Damon Lindelof Talks About Struggle To Find Title For Star Trek Sequel (Without AColon) | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Damon Lindelof Talks About Struggle To Find Title For Star Trek Sequel (Without AColon) July 15, 2012

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

Star Trek sequel co-writer producer Damon Lindelof was interviewed at San Diego Comic Con over the weekend and went into detail on how the team are struggling to chose a title for the film and they are now to the point where Paramount is getting impatient. He also talked about how writing for the "crew" is different for the sequel and even the (in universe) time elapsed between movies. Details and video below, no spoilers.  

 

Lindelof talks struggle with finding a title for sequel + writing for the ‘crew’

In the his TrekMovie.com interview (posted yesterday) Roberto Orci said that the team were down to their final list of possible titles for the Star Trek sequel. Talking to MTV at San Diego Comic Con yesterday, Damon Lindelof described how the title is vexing the team:

"There have been more conversations about what we’re going to call it than went into actually shooting it at this point. The normal, why can’t you just call it "Star Trek 2" because there is already a Star Trek II. That was the genius of Nolan. There was ‘Batman Begins,’ and now they’re just going to be the ‘Dark Knights’ and not going to have 2’s," It’s hard to do movies without colons. I’m not talking about the colon that’s in my body that I use for digestion…There’s no word that comes after the colon after ‘Star Trek’ that’s cool. Not that ‘Star Trek: Insurrection’ or ‘First Contact’ aren’t good titles, it’s just that everything that people are turned off about when it comes to ‘Trek’ is represented by the colon."

Lindelof also noted that they are running out of time to make their decision:

"All those iterations [including not having 'Star Trek' in the title] are bouncing around. I think that we are waiting for that one. This is the hardest thing to do in filmmaking or storytelling is you push past the point where you absolutely have to make a decision and now we are in that zone where Paramount is saying  ‘the movie is coming out next May, what’s it going to be?’"

Damon was also asked which character he most enjoyed writing for and he commented that really liked writing for "the crew" who are "now are they are a crew and these iconic relationships are starting to form…watching them become friends:

It was really fun to write the crew this time. In the first one they were all just meeting each other and they get thrown together on this mission. But now they are a crew and these iconic relationships are starting to form, which we just saw hints of before. It is cheesy to say this in a sequel, but watching them become friends is something we have never seen in Trek before. Even in the original series they were already on the five year mission so the idea of learning to trust each other and fighting with each other and not really getting each other yet, particularly the dynamic between Kirk and Spock. Those guys being two halves of the same whole is just a really great relationship between two male characters that I have not seen anywhere outside of Trek.

Lindelof wouldn’t go into specifics on how much time has elapsed in the movie universe between their first Star Trek and the sequel, but did say it was "significantly less" than the three years since the 2009 movie was released.

Regarding Karl Urban’s latest comments about Star Trek, Lindelof said "Karl has gone off the reservation" and he wasn’t going to confirm or deny any spoilers but he did say he didn’t know anything about footage going on YouTube (this interview was done before Karl’s surfing video went viral). 

Here is the video via MTV:

Get More: Movie Trailers, Movies Blog

 

Comments

1. USS Enterprise B - July 15, 2012

I can’t believe they still don’t have a title. As long as it’s a good one, it will be worth the wait. Can’t wait to find out more!

2. KHAN 2.0 - July 15, 2012

give it an TOS style title e.g. something that could quite easily have been an OS ep title (like is what happened with MI4: Ghost Protocol) like what they sort of did with the OS movies (not so much with the almost one word TNG movie titles)

i wouldnt want to see some Trekian phrase like ‘To Boldly Go’ or ‘WNOHGB’ or ‘Prime Directive’ or ‘Final Frontier’ etc with no ‘Star Trek’ like Dark Knight or even Empire Strikes Back(with ‘StarTrek’ relegated to a minor subtitle) – people need to know this is a STAR TREK film and STAR TREK needs to be there first and foremost

plus im not fussed on any silly stuff like ‘Star Trek Reloaded’ or ‘Star Trek Returns’

alternativly maybe they could get away with callng it Star Trek 2 ((like Spiderman 2 or Lethal Weapon 2) ok it may get confusing when spoken but when its there on screen/poster/paper etc everyone will know the difference its not as if Star Trek II was called Star Trek ‘2′…it was officially called ‘Star Trek ‘II’ – The Wrath of Khan’ which maybe leaves ‘Star Trek 2′ ok to use

3. Reign1701A - July 15, 2012

I’m with Paramount on this one: the movie’s coming out in less than a year, just call it SOMETHING.

4. Andy Patterson - July 15, 2012

“Damon Lindelof Talks About Struggle To Find Title For Star Trek Sequel (Without AColon)”

If it’s a good title you shouldn’t worry how it’s formated. Good just flows and doesn’t worry because punctuation may be involved.

5. Khan 2.0 - July 15, 2012

Star
[Khan Strikes Back]
Trek

6. Khan 2.0 - July 15, 2012

‘Star Trek: The Next Frontier’?

a play on ‘The Next Generation’ and ‘The Final Frontier’…like the ‘final frontier’ of Star Trek ‘Prime’ has run its course and this is the next one…plus its got that wild west connotation

7. UMA Fan - July 15, 2012

I totally agree with the colon part of it not being cool.

The mainstream audience just goes: oh ANOTHER star trek. Star Trek: Whatever.

I, for the life of me, don’t envy the task these guys have picking the ‘right’ title.

Maybe just… ‘Trek’ ? That seems very next gen.

Would be hilarious if they went with ‘Enterprise’ awful choice in all seriousness.

I GOT IT: ‘The Next Gen.’ Thats a GREAT title… even though it’s not TNG as us Star Trek fans know, it let’s trek fans know what’s up and gives an in to the mainstream audience. Star Trek IS the next generation of US. I think that’s as close as they could ever get to a ‘Dark Knight’ type title without using the words Star Trek.

8. alec - July 15, 2012

It’s a Khan film; so, something genetic-sounding with religious undertones, perhaps:

‘Genesis’, ‘Survival of the fittest’, ‘Paradise lost’, ‘natural selection’, ‘seed of evil’, etc.

It sounds like they want to drop the ‘Trek’ name. Not sure why. It didn’t put people off from seeing the 09 film…why not use the brand’s goodwill?

9. Miko - July 15, 2012

T.R.E.K(The Rise of Eugenic Khan)

10. Khan 2.0 - July 15, 2012

Star Trek: Genesis?

11. UMA Fan - July 15, 2012

@KHAN 2.0

I like ‘To Boldly Go’ as a title too.

But we also have to consider someone buying a ticket to it and not sounding silly. “Two tickets to “Boldly Go” Please.” That kind of sounds silly.

Seriously “The Next Generation” is it. That would be a bad ass title.

12. Miko - July 15, 2012

Star Trek: Scotty I need warp speed in 3 minutes or we’re all dead!

13. Toonloon - July 15, 2012

Look at the strange lack of continuity of the Rambo movies:

1) first blood
2) Rambo: first blood part II
3) Rambo III
4) Rambo

Was anyone unaware or confused that there was a new Rambo film put a couple of years ago?

I don’t think they should worry about calling it something that may “contradict” a previous movie. NO ONE is going to confuse it with Wrath of Khan.

What troubles me more is that they didn’t start off by saying, “this is what it is about, this is what it NEEDS to be called.” Do you think Christioher Nolan was vague about what to call batman begins? I very much doubt it.

If they called it FRONTIER (terrible title) then EVERYONE will know it’s a star trek movie. Enterprise tried to drop the label out of a misguided attempt to distance itself from the brand, which ultimately back fired because the studio made them change it. JJ’s new movie won’t have that problem.

Even George Lucas didn’t resort to Star Wars, colon, the empire strikes back.

Come on guys! Give it the title you want and forget what the studio or the fan base want. Do it your way. Eventually, everyone will thank you for it once it’s out there.

14. Azrael - July 15, 2012

Man I wish Damon had not said “off the reservation”. Every time I hear that phrase my Native American Indian side gets all wound up. I know its an overreaction but it is not one I can control. Just as someone who lived on a Reservation for a good chunk of my life I can tell you that there are few things better than being off the reservation, sex maybe, and new Trek, but thats about it.

Sorry to dump this on you guys, it was just bugging me.

15. Anthony Thompson - July 15, 2012

“Star Trek: The Resurrection of Mitchell”. After all, Gods can’t really die. Just ask that Jesus dude. : D

16. Toonloon - July 15, 2012

Sorry, wasn’t clear about my frontier title. I meant that a the publicity surrounding the movie will make it very clear that what ever they call it, everyone will know its a star trek movie.

Even if it’s called “Bob thinks Greedo shot JFK”, the general public will still know JJ’s film is star trek.

17. Well Of Souls - July 15, 2012

My suggestion with no colon & to the point with name recognition…LOL

STAR TREK !!

18. Toonloon - July 15, 2012

@ Azrael. Good point. There are a lot of common sayings that are offense to some minorities. Thanks for telling us how you feel about that one.

In the UK, “taking the mickey” could be deemed as anti Irish by so e people and “getting down to the nitty gritty” and “bulldozer” are all slaving terms but are used regularly.

Anyway, I digress. Come on guys! Give us a title please!

19. Davidos - July 15, 2012

Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Gary

20. Craig - July 15, 2012

Star Trek 2

21. Cap'n Calhoun - July 15, 2012

“Why can’t you just call it “Star Trek 2″ because there is already a Star Trek II.”

That’s why they’re just going to call it something identifiable, like “The Wrath of Khan”.

22. Craig - July 15, 2012

Boldly Go

23. Toonloon - July 15, 2012

The Revenge of Khan? Anyone? Nick Meyer eventually got his way with TUC. Maybe the trek universe wants its original title back from george Lucas. :)

24. UMA Fan - July 15, 2012

@alec “It sounds like they want to drop the ‘Trek’ name. Not sure why. It didn’t put people off from seeing the 09 film…why not use the brand’s goodwill?”

I thought that way at first too but you have to see it from the mainstream movie goer who isn’t a Star Trek fan. There are even potential people out there who haven’t seen the ’09 movie but would be open to seeing a badass summer film.

Even though the ’09 movie did amazing for a Star Trek movie, it still was only an average summer blockbuster performer. It also did unimpressive overseas. Like it or not, Star Trek carriers a stigma over it. An unfounded one considering all the countless IPs people geek over today there was a time where Star Trek was the only one and some people are stuck on that mentality.

With all the franchises that are big today, there are tons of people out there who would otherwise enjoy Star Trek but may not give it a chance based on those stigmas. Making people feel like they’re not buying a ticket to a ‘Star Trek’ movie on a very superficial level is a foot forward into getting people to give Trek a CHANCE for them to enjoy.

25. IlSisko - July 15, 2012

How about… “Star Trek: Almost There”?… LOL

26. mischa - July 15, 2012

Star Trek: Attack of the Lens Flares

27. prologic9 - July 15, 2012

Just do what Star Wars does. The “STAR WARS” brand is always there, but its small and out of the way. The real titles were “The Empire Strikes Back” and “Return of the Jedi”, not Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back, etc. But the logos still have the Star Wars brand on there.

Do exactly that and there’s nothing to worry about, assuming you came up with a decent title in the first place.

28. Christopher Roberts - July 15, 2012

Damon, dude, seriously… struggle no more! ;-) :-}

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

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

29. Driver - July 15, 2012

C’mon it’s gunna be the remake with Gary Mitchell.

Call it “Where No Sequel Has Gone Before”.

30. The Last Vulcan - July 15, 2012

@24: Huh? Only if you count that “an average summer blockbuster” did better at the box office than Batman Begins, Captain America and Toy Story! JJST1 did amazing business so JJ was able to destigmatize Trek forever. That’s why Paramount gave him the keys to the store for JJST2. The conversation about leaving Trek out of the title is just as pointless as leaving Of Mars out of John Carter. If the movie is great people will go see it even if it’s named “JJ Blinds You Again With His Stupid Flares” but if it sucks like Carter, it doesn’t matter what you name it and people will stay away in droves. As long as it’s not called “To Boldly Go #2″ I’m happy with the title! :)

31. Dee - lvs moon' surface - July 15, 2012

Star Trek: Boldly surfing a wave in space

……………or

Star Trek: Bones boldly has gone off the reservation

;-) :-)

32. Uberbot - July 15, 2012

Star Trek Continued
(If Khan is in it) Star Trek: Genesis of Khan

33. Cygnus-X1 - July 15, 2012

Poor Damon Lindelof.

I hope that he is recovering well after his colectomy.

My heart goes out to him and his family.

34. AJ - July 15, 2012

“STAR TREK” is recognizable as a brand name, with even the fonts being iconic essentials.

It would be best if the writers could bring together the theme of the “crew” with that of the main storyline in the title. And keep it simple.

Not easy.

35. Anthony Lewis - July 15, 2012

Star Trek [Name Withheld For Secrecy Purposes]

36. TornadoChaser - July 15, 2012

How about “Star Trek or Die Trying”? “A Funny Thing Happened on my Star Trek”? “Have You Ever Seen So Many Stars Trek in One Movie”? “So a Star Treks into a Bar”?

-TC

37. Ahmed - July 15, 2012

oh crap, they wrote the script, finished principle photography & in all this time, they couldn’t come up with a title, really !!!

38. trekmaster78 - July 15, 2012

What about “Star Trek II-a: Khan Uprising”? ;-)

39. No Khan - July 15, 2012

If it has Khan in it don’t call it Star Trek so I can ignore it. Otherwise i hope it has Star Trek in it.

40. Stephan Ur-Kel - July 15, 2012

I suggested a Milton reference weeks ago if it’s Khan…mainly because I think it would connect the new to the old and be a lasting, memorable title. Paradise Lost … Rule in Hell … something. Though now Genesis, as suggested above, sounds pretty good…

Or…. PERDITION’s FLAMES, forcing hordes of google searches for “perdition meaning”

41. Chingatchkook - July 15, 2012

Perhaps Lindelof, Orci and the rest of the senior team are going about this the wrong way. Star Trek has a huge fan base, why not leverage that strength? Put out the best titles, allow fans to vote.

That would avoid a fan backlash against an unfavourable title plus it would get the buzz going for the movie and not cost Paramount a cent in marketing costs.

Even if they put these titles forth to the fans, I doubt that would divulge any of the details of the film.

My humble opinion, anyways.

42. trekmaster78 - July 15, 2012

@#41

Good idea

43. dmduncan - July 15, 2012

Absolutely you ditch the numbering system and you don’t even need “Star Trek.” You can easily identify it as Star Trek by some iconic imagery in the poster. You don’t actually NEED the words STAR TREK anymore, which all by themselves are enough to turn off half the population anyway.

I wish I knew the options they were thinking of. Even without knowing what the movie was about, the cornier sounding ones would no doubt jump right out.

44. Nony - July 15, 2012

-Strange New Worlds (probably been brought up 99999 times)
-Endless/Eternal Frontier (I’m thinking of how if you’re in space, once you get to the frontier or the edges of what’s been discovered, there’s *more*, the limits just keep pushing outward and outward and it never ends)
-1701 (could get confusing)
-The Fated Sky (‘All’s Well That Ends Well’, re: human agency and fate – going back to Shakespeare in general might help, there’s always something catchy)

It’s too bad just plain “Enterprise” was already taken by the series; that would have worked.

45. Mark J - July 15, 2012

I would like Star Trek in the name. Overseas, omit the Star Trek part in marketing.

46. Glob - July 15, 2012

Sounds like he’s TALKING out of his colon. Get off the stage and shut up. The production staff is not the show.

Just write one damn single good movie. Then write another one. Prove you have talent for actual writing.

Take your millions and rent some movies written by Robert Riskin or Paddy Chayefsy or Rod Serling or John Huston or Billy Wilder or Herman Mankiewicz and learn your craft. That a whole different talent than networking, negotiating deals, and cashing checks.

47. dmduncan - July 15, 2012

Generic Shakespeare lines for a title are a no-no. A Shakespearean title should have relevance to the story and be understandable out of context, or it will just sound pretentious.

48. Vultan - July 15, 2012

You don’t need necessarily NEED Star Trek in the title. Just come up with something interesting, place the delta shield behind it with a bunch of fancy transporter sparkles, and then let the media do the rest.

All the entertainment outlets—and the fans—will label it “the new Star Trek movie” anyways, whatever you call it.

49. Vultan - July 15, 2012

Correction: “You don’t necessarily NEED…”
Darn typos.

50. eowyn - July 15, 2012

Star Trek: Where No Man Has Gone Before
And then they reveal Cumby is not Mitchell. That would be great.

51. sunfell - July 15, 2012

Maybe they should use software style naming conventions:

Star Trek 2.1

52. MJ - July 15, 2012

Memo to Damon:

Nolan was not a genius with the title for the second and third Batman films — he simple stole the title from the Frank Miller batman graphic novel.

53. Vultan - July 15, 2012

Can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen The Dark Knight Rises (or its predecessor) referred to as “the new Batman movie.” Titles aren’t THAT important. Ask James Bond.

54. Joel - July 15, 2012

Just call it “Star Trek” and then after the pre-credits tease and credits, give the movie an episodic like title.

How many people are going to call it anything but ‘Star Trek’ when they go up to the box office? The same could be said with the Dark Knight. Everyone goes “2 for Batman” or are you really going to say “2 for the Dark Knight Rises”?

Would it be that hard to differentiate this movie to Star Trek ’09 if they more or less kept the same title?

55. Kahloke - July 15, 2012

Warp Speed…
Warp Two…

56. Mawazitus - July 15, 2012

Hey, Glob, the right side of the bed is in the opposite direction from the side you seem to have got out of. You know, just for future reference. Also, it looks like every name you mentioned there is from quite a while ago. Which then begs the question: do you like anything put out in the last 20 years?

In my opinion, the production staff is definitely part of the show. In fact, they are, in many ways, MORE important than the ‘talent.’ So hearing from them, in my opinion, is quite interesting.

57. DinoMan - July 15, 2012

Holy Sh- – Davidos (no 19) “Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Gary” was freaking hilarious!

Not to mention I think you’re somewhat right. Unless Cumberbatch is going to be drastically altered physically in post-production to look more like he’s a muscular long-haired man from India, there’s no way in hell he’s playing Khan. NOT a Khan movie! All the geeks who keep saying he’s Khan are deluding themselves IMO. Cumber looks like a Gary Mitchell WAY more than a Khan. So you may not be too far off base. In any case… I hope they go with no colon.

58. The Observer - July 15, 2012

“it’s just that everything that people are turned off about when it comes to ‘Trek’ is represented by the colon”

Boy, you said it Damon. Those movies were just…awful.

59. VZX - July 15, 2012

How about “2tar Trek”

60. eowyn - July 15, 2012

The Blindingly Brilliant Star Trek
Adjectives are the new trend…

61. Bob Tompkins - July 15, 2012

A simple ‘Khan’ would be fine, I suppose.

62. Jack - July 15, 2012

ST2. Or Stoo, for short.

63. Uberbot - July 15, 2012

Star Trek: No Khan Do

64. NoKhan - July 15, 2012

You guys are really overthinking.

It’s a Star Trek movie. Of COURSE it’s going to have Star Trek and a colon in the title.

Nobody is TURNED OFF by that. The notion is ridiculous. And if ANYone is turned off about that for real, they need to find something else to do.

If it were a TV series, they wouldn’t need Star Trek in the title. But it’s a movie, so they do.

65. MJ - July 15, 2012

@58 Well you could certainly argue that 4 of out the last 6 Trek movies were so bad that that they left a bad taste in the movie-going public’s mouth for “Star Trek-colon” movies.

So yea, I can why they want to discard the colon. Good move! I concur.

66. MJ - July 15, 2012

@64. I would prefer Star Trek not be in the title so long as the title is something quintessentially star-trek like.

67. A - July 15, 2012

The poll about the title would be great! Do it guys! You’ll have a title fans will approve of and a great marketing scheme!!! And a first from Hollywood as well! As far as I know that is.

68. Oddness - July 15, 2012

Couple thoughts…lol

Star Trek: Comenius (coming of age)
Star Trek: Secondularity (well it aint a singularity)
Star Trek: Trice (Once, Trice..tree times my yadee)
Star Trek: The Second Frontier (well hopin it isnt the final)

69. MJ - July 15, 2012

Look to the Patrick O’Brien Series here for potential analogous non Star Trek title:

Master and Commander (1970)
Post Captain (1972)
HMS Surprise (1973)
The Mauritius Command (1977)
Desolation Island (1978)
The Fortune of War (1979)
The Surgeon’s Mate (1980)
The Ionian Mission (1981)
Treason’s Harbour (1983)
The Far Side of the World (1984)
The Reverse of the Medal (1986)
The Letter of Marque (1988)
The Thirteen Gun Salute (1989)
The Nutmeg of Consolation (1991)
Clarissa Oakes (1992) – (The Truelove in the USA)
The Wine-Dark Sea (1993)
The Commodore (1995)
The Yellow Admiral (1996)
The Hundred Days (1998)
Blue at the Mizzen (1999)
The Final Unfinished Voyage of Jack Aubrey (2004) – (21 in the USA)

70. dmduncan - July 15, 2012

A break with tradition by leaving Star Trek out of the title might also tell people this is not the brand they know and loathe.

71. dmduncan - July 15, 2012

Branding is a two edged sword. That’s why you see a lot of big companies change their names when they’ve trashed their brands. And I think part of the problem Star Trek suffers from is its brand, which these guys are trying to recast. So maybe from that perspective it’s better to leave Star Trek out of the title.

72. Phil - July 15, 2012

Actually, you could just use a name, and incorporate Star Trek into the poster art. Take a look at the James Bond posters, the Pierce Brosnon movies in particular. No reason to believe this would not work here.

73. Vultan - July 15, 2012

#69

Loathe?

74. EM - July 15, 2012

Sorry, but you are unable to offer me this video in my region! You know, the American movie industry treats Canada as a domestic market, yet I can’t view an interview that the rest of the market is allowed to see! Do I really have to read every comment here to try to piece together the interview. Which, of course, I will be able to do easily free of hyperbole and nonsense.
Yeesh, I think that this is my first rant!

75. MJ - July 15, 2012

Something along the lines of a Partick Obrien-like title would work great I think, say:

“Captain and Commander”
“Federation Asunder”
“The _____ Mission”

76. dmduncan - July 15, 2012

72. Vultan – July 15, 2012

Sure. You telling me everybody you know loves Star Trek? Most people I know do NOT. Mention Star Trek and the lights go out. No interest in it. Just the WORDS have that effect. Or else there is just indifference. I know nobody in real life who cares enough about Star Trek the way I do to post about it every day on Trekmovie.

