Star Trek 2 Has A New Title
Star Trek 2 has a new title: Star Trek Into Darkness. Do you get it? They’re literally and spirituality trekking into darkness.
Are we really resorting to lame puns now? This title is literally one of the most asinine and condescending things that I’ve ever read. Why not just call it Star Trek 2: Into the Darkness. Do the makers of the film think the modern audience is so stupid that they need cheap tatctics like that to draw them. They may very well be, but why should it be okay for studios to routinely insult the intelligence of their audience. Thanks heavens the same kind of thinking didn’t go into choosing the titles for the original trek movies. Can you Image:
Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan = Star Trek “That Leads Us To Cross A Dangerous Villian and Thus Inspire” The Wrath of Khan
Star Trek 3: The Search for Spock = Star Trekking Around The World To Find Spock
Star Trek 4: The Voyage Home = Star Trek The Voyage Home To Earth Where We Live and Came From and Have All Our Stuff
Star Trek The Movie = Star Trek The Movie Adaptation of the Old Television Series
Sadly the typically sensationalist and tasteless film bloggers find the the title endlessly fascinating.
Harry Knowles – Aintitcool.com
So what do you think “Into Darkness” means, beyond the obvious darkening tones it seems to indicate. Does this mean they’ll beam down to a fantasy planey with Tom Cruise and Tim Curry? What does it mean?
It means you have very low standards and pander to your followers.
Oliver Lyttelton – IndieWire.com
What this means, other than it’s always funny to type the word colon, is unsure, and the ‘Into Darkness’ part of the title doesn’t seem to be giving anything away about potential plot details, other than the standard sequel-takes-on-darker-tone thing — there’s certainly no confirmation of Cumberbatch’s villainy, or of where the follow might take us, to be found.
Its funny to type colon. You know it might also be funny if you tried typing some cultrual criticism that actually aspired to be enlightening.
Adam Chitwood - Collider.com
At the end of the day, though, it’s just a title and it has little to do with the actual quality of the film. However, this reveal does hint at some rather dire circumstances that may surround the central plot of the follow-up.
What a copout. A bad title is a bad title. If the title is condescending and awful what does that say of the film? Why should we give the film the benefit of the doubt if you don’t take the time to even name it right? Good titles accompany good films 99.9 precent of the time. As for the other 1 precent…..well I don’t think Mr. Lens Flair and the guys who wrote transformers are going to buck the trend.
Yet, I digress. Its a brand new wonderful day for films news, right? We have the title of the new Star Trek movie. We finally know what it is. Its a wonderful occasion; time for celebration. Do you wanna hear what else we know?
We know we have a director who has a style only slightly more exciting than Ron Howard’s (which isn’t saying much).
We know we probably wont be able to see the film over all the lens flair.
We know the writers of the movie have the emotional maturity of children and write sophomoric scripts (Cowboys and Aliens , People Like Us, Transformers 1 & 2).
We know there will be more fan pandering cameos (nice one Nimoy) and idiotic plot twists (What was Mr. Eric Bana doing for those 25 years; don’t mention a scene that was deleted from movie, like that matters anyway.)
We know we will see another lame retread of a previous trek villian instead of an original creation.
We know people will need aspirin because of all the headaches they will get from the 3d.
We know they won’t be able to afford the aspirin because they spent all the money on 3d.
I also know I’ll be attacked by trek fan-boys who think i’m defaming their religion. Pray for me.