29, 2012

Plus, the Dark Knight and Man of Steel are well-known (and cool sounding) nicknames for the characters.

Trek doesn’t have a nickname, unless it’s ‘that show with the guy with the ears” Which wouldn’t be a bad title, actually.

293. CJS - June 29, 2012

They should call it Star Trek Too. As in, even though philosophically and stylistically this is nothing like Star Trek we consider it Star Trek too.

294. Phil - June 29, 2012

These could be very descriptive….

Star Trek: Space Cadet
Star Trek: Rookies in Space

295. Tombot3000 - June 29, 2012

Star Trek: The Wraith Of Khan
Khan drives a rim-less sports car for vengeance! In SPACE!
Star Trek: The Attack of the Khan(s). There’s MORE than one!\
Star Track(as my Dad called it): More Of Same!
Seriously, whether I have optimism that it’s going to be a good Trek movie or not, it should have STAR TREK as the title at least, come on!

296. n1701ncc - June 29, 2012

here is one nobody thaought of …combines JJ 2 movies

Star Trek 2 ” Mission Impossible”

there I said it

297. Will Johnson - June 29, 2012

Star Trek : It’s Not As Good Each Subsequent Time You Watch It
Star Trek : Where No Fan Wanted To Go
Star Trek : Sybok’s Revenge

298. Keachick - June 29, 2012

#292 – Oh…you mean the little guy with those amazing big Ferengi ears…:) but I digress.

299. dub - June 29, 2012

I would say if they had been consistent with movie titles thus far, then an argument could be made one way or the other. But they stopped using the numbers after VI, and then the new movie had no subtitle, so really to me it doesn’t matter. I think numbering films has gone “out of style,” so I don’t see any danger of them putting “2″ or “II” in the title anyway. I vote for the third invisible “I don’t care” option. Dropping “Star Trek” from the title may help appeal to a broader audience and a lot of franchise films are doing that these days. As long as it’s a good movie, that’s all that matters to me.

300. The TREKMAN!!!! - June 29, 2012

I’ve always liked the idea of having a Star Trek movie or show not having “Star Trek” in the title. I actually prefer “Enterprise” over “Star Trek: Enterprise”

301. Captain Chip of the Federation Starship USS Crescendo NCC 4816 - June 30, 2012

Let’s just put this posting to bed and all settle on the most obvios choice for the tite;

STAR TREK : THE SEQUEL

nuf said end of discussion!

302. David - June 30, 2012

Star Trek – In search for the title
Star Trek – where no title has gone before
Star Trek – the undiscovered tite
Star Trek – the nameless sequel
Random Trek – any random title
Star Trek Wars: Episode 7
Battlestar Enterprise
Star Trek: Universe
Star Trek: Not another Star Trek movie

303. DeShonn Steinblatt - June 30, 2012

Star Trek 2

304. MJ - June 30, 2012

“Let This be Your Second Battlefield”

305. Red Dead Ryan - June 30, 2012

“Where The Planets Have No Name”

306. ColeMercury - June 30, 2012

My top preference would simply be “Star Trek 2″ — no subtitle, just the number. Of course there’s already been a “Star Trek II” but since this is basically a separate movie series anyway it’s perfectly acceptable to call this one Star Trek 2 using the Arabic numeral instead of the Roman to distinguish them.

If I had to choose between “Star Trek: Subtitle” or “Trek-evocative Title”, I think I’d have to go with “Star Trek: Subtitle” — but mainly because it’s hard to get a proper Trek-evocative title and there’s only a limited number of them, so you have to think about the future too. Plus, most of the “Trek-evocative titles” may not necessarily fit the *movie* itself (for example, “Where No Man Has Gone Before” is very Trek-ish but useless if the movie doesn’t have much to do with exploring). Really the only all-purpose one I can think of is “Starship Enterprise”.

Hey, I have an idea: they can make it like “Subtitle: Star Trek 2″. With “Star Trek” at the end rather than the start.