77. MJ - July 15, 2012

@74. I’ve posted this before — here is a link that explains how you can use some specialized software to bypass this issue and watch any U.S. videos internationally:

http://gizmodo.com/5713626/how-to-watch-streaming-us-programming-abroad

78. Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-) - July 15, 2012

“…Those guys being two halves of the same whole… “

Of the whole what? I understand friendship and all, and even having a deep bond, but I am asking a real question here. I recall Orci mentioning something akin to a Lennon/McCartney relationship, which I can agree with, but I didn’t see Lennon/McCartney as “completing each other” or “two halves of the same whole.” I guess it just comes down to how people see things differently… The more important question for me is do we get to see Spock and Uhura as “two halves of the same whole” as well, at least?

I was going to post something else. but I forgot – oh, now I remember. I think the name should just be “II.” You don’t need to call it “Star Trek: II.” All you have to do is have a silver II showing on a black screen and it dissolve into the Star Trek logo. That would say it all, really. Kind of like (since Batman was used as a reference) how we all knew The Dark Knight was about Batman because of the iconic bat logo. I think “II” is simple and to the point. You don’t need to slap a fancy name on it, so long as the movie is good. There’s my 2 cents.

79. MJ - July 15, 2012

@78. You would do well to go back and rewatch some TOS episodes. The Kirk and Spock as two halves of a whole is an obvious theme, and former college courses in Trek offered in the 1980’s explored this theme, as did several writers/speakers who have written/talked about the themes and meaning in TOS Star Trek over the years.

80. CmdrR - July 15, 2012

“Prime Directive”

“A Tall Ship and a Star to Steer Her By” (Long, but we get our $13.50’s worth.)

“To Boldly Go” (Oh, you know you want to call it this!!)

“Tribblelight: Breaking Gorn”

81. Crewman Darnell - July 15, 2012

________________________

*** Star Trek: The Star Trek ***
________________________

82. Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-) - July 15, 2012

70.

Fascinating. And I hadn’t even read this post before making my suggestion. “II” just seemed right to me. Anyway, the brand is the brand. People will either show up based off of the last movie and the marketing for this one, or they won’t.

83. Federali Aundy - July 15, 2012

Just call it: Star Trek (Without A Colon)

84. Casey - July 15, 2012

Ok…I agree with the colon thing and I agree that they shouldn’t call it STAR TREK 2. That’s just such a…90s thing to do. BUT…assuming this will be a trilogy, what if they took a cue from The Godfather?

STAR TREK
STAR TREK: PART 2
STAR TREK: PART 3

It just seems a lot more sophisticated than “Star Trek 2.”

85. Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-) - July 15, 2012

“@78. You would do well to go back and rewatch some TOS episodes. The Kirk and Spock as two halves of a whole is an obvious theme, and former college courses in Trek offered in the 1980′s explored this theme, as did several writers/speakers who have written/talked about the themes and meaning in TOS Star Trek over the years.”

I’m going to assume that you’re not referencing yourself and that you are referencing me. I’ve seen some TOS episodes, and a few of the movies.

Still, I don’t see where they completed each other or were two halves of the same whole. I guess you could call the “whole” the team (as I do), but then that would include the entire crew to me, so the two of them wouldn’t make two halves. Even if they have a brother bond, I don’t see it being halves of a whole, just two people that complement each other stylistically from a management/command and life standpoint. Perhaps you could point me to one of these speakers and their comments on the subject. And geez. a college course(s) was dedicated to it? Really? :-/

86. Casey - July 15, 2012

Or maybe even

STAR TREK
STAR TREK: CHAPTER TWO
STAR TREK: CHAPTER THREE

87. Stephan Ur-Kel - July 15, 2012

61 I could see that happening. I don’t think it will be a name that copies a Trek cliché or already-used title. If indeed Khan, there are plenty of new possibilities from Space Seed and TWOK to pay honor to the source. I am thinking something poetic and/or powerful to represent Cumberbatch’s villain. Bob, if still undecided, I again recommend some Milton for inspiration.

As a side note, it’s good to see new posts on trekmovie. Keep the conversation starters coming…

88. Will Johnson - July 15, 2012

Yes. I was turned off by the colon. You caught me. The colon killed Star Trek.

First the “We changed it because we can so deal with it” sentiment and now the “fans are fickle and angry about a colon in the title.”?

89. sean - July 15, 2012

#52

Nolan didn’t steal anyone’s title. Batman has been called The Dark Knight long before Miller came along. His stories were called The Dark Knight Returns and The Dark Knight Strikes Again. Nolan did take some ideas from Miller’s other Batman story, Year One.

90. MJ - July 15, 2012

@85. Back in the 1980’s there was a minor Trek college course fad where several universities offered elective courses on Star Trek. I remember seeing a couple of articles on this way back then, and the Kirk-Spock comparison as two have of human thought, were featured.

91. MJ - July 15, 2012

@89. But Miller used it in THE TITLE dude…and that title was a huge deal for the Batman popularity resurgence. So yea, of course he was stealing the title from Miller’s titling.

92. Vultan - July 15, 2012

#76

Oh, I know plenty of people who have zero interest in Star Trek (and science fiction in general), but none that “loathe” it. If they’re not interested, they’re not interested. Fine by me.

93. Dekker - July 15, 2012

Star Trek: Epic Fail

This sequel is turning into a disaster. No footage from comicon and no title? PR damage control but this is clearly turning into a farce for Paramount. In this business, no news is bad news, any way you slice it.

94. Cygnus-X1 - July 15, 2012

“Star Trek 2 The Search for Damon’s Colon”

95. Vultan - July 15, 2012

#85

By two halves of a whole he means they complement each other. Metaphorically speaking, of course.

96. Cygnus-X1 - July 15, 2012

“Star Trek 2 The Search for Artistic Validation (and Damon’s Colon)”

97. Cygnus-X1 - July 15, 2012

“Star Trek II: Male Gigolo”

98. MJ - July 15, 2012

@93. No offense dude, you post is a disaster, as further evidenced by spelling Deker incorrectly.

99. Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-) - July 15, 2012

@#14 Azrael

“Man I wish Damon had not said “off the reservation”. Every time I hear that phrase my Native American Indian side gets all wound up… Sorry to dump this on you guys, it was just bugging me.”

No need to apologize because it was insensitive, but I don’t think it was meant to harm. I think that sometimes people say things and don’t understand the impact, or even worse, they don’t care. I have a friend that used the term “gyp” and I tried to tell her that it was derogatory of the Gypsies and that it’s not right, but she didn’t seem to think she was doing any harm, so… I’m surely not perfect, and so I’m not trying to preach, but I think it helps if we all try…

And besides, Karl wasn’t lying or “off the reservation” when he said he had exclusive footage anyway. He did have that; it just wasn’t of the movie. Still, I liked the little behind the scenes shots that we got. But then I like JJ, so… :-)

100. AJ - July 15, 2012

Star Trek: Maximum Warp
Star Trek: Darkness and Silence
Star Trek: Flagship!
Star Trek: The Jealous God
Star Trek: Invasion

101. Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-) - July 15, 2012

@#95 Vultan

Mmm, I don’t buy that because “to complete” does not mean “to complement.” If he meant complement, then I wish he would have said that.

102. Red Dead Ryan - July 15, 2012

Actually, during TOS, it was more like three-thirds of a whole when it came to Kirk-Spock-McCoy. The mainstream folks usually just associate Kirk with Spock, that’s all, when in fact it was Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. Of course, Spock/Uhura Admirer will differ with her own revisionist version of TOS history. :-)

#30.

Dude, “John Carter” failed because of poor marketing, i.e, dropping the “of Mars” portion of the title. The movie itself was quite enjoyable and is now an underrated cult classic.

Well, as for the title, all you need is a good short title that hooks in the fans and other potential viewers. Doesn’t have to include “Star Trek”. But you definitely need the delta shield logo.

103. Keachick - July 15, 2012

What – a colon… this … : killed Star Trek? LOL Actually it was the plot lines and characterization of the TNG movies that a lot of people did not like…

Anyway, why not – Star Trek Already Been There – because this is what it’s all beginning to feel like, especially around here, with everybody going round in circles about who the villain might be, titles etc.

Now to OT (sort of) –

I hope Anthony Pascale has his important birthday date diary up to date, because two birthdays get (or should) celebrated this week –

Benedict Cumberbatch – 19 July and Roberto Orci – 20 July

Later, in August – Bruce Greenwood – 12 August and Chris Pine – 26 August

Then, in September – Alex Kurtzman – 7 September

104. Ben - July 15, 2012

“Star Trekkin’ Across The Universe”

105. Vultan - July 15, 2012

#101

Well, you can pick it apart if you want, but I’m pretty sure that’s what he meant.

106. DinoMan - July 15, 2012

These might work:

Where Gary Mitchell hasn’t Gone Before

Gary & Elizabeth

Psychic Barrier

Gary “Transformers”

107. Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-) - July 15, 2012

@MJ “@85. Back in the 1980′s there was a minor Trek college course fad where several universities offered elective courses on Star Trek. I remember seeing a couple of articles on this way back then, and the Kirk-Spock comparison as two have of human thought, were featured.”

How are Spock and Kirk representative of the two halves of human thought? O_o I don’t get it. Okay, I know that Spock would represent logic, but Kirk was described here by some as the “action” guy. So, would that mean that he is supposed to represent impulse? And if so, I don’t think that this is all there is to human thought, especially since Spock’s dedication to logic above all is a Vulcan (alien) pursuit, but that’s just me.

Anyway, I’m glad that the college courses were just a fad. I think there’d be better electives to take than that. No offense.

108. Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-) - July 15, 2012

@#104

I’m not picking it apart. If that’s what he meant, then my only point is then that’s what he should have said and not something else.

@#102 Ryan

“Actually, during TOS, it was more like three-thirds of a whole when it came to Kirk-Spock-McCoy. The mainstream folks usually just associate Kirk with Spock, that’s all, when in fact it was Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. Of course, Spock/Uhura Admirer will differ with her own revisionist version of TOS history. :-)”

Well hardy-ha! I’m not revising it at all, I’m saying what I saw and I asked for an explanation of how other people came to the conclusion of Spock/Kirk being two halves of a whole which, by the way, YOU don’t even seem to agree with when you say it was “three-thirds of a whole.” So, who would be revising now? Or, don’t tell me, you’re the only person that can be right, Ryan. Right? ;-)

109. Uberbot - July 15, 2012

Star Trek 2: Colonoscopy

110. Azrael - July 15, 2012

@107. More like Id and Ego, with McCoy being the Superego ie the third part of the human psyche.

111. Driver - July 15, 2012

STAR TREK:

Whatever subtitle is chosen should be beneath and fit exactly within the width of STAR TREK:

When people buy their tickets they will probably just say Star Trek and not bother saying the subtitle.

112. Dekker - July 15, 2012

@98 Hey MJ “you post is a disaster”?

Making fun of my name is cute. Maybe respond to how this summer has been one massive let down after another. Karl Urban making a fool of himself is just another example. I doubt he went off the reservation like that if he felt confident about how the film is progressing.

JJ has run amok with this sequel and turned it into another LOST. That was my fear with this franchise from the beginning. From what we know, there is a bunch of hype about a story that is so bad they had to rewrite it, and they still can’t think of a title? The heads at Paramount can’t afford another dud. I wouldn’t be surprised if it gets pushed back again.

113. Red Dead Ryan - July 15, 2012

#108.

I wasn’t revising anything. Just pointing out the facts. Kirk and Spock weren’t two halves of a whole; it was Kirk, Spock, and McCoy being three thirds of a whole.

The “Kirk-Spock two-halves as a whole” idea is wrong. It leaves out McCoy, who has never really been given the proper dues as the “other” portion of the triad, outside of this site. Unfortunately, it probably has something to do with the fact that DeForrest Kelley died thirteen years ago while William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy continue to live long and prosper. So it would be easy for casual/mainstream fans to forget about the good doctor.

I was making a correction, not a revision. And yes, I am right! :-)

114. Phil - July 15, 2012

The more I think about this, having the words Star Trek in the background makes sense, it’s a good tie in. The title needs to be prominate – not knowing anything about the story, I’m not going to suggest anything other then we really need to avoid dippy TOS phrases. They worked in the 60’s, but this film is already fighting the rehash/retread/remake monster with all the WOK chatter. Calling it something nondescript, like To Boldly Go, WNMHGB, or something similar won’t help with the new branding…

115. The Last Vulcan - July 15, 2012

I HAVE IT!!!!

THIS IS GOING TO BE THE TITLE:

Wagon Train To The Stars!

THAT’S IT!

:)

116. Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-) - July 15, 2012

@#110

So it goes back to what I said several months ago when I stated how the “triumvirate” seemed to be described to me: Three one-dimensional people that, together, make one three-dimensional person. Good God, I hope this is not what they are trying to do with these movies. :-/

Again, no offense intended, but… :-/ Well, at least I got my answer. Thank you, Azrael.

117. Vultan - July 15, 2012

#107

Kirk, Spock, and McCoy are generally seen as representative of Freud’s three-part model of the psyche (id, ego, and superego). For whatever reason, this creative team seems to have whittled it down to just Kirk and Spock, most likely going for the “buddy” dynamic of opposites used so often in fiction. Think “Lethal Weapon,” “Butch and Sundance,” and so on.

118. Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-) - July 15, 2012

@#113

“I was making a correction, not a revision. And yes, I am right! :-)”

Which would mean that you AGREED with me when I said that two halves of a whole is a wrong description, so then saying that I was revising the past would be wrong. ;-) Thanks, Ryan. :-D

Personally, three-thirds of a whole isn’t any better, even if it is accurate, because it is so sad. So very, very sad.

119. Tarkov - July 15, 2012

“That was the genius of Nolan.”

Uh, no the genius of Nolan was that he made an amazing film that was actually about something deeper then explosions and skydiving and wasn’t full of plot holes or Star Wars riffs.

120. Devon - July 15, 2012

#119 – Fail.

121. Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-) - July 15, 2012

@#117

But see, at least in “Lethal Weapon” and “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid” the characters were whole people. They weren’t parts of a person that together made a whole one. I’m sorry, but maybe that’s one of the reasons why I never really bought into TOS. My mother really likes it. It’s the only Star Trek she’s ever followed, but I just couldn’t get into it. *Shrugs*

122. Uberbot - July 15, 2012

How about STAR TRACK?

People have been wanting to call it that for years anyway, so why not just go for it? STAR TRACK TOO should be the title!!

Or STAR TRACK: REVENGE OF DOCTOR SPOCK

STAR TRACK 2: DOCTOR SPOCK STRIKES BACK
STAR TRACK 2: NO KHAN DO
STAR TRACK 2: FOR MY EYES HAVE GLOWED AND I THINK I’M A GOD
STAR TRACK: ENTERPRISING YOUNG SUPERMEN
STAR TRACK 2: WHOM GODS TRANSFORM
STAR TRACK 2: VENGEANCE OF THE SPACE TITANS
STAR TRACK: CREWMAN ON THE EDGE OF FOREVER
STAR TRACK: WHAT ARE LITTLE GODS MADE OF?
STAR TRACK 2: THAT NEW GOD SMELL
STAR TRACK 2: FANTASY STARSHIP

123. Geodesic - July 15, 2012

I’m saying Cumberbatch is Sybok with an earjob.

124. Vultan - July 15, 2012

#121

Don’t know what to tell you. That dynamic is apart of TOS, and these new movies are… about the TOS characters. Take it or leave it.

125. Red Dead Ryan - July 15, 2012

Spock=cold, calculating logical.

McCoy=passionate, emotional, humerous.

Kirk=logical, and passionate. Both of Spock and McCoy’s primary qualities balanced out by Kirk’s even keel. But Kirk was a ladie’s man, something Spock and McCoy weren’t.

And yeah, Spock did have some of McCoy’s traits, such as cracking the odd joke, and McCoy did obviously resort to logic when saving patients’ lives numerous times. So they did exchange a litte bit of each other’s qualities, especially over the course of their long careers together. But their egos ensured that they still remained the clashing, stubborn friends whose central “qualities” remained intact.

I only partly agreed with you. As you can see. And no, the triad is not sad, not sad at all. Not by a long shot!

126. Red Dead Ryan - July 15, 2012

Also, the idea of the Kirk, Spock, McCoy dynamic is to show that the whole was greater than the sum of the parts. That’s what friendship and teamwork is all about. The combined strengths overcoming the individual weaknesss/flaws.

127. Red Dead Ryan - July 15, 2012

weaknesss=weaknesses

DAMN TYPOS!!!

128. Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-) - July 15, 2012

You don’t have to tell me anything, Vultan, because you are correct. That dynamic is a part of TOS. But, this is not TOS. These are alternate versions of those same characters. I, for one, hope that in this universe these characters are much better developed and do not have to make one complete person as a part of a triad. Hopefully, Spock, Kirk, and McCoy can be complete beings separately, on their own.

In addition to and after that, a strong friendship would be a welcome thing from me, but only after that. I can take that, and I would leave anything less. (This applies to Uhura and Spock as well. I would like two whole people in a committed relationship. That would be nice.)

129. Azrael - July 15, 2012

The idea is not unique to Star Trek either. From DC Comics there is the trinity of Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman. When they are all together there is nothing in the universe that can stop them, and yes their personalities support each other.

Aside from that SU Admirer, have you ever heard the term “soul mate” or “Imzadi”? Both encompass the same concept, that is, “This person is the other half of my soul.” No offense but I gotta agree with RDR here, there is nothing sad about that concept.

130. Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-) - July 15, 2012

Ryan, if you think that three one-dimensional people making one three-dimensional person is not sad, then that’s you. It is sad to me.

“Also, the idea of the Kirk, Spock, McCoy dynamic is to show that the whole was greater than the sum of the parts. That’s what friendship and teamwork is all about. The combined strengths overcoming the individual weaknesss/flaws.”

Right, friendship and teamwork, not one dimensional people representing a “part” of the human psyche. And to me, the “whole” is the entire team, which includes Uhura, Scotty, Chekov, and Sulu, who all contribute to the overall success of any mission and the overcoming of obstacles as well in their own right. I suppose we just won’t agree on this then…

131. Red Dead Ryan - July 15, 2012

#128.

You can’t break up the Kirk-Spock-McCoy dynamic without the result being three totally different and far less interesting characters. They have to be friends for it to work. And yeah, it might not be TOS, but it is based on TOS, and some elements must remain.

Also, for you to suggest the Spock and Uhura become lovers while trying to reduce the Kirk-Spock-McCoy dynamic is hypocritical, to say the least. Because then neither Uhura nor Spock would be “whole”. They’d be two halves of a whole, something you’ve been against.

132. Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-) - July 15, 2012

@129

“The idea is not unique to Star Trek either. From DC Comics there is the trinity of Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman. When they are all together there is nothing in the universe that can stop them, and yes their personalities support each other.”

Okay, I don’t read comic books, but from what I’ve seen and know of Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman, these were all whole people. Superman’s persona was divided in half with Clark Kent and Superman, but those actually were a part of the same person. Batman didn’t need Robin in order to be “complete,” from what I can tell, so it’s not the same. And Wonder Woman, well I can’t remember much about her. So, if you’ve got something there, then you’ve got something…

“Aside from that SU Admirer, have you ever heard the term “soul mate” or “Imzadi”? Both encompass the same concept, that is, “This person is the other half of my soul.” No offense but I gotta agree with RDR here, there is nothing sad about that concept.”

And being “soul mates” is the exact reason why I argued for Spock and Nyota’s relationship, but I still see them as whole people on their own and before they got together. I never said that the concept of a soul mate was sad, not at all, and I don’t see where Ryan even mentioned it.

133. Vultan - July 15, 2012

#131

Eh, don’t even bother trying to explain anymore, RDR. Quite obvious now she wants this to be about that and not about the other.

134. Red Dead Ryan - July 15, 2012

#130.

Except you’re expecting Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Uhura, Scotty, Chekov, and Sulu to spend equal time with each other, whether on duty or off. That just isn’t realistic. Certain situations demand that one group of people work together while others do another task. People break off into seperate smaller groups. Doesn’t mean one person in one group hates another person in another group, it just means people become closer to certain types than to other types. It’s human nature.

Kirk, Spock, and McCoy, through their experiences, grew close together. Sometimes they did clash. Especially in the case of Spock and McCoy.

On the other hand, they had good relationships with the other four. But none of them had as close a relationship to Scotty, Uhura, Sulu and Chekov as they do to each other.

135. Charles Trotter - July 15, 2012

STAR TREK BOULEVARD
STAR TREK OF AGES
STAR TREK FOREVER
TREK HARD
A TREK IN THE DARK
HIGH PLAINS TREKKER
STAR TREK: WHERE NO KHAN HAS GONE BEFORE
STAR TREK, OR: HOW I LEARNED TO STOP WORRYING AND LOVE THE KHAN
STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN 2: WHERE NO MAN HAS GONE BEFORE REDUX
2 STAR 2 TREK
THE STARRY NIGHT

Then, of course, there’s always the classic STAR TREK 2: ENTERPRISE BOOGALOO

136. Adolescent Nightmare - July 15, 2012

I will name the movie for free!

137. MJ - July 15, 2012

@129 “From DC Comics there is the trinity of Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman.”

Huh? Sorry, but having been old school reader of DC, including their Action Comics series, I just don’t remember Wonder Woman being this key third wheel of the Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman “trinity” that you refer too? Sure, Wonder Woman would come in handy during a fight, but she wasn’t a key partner to Superman and Batman.

138. Legate Damar - July 15, 2012

I think my favorite Trek movie title was Undiscovered Country. Maybe they can find another Shakespeare quote that fits with the plot of this one.

139. Red Dead Ryan - July 15, 2012

When two people fall in love, they both have to give up a little bit to ensure the relationship works. So right off the bat, Spock and Uhura would NOT remain two “whole” people.

140. Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-) - July 15, 2012

Ryan

“You can’t break up the Kirk-Spock-McCoy dynamic without the result being three totally different and far less interesting characters.

That’s only if they remain the same as they were in TOS, which I really hope will not be the case here.

They have to be friends for it to work. And yeah, it might not be TOS, but it is based on TOS, and some elements must remain”

They don’t have to be friends to work together, but I suspect that they all (meaning the whole crew) will be friends. I would be surprised if they didn’t at least respect each other. I’ve definitely had to work with people that I would never spend time with outside of work, but because we both believed in a certain level of professionalism of civil discourse, working with that person (or those people) was pleasant and rewarding nonetheless.

