Greg Cox wrote:
You know, back in 1982, people probably complained that "The Wrath of Khan" sounded too pulpy . . .
"They're trying to turn STAR TREK into STAR WARS!"
Hell Nicholas Meyer
hated that title. He wanted to call it The Undiscovered Country
, as the title is a Hamlet reference to death, one of the major themes of the film. He wanted that title so bad he finally used it in his next Trek film, which required Chancellor Gorkon to give the phrase a new meaning to justify the title.
Paper Moon wrote:
I don't think this is the real title. Abrams and crew have been fanatical about secrecy and I doubt they would let the title slip out like this.
The secrecy has been impressive. I remember having a clearer idea of Insurrection
at this point in production. I think there was even a leaked screenplay for INS, but don't quote me on that.
Also, regarding the colon: this would actually not be the first Trek film without a colon in the title. Both Generations and Nemesis officially lacked colons (see their respective MA pages).
In that case it's a semantic difference. Generations
are the actual titles of the film, as is the case with Insurrection
, First Contact
and so on - with Star Trek
put in front as a franchise signifier. For all itnents and purposes that's just like having a colon.
While, presumably, Star Trek Into Darkness
is intended to be a single phrase. A star trek into darkness - it sounds odd, yeah, but Star Trek
are two different thoughts entirely.
Set Harth wrote:
Supposedly that nickname was forced on the third film by the studio,
That may be so, but I'd be surprised if The Dark Knight
as a title was forced by the stuidos... as it was the first Batman film not called Batman
or Batman Something
. The Batman films have been similarly suspicious of colons, though (giving rise to the frankly awkward looking Batman Begins
), so there's that.