So is everyone sold on the title?
- Thread starter Trekster
- Start date
Apples and oranges. We're talking about the difference between an episodic television series and a movie franchise. "Enterprise" would have been another great choice for a movie title, one that smartly distances itself from the previous franchise's incarnation. Keep in mind that this movie – unlike the last TV show – will be advertised everywhere, not just a third-rate broadcast network. Naming it "Star Trek" will carry all sorts of negative connotations, especially if Nimoy gets top billing. (If they're busting on Harrison Ford for doing a fourth Indy flick, I can already hear the geriatric jokes about Spock.)
As far as I'm concerned, the only thing wrong with Enterprise was that it wasn't the reimagining this movie appears to be. Bakula made an ass-kicking faux-Kirk and T'Pol was essentially Spock 2.0. Change the names of the characters and Enterprise would have made Abrams' reboot moot.
Link.
He appears to have a sense of humor about it but "furious" is "furious." He's certainly not gracious about not being asked to participate. He acts like a guy who originated the role but he wasn't. Even Bat-fans can't agree on his performance.
The Shatner has every right to be miffed. Nimoy would, too, as do the other Trek actors. I'm sure no one has given more thought and could share more insight to their respective characters than those surviving cast members who first brought those roles to life. After all, this movie isn't supposed to be a parody.
I love that Nimoy is coaching Quinto on Spock. Anyone can don the costume and arch an eyebrow but I doubt anyone on the planet knows how to think like Spock more than Leonard Nimoy.
Unfortunately for Jack, he's no Leonard Nimoy.
Simple. Elegant. Brilliant.
Two words that flashed up on screen in the first couple of opening seconds on 'The Man Trap' is finally being seen on the big screen for the first time.
The most simple, pure genius titling since Debbie Does Dallas.
Two words that flashed up on screen in the first couple of opening seconds on 'The Man Trap' is finally being seen on the big screen for the first time.
The most simple, pure genius titling since Debbie Does Dallas.
I always liked the subtitles. I like a good dramatic one, too. In addition, I have always liked when Trek references the classics such as Shakespeare or Melville's Moby Dick. Depending on the story, the full title could be something like:
ST: Slings and Arrows
ST: Perchance to Dream
ST: The Turning of the Tide
ST: Brave New World
ST: Fool's Paradise
ST: Forever and a Day
ST: Killing Frost
ST: Slings and Arrows
ST: Perchance to Dream
ST: The Turning of the Tide
ST: Brave New World
ST: Fool's Paradise
ST: Forever and a Day
ST: Killing Frost
Star Trek 2008.
As the author of this post said the title is plain, but I think this plain title speaks volumes just like Star Wars did.
Star Trek And So Are You
It's Star Trek. The original. It doesn't need a name beyond that. If there's a sequel to it I wouldn't mind if Star Trek was left out of it completely but for the first film it needs it. Star Trek is simple and beautiful at the same time.
I agree that Enterprise should have been more of what we hope this new film will be, but by trying to distance itself from Trek, it alienated some Trek fans, and didn't bring in new fans. It was on the wrong 'network' for sure, but playing around with the title just wasn't/isn't the way to go.
You have to make a movie that puts its money where its mouth is, like LOTR. If people are going to put their money down on a sci-fi/fantasy adventure flick it has got to hold up to the scrutiny of fans but more importantly deliver fun and excitement to the general public. And the title won't do anything to change that.
Kegek said:
^
They may call it Star Trek '08.
Ouch! I was just kidding, honest!
I hope not...too cheesey.Kegek said:
^
They may call it Star Trek '08.
Similar threads