“Also, for you to suggest the Spock and Uhura become lovers while trying to reduce the Kirk-Spock-McCoy dynamic is hypocritical, to say the least. Because then neither Uhura nor Spock would be “whole”. They’d be two halves of a whole, something you’ve been against.”

See the second part of post #132. I see both Uhura and Spock as whole people prior to getting involved. One could argue that in order to form a perfect union, which I hope that they do, both parties need to be whole prior to entering into it. There is no hypocrisy here.

141. Legend of Link - July 15, 2012

Beyond the Frontier or something ha.

142. Charles Trotter - July 15, 2012

Some more possibilities… ;)

SECOND STAR TREK TO THE RIGHT
INTREKTION
(500) DAYS OF STAR TREK
TREK-A-LOT
LOOK WHO’S TREKKING NOW
STAR TREKKERS OF 2233
EASY TREKKER
IT HAPPENED ONE TREK
A HARD DAY’S TREK
BREAKING AND ENTERPRISE
MEN AT WARP
WHATEVER WARPS
ANOTHER STAR, ANOTHER TREK
A LITTLE SONG, A LITTLE DANCE, JIM KIRK’S HEAD ON A LANCE

143. Red Dead Ryan - July 15, 2012

Well, I’m done arguing about this. I think I’d have better luck trying to convince Kofi Annan that Bashar al-Assad is a tyrant.

144. Azrael - July 15, 2012

@137. MJ DC had a monthly title called Trinity that starred Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman. Through the late 80s and into the 90s WW was established as the third part of DC’s “big three” as they called them in their own comics.

Also SU Admirer you just committed the comic book equivalent of saying “isnt the Enterprise Darth Vader’s ship?”

145. Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-) - July 15, 2012

@Vultan

“…Quite obvious now she wants this to be about that and not about the other.”

Vague much?

@#134

“Except you’re expecting Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Uhura, Scotty, Chekov, and Sulu to spend equal time with each other, whether on duty or off. That just isn’t realistic.”

Where in the world did you get that from??? I said that I’d imagine that they’d all be friends and surprised if they didn’t at least respect one another. That does not equate to saying that they’d all spend equal amounts of time with each other or that they should. Wow.

“Kirk, Spock, and McCoy, through their experiences, grew close together. Sometimes they did clash. Especially in the case of Spock and McCoy.

On the other hand, they had good relationships with the other four. But none of them had as close a relationship to Scotty, Uhura, Sulu and Chekov as they do to each other.”

I don’t think you’re reading my posts, or at least you’re perhaps not understanding them.

I never said they couldn’t be close. I said that they should be whole people and not parts of a fractioned off psyche. In this universe, I’d argue that Spock has a closer relationship to Uhura, and Kirk had a closer relationship to McCoy in the film. Again, we’re dealing with a different timeline and slightly different versions of these characters. I don’t think it’s supposed to be exactly the same. You and Vultan do, however, and that is your right.

146. Azrael - July 15, 2012

Remember MJ I’m the one who writes stuff for a website about comic book characters. :)

147. Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-) - July 15, 2012

@Azrael

“@137. MJ DC had a monthly title called Trinity that starred Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman. Through the late 80s and into the 90s WW was established as the third part of DC’s “big three” as they called them in their own comics.

Also SU Admirer you just committed the comic book equivalent of saying “isnt the Enterprise Darth Vader’s ship?”

Well, I know the Enterprise is not Darth Vader’s ship, but at least I started out letting you know that I don’t read comic books, so I can only go off of what I know about those characters. Still, even if they were a trio, that does not mean that they were not whole people that worked together, which is what I hope for with this coming ST film. Are you saying they were not?

@Ryan

If you want your three one-dimensional people acting as one three-dimensional person, then you do have TOS for that, but I’m simply hoping for better than that from these films.

148. Keachick - July 15, 2012

I think that the three main characters, Kirk, Spock and McCoy are all whole people in and of themselves. However they each bring an aspect of their makeup that makes for a good team. It is to do with the way these three individual minds work, with how they learn and perceive the information about the world around them, what they do with that information and how they form conclusions. Because they are not clones, but people who come from different backgrounds and are of different ages, (although not that far apart in age), but having similar intellects and education – they can bring their own unique perspective to any situation.

It is obvious that all three have good intellects and they all have an emotional component. It is a matter of how much emphasis each of these individuals gives or is able to give to the various aspects making up the mind of their own person. Spock is only half-human and was brought up to believe and practice logical thinking and for the most part, it has stood him in good stead. Kirk and McCoy are more like each other, given that they are both fully human and come from similar backgrounds. They have also known each other for longer than either of them have known Spock.

In some ways, Kirk might be considered the brightest of the three, because he is able to think through the various perceptions to a situation expressed by Spock and McCoy and himself, transcend all and come to what can sometimes be a rather novel conclusion.

I think what people, including Spock/Uhura Admirer, are doing is confusing expressions of sexuality within relationships with the mental focus of individuals. This has lead some people to think of Kirk and Spock being in some sort of sexual relationship even, because of how close they appear to be as a captain and first officer who have simply spent time developing a genuine understanding and friendship for each other.

The three characters may complement one another on the intellectual/come emotional level, but they also have their own sexuality and needs/desire for various kinds of companionship and relationships, which may have little to do with the intellectual and emotional connection that Kirk, Spock and McCoy share as co-workers and friends. Hence, Spock’s (ongoing) relationship with Lt. Uhura.

149. Ahmed - July 15, 2012

@143. Red Dead Ryan – July 15, 2012

“Well, I’m done arguing about this. I think I’d have better luck trying to convince Kofi Annan that Bashar al-Assad is a tyrant.”

lol, good luck with that. UN officials live in a different world, just look at Hotel Rwanda (2004).

As for Star Trek, it is really becoming tiresome arguing about non-information like the name of the villain or the title of the sequel.

150. Gary - July 15, 2012

I would call it..

STAR TREK

yep, again. Why not?

151. Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-) - July 15, 2012

“Remember MJ I’m the one who writes stuff for a website about comic book characters. :)”

Okay, and as you are that, are you really saying that Batman and Superman were incomplete people working together, and that in working together as a part of that trio, that (the trio) is the only thing that was whole in their lives?? Really? That’s how the comics read? I’m really asking you here because I don’t read them.

152. JP - July 15, 2012

‘Star Trek: Off the Reservation’

The crew head off in search of a lost in time Chakotay who must put the thing back in the other thingy in time to save Earth.

Film to include requisite 7of9 cameo playing Chakotay’s now ex wife who wants to ‘re-assimilate’ him back in to their family collective. That way it can parallel the theme of the crew being a family.

Note: Janeway is dead and will not be making a cameo in this film. Get over it already.

153. Jack - July 15, 2012

136. Twilight is taken.

154. Azrael - July 15, 2012

@151. No I am saying that they are three complete people who together become more than any of them could be alone, just like Kirk, Spock, and McCoy.

155. Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-) - July 15, 2012

“I think what people, including Spock/Uhura Admirer, are doing is confusing expressions of sexuality within relationships with the mental focus of individuals. This has lead some people to think of Kirk and Spock being in some sort of sexual relationship even, because of how close they appear to be as a captain and first officer who have simply spent time developing a genuine understanding and friendship for each other. “

There is no confusion in the way people have described them. The three parts of the human psyche are three parts of one human psyche that should belong to one person. It is you who has brought up a component of sexuality to it, which I find interesting. You’re not the only one, though. There are a lot of people in the TOS fandom that appear to like Kirk and Spock as a couple, but that has nothing to do with the argument at hand.

To make it very clear, hopefully, to anyone reading this: Once again, I do not have a problem with friendship or two or more people working together very closely and very well. What I have a problem with is exactly how this particular “triad” has been described, as in “three-thirds of a whole,” or for Spock and Kirk (who is no brighter than Spock or McCoy), “two halves of a whole,” which implies that they are incomplete in some way. In this universe, I would hope that they are not, and I haven’t seen any evidence yet to suggest that they are. I’m glad about that.

“The three characters may complement one another on the intellectual/come emotional level, but they also have their own sexuality and needs/desire for various kinds of companionship and relationships, which may have little to do with the intellectual and emotional connection that Kirk, Spock and McCoy share as co-workers and friends. Hence, Spock’s (ongoing) relationship with Lt. Uhura.”

Basically, this is a restatement of part of what I’ve been saying and started out saying.

156. Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-) - July 15, 2012

“@151. No I am saying that they are three complete people who together become more than any of them could be alone, just like Kirk, Spock, and McCoy.”

The problem with that is when you call them Id, Ego, and Super-Ego, you’ve already defined them as incomplete and not whole. The fact that whole people coming together can create something greater than they are individually is great, but that is not how the “triumvirate” has been described, but it is what I have been arguing for.

157. captain spock - July 15, 2012

according to this the baby that was cut from the wrath of khan . is khans son ..

http://badassdigest.com/2012/06/12/the-baby-that-was-cut-out-of-star-trek-ii-the-wrath-of-khan/

158. Jack - July 15, 2012

The three characters needing each other and complementing each other, specifically Spock and Kirk (and, no, this never included Uhura before Trek ’09), has long been a part of Trek. The Kirk/Spock relationship has always been the big one. McCoy’s in there too, but he’d be okay on his own (although he and Spock were closer than each cared to admit — see: Treks III and IV). Still, the three of them are better when they’re tpogether — and yes, there is a sense that they complete each other. Remember that these are characters and not real people.

Heck, it was a theme, really, of Trek 09 — this idea that Kirk and Spock have to be friends or their lives won’t reach their full potentials. So far we haven’t seen Uhura complete Spock in any way — we’ve seen them neck a little. This idea that everyone in the bridge crew is all equally important to the story, while nice, wasn’t there in the original series, or the movies.

Just like that idea that anyone in the bridge crew could have said “Space: the final frontier… etc.” and it just happened to be the Captain that day. Nice idea, but completely fabricated.

Watch the show before you start arguing with people about what was and wasn’t there.

159. MJ - July 15, 2012

@144 “DC had a monthly title called Trinity that starred Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman. Through the late 80s and into the 90s WW was established as the third part of DC’s “big three” as they called them in their own comics.”

Ah, I see. That was really late in the game for them to introduce that trinity you are talking about. That was like after 45 years of this trinity not being in existence. I have to wonder if that might have been part of the reason we ended up with Superman’s death and the Miller Dark Knight series then — as they were clearly running out of ides if the started making Wonder Woman the third partner to Batman and Superman…that is just wacky. Kind of glad my comics focus on Superman and Batman is mainly on the 40’s through 70’s then.

160. Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-) - July 15, 2012

“Watch the show before you start arguing with people about what was and wasn’t there.”

The rest of your interesting post aside, perhaps you should read my posts and, more importantly, the posts of your fellow TOS fans before you try to tell me what’s what. “Three parts of the human psyche,” “three-thirds of a whole,” and “one represents logic, the other action, and the other emotion” is how these characters have been described by TOS fans, not me. You seem to be directing your words at the wrong person if you disagree with any of that.

161. Vultan - July 15, 2012

#145

Pointlessly argumentative much?

162. LukasKetner - July 15, 2012

“More Star Trek”

That totally sucks, but my point is that that maybe there’s something appropriate that could rest in front of the “Star Trek”, not behind. Otherwise, to avoid a colon, you need to make it a singular phrase; something like,

“Star Trek Continues”
or
“Star Trek Engages”

163. MJ - July 15, 2012

@158 “Heck, it was a theme, really, of Trek 09 — this idea that Kirk and Spock have to be friends or their lives won’t reach their full potentials. So far we haven’t seen Uhura complete Spock in any way — we’ve seen them neck a little. This idea that everyone in the bridge crew is all equally important to the story, while nice, wasn’t there in the original series, or the movies.”

Well said, Jack. Couldn’t have put it better myself.

Although I always find Spock/Uhura Admirer’s posts very interesting and thoughtful, let’s be real — by a person calling themselves “Spock/Uhura Admirer” on these boards, that person obviously has an agenda in terms of their perceived relationship of what Spock and Uhura are to each other and to Star Trek that is most likely not OBJECTIVE.

It would be like if I called myself “McCoy Rules” here, and always commented about McCoy’s role and unique thoughts on McCoy…it could be very interesting, but it would obviously cause the rest of you to judge my posts as fairly SUBJECTIVE in nature.

164. Azrael - July 15, 2012

@159. It was also based on the fact that Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman are the only Superheroes that have never been completely cancelled, in other words, since their creation they have continually had new stories about them coming out, something no other superhero can claim, not even Spider-Man or Captain America.

165. Brett L. - July 15, 2012

I agree with the idea of a stand alone title like “The Empire Strikes Back” or “The Return of the King” with the franchise title present, but in a minor position. That way you still have “Star Trek,” but witout the colon business.

166. Azrael - July 15, 2012

Oh yeah, btw MJ, if you only read the 40s through 70s then you missed one of my all time favorite quotes. I’ll pass it on here because I am sure you will understand why I love it.

(Superman talking to his clone Superboy)
“Where will you go now?”

“Not sure, I guess “Second star to the right and straight on till morning”.

“Peter Pan, how appropriate.”

“What are you talking about? Captain Kirk said that.”

Lol

167. Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-) - July 15, 2012

@# 161

No. And your answer to my question?

@#163

Well, MJ, I am a supporter of the Spock/Uhura relationship, yes, but that does not mean that I cannot be objective about their relationships to other people, the crew, or the movies.

You are right about me stating my preference for Spock and Uhura (sexually/relationship-wise) in my username, much like those that call themselves “Pinenuts” and/or use other character or actor names in their usernames. But, I think that you are wrong to use my username against me as some kind “proof” towards the idea that I cannot make an objective post, especially (and ironically) when the people that have basically defined Spock, Kirk, and McCoy as incomplete are the very ones that get angry and want to argue when I simply say that they should not be that way, that they should be whole people. Call it interesting? I agree.

168. Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-) - July 15, 2012

Oh, I left out a part.

Correction: #167 Should be “…the people that have basically defined Spock, Kirk, and McCoy as incomplete are the very ones that get angry and want to argue that they are complete when I simply say that they should not be incomplete, that they should be whole people. Call it interesting? I agree.

169. MJ - July 15, 2012

@167. But by calling yourself “Spock/Uhura Admirer,” you can of course understand how many people might doubt the objectivity of your opinions on the topic of Spock’s relationship with Uhura and the topics that surround that, right?

Again, if I called myself “McCoy Rules” and then argued something about McCoy that most others’ didn’t agree with, well, I couldn’t really be all that surprised if people PERCEIVED me as being less than fully objective then, whether I thought I was being truly objective or not.

By using that title as your handle here, right or wrong, you open yourself up to the PERCEPTION that you may not be fully objective on topics involved Spock and Uhura. It is what it is.

170. somejackball - July 15, 2012

Attack Of The Green Blooded Hob-Goblins

171. MJ - July 15, 2012

@166. LOL. That is funny, Azrael,

172. Buzz Cagney - July 15, 2012

#53 i’d love to ask James Bond, Vults, but the booking system won’t recognise my credit card! grrrr
Just off to give it another try…..

173. James - July 15, 2012

Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-)
Best to ignore mj, he likes to post I AM RIGHT!!! until the other party leaves in disgust.

174. MJ - July 15, 2012

@173. Nice job ignoring me there, yourself, James ole pal! LOL

175. Buzz Cagney - July 15, 2012

Personally i hope that whole crappy Spock/Uhura thing just goes away.

176. Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-) - July 15, 2012

@#169

And MJ is a character from Spider-man, so does that mean that I should not accept any of your posts on that subject, should it arise, as objective if they are? Of course not. The objectivity of a post cannot be determined by a username alone, but I do understand what you are saying. I just don’t operate that way. I don’t look at someone’s username as automatically assume that they cannot be objective about anything that even remotely has something to do with it. If that were the case, then a lot of people here must be having a problem in the credibility department. Aside from actors and characters, we’ve got people who have usernames based on or around planet names, tv show names, and more.

Judging a post by someone’s username is like judging a book by its cover to me, but people are people, and I guess some people are like that. I just didn’t expect you to be one of them, I’m sorry to say.

“By using that title as your handle here, right or wrong, you open yourself up to the PERCEPTION that you may not be fully objective on topics involved Spock and Uhura. It is what it is.”

And that’s the issue, MJ. We weren’t talking about Spock and Uhura, not directly. We were talking about Spock, Kirk, and McCoy, and that started out as Spock and Kirk. One relationship is one of soul-mates (Nyota and Spock), and the other is that of friends or would be friends (Spock, McCoy, and Kirk). I honestly don’t see how these even counter each other in any way unless, as Keachick mentioned, anyone here is wanting a sexual/soul-mate relationship between the “thirds.” Is that why people are so up in arms? I wouldn’t think so, but you tell me. Frankly, some of the responses I’ve gotten don’t make any sense.

177. Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-) - July 15, 2012

@James

If I were that easy to run off, Ryan would have gotten rid of me a looooong time ago. :-)

178. Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-) - July 15, 2012

@# 175

And “crappy” would be subjective. ;-)

179. MJ - July 15, 2012

@176. Actually, yes, if this were a Spiderman fan site, and I posted about Mary Jane a lot, with my handle being MJ, then sure, I would not be surprised if people had some doubts about my objectivity.

@176. I don’t even recall who this poor upset James dude is, but obviously he has some axe to grind with me from days of yesteryear on these boards.

“It’s his revenge for all those arguments he lost”
— Dr. McCoy

180. sean - July 15, 2012

There’s no such thing as objective when it comes to entertainment and there’s no need to pretend otherwise. It’s all opinion.

181. Sean - July 15, 2012

Star Trek Continues

Star Trek to the Outter Rim

A New Star Trek

Star Trek Part II

Where no man has gone before

The Voyages of the Stership Enterprise

Beam Me Up

Star Trek Conflict

Star Trek to Kronos

182. Buzz Cagney - July 15, 2012

#178 The terrible decision to throw Spock and Uhura together was done, so we are told, just to give JJ a tingle in his underpant area. Or something like that. Not whether its right for the characters . Just to give JJ a bit of a thrill. That says all I need to know about how wrong the thing is.

183. Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-) - July 15, 2012

@# 179

Oh, I’m not surprised if, as you say, some people have their doubts about my objectivity. That is their prerogative, and if they have questions about anything I’ve posted, then I’d be happy to answer them with whatever facts I can and of course my personal opinions. But why does it have to be only on a Spider-man site? According to you, the handle alone would cause people to suspect and doubt if you ever choose to post on the subject.

@#180

In the final analysis, it does all come down to opinion, yes. I very much agree with that, but journey there should be littered with facts if a poster wants to be taken seriously and is not simply here to joke around, which some are. That’s how I see it.

184. MJ - July 15, 2012

@180. Agree to some extent, but if you were posting as “Sean Admirer” on a James Bond web site, with continued opinions and ideas specifically about Sean Connery, then, right or wrong, you would be perceived as being less objective than other posters.

185. Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-) - July 15, 2012

@#182

And “terrible” would be subjective. :-)

I don’t read much fan fiction, but I have an online friend that recommended a writer that does a pretty good job of making it make sense for the characters by writing about how they got together, if you ask me. We didn’t see how they got together in the film, so I think it’s premature to say that it doesn’t make sense for the characters. ST09 was merely an introduction, not the whole story.

186. Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-) - July 15, 2012

@#184 “but if you were posting as “Sean Admirer” on a James Bond web site, with continued opinions and ideas specifically about Sean Connery, then, right or wrong, you would be perceived as being less objective than other posters.”

MJ, you just undid your whole argument for this website especially. Do you know how many times people repeatedly post the same opinions here about the same topics (including you). All you’re saying right now is that no one here is any better than me. And I don’t bring up Spock/Uhura nearly as much as some people bring up Khan or other things that seem to be constants among the comments sections…

Thanks.

187. MJ - July 15, 2012

@182. I don’t know about that. I certainly see a bit of “like father like son” going on here. I mean dad was a full Vulcan, yet he went for a human woman, and a hot one at that.

I really didn’t need the Spock/Uhura romance either, but to infer it was just wrong and not right for the characters to even get together is stretching it a bit, Buzz.

Let’s not get overly-dramatic about this folks.

188. MJ - July 15, 2012

@185. Not follwing your twist, but I’ll throw you a “nice try” bone for effort!

189. Red Dead Ryan - July 15, 2012

#177.

Nope. I’ll just keep telling you that you’re wrong, that’s all.

#180.

Actually, if you bothered paying any attention at all, you’d realize that MJ, Vultan, and I were backing up our opinions with facts.

And yes, opinions can be right or wrong, depending on how one interprets whatever they’re basing their argument(s) on.

Spock/Uhura Admirer, for instance, is automatically biased in favor of a Spock/Uhura romace because, well, she keeps hoping they’d get married and have babies. S/UA has even admitted to watching only a small portion of TOS. So on that ground, she doesn’t really have a leg to stand on when it comes to making the case against the Kirk-Spock-McCoy triad. She even said she didn’t care for TOS.

She simply has no credibility at all.

190. MJ - July 15, 2012

@184 “And “terrible” would be subjective. :-)”

But it would certainly come across even more subjective if Buzz changed his handle to “Spock-Uhura Detractor :-(“

191. Buzz Cagney - July 15, 2012

I don’t want to know how they got together. I just assume it was some fumblings in a broom cupboard at a Christmas party. And Uhura has used it to further her career ever since.
And when Spock allows Uhura to kiss him on the transporter platform it was only because he knew it would get a rise oout of Kirk!
And lets face it, 7 years is a long time between, er, fumblings, so I guess he thought ‘what the hey’.
But its still pointless and a daft distraction.
And i’m done. ;)

192. Azrael - July 15, 2012

@171. There was also a good one in an issue of a mid 90s Teen Titans, went like this.

The Atom: “Kirk!”

Risk: “Picard!”

The Atom: “Kirk!”

Risk: “Picard!”

Joto: “Sisko!”

The Atom and Risk: “Shut up!”

:-)

193. Buzz Cagney - July 15, 2012

I don’t think its a stretch, MJ. Spock is a loner. He stands apart. It gave him an intrigue and mystery. Have him set up a love nest with Uhura, well, my mind is drawn to Riker and Troi.
I don’t want TOS to be Love Boat: The Next Generation. ;))

And i really am done now. :D

194. MJ - July 15, 2012

@191 “I just assume it was some fumblings in a broom cupboard at a Christmas party.”