307. Keachick - June 30, 2012

“Starship Enterprise” was going to be the name of the largest state-of-the-art purpose built children’s hospital in the Southern Hemisphere, in Auckland, NZ. However, Paramount would not allow the name to be used unless the NZ Government, owner and manager of this public facility (not only for NZ children, but many children living in Pacific Island nations) was prepared to pay high royalty fees for the use of the name…:((

It is called the Starship Children’s Hospital.

I think that the movie will just get known as Star Trek 013 unless there is a really outstanding and memorable title.

308. Phil - June 30, 2012

@307. Lawyers!

The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers. -William Shakespeare. 2 Henry VI, Act 4, scene 2

Q: What is black & brown and looks good on a lawyer?
A: A pit bull.

309. Will Johnson - July 1, 2012

Ditch the Star Trek and just call it: Lens Flares : The Movie

310. Tom Schoon - July 1, 2012

Star Trek with a Roman numeral after it is the TOS crew.
Star Trek followed by a short title is the TNG crew.

I think going down the Bond route (a standard title for each film) is the way to go.

You can’t numbers because we already have Star Treks 1 – 6 and the other titling system was dull and unimaginative (and very much of the time – the nineties).

Bond, Batman and Superman have got it spot on from a marketing perspective and I hope Star Trek follows their positive example.
It needs to move with the times and the first one showed the willingness to do so. Titling it ‘Star Trek: Kirk’s Vendetta’ or something like that would should artistic laziness.

Numerals and subtitles out. Intelligent, non-insulting titles in!!

TS

311. David - July 1, 2012

Trekballs on a Star Quest!
Clone Trek – the UN-animated movie-series :-p

312. Daoud - July 1, 2012

I think the name of the antagonist will be in the title, hence why the secrecy both on title, and Cumberbatch’s character.
.
If he really were Khan, then a title like KIRK VS. KHAN would have been funny. I hope Batman vs. Superman gets made someday in a similar vein….

313. Phil - July 1, 2012

Star Trek: Federation vs. Klingons

or.. A Day at the UN!

314. Harry Ballz - July 1, 2012

308. Phil

Q: why are scientists starting to use lawyers instead of rats in their lab experiments?

A: there are some things rats won’t do!

315. Will Johnson - July 1, 2012

Star Trek : Everyone Got Retina Damage From The First One So This Time They Have Sunglasses On

316. Phil - July 1, 2012

@314.

Q: What is the difference between a lawyer and a hooker?

A: A hooker will stop screwing you when you die.

317. Elelith - July 2, 2012

# 235 I know. I am also a fan of “Song and Ice Fire” (which is the original book series title) and we had to wait a decade for the new book. I am pretty excited how long it will take for the next book… ok, we are getting OT. ^^

Well, I’m not the UBER-Trekkie (or even Trekker) (my spouse is the Trekkie in our family – I’m just a follower), but I was pretty excited about the new Star Trek movie series and I like the cast anyway. The story was a bit lame and the destruction of Vulcan terrified me. But I am still excited about the new possibilities. Well, it may not be in the spirit of Roddenberry. But IMHO this spirit has been lost a long time ago. So I do not complain about anything (ok just about the time we have to wait… JJ, go on!! May’13 is not acceptable. ;))

318. Sebastian S. - July 2, 2012

# 314-15 HB & Phil~

Who are lawyers safe in shark-infested waters?

Professional courtesy… ;-)

319. dżordż - July 3, 2012

It would be better if Star Trek was in the title. I don’t give a damn how it’s done with other franchises. Don’t see a reason to do as others do just for the sake of doing it. It’s not passé to include a title of the franchise. I guess somebody here just got carried away…

“Dark Knight” is and always has been another name for Batman, “Man of Steel” is and always has been another name for Superman and James Bond film titles initially came from book titles.

320. dżordż - July 3, 2012

What is more – have a look at the posters. There’s a shape of a Batman logo, there’s a gun barrel and 007 logo, there’s a Superman emblem. Starfleet delta sign isn’t that recognisable.

