Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by TrekToday, Sep 8, 2012.
I'd wager that Star Trek has already had ideas that have been darker than anything this film will show. What pops into my head are episodes like "Time to Stand," "In the Pale Moonlight," "The Mind's Eye," The Seige of AR-558" etc, as well as the ideas and stories about Section 31.
I doubt the writers would forget that Star Trek is not dark at its core
Not to mention "Charlie X," "The Mantrap," "What are Little Girls Made Of," "The Enemy Within" . . . .
Heck, both of the original pilots end on tragic notes, with poor scarred Vina doomed to a life of eternal loneliness, and Kirk forced to kill his best friend.
Hell, the most famous Trek of all has Kirk letting the woman he loves get run over by a truck! And McCoy strung out on drugs for most of the episode, while living in a homeless shelter during the Great Depression . . .
In this case the likes of the Nolan Batman films are a better example, as they've done well at the box office (and Pine IIRC has said in interviews they're not going the whole Batman darkness route). I think what they may be going for in STID is, I don't know, the way trilogies usually stuff the difficult stuff into the second movie - Empire Strikes Back, The Dark Knight, The Two Towers. Things get worse before they have any chance of getting better. Or the crew, now united and serious about the job, faces something that really tears at him. Given that they blew up Vulcan in the first movie I wouldn't be surprised if our heroes are really put through the wringer.
So you watch Star Trek because?
I mean sure, maybe it's because you really like space battles or you like well characterized people being in space or... I don't know, pointed sideburns.
But Star Trek's optimism is a thing and has been a draw to the franchise for a long time. Presumably if a new Star Trek movie didn't have whatever it was exactly you considered fundamental to why you like the franchise, you wouldn't be happy.
I think Abrams did a pretty good job here, personally, in the first film. It has an upbeat, can-do attitude about it.
Call it what you want, but that's the way I have seen Star Trek ever since I was a fan, and anything else than that (Like going more towards the BSG attitude) will suck because it will be just like any other show.
It will also depend on how,they handlemthe story, thr more compelling and smart, the better it will be.
Several sites now report that Paramount has officially confirmed the title as Star Trek Into Darkness.
Cue additional staffing at the Suicide Prevention Lifelines.
It's grown on me. Seeing the fan made banners of it has helped solidify it as a more potentially viable title, than seeing it in simple plain print.
So I'm wondering if it took a cue from McCoy's line in the first movie.
Though I don't think we'll ever get Star Trek Into Disease.
Yup those are the ones
Hopefully it won't be known as STD.
Way back when "Generations" was due for release, then-Star Trek Archivist at Paramount, Richard Arnold was telling conventions that the movie's title has no colon. Ditto all the media releases.
The way I see it, even sans colon "Into Darkness" is a subtitle. It'll look silly if the title card reads "Star Trek Into Darkness" all in one line of text. I would imagine it'll be more along the lines of... "Star Trek"...fade to black..."Into Darkness". That'll work just fine.
Hmmm. Hasn't it been given another new title yet?
I'm not seeing a colon in this image...
Exactly, and when written in regular text it also has no colon.
So, does it seem silly because "Star Trek" hasn't been phrased in this manner before? I find it has a peculiar ring to it, but that's why I like it. It's different and "Star Trek" is taken in a different context to the usual overarching franchise header.
Star Trek Colon Into Darkness Movie Film For Theaters
I'm just glad no attempt is being made to number these things any more. I obsess over the organization of my shelves enough as it is.
In the end, people will be saying, "Star Trek Into Darkness may not have a colon, but it does deliver."
... but it does have an anus, and it's name is Benedict Cumberbatch.
Separate names with a comma.