I think you meant to say, a “Captain Picard Day” Party, right? LOL

@189 “Spock/Uhura Admirer, for instance, is automatically biased in favor of a Spock/Uhura romace because, well, she keeps hoping they’d get married and have babies.”

Yea, there is that! :-)

195. Hat Rick - July 15, 2012

I have a solution.

Instead of adding words, subtract.

The next movie should be “Star.”

The third movie should be “Trek.”

The fourth movie — well, we’ll cross that (starship) bridge when we get to it.

Hear that, Mr. Lindelof? Steal my idea: Name the next movie: “Star.”

What could possibly go wrong?

196. Red Dead Ryan - July 15, 2012

#195.

“The next movie should be “Star”.

Funny, that was the name of a Terry Farrell (Jadzia Dax, DS9) tv movie from almost twenty years ago.

197. Hat Rick - July 15, 2012

“Star” (2013)

Trek veterans Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and the entire crew of the new Starship Enterprise are called to respond to a crisis in the _________ system, where (tech) (tech) (tech) threatens the very existence of the Federation — and where, above it all, the universe’s most incredible secret threatens to extinguish all life, everywhere, for eternity.

Little do they know that ________________, as the newfound friendships among this stellar crew is tested to the limit.

In 3-D and IMAX where available.

Rated PG-13.

198. Shilliam Watner (Click for Trek Ships Poster) - July 15, 2012

Is it OK if I chime in on the subject? As usual, I’m somewhere in the middle. I remember being surprised by their relationship, but I was neither supportive or against it. I remember thinking about it, and I could rationalize it.

I just thought that the writers had decided to explore some of Spock’s human side. He IS half-human after all, and younger here than we’ve seen him, aside from The Cage. And come to think of it, he was rather emotional in The Cage. He even smiled.

Anyway, it was unexpected to me, but I very quickly accepted it.

As to the subject of subjectivity, aren’t we all being mostly subjective here? My name is not Spock/Uhura Admirer, but I don’t have a problem with their relationship.

I think the main catalyst for it is the fact that they wanted to have a woman play a larger role in the film. They’re trying to widen their audience, and decided to beef up Uhura’s role to try and attract more female viewers. I don’t think this ruins the sanctity of the trio known as Kirk/Spock/McCoy, but we don’t know that yet, do we?

If Orci and co. have forgotten the importance of the trinity, then they’ve certainly done the characters a disservice. But I get the feeling they know the importance of that trio of relationships and will give it due screen time.

Again, we’ll have to wait and see. I’ll not jump to any conclusions right now. That doesn’t mean I don’t have concerns. My main concern would be what this will do to Spock’s character. He was often the outsider, in spite of his trinity connection. If Spock becomes just one of the boys and loses too much of his Vulcanity (is that a word?) then we don’t really have Spock anymore, do we?

I don’t really envy Orci and gang, having to come up against a bunch of picky pickersons like us. I have to give Bob props for continuing to show up here, and taking some of the criticism he does, and occasionally abuse.

I’m so sorry, everybody. I had no intention of writing that much. Good Lord.

199. Harry Ballz - July 15, 2012

I’m guessing that if the purpose of the next movie is to prove that James Kirk deserves to sit in the “big chair’ and that the young crew prove they are the best in Starfleet, and thus deserve to man the flagship, the title of the movie will be…..

Star Trek: Redemption

200. Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-) - July 15, 2012

@#189

Not necessarily.

@#188 Ryan

“177.

Nope. I’ll just keep telling you that you’re wrong, that’s all.

Okay, that answer doesn’t make any sense as a response to #177, but alright…

#180.

Actually, if you bothered paying any attention at all, you’d realize that MJ, Vultan, and I were backing up our opinions with facts.

And so did I. It is a fact that you yourself have described Kirk, Spock, and McCoy as three-thirds of a whole, which would mean that each “third” is not a whole. It’s simple math, really.

And yes, opinions can be right or wrong, depending on how one interprets whatever they’re basing their argument(s) on.

Very true. Hard data plays a role as well.

Spock/Uhura Admirer, for instance, is automatically biased in favor of a Spock/Uhura romace because, well, she keeps hoping they’d get married and have babies. S/UA has even admitted to watching only a small portion of TOS. So on that ground, she doesn’t really have a leg to stand on when it comes to making the case against the Kirk-Spock-McCoy triad. She even said she didn’t care for TOS.

I can always count on you to amuse me, Ryan. Who are you trying to make your case to here? It’s okay; I’ll play since you seem to want to convict me of something:

Am I:

– Biased in favor of Spock/Uhura for love/soul-mate purposes – True. Guilty as charged. :-)

– Hopeful that they get married and have babies – True. Guilty as charged. :-)

– Someone who has only watched a small portion of TOS: Can’t say for sure. I know I can’t remember much of what I did see because my mother watched it when I was growing up, and sometimes I watched with her. I only remember a few, my favorite being a two-parter that featured what I called the “big headed people.” Turns out they were Talosians. For all intents and purposes I’ll say yes it’s true, but please do throw in the movies I watched as well. It’s only fair. :-)

– Someone that doesn’t care for TOS – Mm, not exactly true. I just don’t care for it much, but I wouldn’t say not at all. I never really got into it, but I still like the big headed people in the Menagerie and the fact that Pike got a happy ending. I guess you could say true enough? :-)

– Someone that “doesn’t really have a leg to stand on when it comes to making the case against the Kirk-Spock-McCoy triad.” – Well first, I’m not against them being friends that work together. Um, as to the “triad,” that would depend on what is meant by that. If by “triad” you mean “three-thirds of a whole,” then yes, I am against Spock, McCoy, and Kirk being three one-dimensional people that make up one three-dimensional person. Seeing as I don’t have sufficient data to understand the accusation, I’m going to say that the jury’s still out on that one. :-)

Oh, and now for the kicker.

“She simply has no credibility at al”

I didn’t know that you get to be the one that decides who’s credible and who’s not. The fact that I’m not a TOS SUPER-FAN doesn’t mean that I can’t and shouldn’t be able to enjoy the characters in this universe if I like what I see and the stories being told. I can have an opinion about that, and I’d say that I can have just as credible an opinion about that as you. When it comes to TOS and that universe, and those versions of those characters, then have at it. The credibility is all yours. I rarely enter TOS based discussions here anyway.

The whole point of ST09 was to make a film that non-TOS fans could like, and that’s what you don’t seem to get. The movie wasn’t just for you and other TOS fans. It was meant to be accessible to other people too. They did that for me, so I don’t see why I’m not allowed to have a voice here about what I liked about the film, especially the differences I like that it has from the TOS universe. But, keep believing you’re on a pedestal called “RIGHT,” Ryan. It wouldn’t be Trekmovie.com if you didn’t…

201. Hat Rick - July 15, 2012

^^ “are tested to the limit.”

(Grammatical error. I hate that.)

Also:

196, Red Dead Ryan: I do not believe in coincidences. Things were meant to be.

Also, if they’re spending so much time on the title, who is minding the store?

Call it “Star,” call it “Trek,” just don’t call it late for its current 2013 release.

Hell, I have an even better idea, boys and girls:

Call it: “ST.”

Why not? It’s the only movie franchise (other than the Bond movies, whose eponymous character one knows as “007,”) the degree of whose minimalism in title would work to the greatest degree.

I take that back. A movie called “S” would bring to mind “Superman” and would be even more minimalistic for said Man of Steel. But “ST” would be nearly as good (off by just one alphanumeric character).

And saintly, besides.

202. Hat Rick - July 15, 2012

^^ I screwed up the “the degree of whose minimalism” phrase, but I trust you know what I mean. I mean that it’s the only franchise that can get by with just two letters in its title, and that (as modified later in my message), it’s the only movie franchise that can get away with that. (I later said that “S” could be a plausible title for the next “Superman” movie.)

Gimme a break, folks. Since movie back east, I am now on East Coast time and it’s 2:42 in the wee hours of the morning.

Time to go to sleep — and wake up.

203. Shilliam Watner (Click for Trek Ships Poster) - July 15, 2012

200. Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-) – Well said. Your logic is impressive.

204. Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-) - July 15, 2012

@#188 MJ

” @185. Not follwing your twist, but I’ll throw you a “nice try” bone for effort!”

My “twist” is that it doesn’t make sense to say that in a different timeline with slightly different versions of these characters that Spock/Uhura doesn’t make sense to be together, especially when we don’t know how they got together. My point is that it is possible to tell a story where it does make sense for them to be together, and I’ve read one. Interestingly enough, it started out with Sarek and Amanda and how they came to be. Then, it followed Spock up through his childhood all the way to the Academy days at Starfleet and how, like his father, he became interested in a human lady – Nyota Uhura. It moved on from there, and I think the writer did a great job. And not that it makes any difference, but the writer is a TOS super-fan and she did a great job at writing for everything and everyone, not just Spock and Uhura. So once again, it’s possible for Spock/Uhura to make sense. Very possible.

The effort wasn’t mine, in this case. Not at all.

205. Hat Rick - July 15, 2012

^^ I meant to say, “it’s a franchise that can get by with just two letters in its title.” Otherwise the sentence would be redundant.

Redundantly yours,

Hat Hat Rick Rick

206. Dr.Kirk - July 15, 2012

Star Trek
the new movie
and without title yet
but with Cumberbatch
who is maybe Khan or Mitchell or so

Would be a title without “:”

BUT Mr. Lindelof, you could also ask the fans! :D We would choose the title with pleasure ;)

207. danielcraigismywookiebitch - July 15, 2012

Just dont pull a scream 4 and call it STA2 T2EK, or STA2 TREK, or
STAR T2EK.
And please dont pull a X-Men2 , Mission Impossible 2 or Termintor 2: and call it ST:2

Personally I think Star Trek should be in the title, but if not dont turn one of the catch phrases from the tv show into the title.
though I wouldnt mind seeing a Title from TOS recyled.
The Bond films, recylced the bond book titles even when if that particular movie wasnt the same story as the book that it was named after.

oh and in the other thread,the interview should have asked for Alice Eve’s character, if she was canon to the series or canon to the movies.

208. danielcraigismywookiebitch - July 15, 2012

196 it was also the name of Robert Wise directed movie staring Julie Andrews 44 years ago

209. Red Dead Ryan - July 15, 2012

#200.

They made the recent movie to be an entry point into the Trek universe. Specifically TOS. So it stands to reason then that it should be consistent with TOS. The characters have to behave and act the way they do in the Prime Universe. Yeah, their experiences can be different, and should be for dramatic purposes, but the new universe isn’t an excuse to rewrite the classic characters.

As for the triad, yes, they are three thirds added up to a whole. But each third is fully three dimensional in their own ways. But as I said earlier, the whole is greater than the sum of their parts. That’s a testament to the relationship. And the writing of the characters as well as the performances of the actors playing them. And if you think about it, Kirk wasn’t the same when he didn’t have Spock and McCoy with him, ie, “Generations”.

As for TOS, well, it is the gold standard. Whether you like it or not, its a fact that everything to do with Trek on the big or small screen will be compared (in big ways and small) to TOS.

Your blatant dismissal of TOS really hurts your arguments.

But I’m glad you’ve begun to admit that I am right on several issues. :-)

210. danielcraigismywookiebitch - July 15, 2012

Oh and dont call it
Trek 2: The Stars either

211. Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-) - July 15, 2012

“I don’t think its a stretch, MJ. Spock is a loner. He stands apart. It gave him an intrigue and mystery. Have him set up a love nest with Uhura, well, my mind is drawn to Riker and Troi.
I don’t want TOS to be Love Boat: The Next Generation. ;))”

And that is why I mentioned the fact that it is possible for a story to maintain that aspect to Spock and at the same time show how he can be a part of a loving couple without it being “The Love Boat.” I don’t know how much was created and how much was real, but she made Spock a loner even for a Vulcan.

For instance, she took the fact that he was teased and bullied by the other Vulcan kids in the film for being half human and used that as the reason why and how he got into it and why he is seen as a master chess player as an adult. He spent his lunches and recesses in an old teacher’s company and was trained by him on how to play well. I think she carried the chess thing over from TOS. I’m just saying it is possible for this version of Spock to have a similar background to the original and also be in a relationship, like his father. Just sayin’.

212. danielcraigismywookiebitch - July 15, 2012

Trek 2: The Star

213. Hat Rick - July 15, 2012

Star Wars retrofitted its movies by titling one of them in an entirely revisionistic way, but there’s something to be said for looking at how it was done.

The original Star Wars became Episode IV: A New Hope. III was The Empire Strikes Back, and VI was The Return of the Jedi.

Of these, the first is the only one whose title was back-fitted. These three original movies bear titles that are sequential.

By this measure, the 2009 Star Trek movie should be “Star Trek: A New Beginning,” or, perhaps, “Star Trek: Advent.”

The 2013 movie should be “Star Trek: Crisis,” which is a succinct way of summarizing the fact that Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and the rest are confronting personal as well as universal crises.

The third sequel should be “Star Trek: Resolution,” in which the cliffhanger represented by the 2013 movie would be (somewhat) resolved.

Look — this isn’t rocket science.

Make a decision. Go with it.

If it doesn’t work, then change it.

But let’s move forward, shall we?

214. Red Dead Ryan - July 15, 2012

#208.

I’m going to assume that the Julie Andrews movie was a lot better than the Terry Ferrell one. :-)

215. Qax - July 16, 2012

The Starship Enterprise.

216. MJ - July 16, 2012

@204. Like I said, I’ll throw you a “nice try” bone for effort! And I’ll even give you extra credit for typing a “term paper” in post @200. If effort and quantity of material could overtake substance, you’d have some great reasoning there….ah, if only! :-)

217. Charles Trotter - July 16, 2012

Aww, nobody liked my title “suggestions” in #135 & #142? Well, phooey. ;)

Here are a few more anyway. :P

CLOSELY WATCHED TREKS
GORN WITH THE WIND
SOMETHING TO SPOCK ABOUT
A TREK 2 FAR
LOST IN TREKSLATION
VULCANS ON THE VERGE OF A NERVOUS BREAKDOWN
THE WORLD ACCORDING TO WARP
THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KLINGON

Yes, I’m bored. And I’m taking it out on all of you! ;)

218. Will - July 16, 2012

Kirk and Spock’s European Vacation

219. Keachick - July 16, 2012

Spock was not completely rewritten in this new movie series. We know little about Spock from TOS before we meet him on the Enterprise, except for what we are told by his mother of his experiences of being bullied as a child.

Being a loner does not necessarily mean that a person will deny themselves the possibility of a relationship with another person. I take being a loner to mean someone who is not that comfortable in social settings with a lot of people and who finds conversation and socializing difficult. They tend to prefer their own company, engaging in solo pursuits and perhaps having only one or two good friends who they may associate with on particular occasions and one of those friends may also be a lover.

Whether Spock would be comfortable being married with a family – I’m not so sure. He may do it because logic requires it, but I doubt that could be with Uhura. Spock might find having his marriage arranged with a suitable Vulcan woman in order to help perpetuate the Vulcan race, who are few in number. I have a feeling that this will cause Spock the greatest emotional conflict – doing what is logical or what feels right. Logic and feeling are not mutually exclusive.

220. Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-) - July 16, 2012

@Shilliam – Thank you. :-)

@Ryan

Oh, good grief, you’re back on your downward spiral again. :-(

Here we go:

“They made the recent movie to be an entry point into the Trek universe. Specifically TOS.”

That’s not how I understand it. From what I recall, they made the movie to be an entry point into an ALTERNATE Trek universe, NOT TOS. Details, Ryan. Details…

“The characters have to behave and act the way they do in the Prime Universe. “

You’re not doing to well. I can’t get past a sentence without you making a huge assumption that is likely very incorrect. These character do not have to behave exactly as they did in the Prime universe. Part of going to the trouble to create the alternate timeline and slightly different versions of the same characters was to allow from some creative license with the characters. It was not done to recreate young replicas of the older characters in what will become the Prime universe. If that were the goal, then why bother having an alternate timeline in the first place? They could have just told the adventures of the same characters in the Prime-verse. The series only lasted for three seasons, and it was a 5 year voyage. Sounds like there’s a missing two years. They could have focused on that, but they didn’t. Assuming that they are trying to go back to TOS with a “reboot” of all things is wrong, Ryan. Just wrong.

“Yeah, their experiences can be different, and should be for dramatic purposes, but the new universe isn’t an excuse to rewrite the classic characters.”

It’s not a complete rewrite, but the new universe is exactly a reason to have different versions of these characters. That’s why they created it. Part of what makes a person who they are is their experiences. Different experiences = a somewhat different person.

“As for the triad, yes, they are three thirds added up to a whole. But each third is fully three dimensional in their own ways.

Apparently simple math is beyond you. I’ll move on…

“But as I said earlier, the whole is greater than the sum of their parts.”

I’m not sure that this can be the case if each one of them is simply a “third” of a person, but go on…

“That’s a testament to the relationship. And the writing of the characters as well as the performances of the actors playing them. And if you think about it, Kirk wasn’t the same when he didn’t have Spock and McCoy with him, ie, “Generations”.”

In this universe, “not the same” doesn’t have to imply that he’s missing two thirds of who he is and therefore cannot function properly without them. I hope this is one of the reasons why they decided to change the characters some, to allow for wholeness.

“As for TOS, well, it is the gold standard. Whether you like it or not, its a fact that everything to do with Trek on the big or small screen will be compared (in big ways and small) to TOS.”

Funny. I never compared DS9 or what I watched of TNG/VOY/ENT to TOS. I’m sure some did, especially TOS fans, but I never did. New fans of the ST09 likely didn’t either.

“Your blatant dismissal of TOS really hurts your arguments.

But I’m glad you’ve begun to admit that I am right on several issues. :-)”

First, I haven’t blatantly dismissed TOS, so that can’t hurt my arguments. And secondly, Ryan, while you were doing okay for a moment, you’re back to being wrong again. Sorry. ;-)

221. Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-) - July 16, 2012

@216 “@204. Like I said, I’ll throw you a “nice try” bone for effort! And I’ll even give you extra credit for typing a “term paper” in post @200. If effort and quantity of material could overtake substance, you’d have some great reasoning there….ah, if only! :-)”

I don’t need your bones when I have the meat of succeeding on my side. If only your attempts to discredit me were even partially winning… If only… ;-)

Thanks, MJ. :-)

222. Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-) - July 16, 2012

Correction on #211 – “he got into it “

“It” means Vulcan chess.

223. Jack - July 16, 2012

I ain’t against change, or stirring things up and I’m not a canonista — but Spock and Uhura having babies and living happily after isn’t really a movie I’d want to see (it would be great for them, were they real people). Han and Leia’s happy ending (I didnt read any of the novels set afterward) didn’t thrill me either. I’m a guy, a guy with a cold dead heart. But, as always, I’d be thrilled to be proven wrong (about it working in a movie).

One of my favorite things about the best Trek movies was that they try to force in a love interest (Carol Marcus was a character who mattered to the plot and themes — she wasn’t just The Girl). I’ve said it before, but I hate that Uhura was reduced to, all the talk about her abilities aside, just being The Girl in Trek ’09)

224. Azrael - July 16, 2012

@219. According to Captain Picard he met Sarek at his son’s wedding. Since Sarek only had two (known) sons, Spock and Sybok, one of whom was dead before Picard had ever been born, logic dictates that Spock was indeed married. To who is completely unknown, though many have suggested Saavik, and the subject never comes up in “Reunifications” when Picard and Spock meet on screen. Also, just to be clear, Picard has no son, so it could not have been his own son’s wedding he was talking about.

Evidence suggests that Spock learned how to a married (Vulcan) man, at least to me. Not arguing, just giving you some more info.

@220. Look at it like this, apart from each other Kirk Spock and McCoy are each as good as any two other top Starfleet officers in their field, together they are better than 20, its a different kind of math, simple math is boring.

225. Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-) - July 16, 2012

Forgive the typos, “to well” should be “too well.” I’m not fixing anything else unless it corrects the meaning.

226. ironhyde - July 16, 2012

Okay, so when I was a kid, a teammate of mine playing street hockey insisted it was wrong to wrap a hockey stick blade with white tape because it made the puck visible. I looked at him with a raise eyebrow and said, “If your strategy is to take the puck down the ice by hiding it with black tape on your blade, then you need to work on your actual skills.”

Same goes here. If they plan on tricking people into a cinema by concealing that this is a star trek movie… omg, then they have bigger problems than any of us know. Leave Star Trek out of the title so people don’t pass it over as another star trek movie?? are you serious? wow. haha.. okay…

227. Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-) - July 16, 2012

@223

And I don’t want a cold movie. Some people really seem to think that Spock and Nyota being together means that the entire film will just be about them getting married and how they get along and “happily ever after,” as you say. This is a story about a crew on a starship, first and foremost, and I’d expect that whatever story gets told will focus mainly on that and what they encounter along their way. Having said that, it would be nice to see them all having lives as they work together and face the challenges that are ahead of them. I don’t see anything wrong with that.

“I’ve said it before, but I hate that Uhura was reduced to, all the talk about her abilities aside, just being The Girl in Trek ’09″

Well, to be honest, was she ever much more than that in TOS or the movies, save for probably a few exceptions. Back in the 60’s, being the girl on the bridge hailing frequencies was something, but now? Not so much. That’s why I’m glad that she’s a xenolinguistics expert as well. Now, if they actually give her something to do with that, then we’ve got something. I don’t want her to just be “The Girl” in these movies either, and for what they had to accomplish in the first movie, I think they did a good job of her being more than just “a girl.”

228. Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-) - July 16, 2012

@#224

“@220. Look at it like this, apart from each other Kirk Spock and McCoy are each as good as any two other top Starfleet officers in their field, together they are better than 20,…”

But I don’t look at it like that: I see Spock, McCoy, and Kirk as better than the average officer in their field, otherwise they wouldn’t have been assigned to the flagship of the fleet. I personally think that they should be whole people that are exceptionally gifted, but that’s not what it sounds like when TOS fans describe them as less than that. I’m just glad that we’re in the alternate universe.

“… its a different kind of math, simple math is boring.”

It’s not a different kind of math when they are being described as thirds equaling a whole. That is simple math. And I agree; it is boring.

229. Azrael - July 16, 2012

My point was the whole being described is not equal to one person, but rather it is equal to more than one, you know like how a dozen is 12 and a third of a dozen is 4. In this case each is 1 person, and a third of the trinity, which equals three, not one. None is an incomplete person, and despite that being your view, I do not see anyone here describing them as such.

I am not going to argue any more about it, no offense, I’m just tired, and frankly bored with this particular subject.

