The Production Team is Referring to this as "Star Trek 2"?

[beamMe]

To my mind it's just "not what Trek is and should be"

Oh, I'm dying to learn from you what Star Trek "is and should be".

 

[Trekkie2]

I believe they--namely Abrams--is keeping the actual title of the film a secret, and we won't learn it until the first trailer is released.

I realize this isn't the title of the film. I simply think it's interesting that the production team sees this as "Star Trek 2" rather than "Star Trek 12".

The "2" in this instance could merely be the codename for "Abrams' second Trek movie".

But then, our own Trek Today had this to say back in December:

...Producer Bryan Burk was at [a] same function as [Simon] Pegg, and in answering a question, almost gave out a bit of information regarding the title of the Abrams sequel. “Oh, we’re not calling it Star Trek 2 anymore,” he said. “Just…” and then Burk stopped, realizing that he had almost let something slip.

http://www.trektoday.com/content/2011/12/pegg-knows-the-story/

Redux? As in Star Trek 2 Redux where they address all the inconsistencies and it is an entirely new movie?

 

[Amaris]

I knew someone would like the JJ Abrams movie. It's amazing to me what people like and don't. I guess we all like Star Trek which is diverse enough for individual parts to appeal to folks of wildly different tastes. YMMV of course.

Actually, a LOT of someones like the J.J. Abrams Star Trek movie. Enough to where it became the highest grossing Star Trek film to date, rejuvenating the franchise, and bringing in new fans, while letting us old fans revisit some great memories in the process. Still, there are people who don't like it, and that's okay, it's not everyone's cup of tea. Liking or not liking the movie doesn't make anyone better than anyone else, it all comes down to personal taste.

Exactly so. I meant, of course, "someone here." To my mind it's just "not what Trek is and should be" but I know some long time fans also like it. I dislike it enough to get rather preachy about it, but as long as it brings in new fans, AND the old timeline continues to be developed, I can see a benefit to it. (Even if typing that makes me cringe.)

I get what you're saying, and I'm fine with that. My tastes are my own anyway. I'm a big fan of Star Trek V, too.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

It's twelve to me.

Star Trek is not about "timelines".

Multiple timelines/realities has been part of Star Trek since Mirror, Mirror.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Cumberbatch doesn't look blue-eyed in the on-set photos.

 

[marksound]

Some people call JJ's 1st Trek ST09, so I imagine those people will call the new one ST13. Not confusing at all.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Some people call JJ's 1st Trek ST09, so I imagine those people will call the new one ST13. Not confusing at all.

Right. It's all very simple:

ST09 was Star Trek 11 and ST13 is Star Trek 12.
or
ST09 was Star Trek and ST13 is Star Trek 2

 

[RCole]

To my mind it's just "not what Trek is and should be"

Oh, I'm dying to learn from you what Star Trek "is and should be".

From me? I did say "to my mind." You're free to make up your own mind.

I'm sure I'm not going to change your mind about the JJ Abrams movie, and you're not going to change mine, and I've no intention of wasting time trying.

 

[ralph]

off topic.

An interesting fact is that in the IMDb appears an actor named Ser'Darius Blain who is described as "soldier". Will we see any Starfleet military unit?

 

[Eno]

I do not care about names assigned to art. I like the attitude of Miles Davis when having jammed on an improvisation at the Isle of Wight festival was asked "what is it called?", answered "call it what you want."

And so it became.

 

[Hythlodeus]

I remember reading an interview with BO who said that the sequel won't have a number (neither roman nor arabian) in the title. instead it would be a title that said 'star trek' without saying 'star trek' just like TDK didn't include 'batman' or '2' at all

 

[Greg Cox]

I'm sure it's just a bit of convenient shorthand. This is the second Trek movie this particular crew has worked on, so naturally they're going to refer to it among themselves as "movie #2" or whatever.

When I'm working on a new project, I almost never refer to it by its actual, final title. It's always just "the book" or maybe "the new Trek book." As in "Honey, can you walk the dog? I'm busy with the book."

 

[22 Stars]

^ I don't want to hear no more cracks about The Book!

Oxmyx

 

[trekkiebaggio]

I refer to it as Star Trek (1)2.

In text anyway.

 

[chardman]

I'm betting the actual title will be "Star Trek: The Lack of Khan".

 

[F. King Daniel]

 

[M'Sharak]

If it is, I'd better get a credit.

 

[WinstonSmith]

I believe it's pretty much confirmed that it's going to be called Star Trek Two; Electric Boogaloo

 

[ChristopherPike]

My idea would be to go with the famous catchphrase...

No number 2 please.

There's always that possibility of frightening away those who believe they need to have seen number 1.

 

[Gojira]

My idea would be to go with the famous catchphrase...

No number 2 please.

There's always that possibility of frightening away those who believe they need to have seen number 1.

I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't use that iconic phrase some time in a movie. Now that the crew is together and Kirk is the captain and we're going to see this crew on fresh adventures, now would be a good time to use that phrase.