Star Trek 2 Titled ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’

Published 2 years ago by , Updated February 15th, 2014 at 4:28 pm,

Star Trek 2 Into Darkness Title Star Trek 2 Titled Star Trek Into Darkness

The wait is still on for the sequel to J.J. Abrams’ critical and financial hit that was his reboot of the Star Trek franchise. Ever since the director opened up about the basic story and casting, the topic of interest (beyond who, exactly, the villain will be) has been the talk of the stakes being raised for Star Trek 2, with no punches likely to be pulled.

Now the film’s title seems to have been revealed, and it speaks to the harsher, more hard-hitting story that lies in store. We still don’t know the details of the plot, but Star Trek Into Darkness will once again give Abrams and company the opportunity to blaze a new trail.

The title was uncovered by TrekMovie.com when Paramount appeared to be purchasing the domains for both ‘www.startrekintodarkness.com’ and ‘www.startrekintodarknessmovie.com,’ with the site now claiming that the title has been confirmed. While an official announcement from either Abrams or Paramount is yet to be found, the title fits with the general impression that’s been given to this point. In an age of sequels and serializations, it’s worth pointing out that the title does not feature a colon (like other Star Trek films), which would seem to bear some significance.

Unfortunately, the title doesn’t provide any new insight into the “exciting” role being played by Benedict Cumberbatch. But the possible (spoiler-rific) villain that Karl Urban previously revealed and the original Star Trek series plot line that goes along with it fit the mood portrayed by the new title exceedingly well.

Star Trek Into Darkness Cumberbatch Quinto Star Trek 2 Titled Star Trek Into Darkness

The new face of Captain Kirk – and the franchise – Chris Pine, recently attempted to lighten the impression that Abrams’ sequel would be all doom and gloom by explaining that no one involved is intent on “making Batman.” The obvious allusion is to Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight Trilogy, a grim and generally dark portrayal of personal conflict and the battle between good and evil. Since Abrams’ Star Trek managed to inject several one-liners and humor bordering on slapstick (“numb tongue??”) into a genocidal plot, the idea of a massive tonal shift wouldn’t be just bad news for fans, but potentially less appealing for a summer blockbuster crowd.

It doesn’t come as a surprise then, that Paramount is taking its time in deciding how to introduce the new branding. This summer showed how a film like The Dark Knight Rises – advertised as a taut, gripping drama – can be out-sold by The Avengers, a film much closer to the tone and style of Star Trek. So expect to see the unveiling of the ‘Into Darkness’ branding alongside some footage or marketing material that shows Kirk and Spock trading jabs.

Star Trek Spock Kirk Fight Star Trek 2 Titled Star Trek Into Darkness

We were expecting the sequel to Star Trek to push even further into the unexplored, making good use of the potential discovered with one of the most successful reboots in recent memory. If Abrams and his new Enterprise crew are taking things to a more serious and relentlessly honest place, fans might get the best of both worlds. And whether the villain of the film is Khan, Gary Mitchell, or some other character that co-screenwriters Kurtzman and Orci can think up, it seems that the film will at least be trying something different than its predecessor.

What do you think of the Star Trek Into Darkness title? Have the minds behind the reboot earned enough faith from the audience to place a clever pun in the film’s title, does it imply a new direction for the series as a whole, or is it just kind of… silly? Sound off in the comments.

Star Trek 2 will be out in theaters on May 17, 2013.

-

Follow me on Twitter @andrew_dyce.

Source: TrekMovie.com

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:
TAGS: star trek, star trek into darkness

137 Comments

Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.


If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it.

  1. Is Jim and Uhura gonna kiss in this movie “please say yes, pleas say yes”.

  2. Is Jim and Uhura gonna kiss in this movie “please say yes”.

    • What! A white man kissing a black woman! Shocking sir! You can’t have that sort of thing going on in the cinema. Children might see it and be scarred for life.

      • They did it in ST:TOS so I don’t see why not (other than the fact Spock might deck him)

        • *cough*sarcasm*cough*

      • Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats, living together! Mass hysteria

    • Kirk and Uhara kissed in original series because Shatner demanded it not Spock

  3. I think the colon is a red herring. Just a guess, but as there were overtones of “The Cage” in Abrams’ first movie, might this Darkness be some sort of a a second-movie version of the Great Barrier, a la “Where No Man Has Gone Before”?

    I’d like to see that movie!

    • Thus implying, Gary Mitchell.

      I hope they go further into the unknown origins of what gave him his power.

  4. Who cares what the title is? Gimme the friggin’ movie! :D

  5. Sheesh…I didn’t expect to start so much garbage. Yes, I thought the title without the colon sounds dumb (kind of like a SYFY movie-of-the-week), but no matter how it’s written, it’s STILL a weak title.

    That said, the first half of my initial statement holds true: I am definitely looking forward to ST12…the actors (including the new additions) are great, the action was cool and fun, and the story was interesting in the first. I see no reason to doubt the second JJA film.

    Oh, btw, to those saying that thinking of taking the title into consideration is silly or pointless…probably. Just like it would be equally silly to take into serious account the title of “John Carter”…oh, wait.