Hey for Title suggestions, since there are 7 members of the core “crew”. Namely Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Uhura, Sulu, Chekov, and Scotty, how about.

ST The Magnificent Seven, ;)

230. Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-) - July 16, 2012

@229 “None is an incomplete person, and despite that being your view, I do not see anyone here describing them as such.”

You yourself described them as “…like Id and Ego, with McCoy being the Superego ie the third part of the human psyche.” If each one of them is only a part of the human psyche, then you are describing them as being incomplete on their own, not as whole individuals. I didn’t have to look beyond you to find that.

231. Azrael - July 16, 2012

No that was me answering what was being taught about them in the classes MJ mentioned. I never said it was my view.

232. Keachick - July 16, 2012

I am a little tired of all the focus and controversy surrounding the Spock/Uhura relationship. To those saying that such a relationship couldn’t have happened in the *real* TOS – not true. Not much was shown of anything related to their personal lives at all.

All we knew was that Spock and Kirk played three dimensional chess and Kirk won sometimes. Spock played a Vulcan musical instrument but that was about it. Kirk could dance (ballroom). Later we saw (in the movies) that Kirk liked collecting stuff – guns etc. That was it. We saw Kirk have superficial *relationships* with a female – most of the time she died, especially if she was someone he loved.

To restore balance between the universes, give Kirk a decent woman, someone who won’t say that she wants THEIR child in her world, not his (Carol Marcus obviously never learnt how to share while playing in the sandpit), someone who won’t deceive him because she knows his achilles heel and uses it against him and someone who doesn’t die.

Both relationships that Kirk and Spock should have with the women in their personal lives need not be dominant. Kirk is also a captain of a starship and Spock is his first officer. These roles require commitment and a sense of duty and responsibility, however such work should not require what is tantamount to celibacy/chastity on the part of either individuals.

No, the Enterprise is not a she and Kirk is not *married to the Enterprise*or the job as captain. That was his mistake in the prime universe and who we saw was a sad, bitter, lonely old man who never moved beyond his role as captain. He was stuck…and ultimately, not a complete person at all, anything but. Not so, in the beginning though…

233. Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-) - July 16, 2012

@#231 Azrael

I’m sorry, then let me look a few posts beyond that to post #117, where someone here did say that:

“117. Vultan – July 15, 2012

#107

Kirk, Spock, and McCoy are generally seen as representative of Freud’s three-part model of the psyche (id, ego, and superego)…

234. Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-) - July 16, 2012

^I take “generally seen” to mean that there is a faction of people (TOS fans) that sees them that way, and yes, some reside here to post.

235. Keachick - July 16, 2012

With all the dark, gritty movies about, the fact that so many people find this format so appealing, I suspect that this Star Trek sequel will be similar. Perhaps the title could be

Star Trek to Hell and Back.

Somehow having a title like (Star) Trek to Heaven would not go down that well – a real douche, cheesy title, all lovey dovey stuff and people behaving nicely – real yuk stuff and boring…

Just saying…oh well

236. La Reyne d'Epee - July 16, 2012

Without A Colon

Strange name for a film…

237. Elias Javalis - July 16, 2012

A teaser/something was a remote possibility. Its too early for this. Look at the prometheus teaser, it debuted on December.

Ultimately, i think its a correct strategy. Given the fact that J.J is super secretive, i believe we re gonna have a teaser mid October/ early November.

238. Keachick - July 16, 2012

“#107
Kirk, Spock, and McCoy are generally seen as representative of Freud’s three-part model of the psyche (id, ego, and superego)…”

This sounds like psychobabble to me… I very much doubt that when Gene Roddenberry created these characters that he was thinking Freud. No wonder there is so much confusion surrounding these characters if this is the kind of rubbish written about them. I guess there are always people around with more money than sense.

239. La Reyne d'Epee - July 16, 2012

I have to say that if these people can spend all that time writing and working on a film script but can’t actually settle on a title after all this time, I feel rather inclined to cast aspersions on their creativity and ingenuity. For heaven’s sake.

240. CaptRobau - July 16, 2012

I’d go with Star Trek 2.

Currently, nobody refers to TWOK as Star Trek 2, Star Trek II or anything but The Wrath of Khan/TWOK. So it’s very safe to use.

The problem with using a non-colonized title that’s not ST2 is that it needs to be clear to the non-Trekkies that it’s Trek. So that means using famous Trek titles. Where No Man Has Gone Before and Final Frontier are already an episode and film title, both not particularly good ones.

All other titles would need to be partially new, partially old (like The Dark Knight Rises). The bad thing is, it’d have to include Khan to be recognizable to any non-Trekkies (The Return of Khan or something). Since Khan isn’t/shouldn’t be the villain in the next movie, that’s not really an option.

So I say go with Star Trek 2.

241. matt - July 16, 2012

THESE ARE THE VOYAGES

242. tom - July 16, 2012

Star Trek: Edge of the Galaxy

243. MP - July 16, 2012

Star Trek: With a Vengeance

244. genius - July 16, 2012

THE RISE OF KHAN
or
THE PHANTOM EUGENICS
or
ATTACK OF THE SUPERIOR INTELLECT
or
KHAN TREK
or
STAR TREK: WARP SPEED!

245. genius - July 16, 2012

and how could I forget

50 SHADES OF KHAN

246. Mark Lynch - July 16, 2012

As far as the Spock/Uhura romance thing goes. You know what I would like to see in the new film?

Some event where Spock screws up really badly because he is in a heightened emotional state due to his ongoing relationship. To the point where there are deaths involved. Spock realises that to be fully functional as First Officer on the Starship Enterprise, he must be more Vulcan than he has previously been.
In this manner, we get the beginnings of the Spock character we know and love of old.
But done in a way that is not contrived and has dramatic satisfaction.

Well, I like the idea anyway!

YMMV

247. P Technobabble - July 16, 2012

I can understand why these guys are having such a hard time deciding on a title, especially for such an important film. There have been many films that no one went to see partly because the title was not intriguing, or easy to remember, or just plain stupid.
The word “Trek,” itself, was often commented on as far back as the original series run. Many people referred to it as “Star Track,” which everyone knows by now. I remember some friends would roll there eyes when I told them about this cool, new sci-fi show and they’d ask, “What the hell is a ‘trek’?” (ok, we were just kids).
Not to start a galactic war but (speaking of wars) “Star Wars” is a more accessible title than “Star Trek,” IMO. It conjures up an image right away because we know it’s about war, battle, action. I don’t think Star Trek, as a title, really conjures up any immediate images.
I don’t think a filmmaker or a studio should settle on a title like, say, “Highlander.” You hear it or see it and wonder what the movie is about. Is it about some higher ground? Is it about a crashing pot-smoker?
I’m a firm believer that a title can make or break. It can excite an audience or alienate them. Who would watch a movie called “Manos: The Hands of Fate” (unless it was being made fun of on MST3K)? How many titles leave you with a blank face and how many titles pique your curiosity?
Just my 2cents…

248. Dom - July 16, 2012

Have a catchy sounding title that doesn’t use the words ‘Star Trek.’ In trailers and TV spots, the voiceover guy can say something like ‘The latest chapter in the Star Trk saga’ and the actual title name. When the film starts, simply use the same Star Trek logo as last time, not bothering to put a subtitle on the screen! Use the movie title in the end credits!

Audiences know Skyfall is a James Bond film, that The Dark Knight Rises is a Batman film and that Attack of the Clones is a Star Wars film. Be bold, I say! ;)

249. Uberbot - July 16, 2012

#217 — No one liked my witty Star Track titles either!! The noyve (nerve)!!! LOL!!!

I liked your GORN WITH THE WIND — gorny, but good!!

Of mine, I liked Star Track Too: For My Eyes Now Glow And I Think I’m A God :-)

Star Track Too: Doctor Spock Strikes Back

Or, just plain old Star Track Too. LOL!!

250. Uberbot - July 16, 2012

STAR TRACK TOO: THE SEARCH FOR SHILLIAM WATNER

251. Hat Rick - July 16, 2012

“Star Trek: Not Your Father’s Oldmobile”

“Star Trek: Now Shatner-Free”

“Star Trek: The New Guys Take Over, For Real”

“Star Trek: Stellar Voyage”

“Star Trek — Note the Dash; At Least It’s Not a Colon”

Anyone else wanna try?

252. AJ - July 16, 2012

STAR TREK: JJ’s BACK…LOOK BUSY!
STAR TREK: KICKING SPOCK’S ASS
STAR TREK: LIMEY

253. Damian - July 16, 2012

I really wouldn’t worry about having a colon type name. Everybody who was born before 2009 know this is a sequel to Star Trek (2009). I know there are some fears people will think this is going to be a TNG movie, but you have nothing to worry about. No one is going to be confused.

2 things I would avoid.

1. Don’t number it. If you call it Star Trek 2 (I don’t care if it’s Arabic or Roman, you are going to offend legions of TWOK fans (and they are plentiful enough to care about). It’s NOT worth it.

2. Star Trek must be in the title. Must. This is not Batman or Star Wars. I’ve said it before, with the popularity of Star Trek (2009) you absolutely want to capitalize on that.

Nemesis has been out 10 years now. The masses outside of Trekkies have long forgotten about TNG movies (except maybe First Contact). I wouldn’t stress having a name like Star Trek: Subtitle. Plus the previews and movie posters will be more than enough to stress this is a sequel to Star Trek (2009).

254. drumvan - July 16, 2012

star trek: continuum

star trek: mission

star trek: resolution

star trek: needs of the many

star trek: face of fear

star trek: deception

star trek: incubus

and one for grins, star trek: yet a different delta vega

255. Nony - July 16, 2012

It’s a Star, Star, Star, Star Trek

Star Trek or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love The Flying Tin Can (McCoy may have had a hand in this title)

Cool Hand Kirk

One Flew Over The Kuiper Belt

The Starvengers (some association can’t hurt, right)

256. Tom - July 16, 2012

“Boldly Beyond…” :)

257. Mr. Anonymous - July 16, 2012

“Wrath of Khan” didn’t even get released in theaters with the “II” in the title, so “Star Trek 2″ would work pretty well, actually. And, being an alternate timeline and all, they don’t have to get hung up on titling systems of the past.

258. Daoud - July 16, 2012

How about…. use some txtspeak:

Star Trek: 2 Boldly Go

259. Daoud - July 16, 2012

How about…. use some txtspeak:

Star Trek: 2 Boldly Go

260. RollTide1017 - July 16, 2012

Call it “Khan Singh of Mars”

Joking aside, I think they really want to call it simply “Khan” but, their secrecy of not wanting to talk about the villain is preventing them from using that title.

261. Father Robert Lyons - July 16, 2012

How about “2263 – Trek II”

262. Daoud - July 16, 2012

@213 Hat Rick, there’s already “Star Trek: The Future Begins”, which was used as the tagline when Star Trek 2009 came out. Thus, this film should be (using the Batmanalogy) “Star Trek: The Dark Future”, eh?

263. AJ - July 16, 2012

Star Trek: These Guys Again
Star Trek 5-0
Star Trek: Sausage Fest
Star Trek: Hangover
Starry Trek
Star Trek: Fight for Uhura

264. Christopher Roberts - July 16, 2012

258. They could split their infinitives, and the kids would still call it that! ;-)

265. Christopher Roberts - July 16, 2012

Shameless… but,

see post 28.

:-)

266. CJS - July 16, 2012

Another Star Trek

Star Trek Again

Enterprise Rising

Battle on the Edge of Forever

Kirk and Spock’s Excellent Adventure

267. Underhill - July 16, 2012

Did you catch the HUGE SPOILER that Lindelof drops?

Bones does NOT die in this sequel!

268. BeyondtheTech - July 16, 2012

I say they should follow Apple’s footsteps. Instead of calling it iPad, iPad 2, and now iPad 3, they just call it, “The new iPad.”

Hence….

“The New Star Trek”

I dunno. I guess I’d also be struggling to find a title for Star Trek if I didn’t have a colon either. I’d be full of crap.

269. Phil - July 16, 2012

It’s jus way too easy to pick on some of these titles, and as others have already done so, I won’t. There was a blurb on the entertainment page ths morning that is causing a few people to wonder if Robin is going to make an appearance in the upcoming Batman movie. For everyone who has their undies in a knot about JJ and his secerecy, if Chris Nolan has found a way to tuck Robin into this pic, a tip of the hat to him for keeping it under wraps for this long. And because we LOVE our bold catchphrases for movie titles here….

Holy Star Trek Sequel, Batman!

270. T'Cal - July 16, 2012

“To Boldly Go” says Star Trek as much as “Star Trek” does.

271. T'Cal - July 16, 2012

To quote the Joker, “What happened? Did your balls fall off??” Pick a title you guys think is good and go with it. Sheesh! I’m getting worried about this film. Are they being unreasonably secretive because they lack confidence in it?? It’s time to wear the long pants, boys! Man up!

272. psb2009 - July 16, 2012

How about “Star Trek: Wagon Train to the Stars” ?

273. Science North - July 16, 2012

Star Trek 2b

274. Jason - July 16, 2012

“Where No One Has Gone Before”. Done.

275. Rico - July 16, 2012

I still say keeping “Star Trek” as part of the title is the best way. I see much more benefit than drawback in doing that. After that, just add a subtitle related to the film in some way. Really not that hard.

276. endeavour crew - July 16, 2012

STAR TREK “The Undiscovered Villian.”

277. La Reyne d'Epee - July 16, 2012

Taking my cue from 266 above, I propose the instalments be named as per the Android operating system releases. After all, version 1.5 was called “Cupcake”. :D

278. La Reyne d'Epee - July 16, 2012

I mean, if Chris puts on weight as time goes on in the same way that the beloved Mr Shatner did, the next one being called Star Trek: Donut will not be unreasonable, no?

279. SoonerDave - July 16, 2012

Here’s a Trekless title:

“NCC-1701″

280. Charles Trotter - July 16, 2012

That’s the spirit, lads!

CATCH ME IF YOU KHAN
SPOCK OF AGES
THE TRIBBLES OF BELLEVILLE
GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD TREK.
WARP CORE BREACH BLANKET BINGO
THE STAR WHO TREKKED ME
STAR TREK: EPISODE II – REVENGE OF THE SIKH
KLINGON GOLDEN POND
KIRK AND SPOCK ESCAPE FROM GUANTANAMO BAY

Clearly I’m running out of good spoof titles. :)

281. Uberbot - July 16, 2012

STAR TRACK: PROMETHEUS
STAR TRACK: LAST SON OF VULCAN
STAR TRACK TOO: KHAN’S BRAIN
STAR TRACK TOO: THE MITCHELL EFFECT
STAR TRACK TOO: ATTACK OF THE SUPERMEN
STAR TRACK TOO: BARRIER OF TERROR
STAR TRACK: KHANSPIRACY
STAR TRACK: THE TERROR OF ARNE DARVIN
STAR TRACK: KHAN UNLEASHED
STAR TRACK: SIKH OUT NEW WORLDS

282. Montreal_Paul - July 16, 2012

Personally, it should be called “What No One Has Done Before” … just kidding. ;) How about “The Future’s Past.”

283. CmdrR - July 16, 2012

I’m getting a colonoscopy next month. If they find any titles up there, I’ll pull one out for you.

284. Anthony Thompson - July 16, 2012

274. Jason

That’s the only one I’ve seen here that I’ve liked. A more exact and pertinent title can be conjured up if Bob clues us in on the ID of the villain and some plot points. : D

285. Vultan - July 16, 2012

#283

That made me laugh.
Thanks, CmdrR.

286. Chris Doohan - July 16, 2012

“To infinity and Beyond”, Wait, that may have been used before.

How about “Infinite Frontier”

287. Uberbot - July 16, 2012

I’ve got it!! I’ve got it!! Ok…here it is…

CUPCAKE: THE MOTION PICTURE!!!!

No?

Well how about STAR TREK: CUPCAKE VS. KHAN?

288. La Reyne d'Epee - July 16, 2012

283. Sounds like you have a better chance of coming up with a title than that lot…

289. Uberbot - July 16, 2012

Hey, Chris — I like Infinite Frontier!!

Only thing wrong with it is that it doesnt have the words Star Track and a colon in front of it…;-)

290. The Unknown Poster - July 16, 2012

The Vengeance of Khan.

(Was that not the original title of Trek II?)

291. AJ - July 16, 2012

Star Trek Mountain
Beverly Hills Star Trek
Men in Space
What to Expect When You’re Star Trekking
Star Trek: Attack of the Space Zombies
The Captain’s Rear Window
Star Trek: A Ship full of Kittens!
Star Trek: The Return of Abraham Lincoln
Star Trek: Return of the Empath

292. Uberbot - July 16, 2012

#291 — that Abe Lincoln title would make a good double bill with Abe Lincoln: Vampire Hunter! ;-)

293. flake - July 16, 2012

Don’t understand the dithering over a title, just pick one and be done with it. Preferably Star Trek: Title here. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen didn’t stop it getting 400 million domestic box office.

Star Trek: Revenge of the Exiles?

Christ the guys how wrote the movie and know what its about should be able to come up with a title easy, it is sad they are agonizing over it. Ultimately it doesn’t matter.

294. Planet Pandro - July 16, 2012

Sorry if I missed it, but has the thought occurred to call it “Trek2″? Personally I think that’s different enough from ST II: TWOK to avoid confusion, it also has a snappy, modern feel to it.

Maybe not a good idea, but an idea nonetheless. Sorry if I missed it or someone else said it first…

295. dmduncan - July 16, 2012

@ 92. Vultan – July 15, 2012

#70 was a little wordplay. The stock phrase is “–know and love.” So I substituted “love” with another word that starts with L, ends with E, and sounds similar while having the opposite meaning.

Indifference is more like what I mean.

296. dmduncan - July 16, 2012

I like dog movies so I’m going to suggest:

Star Trek: Ensign Beethoven Poops in the Captain’s Chair.

297. SoonerDave - July 16, 2012

Here’s the thing, guys. The whole reason why the team won’t release *anything* about the villain or the title is because the identity of the villain is almost certainly (even inexorably) linked to that prospective title, and that character would *clearly* reveal the crux of the story, as we’ve now been assured that Cumberbatch’s character *is* canonical.

The only villains I can think of that hold quite this much notoriety in the Trek universe would be the obvious Khan, which they generally continue to deny, and Gary Mitchell, which has also been denied. If Alice Eve is canonical, too, she’s almost certainly either Nurse Chapel or Carol Marcus. Not sure you could have a Carol Marcus story in anything *but* a Khan story.

I think the only thing that makes sense is that Cumberbatch is either Khan, or perhaps Joachim/Joaquin, but with an entirely different alternate timeline story involving the Klingons. To acknowledge the character or create a meaningful movie title would be to convey a Khan story, and no matter how good or different this “alternate” story might be, it would be next to impossible to overcome a year’s worth of “Khan Rehash” pre-release rhetoric. Only way to stem that tide is to try, as much as practical, to keep it under wraps as long as they can.

Let’s face it; there aren’t many other “big” canonical villains to choose from. Kirk had no ongoing nemesis as Picard did with “Q,” and only a handful of TOS episodes had a truly resonant “villain” other than entire alien races, eg Klingons, Romulans, etc. Seems to me the “Supreme Court” is holding off as long as they possibly can before unleashing the “Khan” truth to the world, even to the extent of dispersing “dysinformation” through the cast to keep people guessing and maintain the illusion of uncertainty.

298. Vultan - July 16, 2012

#295

Ah. Gotcha. I do enjoy wordplay.
Sorry I missed it.

299. Smike - July 16, 2012

STAR TREK 2 BOLDLY GO

There is no way around that one…

300. Kirk, James T. - July 16, 2012

Call it….

“The Final Frontier”

or

“The Continuing Mission”

or

“Where No One Has Gone Before”

or

“Star Trek” (2013)

301. Uberbot - July 16, 2012

#297 — In the prime universe, Carol Marcus didn’t even know who Khan was! I guess they can change that for this….

302. Phil - July 16, 2012

@286. If you are going there, Galaxy Quest is a natural….

303. JR - July 16, 2012

A Tall Ship and a Start to Guide Her By

304. JR - July 16, 2012

ok.. make that…
A Tall Ship and a Star to Guide Her By

305. Jai - July 16, 2012

If the villain is a certain Mr Mitchell, the title could ride the zeitgeist and end up being “Star Trek 2: Fifty Shades of Gary” ;)

Actually that sort of thing could also work if the Supreme Court has ignored the Indian elephant in the room and Benedict Cumberbatch really is playing a North Indian Sikh. Also works if they take the anachronistic casting to the max and plaster CumberKhan in brownface makeup like Ricardo in Space Seed. Both options lead to the unfortunate and controversial title “Star Trek 2: Fifty Shades of Khan”.

306. Mega - July 16, 2012

Just call it Star Trek again.

307. Aurore - July 16, 2012

DamOn,

Yo, what’s up, man?

In a recent interview, Noel Clark said that he knew the title of the Star Trek sequel….Oh, of course….he misspoke…or something like that…I guess…

Nevermind.

:)

http://trekmovie.com/2012/06/27/noel-clarke-star-trek-sequel-has-title-poll-does-it-need-to-include-star-trek/

308. J.J. - July 16, 2012

“Starship Enterprise”

309. weeharry - July 16, 2012

My apologies if this has already been suggested but I lost the will to live after I reached about the 100th post or so and I skipped to the end, but here’s a thought….

bob, damon etc…. narrow your shortlist of potential titles down to about 3 or 4 and let us vote on it here.

A long shot, I know……….

:-)

310. Bliggity-Boo - July 16, 2012

First time I heard the the title “Batman Begins,” I thought it sounded ridiculous… but in retrospect, I think it was brilliant. It was new-sounding and it differentiated it from what had come before, as has the title of the next two.

They could get around any TWOK disrespect or confusion AND keep the “Star Trek” brand in the titles by numbering sequels with a more modern, tech-sounding STAR TREK 2.0, STAR TREK 3.0, STAR TREK 4.0, etc. Certainly would be different from the title/subtitle paradigm.

311. Keachick - July 16, 2012

There is nothing to stop them introducing Carol Marcus into the sequel without there ever being a mention of Khan. Kirk knew Carol Marcus before the five year mission commenced and long before he met Khan. And yes, Carol Marcus had no idea who Khan was (see TWOK).

I don’t see them taking their time to chose a title as lacking in creativity or anything. People seem to catastrophize over the silliest of things. They have a short list of titles – probably had one for a while, maybe deleting one and adding another etc. Time will take care of the title.

