There are many things that are still unknown (or at least unconfirmed) about JJ Abrams 2013 Star Trek sequel. Even the simplest things like who the main guest stars are playing is still a mystery, as is the title of the movie. However it appears (according to one of those guest actors) that a decision has been made on the title, but he isn’t saying what it is. Also TrekMovie weighs in with an opinion on if the next Star Trek movie needs "Star Trek" in the title, with a poll for you to have your say too.
Noel Clarke: I Know The Title of the Star Trek Sequel (But I won’t tell you)
Speaking to Digital Spy, actor Noel Clark (who plays father/family man in the Star Trek sequel) said he "had a great time" during the three months he spent in L.A. filming the movie, and he hopes he makes the final cut. He was also said he knew the title of the movie but wouldn’t reveal it.
Star Trek without "Star Trek"?
As recently as a few weeks ago screenwriter Roberto Orci said they still hadn’t picked a title but they were close to one. Last weekend he said there is a "75%" chance the title would contain the words "Star Trek," which of course means there is a possibility it won’t. If Clarke is correct, then perhaps he knows the films subtitle, which could possibly stand alone or be presented as "Star Trek: Subtitle."
Personally I have long advocated for trying to find something that actually doesn’t include "Star Trek" in the title. My reasoning is that it would give the JJ Abrams films their own style, following his initial Star Trek film of 2009. The original crew films (following Star Trek: The Motion Picture) all had roman numerals and subtitles (like Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan), and the TNG crew films all had "Star Trek" and a subtitle, like Star Trek: First Contact. So perhaps the JJ Abrams films could have their own style, instead of returning to the TNG type of titles (which is also the traditional franchise film title format).
Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying they should try to hide Star Trek, but allow the film to stand on its own. Christopher Nolan’s two follow up films to Batman Begins don’t include "Batman" in the title (The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises). The upcoming Superman movie is simply called Man of Steel. And of course none of the 23 James Bond movies include "James Bond" or even "007" in the title, including the upcoming Skyfall. In a way, going with franchise + colon + subtitle feels a bit old-fashioned or passé.
The key is finding a title that is evocative of Star Trek without having to say "Star Trek." An example could be "Final Frontier" but of course that one was taken by William Shatner for Star Trek V. Like with "Dark Knight" and "Man of Steel" there are many words and terms that are associated with Star Trek, such as "warp," "mission," "boldly go," "starship," "beam (me up)," "USS Enterprise," "prime directive," etc. And of course the associated imagery and branding around the title could clearly identify the film as a Star Trek film, like has been done for other films without the franchise name in the title (see below).
Will I be upset if the movie goes with the traditional Star Trek + subtitle format? No. But, I think it is worth considering something different.
The upcoming Batman, Bond and Superman movies are clearly identified without saying "Bond," "Batman," or "Superman"
POLL: What do you prefer?
Well I have given my view, but what do you think? Back to the traditional Star Trek + subtitle (maybe with a colon thrown in there), or try something new and go for a title that is evocative of Trek without having to say “Star Trek.” Vote in the poll and sound off below.
[poll=695]
Thanks to James for the link
Yes. Star Trek needs to be in the title.
It has to have “Star Trek” in the title.
I voted for “Trek evocative title (w/o ‘Star Trek’),” but honestly beyond “Final Frontier” I don’t think there are any that people could associate with the franchise without being a die hard fan.
Star Trek in the title. Seems like a no-brainer to me!
Maybe a third option of “No Preference” as I don’t care as long as the movie it good. Call it Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock as long as it’s a good movie people will remember it no matter what the name is. Of course look at all the Harry Potter movies, they did quite well and had the name in its title so there is the othjer side to your James Bond arguement, plus many more such as Star Wars.
I really don’t care at all about the title. I just want a movie with Roddenberry’s heart displayed up front and not a bunch of action, explosions, and time travel.
But I did vote to have “Star Trek” in the title. Now let’s live up to that name.
:)
I think having “Star Trek” in the title is something you can use/ignore as needed. I mean, who actually calls it “Star Wars, Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back”?
“Close Encounters of the Roddenberry Kind”
I’m not so concerned with whether or not “Star Trek” is in the title, but about what the subtitle will be. Won’t matter if “Star Trek” is in the title if the subtitle is really stupid.
@7 Clinton I mean, who actually calls it “Star Wars, Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back”? Exactly…most people when they go to the theater will call the movie whatever it really is such as Star trek, Star Wars, Batman, Superman or Harry Potter. I don’t imagine too many folks went up to the ticket window and asked for a ticket to The Deathly Hallows Part 2. They will call it Star Trek at the ticket window and mostly remember it that way. Hey dude remember that Star Trek movie with (insert villian name or plot point here) ? That’s what the average joe will remember.
“Dark Knight” and “Man of Steel” are synonymous (as in other names) for their title characters, so it’s a lot easier to go that route with those franchises. Bond is Bond, and the titles had their start based on the novels so there was already a connection.
