Spock/Uhura Fan wrote:
At one point I think they said they had confirmed Khan as the villain plus a Nimoy appearance and then they had to take it back. I wouldn't put too much stock in their "sources" until you see something official.
I'm remembering that very thing, yes I am. It's also true, however, that TrekMovie had a reliability track record on the last movie which was hugely better than anyone else's, so I still tend to give their say-so a little more weight than most. Time will tell whether that trust is misplaced.
As an aside, just spotted this on Twitter:
Much of the debate over STAR TREK INTO
DARKNESS focuses on the lack of a colon.
You are very kind. (And I don't see that the colon makes a difference, but...)
Star Trek Into Darkness
Agent Richard07 wrote:
^ They did say that they wanted to avoid another title with a colon. This one sounds a little forced though, assuming it is the title.
isn't a good title, and having a colon wouldn't change that, although I can sort of see what they're going for - a star trek into darkness, making the franchise name part of the title, rather than serving as basically a franchise label (leading to such incongruous names like Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
I don't think it's the best title either because it doesn't really sound like a Star Trek title. I'm guessing that's why they had somebody preemptively come out and say "Now, we're not making a batman movie..." I guess a name's not that important, other than giving some kind of clue as to what the movie is about.
And Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
It was a Cardassian made station, so of course it wasn't going to have a name that sounded like something Starfleet would come up with initially, but they had to name it something and I think it works. I don't know what you're talking about!
EDIT: Now that I think about it, did the Bajorans name it DS9 or the Federation/Starfleet? Anyone know? I don't feel like looking it up.