Personally, I like the title I thought of – Star Trek: Samsara’s Edge, but I think it would be a little too obscure for many. *Samsara*, I think, is either a Pali or Sanskrit word. The modern image is something akin to a ferris wheel…

312. drumvan - July 16, 2012

let’s just adopt the “journey” method.

star treks: infinity, evolution, departure, captured, escape, frontiers.

that would keep them all set for the next 24 years.

313. Phil - July 16, 2012

@311. I looked it up, and yeah, it’s really obscure. Not sure how you managed to find a reference to a ferris wheel out of this, considering most folks are familiar with the ying/yang or even Lion Kings reference to the circle of life. And assuming the movie is retelling TWOK, naming it Samsara makes about as much sense as naming it Peanut Butter.

314. Charla - July 16, 2012

Damon- “You can recast him!” (speaking of Karl Urban and leaking info on the movie) ROFL!! I know he is joking, otherwise he’d have many Urban fans going bonkers… :-)

315. Charla - July 16, 2012

Damon- “You can recast him!” (speaking of Karl Urban and leaking info on the movie) ROFL!! I know he is joking, otherwise he’d have many Urban fans going bonkers… :-)

316. denny cranium - July 16, 2012

I’d like to see Star Trek in the title.
I think it may be a little arrogant on the filmmakers part to just call it “something something”
All the Star Wars films had “Star Wars” in their titles.

317. Kirk, James T. - July 16, 2012

I honestly think it’s the toughest part of this sequel. There’s stigma’s attached to anything with a colon and you can’t have numbers because well who wants to go see Star Trek 12 aside from a few hard-core fans.

It’s got to be obviously Star Trek but new and relevant for today’s audience.

What about….

“Star Trek’s Continuing Mission”

“Space, The Final Frontier”

“1701”

“To Go Boldly”

“To Boldly Go”

“To Explore Strange New Worlds”

“Space The Final Frontier: Star Trek”

“The Final Frontier: Star Trek”

“Star Trek Phase II”

“Warp Factor”

“Star Trek 2″

“Star Trek: The Next Generation”

or why not just “Star Trek” again…. Does it need anything else? Star Trek’s Star Trek, it’s not about one particular ship or character. It’s about an ideal, a vision of the future – it is simply put a Trek through the Stars… It is; Star Trek.

318. Kirk, James T. - July 16, 2012

“The Continuing Mission – Star Trek”

319. DonDonP1 - July 16, 2012

@195 No offense, but there was a 1968 musical film called “Star!” (with the exclamation point). For that I got a better idea for a title of next year’s big-screen adventure from the final frontier: “Star Trek: Unknown Worlds.” Pretty cool, eh? Don’t get me wrong.

320. raddestnerd - July 16, 2012

Just for fun:

A New Voyage
The Federation Strikes Back
The Return of the Klingons
The Eugenics Menace
Attack of the Super Humans
Revenge of the Red Shirts

321. Keachick - July 16, 2012

#313 – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_wheel_of_life,_Trongsa_dzong.jpg

If, as you think, this sequel will be dealing with the retelling of Space Seed/TWOK, then they really are on the samsara wheel, as in repetitive and having these alternate universe characters going through the same or similar sufferings as did the people in the prime universe. If this is the case, then my title is more than appropriate.

I have read and heard it referred to as being like a ferris wheel, hence my analogy.

322. Montreal_Paul - July 16, 2012

I think they should use what James Cawley discarded…

Star Trek: New Voyages

Which, in my opinion, was a far better title than Phase II … I know that was the intended new series title, but it is kind of drab.

323. defmaster - July 16, 2012

ST2: To Boldly Go

324. Aurore - July 16, 2012

…..Aaaah f*ck that !

You need help here, DamOn; you’re struggling:

( There will be Klingons, right ?)

T.R.E.K. : Kronos’ Rise

….Or, sinceToto said that although most of the titles you were considering did have Star Trek in them, just to get “crazy” you were willing to consider crazy stuff…..how about “T.R.O.K. “?

T. R. O. K. would then be an acronym for ; “The Rise Of Kronos” .

You’re welcome.

325. Magic_Al - July 16, 2012

Star Trek (2013)

326. xander - July 16, 2012

People are so stupid for offering titles for a movie they no nothing about!

327. scifisam - July 16, 2012

Revenge of the Timeline…..

328. ObiWanCon - July 16, 2012

Here is the title…

Star Trek: The Continuing Voyages

329. Tiberius - July 16, 2012

until now this is the best option:
The Voyages of the Starship Enterprise

330. BoltBait - July 16, 2012

.-Star Trek————.
| R E D A L E R T |
`————————–‘

331. Christopher Roberts - July 16, 2012

@ 326.

—— STAR ——————————————
THE  PRIME  UNIVERSE  STRIKES  BACK
—————————————— TREK ——

332. Aurore - July 16, 2012

@ The writing team.

Joking aside, I am not worried about the title.

I merely wish to see a good ( Star Trek ) movie, gentlemen….

:)

333. Son of Sarek - July 16, 2012

Star Trek Masters of the Universe with Cumberbatch as Captain Garth and Alice Eve as Marta.

334. Keachick - July 16, 2012

OK, what happened to my post showing an image that I hoped would help explain “samsara”? Frankly, it is as legitimate a title as anything else offered. The notion presented only gives another perspective on how life is and how the human mind, perception and experience can function. I am not about proselytizing anything.

335. crazydaystrom - July 16, 2012

Paramount is saying ‘the movie is coming out next May, what’s it going to be?’”

Single best thing I’ve heard re: this film in months!

I was thinking this morning about the fact that typically the title is one of the first, things one learns about a film, if not THE first. But in this case it would seem the name of the game is ‘Frustrate the Fanbase’.

But the movie’s coming out next May, WTF is it going to be fer crissakes?!? *takes a cleansing breath and exhales*

Have a nice day :-)

336. FroJoeKoolaid - July 16, 2012

I hope he knows Kirk and Spock aren’t the whole of anything without McCoy

337. Canopener1256 - July 16, 2012

How about “Naked Fan Dance”?

338. Nano - July 16, 2012

From the interview just call it “ST Friends” Naaaa-

1. JJ’s Baby
2. Game of Federation: Sorry
3. Cumberbatch Seed
4. Sherlock Holmes in Space
5. Almost Cannon
I’m so lame….

339. No Khan - July 16, 2012

Star Trek : 2 The Wrath of Khan 2

Yawn, Oh I forgot everyone in Hollywood thinks using a main title is going to make the movie fail.

The Wrath of Khan 2

340. Allen Williams - July 16, 2012

as long as it starts with “Star Trek” and doesn’t have the number 2 in the title, I’m ok with it.

Movie wise, if it has any more lens flares, I’m going to hunt down jj abrams and give him some lens flares of my own.

341. Chris J - July 16, 2012

I think they need to remember that whatever they choose for this one will sort of commit them or hinder them in future productions. Calling it Star Trek 2, say, means the next one will have to be Star Trek 3.

I like the idea of using Trek phrases as the titles and it would fit quite nicely. You have the original ‘Star Trek’, then probably ‘To Boldly Go’ and finished with ‘Where No-One Has Gone Before. A perfect trilogy of movie titles that are quintessentially Trek but also allows room for other variations.

342. Anthony Thompson - July 16, 2012

287. Uberbot

I suggested “The Wrath of Cupcake”. Approximately 2 to 3 years ago!

343. Anthony Thompson - July 16, 2012

287. Chris Doohan

Are you in the sequel?

344. Anthony Thompson - July 16, 2012

Wait, Chris was at 286.

345. Stephan Ur-Kel - July 16, 2012

bob, has one of the possible titles been mentioned in this thread?

That’ll narrow it down ;)

346. Billiam - July 16, 2012

The Enterprise herself should be the focus of the remaining two movie titles. Much like Nolan’s Batman series focused on metaphor and description to title a movie about Batman.

These are the voyages of the STARSHIP ENTERPRISE. I really think they need to focus on how she grows and changes between all three movies, and potentially more.

347. crazydaystrom - July 16, 2012

342. Anthony Thompson –

Personally I prefer the more elegant “Cupcake’s Wrath”. But that’s just me.

348. Daoud - July 16, 2012

How about:
“Mother Trekker”
“What the Trek?”
“Trek You, You Dirty Animal”
“Go Trek Yourself”.
.
@335, Daystrom, “Trek the Fanbase” works. ;)

349. Vultan - July 16, 2012

“Mother, Jugs, and Warp Speed”

350. crazydaystrom - July 16, 2012

348. Daoud –
“@335, Daystrom, “Trek the Fanbase” works. ;)”

Yes it does but “Mother Trekker”, “What the Trek?” and “Go Trek Yourself” are gold!

For your consideration –

“Trek You!: And the Starship You Rode In On”

(ROTFLMTrekkingAO!)

351. shpock - July 16, 2012

296. dmduncan – July 16, 2012

I like dog movies so I’m going to suggest:

Star Trek: Ensign Beethoven Poops in the Captain’s Chair.

i saw that 281. Uberbot suggested

STAR TRACK TOO: BARRIER OF TERROR

i read it as

STAR TREK TOO: BARRIER OF TERRIERS

352. Spock/Uhura Admirer - And very PROUD to be one. ;-) - July 16, 2012

You know, with all of the posts flying around last night, I didn’t even see this comment. Here is my response.

@#139 Ryan

“When two people fall in love, they both have to give up a little bit to ensure the relationship works. So right off the bat, Spock and Uhura would NOT remain two “whole” people.”

This is where you are really, really wrong, Ryan. When two people are in love and they are compatible for one another, as Nyota and Spock are, then they don’t have to give up any of who they are in the process. In fact, they get to be all that they are, and more through the bond that they have with one another. Add to that the fact that Spock is telepathic and can link with Uhura’s mind, and it’s just amazing.

Compatibility means that you do not have to compromise. And it is the level of compromise that is required that can be an indicator of incompatibility. I’m just glad that Spock and Nyota do not have that problem. The fact that Spock is very logical and deliberate in his decisions means that he made sure that she was and is the right choice, and I’m sure that Nyota knows that Spock is the one for her, for now and forever. You can see that is sappy if you want to, but I believe it is beautiful. Love truly is the best thing. It gives everything and requires nothing. Just beautiful. :-)

353. SoonerDave - July 16, 2012

@352 “Compatibility means that you do not have to compromise”

With all due respect, that’s utterly and completely untrue. Compatibility means you are perpetually *WILLING* to compromise, because authentic love never demands its own way. That’s the very essence of compromise. Refusing to admit the need for compromise is the essence of selfishness.

That either extreme of this vital dynamic is argued to be exhibited in Spock or Uhura’s character is to grant entirely too much to one film or one story.

354. Captain Karl - July 16, 2012

Wow! More power to Damon Lindelof that he can work without a colon. Most people would just hide away or hide the fact that they don’t have one. Stand tall, Damon, stand proud, shout it out loud, “I am Damon Lindelof, I am one of the hardest working men in show business and I have no colon!”

355. Glob - July 16, 2012

Prediction: Uhura and Spock will consummate their love in the second film, perhaps even marrying… making Spock/Uhura Admirer very happy!

Then as the bit part character she’s supposed to be, Uhura will then be killed, restoring Spock to logical normalcy instead of stupid wrong-headed puppy love. Thus making me happy!

Zoe Saldana is too “big” right now to stay with Star trek. I bet she costs a lot of money, especially after she extorts, er, renegotiates,for the third picture. Killing her will save that money, release a “star” they don’t need, and let JJ and Bob Hackci feel they have made the new universe their own. Not to mention flushing the idiot idea of a Spock Uhura romance to begin ith.

356. Spock/Uhura Admirer - And very PROUD to be one. ;-) - July 16, 2012

@#353

No, Dave. Compatibility is like a hand fitting into a glove. Neither has to “perpetually” change to accommodate the other. Compromise is like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. One of the two is going to have to change, or perhaps both, in order for their union to work. Like I said, I’m glad the Nyota and Spock do not have that problem. :-)

357. Spock/Uhura Admirer - And very PROUD to be one. ;-) - July 16, 2012

@ #355 Glob

“Prediction: Uhura and Spock will consummate their love in the second film, perhaps even marrying… making Spock/Uhura Admirer very happy!”

Absolutely!!! :-)

Oh Glob, and might I say that I find the name very fitting, you could never be wrong on that front!

“Then as the bit part character she’s supposed to be, Uhura will then be killed, restoring Spock to logical normalcy instead of stupid wrong-headed puppy love. Thus making me happy!”

Oh, Glob. :-( I find it interesting that you think she’s supposed to be a “bit character” in this universe. How do you know that? Perhaps that was true in TOS, but this isn’t TOS.

If a Vulcan, a full Vulcan, can be in a committed and bonded relationship and still have their logic fully in tact, then why would you think that this cannot be the case for Spock. We can all agree that Vulcans are known for being logical, and where do you think (logically speaking of course) Vulcan babies come from? A stork!? How do you think Spock was born?

And please don’t tell me that it’s his human half that’s the problem because then you’d be saying that any married person, or person in a loving relationship, permanently doesn’t have the use of logic for as long as they are in love. Now that would be illogical.

“Zoe Saldana is too “big” right now to stay with Star trek. I bet she costs a lot of money, especially after she extorts, er, renegotiates,for the third picture. Killing her will save that money, release a “star” they don’t need, and let JJ and Bob Hackci feel they have made the new universe their own. Not to mention flushing the idiot idea of a Spock Uhura romance to begin ith.”

I think that she’ll stay with the franchise as Uhura. I don’t think she would have taken the role if she wasn’t interested in playing such and iconic character and adding her own touches to her. No need to insult JJ or Bob, neither of which are “hacks.” And, it’s a love story, Glob, not a romance. Plus of course I think (and I’m not alone here) it’s BRILLIANT! ;-)

358. Phil - July 16, 2012

@334. In your context, it’s even more obscure. It’s obscurity just makes it another ridiculous title on a long list of ridiculous titles. At least Star Trek: Peanut Butter is obvious in it’s ridiculousness.

Cheers…

359. Miles R. Seppelt - July 16, 2012

“The Continuing Star Trek”

BAM! There it is. Please forward commission check.

360. Notserious - July 16, 2012

Go patriotic:
Star-Spangled Trek

361. Glob - July 16, 2012

S/U Admirer:

Hate to break it to you, but Star Trek characters are not “people” in a “committed and bonded relationship”. They are pawns in a story. That’s not to denigrate them… you could say the same thing about Hamlet or Sherlock Holmes or Scarlett O’Hara.

Your juvenile female wish fullfllment fantasy makes for wonderful fan fiction, I’m sure, but it rather mindlessly ruins the mood of Star Trek – which is about a professional crew of explorers working together in the service. It’s not a Telenovela.

Look, I would’ve loved to see Rick and Ilsa get on the plane together. I would have loved it if Shane came back. But guess what – doing either would have RUINED THE CHARACTERS. Why do you obsess about doing that to Star Trek?

362. r.j. paré - July 16, 2012

<<>>

WTF? Can someone decode this please?

That is the most nonsensical meaningless phrase I’ve ever read… {sheesh}

Personally I didn’t mind the 2009 movie… BUT – it really wasn’t “Star Trek”

I am eagerly awaiting the day all you hipsters, posers and mainstream folks go back to hating “genre” material. Sure the current popularity means that projects have bigger budgets – BUT – it also means they are created and designed for mainstream audiences.

I want geek material, by geeks, for geeks – budgets be damned.

363. Harry Ballz - July 16, 2012

….and the geek shall inherit the Earth!

364. Uberbot - July 16, 2012

#351 — HAHAHAHA!! I like that!!! “STAR TREK TOO: BARRIER OF TERRIERS” That did actually cross my mind!! LOL!!

365. Romney Eats It - July 16, 2012

I’d go with “The Starship Enterprise” as a couple others have suggested.

After all, it’s essentially synonymous with “Star Trek,” just as “The Dark Knight” = Batman, “The Man of Steel” = Superman, and “The Chronicles of Narnia” = The Bible ;-P

I also kinda like “NCC-1701″ as someone else mentioned. Maybe save that for the third movie?

366. Uberbot - July 16, 2012

#326 — LOL!! Well, that crossed my mind too. Titles should have something to do with the STORY and we do not KNOW the story, therefore, we can’t really come up with a title that will fit the movie. That’s why I came up with joke titles. :-)

#342 — LOL!! I like The Wrath of Cupcake!!! HAHAHAHA!!! As it turns out, he’ll be in the movie — so it fits! LOL!!

367. dmduncan - July 16, 2012

If Mr. Ed can talk, he can be an ensign on a starship. Somebody get that horse in a starfleet uniform and make him Chekov’s relief at the navigator’s station.

(Comedy relief: He always changes course to the Horseshoe Nebula when nobody’s looking).

368. Glob - July 16, 2012

Go right to the source and ask the horse
he’ll give you the answer that you’ll endorse.
He’s always on a steady course…
Warp two, Mr. Ed!

369. Spock/Uhura Admirer - And very PROUD of it. ;-) - July 16, 2012

@ Glob

“S/U Admirer:

Hate to break it to you, but Star Trek characters are not “people” in a “committed and bonded relationship”. They are pawns in a story. That’s not to denigrate them… you could say the same thing about Hamlet or Sherlock Holmes or Scarlett O’Hara.”

Glob, you are not breaking anything to me, and I find it interesting that you very conveniently skipped over my questions, probably because the points they raise make too much sense for you. “Pawns in a story,” lol. Maybe I should “break” something to you: Life imitates art and art imitates life. These films are an artistic medium, as was the TOS series. And as with any good art, imitations of life (it’s not just a movie title) are present, and frequently so.

Much of what gets explored in the science fiction that I’ve seen, even TOS, is the human condition and the human experience–What it could be and/or what it would be in relation to other species if they existed and were sentient too. The reason why people can and could relate to the characters in these stories, human and otherwise, isn’t just because they came across a bright new star that shines differently or because they found a new barren planet and took soil samples. It is the drama that drives these “stories” just as much as anything else. Love and relationships, friendships, are a part of that.

I would think that you and the other people here that seem to hate the love that Spock and Nyota share could at least understand that, especially since what seems to “drive” many of you is the friendship that Spock, Kirk, and McCoy share, not just the fact that several people happen to work together on a bridge in outerspace.

“Your juvenile female wish fullfllment fantasy makes for wonderful fan fiction, I’m sure, but it rather mindlessly ruins the mood of Star Trek – which is about a professional crew of explorers working together in the service. It’s not a Telenovela.”

Now who’s being juvenile… You know, maybe if some of you guys could act like you get out just a little bit – just a little bit – you wouldn’t have such narrow views. There’s nothing juvenile about love or having it as a theme within a story. It doesn’t “ruin” anything. Telenovela? Give me a break! It’s far from that.

“Look, I would’ve loved to see Rick and Ilsa get on the plane together. I would have loved it if Shane came back. But guess what – doing either would have RUINED THE CHARACTERS. Why do you obsess about doing that to Star Trek?”

Well, I don’t know who these characters are you are referencing, but neither Spock nor Uhura have been ruined. You, quite simply, are overreacting.

370. Jim Nightshade - July 16, 2012

the next generation sounds too much like star trek the pepsi generation to me…(sorry futurama for stealing from you–) i like what he was saying bout the crew but i feel dread when he mentions audiences dont like star trek in the title—sigh–what else is it—star wars next gen..

371. Spock/Uhura Admirer - And very PROUD of it. ;-) - July 16, 2012

@#362

“WTF? Can someone decode this please?

That is the most nonsensical meaningless phrase I’ve ever read… {sheesh} “

r.j., if you don’t understand it, then how can you know that it is meaningless and nonsensical? It is a good practice to suspend judgment until you at least have that understanding. Just saying…

372. Vultan - July 16, 2012

#369

Rick and Ilsa are characters in a movie called “Casablanca.”
Shane is a character in a movie called “Shane.”

373. Vultan - July 16, 2012

Just curious, but around what age are you?

374. Spock/Uhura Admirer - And very PROUD of it. ;-) - July 17, 2012

@#372

Thank you. I never saw or heard of “Shane,” but I saw “Casablanca” once growing up. My mother likes old movies.

While I don’t remember any of the names, I do remember the basics of the story. I think that Bogart’s character told the lady he loved to leave in the end because he knew they weren’t compatible, even though they were in love. It’s a kind of “the love that wasn’t meant to be” sort of thing. He knew that they guy he told her to go with was better for her, and he loved her enough to let her go. That worked for that story, but that’s not Spock and Uhura. They are meant for each other, and they are very compatible. Spock would have made sure of that before entering into their bond.

@#373

Why now Vultan, you know a lady never tells… ;-) And it shouldn’t matter, but I’m not old if that’s what you’re asking, and I’m not in high school as someone here suggested once.

375. Spock/Uhura Admirer - And very PROUD of it. ;-) - July 17, 2012

Correction on #374. I DO remember one of the names! It just came to me. Bogart’s character kept saying “Play that again, Sam,” or something like that.

376. somethoughts - July 17, 2012

Just call it, something cool and sci fi

The Supremus One

377. T'Cal - July 17, 2012

Star Trek: Too Many Secrets
Star Trek: None of Your Business
Star Trek: Screw the Fans
Star Trek: Maybe Khan, Maybe Not
Star Trek: The Dark Knight Rises was Better

378. Mutant Child - July 17, 2012

What about “1701”?

379. Mutant Child - July 17, 2012

^
Sorry, #317 mentioned that before…

380. Keachick - July 17, 2012

In this discussion, Spock/Uhura Admirer for the win.

Glob manages to make derogatory remarks against the writers, characters and poster which only tells me that *he does not have much of a real “leg to stand on” and is not able to remain civil.

I am not sure that Spock and Uhura are necessarily meant for each other for the long haul. At this point in their relationship, there being together appears to be good for them both and bring them happiness. That is how it is for a good many couples, however time and circumstance can – doesn’t HAVE to, but could also alter this positive dynamic Spock/Uhura have going for them at this stage, as it does for many people now. Unfortunately, this is also a fact of life.

S/U is right in another aspect. Sarek, Spock’s father, is a FULL Vulcan who CHOSE to marry a human woman and have a child to her, with the full knowledge that any child they had would be part-human as well with all that that can imply. Sarek was also a respected member of Vulcan society, a member of the council of the Vulcan Science Academy and the Vulcan Ambassador to earth and the Federation. Sarek clearly had to be a logical individual to have these positions and as Ambassador he was there to represent the VULCAN people, their world, their interests and needs foremost.

