Star Trek 13

[Rafe Zetter]

Hi Guys my first post on here.


I'm somewhat puzzled, at a quick count there have been 12 Star Trek films so far (including the last two rubbish ones) so why are people now talking about a Star Trek 3 ? We already had a star trek 3, so surely the next film is 13, is it because they think 13 is unlucky or something ?

 

[BillJ]

Third film in the rebooted universe. 'Star Trek 3' is just a working title though.

 

[xavier]

the last two are not rubbish in my eyes and I am not the biggest fan of STID.

 

[USS Firefly]

I always thought it is strange, especially when its not a real reboot with Spock prime etc

 

[BillJ]

I always thought it is strange, especially when its not a real reboot with Spock prime etc

Regardless of how one sees them, they are separated from the TOS films by eighteen years. I think it's okay to start renumbering them as a shorthand, unofficial reference.

 

[dub]

As long as they come up with a new title without the "3" (which they surely will), and as long as everybody uses "3" instead of "III" until then (which seems to be the case), then it's fine. Fans won't be confused.

And of the non-fans who remember the old films, most of them won't remember that they were numbered. They just remember "the one about the whales," and "the one with the guy from Fantasy Island."

 

[Franklin]

Hi Guys my first post on here.


I'm somewhat puzzled, at a quick count there have been 12 Star Trek films so far (including the last two rubbish ones) so why are people now talking about a Star Trek 3 ? We already had a star trek 3, so surely the next film is 13, is it because they think 13 is unlucky or something ?

As BillJ said, the numbering has more or less restarted because of the time between TOS movies. It was also over a decade between "Nemesis" and the 2009 release of "Star Trek". Whether the 2009 movie rebooted in universe or not, it was still a complete restart of the franchise.

Before anyone knew the title of STID ("Star Trek Into Darkness") it was often referred to as "Star Trek 2" or something to that effect. Same here, when this third movie in the rebooted franchise gets a title, the number will go away.

Keep in mind that the actual numbering of the Trek movies stopped with "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country".

 

[Smellmet]

It was only 7 years between Nemesis and ST09, but you are correct with your other points.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Back when Into Darkness was being called "Star Trek 2" I would get annoyed. Then I saw pics of J.J. Abrams and the crew in caps and shirts with the Enterprise and a big "2" next to it...

(including the last two rubbish ones)

I thought they were two of Trek's very best.

 

[Sector 7]

Hi Guys my first post on here.

I shall forgive you for your inflammatory comments, especially since it is your first post.

I'm somewhat puzzled, at a quick count there have been 12 Star Trek films so far (including the last two rubbish ones) so why are people now talking about a Star Trek 3 ? We already had a star trek 3, so surely the next film is 13, is it because they think 13 is unlucky or something ?

IMHO, I do not care what number is assigned to the new movies. It is NEW Star Trek!!!!

As for the "rubbish" comment, see my first response.