    ;)

    • @Archaeon

      I don’t think you “started” it. You were simply the first to point it out. I highly doubt that without your statement there wouldn’t be a discussion about this ridiculous topic. But anyway, that’s besides the point. I just wanted to point out that the discussion over John Carter’s title is a whole different story. The issue there is that John Carter of Mars is a recognizable name. So by shortening it, the movie went from something people recognize to something people have no clue about. Star Trek Into Darkness, Star Trek: Into Darkness, or Star Trek; In, to: Dark’Ness, or whatever the hell, will have “Star Trek” in the title and that’s all that really matters when it comes to getting people to see it. Now, if they intended to change it to “Trek Into Darkness” then that would definitely be comparable to John Carter…

      • Ken…

        I disagree. True, many people will see the film, regardless, BUT there are many out there who will see a (potentially) campy title and think that maybe the bigwigs have gone off the track…NOBODY expected “Batman and Robin”, even after “Batman Forever” (no relation to ST, other than the precedent set that surprises can occur and disappointments do exist). Remember that people were commenting about TDKR’S title…some even felt turned off by that title choice.

        Now, will most people see ST12 anyway? Of course…I count myself in that group. However, do names and titles count in this sneak-peek, not-fully-informed, piecemeal society? Hell, yes.

        • @Archaeon

          I’m not saying names don’t matter. I’m simply pointing out the difference in this title discussion and that of John Carter’s is of a completely different nature. This is merely a discussion of whether or not the title is weak, bad, good, etc. while with John Carter it was a matter of recognition…

          • Well, then, I shall clarify: I think the above name is weak. I will still see the film, but I was hoping for more (or…better?) thought to be put into the aspect that will inspire others to see it or will lessen the temptation they might otherwise feel.

            • So…ARCHY! what would you name the Star Trek sequel? since you’re so much smarter than the people who gave the name “into darkness” ?

              • Well, AVA…

                I haven’t really thought about it, because I don’t actually spend all my free time dwelling on movie titles. The colon would be a simple (if minor) fix, but even then, the name still seems cliche’ (someone even posted how many recent/upcoming genre pics have darkness in the title!) to me. It’s not a big deal; I simply think it’s a poor title.

                As for me being smarter than those who came up with the title in question, well,…maybe I AM. Maybe not. Do you really care THAT much? I do not.

                Are you going to survive with that answer?

                • SOOOOO…What is your great movie title for this Star Trek?…Thought so :)

  6. What is all the brouhaha over the use or omission of a simple colon?

    Colons are functional punctuation that serve a purpose of setting one idea off from another idea.

    If seeing a colon in a movie title is a turnoff, what will be next?

    No love for exclamation points?

    • Excellent point. You must remember that America is getting dumber by the minute.

      • Yes, sadly, they do seem to be…

        • Americans, of course…not multiple Americas… :-)

  7. I am actually looking forward to this one. I just hope that the villain is not Khan.

  8. IN LITTLE OVER 90 Minutes….I shall be promoted to the Rank of Captain in the United States Coast Guard….

    …..Yet I rather sit here and debate the pros and cons of the new Star Trek Title…I truly have no life.

  9. Since Kirk and Spock haven’t caught up to Kahn in the new re-imagined Trek Universe, the only way to redo a Kahn movie would be to re-introduce Kahn’s FIRST meeting with Kirk and Spock when they found him on the sleeper ship during TOS.

    • Technically Khan & his crew of the S.S. Botany Bay are already out there drifting in space unless the events/changes of the time line that Nero set into motion in the first film caused someone else other than Kirk’s Enterprise to find them. I think it would be a win if they were able to show how the ripple effect (starting with Nero’s destruction of the USS Kelvin) of the first film’s story brought about a different situation with Khan, a situation where a revived Khan now has vast resources at his disposal to start a new Eugenics War against the Federation. Could be cool…….

      • That would be the only way I would like to see Khan……either that or he dies imminently.

        • Immediately

        • You know, that would be a way to show the difference between this Captain Kirk and the old one where instead of exiling Khan, he just kills him, preventing the whole ordeal the original crew went through when Khan seeks revenge against Kirk, thus, preventing “The Wrath of Khan,” lol.

      • The only acceptable use for Kahn as a character in this new imagined universe would be to have him featured in an unexpected way. NOT as a villain. So either he is a hostile ally to the Enterprise crew or he is dispatched unceremoniously by circumstance or the film’s true villain. (You thought Trekkies were angered by the destruction of Vulcan? This would send some of them over the edge.)

        • Just how badass is the new villain? He is so badass that he kills Kirks new best friend, Kahn. “KAAAHHHHN!”

      • You know, I kind of rankled at the thought of bringing in Khan at first, but this suggestion is a great one. Just think of it, it was Kirk who put Khan in his place, any lesser of a man would be at Khan’s whim. Boy, this really opens up some doors. I’m game.

  10. I for one, hope it is Gary Mitchell and not Khan. I would love to see what JJ Abrhams can do with the character because…For once, I would love to see Star Wars fans think The Force could even come close to Stopping a God Like Gary Mitchell….

    Ok, running for cover before they start storming the castle!

    • I think Charlie X or Trelane are more likely selections.

  11. so the villain of this is “darkness”? a title names the main character or the main element of a journey such as spidey or alien

  12. The title may refer to what lies is beyond the Galactic Barrier. If it is referring to that then Gary Mitchell or Rojan of the Kelvan Empire maybe the villain.

  13. Cumberbatch’s character (and his stand in) is wearing a star fleet uniform, the black shirt kirk was wearing in the first (JJ’s) movie. You can see the delta icon on the shirt. Try looking at some of the photos posted on the net.

  14. I have heard it from sources that the new villain is no less the Ming the Merciless.

  15. Is ther going to be violence and gore? Star Trek doesn’t strike THIS fan as blood and gore.