As far as compromise goes, Sarek and Amanda had to make compromises but they still loved each other. That was obvious from day one – from the first time we met them in the TOS episode Journey to Babel. It is also clear that they both found each other frustrating, infuriating, even painful at times, however, nevertheless… there was obviously a strong bond, a positive, lovely sympatico, you might say, that connected them. Time will tell whether Spock and Uhura will develop something similar, but it does make absolute sense that Spock may choose to seek a human woman for companionship and love, because that is the blueprint/imprint given to him by his own father, a FULL Vulcan male.

What’s with people – honestly?

As many know here, I am more interested in seeing “my captain” (apologies to Jack) meet a nice woman and have them both develop a healthy loving relationship with each other.

That desire, not unlike S/U, does not make me “juvenile” as in immature, silly whatever, nor does it have anything to do with how old I am. Such comments speak more to the negativity and rudeness of the poster.

381. sabbir - July 17, 2012

the new name should be
Star Trek journey Beyond the stars

382. DeShonn Steinblatt - July 17, 2012

Star Trek- Head to Toe in Leather

383. Michael - July 17, 2012

Star Trek: Yet Another Monstrous Machine with a Countdown

384. DGill - July 17, 2012

As long as they don’t go down the Die Hard route and incorporate the title into a long phrase, we’ll be good. ‘A Good Day to Die Hard’…can you believe that? That’s a tagline, not a title. LOL!

385. Spock/Uhura Admirer - And Proud ;-) - July 17, 2012

Re: 380. “Compromise.”

That’s not the kind of compromise I was talking about. What I was talking about goes to a deeper level (in reference to a post Ryan made). Neither Sarek nor Amanda had to compromise themselves in order to be together because they were compatible, much like Spock and Uhura.

386. Storko - July 17, 2012

Star Trek: The Second Movie

387. danielcraigismywookiebitchnow - July 18, 2012

91 the only character Nolan stole from in his career was Scrooge Mcduck, The whole plot from inception was a rip off of a carl barks scrooge Mcduck comic book called The life and Times of Scrooge Mcduck:”The Dream of a lifetime”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLs92rWByRU

388. Christopher Roberts - July 18, 2012

@378. Your Chip and Pin Number?

389. faroutsider - July 18, 2012

Khan’s Trek?

390. gingerly - July 18, 2012

Ah, things don’t change. :)

That said, I’m hoping Orci and co. tossed us a bone and gave us fans some eye-candy for all.

…You know, a beam-down mishap in which everybody’s nekkid and worse it’s Delta Vega, so they need to huddle…

391. Aurore - July 18, 2012

……Oh……

…..You’re gonna love this one DamOn!!!!…..
How about a little “Hispanic touch”, for the title ?!

T.R.E.K. : Los Hijos De Kronos

(Damn….I’m good!!!)

:)

392. Joe - July 18, 2012

STAR TREK
At World’s End

Ooops. :)

393. Keachick - July 18, 2012

The problem is that everyone is making too many unfounded assumptions about the Spock/Uhura relationship. On the one hand, people are saying stuff “Spock would never be in such relationship…blah, blah, blah” and then Spock/Uhura Admirer is claiming they are perfectly compatible soul-mates or some such stuff. These are all presumptions based on the viewers’ own projections.

The film itself actually told us very little about their relationship – just hinted (maybe), which people here have elaborated on within their own minds and then stated their own projections and conclusions as fact as to what is going on and what should and shouldn’t be…

It does become rather tiresome and silly after a while.

394. Xai - July 18, 2012

I still like…

“Strange New Worlds”

395. Xai - July 18, 2012

And I still think… this is a test and a brain storm session

396. Spock/Uhura Admirer - And very PROUD of it. ;-) - July 18, 2012

Well, I believe that based off of what I know about Spock, he would not get into a relationship like that without weighing everything and being sure about his choice, much like his father, and I’ve said as much. Nyota and Spock seemed quite compatible in the film to me…

Re: “Silly and tiresome.”

That would be the obsession some people have with an actor, his personal life, and captain that he plays by the end of the film. Still, I believe people are free to like what they like even if certain posts do weird me out. An example: Saying how much a poster would love to see “their captain” shirtless/partially nude because he’s so “fine,” and then in other posts claiming to feel “motherly” toward the actor. I didn’t say anything at the time, but that kind of grossed me out because, to me, those two things don’t belong in the same category.

You either feel motherly or you feel sexually attracted to someone; you don’t usually hear about someone feeling both. Still, I didn’t think it was my place to try to “chastise” someone about that and the fact that I thought and think that it’s weird…

Perhaps it would be nice if we just allow each other to have our thoughts and opinions (some based off of facts), and move on…

397. Spock/Uhura Admirer - And very PROUD of it. ;-) - July 18, 2012

And getting back to titles, so long as the movie is good I don’t really care much what they call it.

Still, “Star Trek: II,” “Star Trek ll,” and “ll,” still have my vote. I don’t think people really call TWOK Star Trek ll, or do they?

398. Keachick - July 18, 2012

Excuse me! I was not directing my comments just at you. Doh!

As I said, the film gave us very few clues as to how long Spock and Uhura had been in any kind of relationship, nor of its actual nature, ie whether it was sexual or not. Kissing, of itself, does not necessarily make their relationship a sexual one, as some here and elsewhere have assumed and then have become mighty haughty and angry with the writers, because they dared to show another side to the Spock character, ie a man allowing himself to be kissed by a human woman. Oh, the horror of it (read sarcasm).

What you know of Spock from TOS (which you say you have not seen much of and never really liked) is of an older person, a person who at that stage was a committed first officer/science officer of the USS Enterprise. When we met this nuSpock he was younger and had not necessarily found his *place*. I suggest, that you also stop trying to box in this character in the way others also seem to be doing here.

For me, I have the impression that this rigid boxing in of the Spock character was not the intention of his creator(s), Gene Roddenberry and Leonard Nimoy. The intention was more dynamic, open ended…

As for the rest of your rude and personal comments which have nothing to do with what has been discussed here on this thread, I don’t know where to start. For a start, your comments were totally unnecessary and serve to prove nothing, other than your ability to twist what I have said on past threads on this site some weeks ago now.

One thing I do remember saying is this (and I will reiterate it for all to read) –
1 – I am obviously NOT Chris Pine’s mother (nor the mother of any of his characters, including James Kirk)
2 – I have ABSOLUTELY NO WISH to be his mother. He has a mother!
3 – Chris Pine is NOT my son
4 – I have NO NEED of another son. I already have two sons!

As for the term “motherly”, a person can assume the traits often associated with mothers or an idealized view of mothering, without being an actual mother, or wishing to be one. Perhaps the best words to explain could be “embracing”, “nuturing”, “showing care and concern”, “pointing out dangers”, “encouraging”, “respectful” etc. The reality is that this is how we should behave towards one another, irrespective of the more personal nature of our various relationships.

The mother and child image is a very powerful one, the Madonna and Child as probably best known image and is represented in (almost) every culture. It is often used to describe a love that is unconditional and open-handed – the kind of love “that a mother has for her (only) child”. The seed of that kind of love can happen within the heart of a mother for her newborn and can develop, with courage and effort, to embrace all others, all life itself even. In Buddhism, they call it Metta Bhavana, universal loving kindness.

As far as wanting to see Chris Pine/James Kirk shirtless or (partially) naked, Yes, because, from the little I have seen, he is visually beautiful to me. However, I have also written that, given society’s rather negative and ambiguous attitudes toward human nakedness and expressions of sexuality, perhaps, at this time, it may not be in Chris Pine’s best interests to allow himself to be seen more or less naked. You know, it is not just about me and what I may want or like…

399. Jillybean - July 18, 2012

What about FIRST GEN??? Or stick with Roddenberry’s ways and use the colon. True fans know punctuating a title does not a sucky movie make. Although, using numbers might be regrettable IMHO… And if this is going to be the “prequel” to Wrath, let’s hint at it in the title. Rise of Khan, or since things didn’t go so hot for Khan, which is how he ended up where he was in ST II: Wrath, how about Fall of Khan? Anyone? Anyone? Just don’t use previously used title bits like Inception, Nemesis, Voyage/Voyager/Voyages or even Genesis which was a big part of OS Movies 3 and 4. It’s also kinda too late to use Beginnings. LoL. Obviously I could rant incessantly about this… Hehe. True fan love!!! No matter what, I fully expect the next installment to kick as much ass as the last one. JJ is a genius and the casting was the definition of perfection. Hurry up and release already!!! I can’t wait much longer!!! ;o)

400. Spock/Uhura Admirer - And very PROUD of it. ;-) - July 18, 2012

Okay, so I touched a nerve…

I know exactly what post 393 was saying and that it was directed at more than one person.

I am not “boxing” in Spock, not at all, but if that is how someone else wants to see it then that’s them. I refuse to argue with a very few certain people on these boards anymore. I said that in the past, and I’m sticking to it…

I haven’t “twisted” a thing. I gave my honest impression after reading posts that were authored by someone that said that they found Chris Pine and his naked body attractive, and then later on said they also felt “motherly” toward that same actor. Obviously, this particular person has no issue with that. I did and do, but as I said pretty much, to each her own (even if I find it creepy and kind of gross)… Madonna and Child, as well as views on human nakedness have nothing to do with it. Talk about “twisting…”

401. Jemini - July 19, 2012

398: if anyone wants to know how S/U got together we have the The Starfleet Academy 2010 novels. I’ve read them all.
The main characters there are Kirk, Uhura and McCoy and each author develops one of the many “adventures” that they had to face in those four years at the Academy that we didn’t see in the movie.
And of course the subplots are the Kirk/McCoy friendship and the Spock/Uhura friendship to romance relationship.
I have to admit that they develop it in a believable and convincing way to me. The relationship doesn’t change Spock’s character, he doesn’t have to choose to be more vulcan or human (don’t expect him to be asexual and emotionless but also don’t expect him to become the Romeo to Uhura’s Juliet!) it just adds a depth that wasn’t explored in the other reality and I really like the direction that those writers took in explaining how they developed romantic feelings for each other through those years. That dynamic is also interesting because it’s one of the few things that don’t feel like a re-telling of things already told by the prime universe. In that Orci&Co gave to those authors a new dynamic to explore.
They’re the characters we know from TOS and yet they’re different and younger. And to me the most interesting thing about alternative realities are the differences between them and how meeting someone years before you did in the other reality (in this case Spock and Uhura) can give you a chance that you didn’t get in that other reality.
Without being too spoilerish about the books I can write my impressions about that subplot: Uhura is his pupil, he admires her and she’s his favorite student because she’s a skilled linguist and he finds in her qualities that are lacking in most of the humans he knows. Unlike Kirk it isn’t her beauty what attracts him foremost about her. They work together on daily basis and they just “click”. Somehow, they meet in this middle between vulcan logic and human emotion. They make so much sense that it isn’t even funny.
Maybe the main difference with the prime universe is that nuSpock will find a balance between the two halves of him more easily or sooner than the other Spock. In that Uhura helps him because she makes him understand that unlike what the other vulcans made him believe being half human (or half vulcan for the humans) is actually an advantage and something that makes him an unique person who can reach the best of both words and cultures without having to neglect one of his sides it being either the human or vulcan side.

402. Keachick - July 19, 2012

Yes, you are twisting what I have written in the past. What I said was that maybe OTHER POSTERS here may see some of what I write re my care/concern for Chris Pine because I see myself as some sort of mother to him and I set about reassuring/reiterating that this is not where I am coming from.

Don’t twist my posts and lie about me, Spock/Uhura Admirer! You are nasty person, who seems to enjoy “touching raw nerves”. How would you feel if I wrote the same kind of thing about you because I know that you like both Zachary Quinto and the character Spock that this actor plays. You would feel dammed upset and annoyed and rightly so. It is no different for me.

Stop your unprovoked attacks on my personal preferences and feelings expressed here on this site.

I directed the same comment towards posters like Phil and others here who have got angry with the idea of a Spock/Uhura and with the writers/director, but none of them have chosen to come back at me with insults and then bring up and twist posts I have written on different threads on this site some weeks/months ago. Just YOU, Spock/Uhura Admirer. I don’t know what your bloody problem is but I am sick of you shoving it at me.

403. Phil - July 19, 2012

I’ve gotten angry about the Spock/Uhura relationship? I seem to recall mentioning that in the real world it would probably be viewed as fraternization, but other then that it’s a subplot. What the writers choose to do with it is up to them.

Cheers…

404. Spock/Uhura Admirer - And very PROUD of it. ;-) - July 19, 2012

Weeell, I’m back for a second to say @#401 – Fantastic post, Jemini. Since Romeo and Juliet ended in tragedy, I don’t want that for Spock/Uhura either. ;-)

405. Spock/Uhura Admirer - And very PROUD of it. ;-) - July 19, 2012

Oh, I didn’t put the post numbers for the posts I quoted. They are: #13, #5, and #61 on the linked threads posted below them, just in case anyone cares.

406. Keachick - July 19, 2012

Phil – I apologise if I have misunderstood you. It was Glob who made the snide remarks on this thread. However, this S/U issue has been a hot topic since the beginning and many have expressed a lot of anger and dissatisfaction with the current writing team putting these two characters together in any way, shape or form. As you know also, some really unsavoury comments have been posted in the past not only about Uhura, but also about the actress who plays her. Overall, the impression I have is of a lot of anger and nastiness towards the S/U liaison.

Gotta go…

407. Andy S - July 19, 2012

What about…

The Edge of Human
or
New Life
or
Star Trek Continuum

408. Phil - July 19, 2012

@406. No harm, no foul…

409. Spock/Uhura Admirer - And very PROUD of it. ;-) - July 19, 2012

Okay, something’s wrong with my computer or something. At first it didn’t show post #404 so I thought I needed to repost the part of it that I have saved which is most of it… Forgive the redundancy.

410. Spock/Uhura Admirer - And very PROUD of it. ;-) - July 19, 2012

Okay, so I’m going to try breaking up what was originally post #404 to see what could be the problem. Surely answering Keachick’s accusations with HER OWN POSTS can’t be an issue, is it? If it is, then that suggests that the problem here is not me.

Anyway, people should still be able to judge for themselves if I am “twisting” anything:

Excerpts from Keachick: The Rose PInenut Diaries:

Finding him sexually attractive:

”Of course, I am going to have to disagree with kevin…Hardy is hot but Pine is soooooooo HOT!…;)”

http://trekmovie.com/2011/12/07/watch-more-kirk-v-shinzon-in-intl-trailer-for-this-means-war/

”Chris wearing the stubble again. No matter though – he is still so good looking…sigh”

http://trekmovie.com/2012/05/15/chris-pine-to-produce-and-star-in-indie-comedy-he-co-wrote-w-his-buddies/

Claims to be a possible “mother hen” to him:

”#59 You are worried about the nonsense you have written about CP and what if he actually read any of it? I keep thinking of some of the stuff I have written. Yes, I can see how it could be a little worrisome…;)

I do know that I have not written anything nasty about him or to him, although I have possibly seemed like some mother hen sometimes. I have actually hoped that he might read what I have written and other times, well…It is possible that I may have to take back one or two things I have written, because I have got the “wrong end of the stick”, but hopefully not too much.

Now, if I had a chance to meet and chat to Chris Pine for more than a couple of seconds, then any misunderstandings would soon be sorted out and a lovely hug between us ensue…”

http://trekmovie.com/2012/02/10/chris-pine-talks-cumberbatchs-intensity-vocal-quality-this-means-war-premiere-pix/

411. Spock/Uhura Admirer - And very PROUD of it. ;-) - July 19, 2012

Another part of what was originally post#404:

This is just what I cared to dig up to prove that I’m not twisting anything. I’ve read countless posts, some of which made me feel like obsession was moving into a “freakish” territory, about how hot a certain poster thinks Chris pine is, with opinions about every little detail about him from his hair to his clothes to his body weight/type/height – his girlfriends, knowing his schedules and more. So, for me it was a little creepy/weird to read that this same person expects that maybe they come off as a “mother hen” or motherly toward the actor. I can only speak for what MY reactions are to what I’m reading, but I am not twisting or making up what I’ve read in order to then make up a reaction. I don’t do that.

412. Spock/Uhura Admirer - And very PROUD of it. ;-) - July 19, 2012

A final comment:

Post #402 is an example of why I do not interact with that person anymore.

Aaaand, I’m out. (Originally post #404)

413. Spock/Uhura Admirer - And very PROUD of it. ;-) - July 19, 2012

Wooow, okay so the last part of post#404 is what didn’t make it? That’s definitely not an auto-delete issue, lol. So, I can’t point out that I’m not like that at all with Zach and Zoe. LOL.

Okay, I get it… ;-)

414. Keachick - July 19, 2012

Your apparent obsession with the Spock/Uhura relationship has me thinking “freakish” also. I keep waiting to hear you volunteer yourself to be their wedding planner. You appear like some mother wondering when her son/daughter is going to settle down, get married and give her grandbabies when it comes to Spock and Uhura. On the other hand, I have also read, on more than one occasion, your own desire to see Zachary Quinto/Spock shirtless etc…

Referring to the quotes in #410, I wrote that I thought some people may think that I seem like a mother hen because of how protective etc I may appear towards the actor (as well as the Kirk character). I have explained in detail where the notion/ideal of “mother(ing)” is about in posts above on this thread. You have indeed twisted what I wrote. I thought I had made myself perfectly clear, but apparently not to you or is it that you choose not to understand?

One thing I have noticed occurring on AMERICAN films and television is how, on occasion, some older women have come on to a good looking younger man and say things like “Come to Mama. I haven’t had action like this in ages” (this quote from movie “Blind Dating”). This is NOT an expression/phenomenon I am aware of in my own country nor have I seen any similar in movie/TV programmes from countries from UK or Australia. Also the first time I heard the swear word “motherf*cker” was on a US movie/internet. What’s that about, ANYONE?

Having seen this kind of stuff coming from the US (which is rather weird to me) but still coming from your culture, S/U Admirer Fan whatever, I sought to inform any readers here, including Chris Pine if he does read any of this, just who I was and how I felt. Oh and just because I happen to express some opinion on the clothes Chris Pine wears, his hair etc does not mean that other people are not noticing and possibly obsessing even more than I appear to be. They just don’t say so…Duh!

Just to clarify another matter that you raised earlier in this thread when other posters questioned how objective you can be about the validity etc or otherwise of the Spock/Uhura relationship as presented in the MOVIE (not in comics etc) you used one of my pseudonyms to justify your own attitudes. Well, as anyone who has been on this site for a while knows, I have always been Keachick. I created the “rose pinenut” name late last year, but I have always been first and foremost Keachick. Keachick is a made up word (much like rose pinenut) and it has nothing whatsoever to do with ANY movie, television series, book, comic or any fictional character within any genre. Keachick is literally a baby Kea bird. I doubt that anyone could question my objectivity or otherwise because of the pseudonym I give myself, however your own pseudonym can easily lead most to think otherwise about your capacity for objective insight and understanding when it comes to discussion of the dynamics of the various TOS characters (especially since you have not seen all the TOS episodes, even though I am pretty sure that your favourite man, Spock, appears in EVERY SINGLE episode).

This all started because I dared to comment on how posts like yours and others here seemed silly to me. You turned this into an excuse to make yet more personal attacks on me and how I chose to express myself. How have I attacked you?, because I don’t believe I have, yet you seem to delight in “touching raw nerves” (as you put it). Enough already.

415. Spock/Uhura Admirer - And very PROUD of it. ;-) - July 19, 2012

I almost said tl;dr to this^. But for anyone reading, a couple of things:

I cannot be a “wedding planner” to a fictitious couple. See, I do not obsess over every little thing about either of the characters, and I ESPECIALLY do not obsess over the actors that play them (although I like and respect them). That’s just a fact. So, I can’t even come close to how weirdly some people have behaved for all to see regarding Chris Pine (which was, interestingly enough, including in the part of the post that wouldn’t post – hmm).

If certain people can’t understand how they’ve made attacks and rude comments then perhaps they shouldn’t try to enter into conversations that they weren’t a part of to begin with.

One thing nobody will ever see me do is fawn over how “hot” Zachary is and then claim to be seen as a possible “mother hen” to him. Again, my personal reaction was to be weirded out when someone did that to Chris Pine. And that’s that. I’ve already answered questions about my username, of which I am proud because it’s not the username, in my opinion, you have to worry about–It’s the content of the posts.

But, maybe I’m not taking Spock/Uhura out of my username (as others have taken out “pinenut”) because I know I haven’t said anything about the characters or the actors that play them that anyone should be “worried” about.

Aaaand, let’s see if this posts.. ;-)

416. chrisfawkes.com - July 20, 2012

If it is a Khan film you could call it Star Trek – Direct to Video.

On a serious note i would not over think it. Whatever the title viewers are really just expecting to see what happens next. The last film set up enough anticipation for that.

The four years between films may not have done much to help keep all of the new audience however.

417. ColeMercury - July 20, 2012

It really doesn’t matter if they use a “2” in the title. But it’d probably be best to use the Arabic “2” instead of the Roman “II”.

If they’re concerned about colons, how about they try putting the subtitle & colon BEFORE the “Star Trek”? So, it’d be like this:
“Blah Blah Whatever: Star Trek 2″

418. Aurore - July 20, 2012

“If it is a Khan film you could call it Star Trek – Direct to Video.”
_________

:))

419. Phil - July 20, 2012

@418 It’s funny because it’s true!

420. Keachick - July 20, 2012

#393 Keachick – “The problem is that everyone is making too many unfounded assumptions about the Spock/Uhura relationship. On the one hand, people are saying stuff “Spock would never be in such relationship…blah, blah, blah” and then Spock/Uhura Admirer is claiming they are perfectly compatible soul-mates or some such stuff. These are all presumptions based on the viewers’ own projections.

The film itself actually told us very little about their relationship – just hinted (maybe), which people here have elaborated on within their own minds and then stated their own projections and conclusions as fact as to what is going on and what should and shouldn’t be…

It does become rather tiresome and silly after a while.”

This is all that I wrote and for this, Spock/Uhura Admirer has attacked and dumped on me. She has brought up past posts of mine that have absolutely nothing to do with this discussion and chosen to malign and twist what I have written re Chris Pine, which is really none of her business anyway.

Christ, all I wrote was that I found some of these posts, not just hers, a bit “silly and tiresome” and because of that…what everyone here, if they bothered to, has read. Holy Shit.