“Star Trek” is a little trickier since a lot of the common phrases that are well known as actions word (“boldy go”, “warp”, etc.) or might sound boring as a standalone title (“federation”, “prime directive”, even “Enterprise” to a certain extent). I think a standalone title for Trek would work, but it probably wouldn’t be a common Trek phase.
Why would they want to distance themselves from the franchise when they had a big hit?
That’s a dumb Hollywood trend. Berman and Braga tried that, thinking people would watch their drivel if they didn’t put Star Trek in the title. It didn’t attract anyone.
Of COURSE it should have Star Trek in the title. If they don’t want to make a Star Trek movie, do something else. It would be pretty ridiculous to not acknowledge the franchise after a big hit.
I don’t care if they call it Star Trek 12: Electric Boogaloo, but it absolutely needs Star Trek in the title.
I’ve always thought
“Where no man has gone before”
would be a great title for a movie. I know its already been done in the TV series but it captures the essence of Star Trek perfectly.
Of course it depends on the plot, but I always thought it was quite evocative.
Yes, of course, Star Trek should be in the title.
Think about it……when Star Trek:The Wrath Of Khan came out, it only took a few years before people simply referred to it as The Wrath Of Khan.
Nobody alludes to Star Trek:Nemesis, they simply say, “wasn’t Nemesis gawdawful!”
Now, with the new movie, say it’s called Star Trek:Crapfesteroonie. A few years from now, people will say, “hey, when’s the last time you watched Crapfesteroonie?”
Leaving Star Trek out of the title accomplishes two things:
1) those who are Star Trek adverse for whatever reason may actually go see it, and before they know what they are watching, actually like it.
2) Star Trek is a brand that got a huge shot in the arm in the last film. But it’s not a big enough brand yet to go brand-less like Bond, Superman, and Batman. People who saw Trek for the first time and liked it enough to see more, may not realize the new film is Star Trek. This may also include some fans.
Obviously marketing would play an important role in going brand-less. Two different campaigns could pander to the two different groups. As long as the trailers are compelling, there’s no reason to even mention Trek for some. So it would be a real test of the merits of this film on its own. Of course that’s not how Hollywood works …
Well, if they don’t include Star Trek in the title, that would be the most honest thing they’ll ever do for this franchise. Leave Star Trek to the material that actually wants to deal with something outside of trying to stop a bad guy all the time.
Damn you Shatner for taking “The Final Frontier”. Also, why has no one made a Michael Myers movie called the Shape?
In the case of Batman and Superman, they both have alternate nicknames so its easy to leave Batman and Superman out of the titles and go with Dark Knight and Man of Steel instead. The James Bond movies originally began as novels so half the movies were named either after novel titles or quotes from the books. They’ve continued with the tradition even though they’ve exhausted the source material. They still use either the gun logo or the barrel, or both.
The thing with “Star Trek” is, you don’t really have many catchy phrases to use in place of “Star Trek”. The best known, “Final Frontier” has been used. “Where No Man Has Gone Before” has been used as the title of an episode, but on the other hand, “First Contact” and Nemesis” were both titles of TNG/VOY episodes before becoming movie titles. And the movies had nothing to do with the episodes. So there is precedent.
So if “Star Trek” is not included in the title, they should at least include the delta sheild logo.
Personally I’d like the title to just be Star Trek 2. Especially if Khan is the villain, then it’s kind of a “remake” of Star Trek II anyway. But even if it wasn’t I don’t think it matters. [Franchise]:[Blabla] always sounds corny, but I agree with everyone who has already said “Star Trek” absolutely must be in the title. I don’t think the brand is strong enough without it.
STAR TREK ————
T O B O L D L Y G O
——————————
I’d like “Star Trek” in the title, but I recommend against giving it a number: If you call it “Star Trek 2”, you risk upsetting a lot of old fans, and if you call it “Star Trek XII”, you risk alienating newer ones.
Not having the brand name in the movie title is because a film, franchise or film series is popular enough it doesn’t need it. Don’t think TREKs recognition around the world is significant enough to risk that… especially internationally. STAR TREK definitely needs to be in the title.
#8.
“Close Encounters of the NERD Kind”
:-)
thunderbirds is fine
I still think they should go with “Star Trek 2” as the beginning of the title. Most people are referring to the sequel as that anyway. They’ll refer to it as the subtitle when they go see the movie. The Arabic 2 will be used for visual purposes. ie posters, dvd/Blu Ray covers, etc. No one will confuse it wtih “The Wrath Of Khan”, which is how most people refer to “Star Trek II” anyway.
A New Frontier
The New Frontier
The Search For Porthos
Where The Enterprise Has Never Been Before
Where No One Can Hear You Scream
From the Shipyards to the Stars
Forever into Eternity
The Dark Knight Returns?
Nolan has a secret Batman movie?? We have not been informed!
