8

The Next Star Trek Movie May Not Have Star Trek In The Title

Unless the Star Trek sequel will be simply titled Star Trek 2 when it opens in theaters on May 17th 2013, it’s fair to guess that this is not the case and it will be titled with something with more thought and less similarity to Wrath of Khan. Most likely, the title will be “Star Trek: Insert Subtitle Here” or maybe… a title without the words “Star Trek” in it at all.

In an interview with Digital Spy, character actor Noel Clarke (Centurion), who will play a father/family man in the Star Trek sequel, talks about his great experience working on the film for three months in Los Angeles and hopes he doesn’t get cut out of the film. Clarke also teases that there is a title for the sequel and he knows it but won’t say what it is.

In the past 10 years, there have been two trends in titling sequels. The days of simply throwing the number 2 at the end of the original title are almost over. Outside of movies like Iron Man 2 and Spider-Man 2, movie sequel titles go for the colon-subtitle treatment. So X-Men lead to X2: X-Men United instead of “X-Men 2.” The other trend, which seems more in vogue, is titling the sequel without the name of the first movie in it at all. So Batman Begins turns into The Dark Knight instead of “Batman’s Moral Dilemma” or “Batman: Joker’s Wild.”

The Star Trek sequel could go either way but again, it’s very unlikely it will be titled simply Star Trek 2. Word from TrekMovie is that they’ve heard from the movie’s screenwriters that there’s a chance the movie may not contain the words “Star Trek” at all.

Much like every J.J. Abrams project, there is an element of mystery and surprise to it. We probably won’t know the title of the sequel until the first teaser trailer is released. Paramount will not be bringing Star Trek to Comic-Con this year, which is probably when they would’ve announced the title to the sequel.

Comments

  • http://twitter.com/Awesome_Leopard Glenn Allen

    Didn’t hurt Batman did it?

  • Nick.

    I’ll be much happier with the reboot if they manage to keep the camera still on an actor or scene for more than three point two seconds, as in the previous film!!!!
    Aside from the glaring plot holes, the pretty crap acting (from a couple of the actors), and the constant need for lens flares the most vomit inducing thing about the whole film was that JJ didn’t realise that some of us don’t like the camera being tossed around as though it were in an all night rave!
    Two things I hope for from this film are:1) Scenes where the camera stays still and doesn’t pan/zoom/jiggle for more than twenty five seconds, 2) a plot that doesn’t have MASSIVE holes in it.
    If these criterion aren’t met, then I guess I’ll go back to my original analysis that it just isn’t Star Trek.
    Peace (and long life).

    • http://www.facebook.com/andrew.ness1 Andrew Ness

      No doubt you’d prefer long talky scenes where everyone sits around a table discussing etiquette and nothing actually happens? Just rent Phantom Menace.

      • Daniel

        Hyperbole. He stated no such thing for a preference.

        Also, believe it or not it is entirely plausible to film action scenes without resorting to shaky-cam techniques or lens flares. The original Star Wars films, Indiana Jones films, Aliens, Predator and more did this to great effect.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Artisteroi-Rlsh-Gadgeteer/100002689242098 Artisteroi Rlsh Gadgeteer

    call it KHAAAAAN!

  • http://www.facebook.com/mandude Mike Taylor

    The Star Trek legacy should have the name sake in the title.

  • http://www.facebook.com/steve.h.796 Steve H

    How about JJ Abrams Presents “Steaming Pile of Polished Turd In Space” as a title, based on the hatchet job he did on the last one. Yup I’m one of the few Trek fans who didnt jerk themselves silly over the reboot, hated it with a passion and have no real desire to see this one.

  • Playhouse

    With Batman, they could get away with it. The character has other well-known nicknames. With Star Trek, not so much. Kind of silly to shoot it in the foot on titling. No, I expect the colon treatment, sort of like Abrams did with M:I 4. (Though, for an already placed colon, they had to resort to a hyphen to make the point.