Spock/Uhura Admirer was once Spock/Uhura FAN but chose to change it because she thought and didn’t like the idea of people seeing her as another Quinto/Spock obsessed fan. What’s more, she is every bit for seeing Quinto/Spock very shirtless and has expressed it on more than one occasion and yet she’s now telling everyone that we’ll never see her “fawning” (as she puts it) over Quinto/Spock and his body. Yeah, right…

It seems that, in Spock/Uhura’s mind, it is OK to go on about what she wants for her favourite characters, even though many long time Trek fans find her desire for this fictional couple inappropriate and are uncomfortable with it, but if, I , Keachick, mention anything about (Pine)Kirk, then it is OK to malign, twist, criticise, scandalize whatever it is that I say. The level of hypocrisy to which this poster will descend knows no depths.

I have dropped the “rose pinenut” (which is still a legitimate alternative pseudonym) because having it as part of my pseudonym, gives certain people more excuse to BITCH at me.

BTW, the (Chris) Pinenuts are getting together to help with fundraising for children in orphanages and foster care within the USA (one of Chris Pine’s charities and concern). Annual appeal. Information about how one can help with this can be found on the Chris Pine Network.
A

421. Keachick - July 20, 2012

Edit: “OK to malign, twist, criticize, scandalize” meant to write “…scandalize and mock…”

422. Spock/Uhura Admirer - And very PROUD of it. ;-) - July 20, 2012

My goodness, after this post, I think I’m going to get off of this merry-go-round. I’ve allowed myself to get sucked in… First of all, if someone doesn’t understand a culture and how that culture/country uses variations of the word “mother,” then perhaps incorporating what they think they understand of that into a post to say how that person’s affections (sexual and otherwise) might be seen isn’t quite the smartest and best move.

In response to someone calling a discussion that was had on this board “silly and tiresome,” I mentioned that this person (of all people) has made at least their fair share of posts that can be called “silly and tiresome” as well as creepy/unsettling. I used the “mother hen” post as a personal example of being weirded out by a post authored by that person. The point was that, aside from the fact that I just had my reaction and moved along after first reading that post, a lot of people post here, and there are many recurring topics and opinions, so maybe it’s best to just give people their space to have their discussions the way that this particular person wants her space. Apparently, this point was completely lost on that person, and instead she just saw it as being “dumped on” and picked on and oh isn’t she the victim.

About Spock/Uhura: I am going to hold my position on the subject unless and until I hear otherwise about it. When the next film comes out, I will ask someone who’s seen it if Uhura and Spock break up, or if by chance Spock or Uhura get killed off in a way that seems like he/she won’t “come back” (although I don’t want to see any of the main cast die), and if the answer is “Yes,” then I shall say “Farewell to thee, dearest Star Trek. We’ll always have Deep Space Nine and the reboot movie.”

As for my username (again): I did change it from Spock/Uhura Fan to Spock/Uhura Admirer. But, I have no problem with saying that I am a Spock/Uhura Fan, and I still use that same username in another community that I am a part of. Separately and as a couple, I am a fan of Spock and Uhura in the same way that most people mean it when they say they are a fan of something: They admire and take an interest in it, and they enjoy it.

For clarification purposes, since a certain “pine nut” wanted to claim that being a “nut” is the same as being a fan, i.e. “fanatical,” I figured that it made sense here to make sure that my username represents what I really am because I do not consider myself to be like that person in the least. Blonde vs. brunette taught me that, and other things just confirmed it. An example: When MJ pretty much said, in not the kindest way, that my username meant that I wouldn’t be perceived as objective about Spock/Uhura (as if that’s what makes a person objective), I just answered the post. I didn’t come back calling him nasty and horrible and saying that I was being “dumped on” and poor me, but I guess everybody’s different.

What I did with my username was an act of clarification, and not an act of omission, unlike certain “pinenuts” that seem to want to distance themselves here from the community that they have belonged to because they apparently feel like that’ll make their time spent here easier. People can do what they want to do with their usernames, but all I can say is that’s not a move I would have made if I believed in what I was doing and the name I had chosen for myself. Hence, Spock/Uhura in my username ain’t going anywhere folks. ;-)

Re Mr. Quinto: Yes, I think he’s cute, and I think Spock is hot, but I’m pretty sure my posts don’t venture into the extreme or “obsessed” territory on either one of those. With regard to his acting, of course the role I like best is Spock, and then Sylar. But, when I think of the actor, it’s really not his hair or his eyes or his clothes (etc.) that I’m most interested in. So, you don’t really see posts from me about how is hair is combed in a certain picture, or what a pair of pants look like on him, or what his body mass index is–is that stubble? OMG, did he shave?! While other people are surely free to post that kind of stuff about their favorite actor if they like, I tend to be at what I’d say is the other end of the spectrum.

What I’m more interested in and like best about Zachary is the work that he did in the “It gets better” campaign to try to deter bullied kids from taking their own lives and provide them with some hope, the fact that he tries to help dogs without homes find them, and that he gives his clothes away so that people in need might be able to put them to good use.

What I liked seeing the most was when he was invited as Mr. Nimoy’s guest at some kind of convention or q&a session after a movie screening of Mr. Nimoy’s. I liked hearing about how he views the Spock character and how he chose to play him, saying that there’s an economy in his movements, which I think is a great word choice because the character would be efficient in that way with his movements and words. I liked hearing about his experiences in drama school while learning his craft, and how Guido J. Beedo was such a layered character… Basically I like the way that he chooses to share his kindness, generosity, and experiences with other people. So, that’s what I focus on most.

Now, I did say that I’d like to see Spock shirtless in the next movie, but that’s a character in a film. All I’m saying is if creativity moved the writers to find a way to work in a shirtless Spock/Uhura love scene, well then, I won’t complain. ;-)

That’s about all I have to say, so I’m moving on from this. If someone else wants to come back posting whatever they want to post, then that’s them. I’ve had my fill.

Aaand, let’s see if this posts…

423. Keachick - July 20, 2012

Stop being disrespectful and refer to me by my pseudonym, Keachick. However, showing respect is not something I should expect to receive from a TROLL.

Stop TROLLING, Spock/Uhura Admirer!

puts on ignore, if only!

424. Keachick - July 21, 2012

“What I did with my username was an act of clarification, and not an act of omission, unlike certain “pinenuts” that seem to want to distance themselves here from the community that they have belonged to because they apparently feel like that’ll make their time spent here easier.”

@ Anthony Pascale, moderator and other readers and posters on this site:

I am not distancing myself from anything. I have no desire to be mocked for using this name.

As for my interest in Chris Pine, well, if S/U Admirer had paid any attention at all to my posts ever since I have been on this site, my interest has been about his film making career, whether it has been how he played Kirk in Star Trek, his work in the movie Unstoppable, This Means War and the latest to date, People Like Us (which I have not been able to see). I have also referred to his work prior to Star Trek, like his character, Brian, in Carriers and Darwin Tremor in Smokin’ Aces. I have also followed with interest the progress or lack of when it comes to the latest Jack Ryan movie – he plays Jack Ryan and the movie Chris has written (with others) and hopes to produce and act in – Mantivities. I have actually made a suggestion as to where he might find good resource material for his Mantivities project.

I am also aware of his interest in music and in particular his support of an indie group called Ivy Walls. I am also aware of some of the charities he supports including the one that Pinenuts in the USA have been asked to give what support they can to fundraising going on as I write this. I am not able to help with what seems to be a legitimate and worthy cause, other than give my moral support, because I live on the other side of the world.

So I would say that it is not just what clothes he is seen wearing or if he has shaved or not, or his colour and hairstyle. What’s more, I have been, by no means, not the only one to comment on the suits he may wear on various occasions, on his hair, the attractiveness of his girlfriend etc.

Yet again, she lies about me and twists what I have written and frankly it does not matter what it might be about. (see post #422)

I am writing this for other readers and posters here to set the record straight. I do not expect any genuine fair mindedness from S/U Admirer, let alone an apology which I feel I deserve. This is not the first time that this poster, Spock/Uhura Admirer, has made personal attacks against me and criticized me for expressing my interest and affection towards Chris Pine. She has also trawled through old posts going back a couple of months, five or six months ago and even brings up disputes had last year. Now that is creepy.

As a reminder to people of what Spock/Uhura Admirer’s response was to my post at #393 –

#396 Spock/Uhura Admirer “Re: “Silly and tiresome.”
“That would be the obsession some people have with an actor, his personal life, and captain that he plays by the end of the film. Still, I believe people are free to like what they like even if certain posts do weird me out. An example: Saying how much a poster would love to see “their captain” shirtless/partially nude because he’s so “fine,” and then in other posts claiming to feel “motherly” toward the actor. I didn’t say anything at the time, but that kind of grossed me out because, to me, those two things don’t belong in the same category.

You either feel motherly or you feel sexually attracted to someone; you don’t usually hear about someone feeling both. Still, I didn’t think it was my place to try to “chastise” someone about that and the fact that I thought and think that it’s weird…”

I would consider that response so over the top to my post at #393 and it has only got worse.

I have come to consider Spock/Uhura Admirer to be a troll whose main mission is to push her agenda on seeing Spock and Uhura both forever lovey dovey, getting married and having babies and if she is not pushing her fantasies, she is nitpicking my posts.

I am sick of this poster and her unwarranted and mischievous attacks on me.

Please also note when another poster on another thread mentioned that Spock/Uhura Admirer often made provocative attacks on me, she “went for them”. I am very tired of her behaviour.

Part of me wants to delete all this and just try to ignore the bitch, but I fear that she will, in her self-righteous way, continue to bitch at me at every opportunity.

Yes, I guess I do consider myself the “victim” here but only because of a master “persecutor” in our midst, who enjoys honing on what she sees as my weaknesses and even when I explain myself, seems to enjoy beating me up for my mistake of not fully understanding a culture. As an example:
“First of all, if someone doesn’t understand a culture and how that culture/country uses variations of the word “mother,” then perhaps incorporating what they think they understand of that into a post to say how that person’s affections (sexual and otherwise) might be seen isn’t quite the smartest and best move.”

Oh and btw, re the “mother hen” (or in this case “bantam hen”) reference –

My husband’s grandmother referred to his mother as being a “fine bantam hen” (mother hen) for her son, Dave. His mother was pregnant to her husband, Dave, with my husband. So, as you can see, where I come from the term “mother hen” can refer to certain *feminine* qualities that a woman can have and these are attributes that have little to do with whether she is a wife, daughter, mother, sister, lover… However, sometimes the term “mother hen” can refer to a woman who is too overbearing and controlling of her husband, brother, sister, mother, son, daughter…and THIS is what my initial post was about. (My better half just reminded about what his paternal grandmother said about his mother).

So the accusations that S/U Admirer made about my comments seeming weird or creepy surprised and alarmed me and I sought to work out why that might be, hence my reference to a line in a movie where the older woman says to the younger man she is coming onto “Come to Mama….” Oh boy, do you guys have problems!

425. Khan-sablanca - July 21, 2012

“While I don’t remember any of the names, I do remember the basics of the story. I think that Bogart’s character told the lady he loved to leave in the end because he knew they weren’t compatible, even though they were in love. It’s a kind of “the love that wasn’t meant to be” sort of thing. He knew that they guy he told her to go with was better for her, and he loved her enough to let her go.”

No, that’s not it at all.

In the classic movie CASABLANCA, Rick (Bogart) tells Ilsa, the love of his life, that she has to fly away with her husband, because he is a man who can rally thousands to the struggle for freedom and help win the war (World War Two). Ilsa loves Rick more than she’ll ever love anyone, but Rick’s right, she’s a vital part of helping her husband continue his strenuous and life-threatening work, and so Ilsa leaves, quite likely never to see Rick again.

CASABLANCA is a very romantic movie precisely because Rick and Ilsa sacrifice their chance to be together, for the overriding cause of saving freedom for the world.

…Besides, they’ll always have Paris (their joyous memories of when they were together, until the Nazis marched in and took over the city and Rick and Ilsa were unexpectedly parted).

Great, great movie!

426. Disectivore - July 21, 2012

“The Starship Enterprise”

427. Spock/Uhura Admirer - And very PROUD of it. ;-) - July 21, 2012

@#424 Khan-sablanca

Okay, well that’s not how I remember it exactly, but it’s been a while since I saw the film. It seemed to me when I watched the film that he knew that he wasn’t the right person for her and that the other guy was. Maybe the other guy needed her more, perhaps. It sounds like that’s what you’re saying, but I took the whole “You’ll regret it” thing at the end to mean that he knew that she would regret being with him eventually because they weren’t meant to be. IDK, maybe one of these days I’ll give the film another look-see to see if I see it differently as an adult.

428. Azrael - July 21, 2012

@426.

424 is right, you are wrong, end of story. Seriously, stop foisting your ideas on how relationships work on others, your wrong, and continue to be wrong. Your ideas about the place of compromise in a relationship are so wrong its laughable, and I for one am getting more than a little tired of these gigantic posts you have to make about every d–m thing.

429. Spock/Uhura Admirer - And very PROUD of it. ;-) - July 21, 2012

Thanks for that “heartfelt” opinion, Azrael. I am not wrong about compromise in a relationship, but if that is your belief, then that’s you. As to #424, see post #425. And you do know that you don’t have to read anything I post, right. I just wanted to let you know that that’s an option. ;-)

430. Spock/Uhura Admirer - And very PROUD of it. ;-) - July 21, 2012

Oh, I meant to say: As to post #424, see post post #426.

431. Spock/Uhura Admirer - And very PROUD of it. ;-) - July 21, 2012

Just for the heck of it, I looked up the plot points for Casablanca, and it seems to me like I remembered it correctly.

“That night, Ilsa confronts Rick in the deserted café. When he refuses to give her the letters, she threatens him with a gun, but then confesses that she still loves him. She explains that when they first met and fell in love in Paris, she believed that her husband had been killed attempting to escape from the concentration camp. Later, while preparing to flee with Rick from the imminent fall of the city to the German army, she learned that Laszlo was in fact alive and in hiding. She left Rick without explanation to tend to her ill husband.

With the revelation, the lovers are reconciled. Rick agrees to help, leading her to believe that she will stay behind with him when Laszlo leaves. When Laszlo unexpectedly shows up, having narrowly escaped a police raid on a Resistance meeting, Rick has waiter Carl (S. K. Sakall) spirit Ilsa away.

Laszlo reveals he is aware of Rick’s love for Ilsa and tries to persuade him to use the letters to take her to safety. When the police arrest Laszlo on a minor, trumped-up charge, Rick convinces Renault to release him by promising to set him up for a much more serious crime: possession of the letters of transit. To allay Renault’s suspicions, Rick explains he and Ilsa will be leaving for America.

When Renault tries to arrest Laszlo as arranged, Rick forces him at gunpoint to assist in their escape. At the last moment, Rick makes Ilsa board the plane to Lisbon with her husband, telling her she would regret it if she stayed, “Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of your life.””

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casablanca_%28film%29

Rick and Ilsa could have been together. Her husband didn’t absolutely have to have her by his side. She was willing to go with Rick, but being the eternal realist that he is, he knew that even though they wanted to be together, it wouldn’t have worked out. Eventually she would resent having stayed with him and letting her husband go his own separate way. I think him telling him to go with her husband was his way of keeping what they had together pure and untarnished by any resentments over time. Still, I’d have to see the film again to see if I’ll see it differently as an adult.

432. Spock/Uhura Admirer - And very PROUD of it. ;-) - July 21, 2012

“him telling him” should be “him telling her”

Ah, typos…

433. Azrael - July 21, 2012

A quote from a couple that have been married for 40 years concerning the place of compromise in a relationship.

“Any relationship that does not have the occassional argument of compromise is doomed to failure. It is simply not possible for any two people to agree on everything all the time. A relationship without conflict or compromise is one where one or both partners is being dishonest and it will not last.”

Concerning Casablanca,

Where did you look up that pile of feces Wikipedia? The summary you reference (again in a post of excessive and unneeded size) is wrong period, you want to understand the movie then WATCH it, period.

Now I am done with this drivel, going to ignore mode, and unlike some people I can actually do that.

434. Spock/Uhura Admirer - And very PROUD of it. ;-) - July 21, 2012

The quote from the couple is nice, but here is what you’re not getting, so I’ll repost it:

385. Spock/Uhura Admirer – And Proud ;-) – July 17, 2012

Re: 380. “Compromise.”

That’s not the kind of compromise I was talking about. What I was talking about goes to a deeper level (in reference to a post Ryan made). Neither Sarek nor Amanda had to compromise themselves in order to be together because they were compatible, much like Spock and Uhura

I’m sorry if you don’t understand that.

Re: Casablanca

I did watch it.

Wikipedia can be a bad source, but in this case, we’re talking about a film and not writing a thesis, so no, I’m not going to search all over the place for references. I just checked some of the references listed in their references section. Did you? Every entry into Wikipedia isn’t crap, and I’m not so sure that you can say this one is.

Unnecessary size? What I actually wrote was a sentence followed by a paragraph. So, I take it that the next time you write a paragraph, you’ll apologize for your excessive use of words, then? Looks like you should be apologizing now if that’s the case.

Re: Ignore

I’m glad you’re taking my advice. It seems that losing arguments doesn’t agree with you. ;-)

435. Spock/Uhura Admirer - And very PROUD of it. ;-) - July 21, 2012

And to prove that I did check some of the references on Wikipedia, Roger Ebert, an renowned film critic was one of them. I would guess that he would be right about what happened in this film because it is one of his favorites. So, here goes:

“… There is actually no reason why Laszlo cannot get on the plane alone, leaving Ilsa in Casablanca with Rick, and indeed that is one of the endings that was briefly considered. But that would be all wrong; the “happy” ending would be tarnished by self-interest, while the ending we have allows Rick to be larger, to approach nobility (“it doesn’t take much to see that the problems of three little people don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world”). And it allows us, vicariously experiencing all of these things in the theater, to warm in the glow of his heroism.”

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19960915/REVIEWS08/401010308/1023

436. Jackson Roykirk - July 21, 2012

Nolan has said this about his three Batman movies and their stories:
The “Batman Begins” theme is fear.
The “The Dark Knight” theme is chaos.
The “The Dark Knight Rises” theme is pain.

So maybe, if there will only be three Abrams / Lindelof / Orci / Kurtzman Trek films, they each could have a theme.
“Star Trek” was, in a way, about birth.
Sequel 1 could be about life.
Sequel 2 could be about death.

You’re born. You’re shaped by nature and nurture and you begin your journey to self-understanding. Kirk’s birth was shown in “Star Trek,” Spock’s birth scene was cut. Kirk’s birth scene represented the rebirth of the Star Trek concept.

You make friends during your life, you struggle to overcome obstacles, you develop a concept of the universe. Sequel 1 could show us how “the crew” bonds and how they struggle against whatever evil villain or force they’re compelled to fight.

And, inevitably, you die. Maybe a major character could die in Sequel 2. To bring some real pathos to the new trilogy, almost like that of TWOK. He/she would have to go out in a blaze of self-sacrificial glory though. No transporter malfunction. (But it would be tough to write the requisite happy ending if a major character dies.)

437. Keachick - July 21, 2012

Life is about compromise. It is merely a question of how much and what any one person is prepared to compromise in order to be in happy, healthy relationship with another. People are not clones (even clones are not totally identical to the parent clone in every single way or others). Being able to work out what can work or not within any relationship is what being able to communicate is about.

People can change over time as well, which is one of the reasons why a couple can be genuinely happy with each other in their early years but lose *touch* later. Sometimes it can work the other way, where a couple can break up and then later meet and get back together and find they can make a go of a relationship. Nothing is set in stone.

438. Spock/Uhura Admirer - And very PROUD of it. ;-) - July 22, 2012

@#435

I like your idea, Jackson. The only thing I would change is in sequel 2, that would be the right time for Spock Prime to go in a blaze of glory, even quiet glory. He doesn’t need to be featured, or featured much, in the next movie because we already know where he is and what he’s doing. But, having him play a role in the second sequel that would give him a decent send-off would be nice and I think it would provide for the kind of pathos you seem to be referencing.

I also don’t think the movies have to end with a third one, but if they do, that would be a nice ending. Some people say that we don’t need to see Spock Prime anymore because the figurative “torch” needs to be passed, and I think it has, but the third movie could really illustrate the point that it has been passed to a well-deserving young Spock if done well.

439. Spock/Uhura Admirer - And very PROUD of it. ;-) - July 22, 2012

Okay, so I wonder what got added back in here to make 438 posts now 439…

440. Matt Decker - July 23, 2012

They should call the next Trek movie “Strange New Worlds”…..it could probably apply to whatever the actual plot is, and is still very recognizable
as a Trek movie title, to keep the studio happy….

441. Khalifa - July 23, 2012

Star Trek : Khan

442. NUMBER 3 - July 24, 2012

OK, my title suggestions….

STAR TREKS
STAR TREK+
FEDERATION DOWNFALL
STARFLEET’S BEST
KIRK”S ENTERPRISE
RED ALERT
U.S.S. ENTERPRISE
A CAPTIAN”S DECISION
TREK 2.0
SPOCK”S CHALLENGE
LOCK PHASERS ON TARGET
KAHN REBORN (hope not)
and just for laughs…..
THE BEST DAMN STAR TREK MOVIE EVER,PERIOD!!…or..
NOT JUST ANOTHER STAR TREK MOVIE WITH PEOPLE RUNNING AROUND TRYING TO LOOK LIKE THEY”RE DOING SOMETHING INTERESTING

That’s all I got….All my best

443. NUMBER 3 - July 24, 2012

got one more..

BINARY TREK

444. dane - July 25, 2012

F O R M A T I O N
Trek Continues

TREK ON

STAR BOND

….out of ideas..

445. Bob Tompkins - July 25, 2012

I can understand how finding a descriptive title without mentioning Khan would be quite the challenge….

446. Bob Tompkins - July 25, 2012

436- The major character dying was pulled off once and shot in the foot once- not to say they couldn’t ground these in some sort of reality with a good death scene, which was why the death of Data was a big ‘Meh’ moment. Data’s death was telegraphed too early on in the movie to be effective.
The ‘remember’ moment was in the first 1/3 of the film. That struck me when I watched it in the theater.

447. B - July 25, 2012

STAR TREK MISSION_ONE
STAR TREK
STAR TREK MISSIONS
THE LEGACY OF STAR TREK

OR PUT SOMETHING BEFORE LIKE
SOMETHING COOL: STAR TREK (thats new)

OR LIKE WAS SUGGESTED, JUST DROP STAR TREK COMPLETELY, GO WITH AN EPISODIC TITLE.

448. Joe - August 7, 2012

the title should be……………….

Star Trek “World on the Edge of Forever”

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