September 8, 2012 at 6:15 am #649
Trekmovie.com is reporting that this is officially the title of the next movie. [LINK] No colon, no nothing – just Star Trek Into Darkness.
TrekMovie has confirmed with multiple sources that “Star Trek Into Darkness” has been selected as the title for the 2013 sequel to JJ Abrams’ Star Trek movie. This is a title that comes out of a long process of discussion amongst the creative team. As reported earlier, Paramount tested a number of titles for the film over the summer, including at least one title that did not include “Star Trek.” Also noted in our earlier article, the title (by design) does not include a colon, like were used for the Next Generation films such as “Star Trek: First Contact” or “Star Trek: Nemesis.”
This seems to come from some detective work involving domain registrations, and has yet to be confirmed by Paramount.
I guess Star Trek Throws Lots Of Lens Flares At You was already registered
Dare I ask… thoughts? My initial gut check is that it’s way too easy to render into “Dorkness.”September 9, 2012 at 2:51 am #4264
Did they really have to test the name? That’s what kills me about modern movie-making, they’re desperate to spend moutainloads of money on stupid things like focus groups just for the name of a film. Then they have to show assorted cuts of a movie to different groups of yokels to figure out which version people like better, that sort of thing. The studios can’t just trust the creator’s vision like they used to decades ago when there were truly epic films at the box office, the multiple layers of middle management have to all get their hands in the pie and everybody wants to steer the movie in the direction they think it should go. Hollywood could improve box office draws by firing 50-75% of their management.December 3, 2012 at 1:58 pm #4265
Holy s@#t, Sherlock! What have you done?December 3, 2012 at 7:16 pm #4266
Maybe I’ve been watching too much Farscape recently, but is Kirk dressing like a Peacekeeper?
Maybe the Xindi (from season 3 of Enterprise) have attacked Earth again. That would piss off millions of Enterprise haters.December 6, 2012 at 1:44 am #4267
😆 😆 😆December 6, 2012 at 4:26 am #4268
Or how about this one, with crazy amounts of lens flare?December 6, 2012 at 9:00 am #4269
So, there’s a new minute long trailer posted online. What do you think? I’m wondering why Cumberbatch is wearing a Starfleet uniform. Will this be a remake of a TV episode with lots of videogame like special effects, or will they do something in the vein of Wrath of Khan? I really hope it’s neither – I’d much rather have an original concept than a rehashed one at the core of the movie.December 6, 2012 at 2:41 pm #4270
@Steve W wrote:
I really hope it’s neither – I’d much rather have an original concept than a rehashed one at the core of the movie.
^^ This. A lot of people seem to be convinced it’ll be a retelling of this story (link leads to the entry in the episode guide section, click through at your own risk), which would explain the uniform, but like you, I’m hoping it’s an original that isn’t overly influenced by an episode of the original series.
Also: in the event of a water landing, your seat cushion doubles as a flotation device. 😯December 6, 2012 at 7:05 pm #4271
😆 😆 😆May 5, 2013 at 2:26 am #4272
I’ve read a couple of spoiler-free reviews of “STID” (as we call it around here – pronounce it like it looks!), and it boils down to this:
1. Decent movie, lots of action, even a message in there for folks to think about (Roddenberry might’ve been proud).
2. If you already didn’t like the 2009 Star Trek movie, you probably won’t like this one. If you did like the 2009 movie, you’ll probably dig this one a lot.
Probably nothing we didn’t already know there.May 17, 2013 at 4:30 am #4273
If anyone cares, my review is here. Be warned, it lays everything bare – all is spoiled. If you haven’t seen it yet, you might want to hold off.May 29, 2013 at 3:31 am #4274
I finally went and saw it this afternoon. As an aside, I went to the Six Flags Mall movie theater for the 4:20 3D showing since that particular mall shut down and the theater is the only part of it in operation, meaning it’s usually not crowded. No such luck this time, sadly. When I went to see Dredd 3D there I was one of a handful in the theater that showing. Anyhoo, I had skimmed several reviews that weren’t all that positive so I knew what I was getting into. And to be honest, it wasn’t as bad as everybody made it out to be. I have really good powers of suspended disbelief, apparently. I guess after time I might poke some more holes in the plot, but right now I’ll just enjoy it on the surface level, which was an enjoyable summer popcorn flick. There’s not a lot of depth to it, but that’s fine considering it’s a movie and not a TV series that has the luxury of really establishing characters over years and do some strong world-building. It’s a summer blockbuster wearing Star Trek clothes, and honestly I’m okay with it.
I’ll probably start tacking on new bits to this thread when something pops into my head. For example, didn’t the crew of the USS Vengeance wear outfits that looked like futuristic women’s blouses? For a bad-ass ship and crew, those uniforms looked a bit too “Flock of Seagulls-I Ran (So Far Away) music video”-like.August 5, 2013 at 2:32 am #4275
Oh burn! Even the cast knows they’re getting reheated TOS leftovers. [LINK]
As to what he’d like to see for the third film, Urban said, “What I really believe we should do now is strive for originality. Because in Star Trek Into Darkness we took one of the most revered and loved adversaries of the Enterprise and put him in there, and did a story that had all of these wonderful nods to films from the past, and episodes from the past. I really think that what we should do from here, in my personal opinion, is strive to be original. Strive to be something different and new. You know, let’s not forget that Star Trek as envisioned was about space exploration. And it would be really wonderful to harness the spirit of that and apply it to the next film, so that we do something different than a revenge-based picture.“
(Emphasis is mine.)August 6, 2013 at 11:12 am #4276
For one brief, shining moment, it looked as though Paramount knew something was up too. Then… this. [LINK]
After briefly looking at other writers to pen the next installment, Paramount has gone back to Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci to write the next “Star Trek” movie.
J.J. Abrams is in negotiations to return as a producer but will not direct this pic — since he’s directing the next “Star Wars” film, the studio is forced to look elsewhere.
Kurtzman and Orci penned the last two pics, which have grossed more than $800 million worldwide.
The studio had looked at possibly giving the assignment to another writing duo, including “X-Men: First Class” scribes Ashley Edward Miller and Zack Stentz, but ultimately went back to Kurtzman and Orci for the job.
Eh… let’s just call it what it is.August 14, 2013 at 12:40 am #4277
And the final insult? Fans at the Las Vegas Trek convention vote Galaxy Quest a better Star Trek movie than half of the actual Star Trek movies… with Into Darkness coming in dead last. [LINK]
First of all, notice that Galaxy Quest made the list! While not technically a Star Trek movie, one can certainly see how it could make the cut. It’s more Star Trek than a couple of the actual Star Trek movies even.
Of course, Wrath of Khan was ranked number one in the end. But what I find interesting here is that the diehard fans apparently hate Star Trek Into Darkness, ranking that other Khan movie as the very worst of the series. This is definitely not in keeping with the general consensus of critics or the mainstream public. But if you want to poll actual, costume-wearing, get-a-life Trekkies, the Vegas con is the place to do it. And those fans have spoken.
Oof. The problem will persist for as long as we keep saving the cat, gentlemen.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.