The phrase “Into Darkness”.

I never got it. I never got why they named the film star trek into darkness.Did the writers give an explanation specifically explaining why the name of the film is into darkness because to me the phrase did not make sense.

The film was hardly dark and the characters where not dark either. I never got why the film was called star trek into darkness. I will have preferred a name like Star Trek Rebellion.

 

My take was following the events of the first film elements of Starfleet had drifted from it's core purpose of exploration and onto a darker path of miltarising and being paranoid. Only at the end of the film when the 5 year mission was announced was there light again.

 

It's supposed to be cool, dontcha know.

 

I agree with disco. The paranoia that was being fueled in the admiralty by Marcus seemed to be the impetus of going "into darkness" for Starfleet, and thus the Federation, and then the factions that would be affected by Marcus' secret desire for war.

The movie was aptly named, IMHO.

 

I think the movie just needed to be a bit more 'darker' to be named appropriately IMO.
I think a truly 'dark' movie would have the heroes forced into dark acts. Kirk avoided it by sparing Khan initially so it wasn't quite right.

The same goes with INS - it wasn't enough of an Insurrection IMO. The Undiscovered Country wasn't enough of a journey into death either. I'm not thinking Shinzon was much of a NEMESIS and what generstions were there in GENERATIONS?

Overall the names don't have to be accurate but cool enough to bring in an audience.

 

Abrams wanted a title which wouldn't need a colon. Star Trek Into Darkness was the best Orci and the other goons could think up that fit that criteria while reflecting the movie's plot.

 

Better than naming it Insurrection, though. Star Trek: Revolution, Uprising, Rebellion, Mutiny, etc. would make better titles. Plus, there wasn't a lot of insurrecting/revolting/uprising/rebelling/mutineering to begin with anyway.

 

The funny thing about Insurrection was a Paramount executive actually requested the name be changed because he didn't know what the word insurrection meant. But he was ultimately overruled because Berman and Piller couldn't think up another title.

 

"Heart of Darkness" is a short story by Joseph Conrad. It was loosely based on his experiences in Africa and his observations on colonialism. The story was loosely adapted into Apocalypse Now, a movie about a Vietnam era soldier sent into enemy territory to retrieve a traitor/deserter gone native.

 

Well, with its blasted moon and life-forsaken ruins and skies, Qo'noS is certainly a place of "darkness", and they did trek there... for all of an hour or so, in-continuity time. So, if one wanted to literalize a metaphor, there you go.

IIRC, though Hamlet was referring to death, the movie's "Undiscovered Country" was the future, and that movie is all about the future of the Quadrant.

Now you're just desperate to bag on a title. Kirk and Soran are from a different generation than Picard. You even get that scene with Sulu's daughter at the beginning. Say what you like about Generations, the title's fine.

 

Picard and his gang deciding to shed their Starfleet skins and rebel against Admiral Doughtery was an insurrection. Another could be the early Son'a's insurrection against the Ba'ku.

They did. "Star Trek: Prime Directive" was one of several titles that they thought of.

 

Before the movie, a lot of folks expected a dark ending to the story that would be taken up and resolved in the next one. But after seeing it, the above is the best explanation.

On another level, Kirk's life journey somewhat fits the title. Not that he died, but that he had to hit rock bottom in his career before rising, again.

Even putting Khan back into stasis at the end fits the title, though that's a stretch.

 

Funnily enough, Insurrection was supposed to be based on "Heart of Darkness" with Picard going after a rogue Data and killing him but Patrick Stewart vetoed the story (as he and Brent Spiner were exec producers) as it was too "dark".

Seriously actors as exec producers, what's the point....

 

Not all movie titles need to be interpreted literally...

And it works perfectly well (IMO).

Darkness = Kirk not knowing what course of action direction to take, when dealing with Khan

Darkness = mystery / unknown

etc, etc...

 

Yeah, that whole "Into Darkness" is bullshit. It should be "Star Trek into Darkness". Learn to grammar.

 

Yep. Starfleet employed and blackmailed Khan Noonien Singh into designing weapons and warships for a planned war with the Klingons. It's bizarro world insanity and a million miles from Star Trek's ideals.

The movie itself, although dealing with loss and sacrifice, wasn't nearly as grim and dark as the trailers implied.

 

Fingers crossed the next film moves towards those ideals. The stage is set.

 

It's certainly better than the original working title of ``Star Trek Into Wawa Hoagiefest'', given how little of the movie is based around getting hoagies.

 

I thought it was one of the cooler ideas involved with the film. It was different enough than the other Trek film titles and sounded pretty fresh as far as I was concerned.

Although, I have to say, the film might not have been quite as dark enough as the title implies. The bright, multicolored eye-candy of the movie kind of betrays a title like that in my mind. But maybe that's just my own weird subjective interpretation on the matter.

 

There's still a little bit of that early in the movie where Picard and Worf have to subdue Data (who is quickly repaired and exonerated.) I seem to recall the producers reasoning that it would be unfair to audiences to have them wait two or three years to see their favorite character again only to have them be someone else for most of the movie. Apparently at one point, there was a different story in development for a movie where Picard is kidnapped and replaced by an alien imposter which was dropped for the same reason.