321. Azrael - July 3, 2012

@320. Oh yes it is.

322. Phil - July 3, 2012

@321. Not really….

323. Steve - July 3, 2012

There is just some things you do not do and taking the name Star Trek out of it is horrible its bad enough we are getting this crappy reboot crap instead of a much deserved series that is caught up in 3 more companies greed.

Their reason for no new series in the last 10 years almost has to do with who would profit from it LOL. NOT to MENTION it also pisses off the fans when they do crap like that.

324. Azrael - July 3, 2012

With respect Phil, I wear the delta all time, and I have the Klingon emblem tattooed on my shoulder, and it is a very rare thing for anyone not to recognize them as being from Star Trek. Therefore the empirical evidence of my daily life says you are wrong.

325. Chain of Command - July 4, 2012

Star Trek: Cash Cow

326. Keachick - July 4, 2012

Speak for yourself, Steve. I just want a good sequel. I couldn’t give a damn if there is another Star Trek television series made or not. I am not pissed off at all.

327. Forrest Leeson - July 4, 2012

If they want something at one remove but which still brings in people looking for an identifiable sequel they could call it

GALAXY QUEST II

Or they could think about the merchandising demographic and call it

MY LITTLE STARSHIP: FRIENDSHIP IS LOGIC

Or if that skews too young they could fake-out the adult market and call it

THIS AIN’T THIS AIN’T STAR TREK XXX

Or boggle everyone’s mind and just call it

2

328. Nutherchans - July 5, 2012

Galaxy Quest 2

329. Bryan - July 5, 2012

That whole “lets drop ‘Star Trek’ from the title” was attempted in 2001 with Enterprise – eventually by Season 3 ‘Star Trek’ took it’s rightful place as part of the title. Lets not try this again.

Man of Steel has long been a nickname for Superman.
Dark Knight has long been a nickname for Batman.
James Bond movies haven’t prominenately used ‘James Bond’ in their title forever but you still see ’007′ all over it.

330. Trekmark - July 5, 2012

Whatever they have is fine with me… I don’t hear too many people in casual conversation say the whole title ‘STAR TREK: The Wrath of Khan’… they use the latter part. Simple. And it’s not like any of us aren’t going to know that it’s a STAR TREK movie. Bond movies have always had other titles… who doesn’t know who the Dark Knight & Man Of Steel are by now?

331. Will Johnson - July 5, 2012

Star Trek : Kirk and Spock’s Excellent Journey

332. Will Johnson - July 5, 2012

Tyler Perry’s Star Trek : Madea Goes To Rigel

333. mrs.leonardmccoy - July 5, 2012

Two Kirks, a Khan and a Pizza Place

334. Phil - July 6, 2012

Star Trek: Avatar

335. Aurore - July 6, 2012

Did someone say “Avatar”?

Alright;

T.R.E.K. : Pandora’s Box

(The villain’s gonna be so eviiiiiiil….)

:)

336. Tarrax - July 6, 2012

Hmm, I know what this site needs. An OrciTracker, similiar in functionality to a DevTracker. :D

337. Phil - July 7, 2012

@336. Somehow, I suspect Mr. Conspiracy will object….

338. djeewhy - July 8, 2012

Giving a title without Star trek, would mean that the movie could have its own background, being a great movie,and i’m not sure the heading staff we have now is able to assume such a responsability. And I’m very disturbed saying that, because i’m not even sure they are able to do a Star Trek movie, even if the 20 first minutes of the 2009 movie were just perfect . The fact is that the movie was not only 20 minutes long.

339. dr.kirk - July 9, 2012

Star Trek in the title would make sense. Its a proud name, so why killing it?

340. Jack - July 9, 2012

329. Yep.

Spock vs. Predator?

341. Avi - July 10, 2012

Capt. Kirk vs The Crazy guy that can speak well

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.