Perfect title. Wouldn't do anything else.
So is everyone sold on the title?
- Thread starter Trekster
- Start date
Yes and that's for the best. In the context of the whole TV/Film series, they'll have to put 2008 in brackets next to the name. With a 1940's serial, a 60's TV series and two films with the same name, the Batman franchise does this too.
Take a look at the entry list over IMDB:
http://www.imdb.com/find?s=all&q=star+trek&x=25&y=4
I'm for something that's completely non-cliche and not even a little pretentious. Something like "Star Trek: A New Beginning."
I think it's perfect. However, if it is a blockbuster, monster hit, I worry about what they will call the sequel.
Perfect. People aren't stupid. They'll see Star Trek in a commercial on tv and it will obviously be a new movie with new people hopefully in the the old uniforms and stuff. It will work. They'll get it. Nobody confuses Batman 89 with Batman 2005.
That's one of my concerns as well. 007's been reimagined successfully with "Casino Royale" as the title. The next Batman movie is being named simply "The Dark Knight." I'm done with numbers (Spider-Man 2, 3...) and colons (Underworld: Evolution). Gimme what would have been the episode title had it been a TV series or pick one of the many Trek clichés to get the point across.
"The Final Frontier" works for me.
"J.J. Abrams Star Trek".
"Star Trek: Sans Shatner".
"Starring Nimoy Trek".
"Star Trek: Phoenix".
"Star Trek: The Return of the Franchise".
"Startrekenstein".
"Not Your Daddy's Star Trek".
"Star Trek: The Rape".
"Yet More Star Trek".
Nah.
It's "Star Trek". So, let's just call it "Star Trek". Then, let's hope we have the luxury of wondering if the next one should be "Star Trek II: xxxx", or "Star Trek: xxxxx", or whatever.
"Star Trek: Sans Shatner".
"Starring Nimoy Trek".
"Star Trek: Phoenix".
"Star Trek: The Return of the Franchise".
"Startrekenstein".
"Not Your Daddy's Star Trek".
"Star Trek: The Rape".
"Yet More Star Trek".
Nah.
It's "Star Trek". So, let's just call it "Star Trek". Then, let's hope we have the luxury of wondering if the next one should be "Star Trek II: xxxx", or "Star Trek: xxxxx", or whatever.
In my experience plenty of people were confused. Audience reaction to the first Batman Begins trailer was mixed. The fans who knew it was a new start were thrilled but the uninitiated groaned when they figured out it was another Batman film, especially since the last one was still fresh enough to leave that nasty aftertaste.
Even Jack Nicholson is reportedly "furious" he wasn't even consulted for the next movie featuring the Joker. Apparently he's also unaware that this franchise is a restart rather than a prequel about his character.
MisterPL said:
Even Jack Nicholson is reportedly "furious" he wasn't even consulted for the next movie featuring the Joker. Apparently he's also unaware that this franchise is a restart rather than a prequel about his character.
Link?
I heard that story on the radio the other day and I really kind of felt sad for Jack. He really has no idea...didn't Joker die in that movie anyway?MisterPL said:
In my experience plenty of people were confused. Audience reaction to the first Batman Begins trailer was mixed. The fans who knew it was a new start were thrilled but the uninitiated groaned when they figured out it was another Batman film, especially since the last one was still fresh enough to leave that nasty aftertaste.
Even Jack Nicholson is reportedly "furious" he wasn't even consulted for the next movie featuring the Joker. Apparently he's also unaware that this franchise is a restart rather than a prequel about his character.
http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2007/11/07/who...n-batman-films/
Excerpt from link:
Who’s Laughing? Jack Nicholson ‘Furious’ He’s No Longer Joker in Batman Films
Published by Josh Horowitz on Wednesday, November 7, 2007 at 11:22 am.
“Wait ’til they get a load of me,” Jack Nicholson cackled maniacally nearly 20 years ago in Tim Burton’s “Batman.” Well come next summer, we’ll get a load of a whole new interpretation of the Joker when Heath Ledger grins from ear to ear in “The Dark Knight” and guess what, Jack is not happy.
“I’m furious,” Nicholson whispered to me last week when I asked him point blank how he felt about Ledger assuming the role. (Check out my full extensive conversation with Jack Nicholson here and find out about the unrealized second sequel to “Chinatown” in part one of the Nicholson interview here.)
Clearly the passage of time hasn’t mellowed Jack one bit when it comes to the Joker. His voice rose as he said, “They never asked me about a sequel with the Joker. I know how to do that! Nobody ever asked me.” For Nicholson the part of the Joker was an important one. “The Joker comes from my childhood,” he explained. “That’s how I got involved with it in the first place. It’s a part I always thought I should play.”
Saying that Warner Bros. “kind of drove the franchise into the ground,” Nicholson added that he wasn’t inclined to go see “The Dark Knight.” He went on to praise filmmaker Tim Burton to no end. “[He’s] a genius. He had the right take on it. That’s why I did the movie. [Burton is] one of the great moviemakers. I think the world of him.”
MisterPL said:
Even Jack Nicholson is reportedly "furious" he wasn't even consulted for the next movie featuring the Joker. Apparently he's also unaware that this franchise is a restart rather than a prequel about his character.
You should read a bit more, he was very obviously joking.
How are Jacob and Emily "frillier" than John or Mary? The former have simply been out of use for some time while the latter have been overused. When everyone gets sick of Jacobs and Emilies, John and Mary will be back. People like new things, or old things that seem new. And "Star Trek" fits right into that paradigm: like Jacob and Emily, it's an old name that hasn't been used (by itself) for a long time.
Only Trek fans watched it to the end - a couple of million of them.
Given that there are only about four million hard-core Trek fans in the U.S...