I think they should just go back to the original series style formatting, and call it Star Trek XII: Subtitle. Obviously they won’t, but I don’ t think that TNG should have broken the format.
Without ‘Star Trek’ please!!
Sounds old fashioned with it in.
Boborci boborci boborci you have been summoned. How about a clue? Give us 3 abbreviations for the subtitle (or potentially 25% main title)… only 1 is correct. That would keep us busy for a while.
Its not so simple as some put it here.
The movie has to:
1 – Make Trekkies go watch it (and do repeat viewings).
2 – Make the viewers of the first one (either DVD, TV, Cinema, Rental) go to and watch this new installment.
3 – Expand the Audience – Stand alone. – Part of what the production team has stated is that they want their movies to be able to stand on its own.
Depending on how you put the tittle, that alone will partly define how to do the marketing.
Finally, in the last movie, the words Star Trek had a Delta in the backround… so we hope they keep that up for both the Marketing and the film per se.
Here are my titles
Escape from Talos IV
Warp Factor 7
Spock’s Beard – If this is a mirror movie
Federation
Alpha Quaderant
Butler vs Tango
or just
Star Trek : NCC-1701
Other than begging Bob for a clue, I think the title must strongly hint to the plot given the secrecy… Some dual-meaning word. One meaning would deal with the awakening or uprising of this genetic superman… the other meaning? I don’t know. This story has me pondering though…
It would be kind of schizophrenic to name the first film just “Star Trek”, as if it were meant to replace/reboot/redefine everything Star Trek, and then make a 180° turn and drop “Star Trek” altogether.
Didn’t they try that already? With a somewhat unpopular series entitled “Enterprise”
Of course, if they could find the IDEAL non-Star Trek title, i’d be impressed.
“Star Trek: Something” is totally fine. I don’t see why this is a big deal.
If we’re afraid of putting “Star Trek” in the title, then its time to close up shop and go home. Good grief. Shall we give Kirk a new name, say, Smith? How about changing the “Enterprise” to “Generic Big Space Ship Because We Don’t Want Anyone To Think This is Really A Star Trek Movie”
What are you going to put in its place? “Kirk and Spock’s Second Great Adventure?”
My Mother the Shuttlecraft
@35
Exactly! And then ‘Star Trek’ was put in the tile of Enterprise.
If this film/Cumberbatch’s character is in any way connected to Khan, I would appreciate a Milton reference ala Space Seed…
Paradise Lost
Reign in Hell (I know, but sounds more cinematic than Rule in Hell)
#13
I LOVE that idea!
As long as it does not have a NUMBER associated I’m going to be happy.
“The Continuing Mission: Star Trek”
Always happy to spark a debate.
As I noted on Twitter, “Enterprise” isn’t really an example of it not working. In fact the show had higher ratings than Voyager when it started. So decline was more due to lackluster S1/S2. This argument is the same as those who said ST2009 would fail because Enterprise was evidence that a prequel is a failure.
My point is that they dont need “Star Trek” in the title after successfully rebooting the franchise, the associated branding should be enough. And so you dont have to go back to the old way which to me feels like backtrackiing
Hard to say if this approach would help or hurt in markets where ST2009 didn’t do as well, such as latin america, asia and Europe (outside UK and Germany). Maybe Trek-less branding would benefit the film. This is the approach taken with Star Trek IV overseas which was promoted as “The Voyage Home” with the Star Trek IV becoming the subtitle
With regards to the posters, James bond was never in the title of any bond movie, neither was 007, it was always so and so as James bond 007 in Goldfinger or Octopussy. And the dark knight is another way of saying batman. So dark knight is to batman as batman is to dark knight. How else do you say star trek? You can’t and you don’t.
Khan 2.0
The character you love, but not so wrathful….
Oh and man of steel is another is of saying superman as is the dark knight comparison. How else do you say star trek?
13. Jon1701: ‘I’ve always thought
“Where no man has gone before”’
Sounds like an ‘adult’ film, unfortunately. :( ;) (Seems the correct word for that type of film is getting my post blocked!!)
There are bits of the pre-title dialogue that could work:
‘Strange New Worlds’, ‘New Life, New Civilisations’ ‘Space: the Final Frontier’
But Star Trek is more about catchphrases than names. The Dark Knight, The Caped Crusader and the Man of Steel are all known alternate names for their characters.
Another way to do it could be Star Trek Part 2 or Title: Star Trek Part 2 of course . . .
“The Next Frontier”
And yes the examples from Batman, Alien, Bond and Superman are not EXACTLY the same as Star Trek, but does that mean that therefore Star Trek must go back back to the the old way. Must any change be viewed as so challenging?
Is not risk the business of Star Trek?
If it must have Star Trek, then there is my even crazier idea, which takes the opposite approach and have JJ Abrams call all his Trek films “Star Trek”. This is the Peter Gabriel approach, as he titled his first four solo albums “Peter Gabriel”