Yes, I know that. But the actual first contact took up about five minutes of the movie, not two hours. So by this logic, the movie could have been called "Revenge of the Borg" and it would have made more sense.
First Contact was the McGuffin of the movie, just as the Maltese Falcon was the McGuffin of The Maltese Falcon. The object or event itself was not a major part of the story, but it was the motivating factor that drove the characters' actions, and thus it was valid to name the story after it.
Or The Pink Panther, for instance, which, in fact, refers to a rare jewel,not the bumbling detective. I seem to recall there was some talk of titling that TNG movie STAR TREK: BORG, but there was some concern that the word "Borg" was meaningful only to us Trekkies and was just gibberish to the average movie-goer. Probably a good call. And which suggests we'll never see: STAR TREK:QAPLA!
I'd say that "first contact" played a pretty big role in the film, considering that the main setting and plot of the film revolved around Cochrane's warp flight, which resulted in first contact.
People would probably have wondered what a famous Swedish tennis champion had to do with Star Trek. Honestly, given the naming pattern of the surrounding movies, I'm a little surprised they didn't call it Star Trek: Assimilation. But then the public might've wondered why the Star Trek cast was trying to blend in with the group.
Okay, so there would be no problem if the next movie also didn't have a subtitle (or a displayed number), and was again simply titled "Star Trek?"
No, because we've already had a movie called "Star Trek." More importantly, it wouldn't make any sense to title it that way if it's the third part of the Abrams' series of films. I know you're being coy, but this really is just boiling down to semantics. More often than not (in my experience anyway) people refer to Star Trek as "TOS" "The Original Series" or "the old show," and one or two still call it "Classic Star Trek" a la the old Playmates toy line. Even then, when people refer to "Star Trek," it can also be largely referring to the entire franchise and not just the 2009 film or the 1966 or 1973 series. I work with a bunch of writers from Voyager and Enterprise, and anytime they bring up either series or their time on it, they refer to it not as "Enterprise" or as "Voyager" but simply as "Star Trek." Doctor Who is still Doctor Who, whether it's the 1963-1989 show, the 1996 film, or the 2005-today current iteration. This obsessive concern about nomenclature is a fandom-only thing and not at all the mountain it's being made into out of the tiniest of molehills.
That's needlessly ad hominem. There's nothing "obsessive" about wanting a little clarity and convenience. Just because people have a conversation about something, it doesn't mean they're irrationally fixated upon it. Different people are interested in different topics. If other people are interested in a topic that doesn't interest you, that doesn't mean there's something wrong with them.
Yeah, the world manages to keep on spinning with a lot of different films that have the same titles. There are multiple King Kong's, Journey to the Center of the Earth's, The Time Machine's, A Tale of Two Cities's, and I'm sure I could keep on going....
Just throwing my 0.02 $ in here: STAR TREK II - THE REVENGE OF CHEKOV (after all, isn't he the only one who really sees his revenge fulfilled by crippling Khan's ship and leaving Khan little choice but suicide) STAR TREK IV - THE TALE OF TWO WHALES (hey, I didn't start this "Tale of Two Cities" Business in ST II). Of course, bearing Kirk Douglas' song from "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" in mind, "A Whale of a Tale" might also be suitable (Spock re-crystalizing dilithium by means of gamma rays?!?). Bob
Except that every case you cite represents multiple adaptations of the same single story. So it's not at all equivalent to using the same title for different stories within the same franchise. I can understand the marketing reasons for calling the film simply Star Trek. But for future reference, in the context of discussions about the franchise as a whole, it would be convenient to have a specific label for it -- in the same way that it was convenient to coin the labels "The Original Series" and "The Animated Series" for the two television series entitled simply Star Trek. This isn't a moral debate or anything. It's just a matter of convenience.
Lots of movies have been remade with the same title and the convention is just to put the year of release at the end like King Kong (1933), King Kong (1976), or King Kong (2005). That's really all the distinction you need.
Yes, and I've been referring to it as Star Trek (2009) or ST '09 for the past four years now. I still find it cumbersome and unaesthetic, though. I think stories deserve their own titles. Titles are cool. Numbers are a poor substitute.
TMP is a little blah but the only ones I dislike are Generations (too on-the-nose, although I would prefer the also-pretty-literal The Nexus) and Nemesis (way too who-cares; I'd prefer Dark Mirror if it hadn't already been used). The others are a good enough mix of plot and themes. It could have worked if those themes had been emphasized more in the film. Retribution or Reckoning could have also been fine; it's hard to think of a title that matches both the story and conveys that it's the final TNG film.
Christopher, that's a mighty high horse you're sitting on. Ad hominem or not, my comments reflect my own opinion on the matter, largely informed by the numerous times over the years fans have gone crazy over minuscule details and unimportant minutiae not because it actually mattered in any relevant way but because if there's one thing Trekkies do its drive things into the ground. Too, I note you easily dismissed/ignored everything else I said, so I don't know exactly what you hope to accomplish by just attacking me like that. You yourself nitpicked the TOS Soundtrack Box Set relentlessly last year to the point (and I'm not blaming you solely for this, there were obviously other parties involved) that the one guy who actually worked on the thing and was here answering questions finally threw his hands up in the air and gave up dealing with us because it became apparent to him that instead of just plain enjoying the music, everyone was just needling it, nitpicking, more concerned with facts and figures than actually just listening to the thing. Is typing out "Star Trek (2009)" or some variation thereof cumbersome? A little, yes. But not detrimentally so, and certainly not worth the aggravation this thread seems to be making it out to be. There is an undeniable obsessive-compulsive element to it as well, because has been established, it's only fandom that cares about this kind of specific distinction.
Disagree. If I make a new version of Hamlet I'm not going to call it Hamlet the Melancholy just because there was a previous film by the same name.
That would've been an interesting title. It has a double meaning, since a nexus is a junction or connection between two different things, and thus the film itself was a nexus between TOS and TNG. I'm sorry, I think you're confusing me with someone else. I loved the box set. Yes, I was detailed in my analysis, but analysis is not attack, it's interest and curiosity. As I recall, what drove Neil away were the suggestions that one or two minor cues had allegedly been left off, the questioning over which became increasingly hectoring. And I was entirely in agreement with Neil; I thought he and the others did a great job and didn't deserve the hostile attitude they were getting from one or two people. What "aggravation"? To me, this is a minor, abstract issue, just an idea to be casually explored. I'm making observations about something that isn't really a big deal. I have a preference, sure, but it's not something worth fighting over. I honestly don't understand where all this melodrama and tension is coming from. Again, though, there's a big difference between doing a new adaptation of the same story and doing a new story in the same series while giving it the same title.
But as there was no previous film titled STAR TREK full stop, there's no conflict with any other motion picture title. Disagree as you see fit.