Star Trek 2 not STXII any more.

posted on June 23rd, 2011, 3:37 pm

Paramount Promotes “Star Trek 2″ At Licensing Expo – But Just Working Title

[align=center][/align]

As we reported recently Paramount and CBS are in New York this week at the Licensing Expo to cut deals on their various properties, including the upcoming Star Trek sequel. A new promotional image for Paramount is being shown at the Licensing Expo which touts "Star Trek 2," but that doesn’t mean Paramount has already settled on the


"Star Trek 2" at Licensing Expo – just a working title

Here is a set of promo title treatments being shown by Paramount at the licensing expo (via MovieWeb).
[align=center][/align]

One thing that stands out is "Star Trek 2" for the Star Trek sequel. However, TrekMovie has confirmed with Paramount that this is just a working title. As we have been reporting, there still isn’t a final script approved for the film or a confirmed director, so it is still too early for the film to have an official title. For now "Star Trek 2" is just industry shorthand. In the past both JJ Abrams and Roberto Orci have stated that in the end "Star Trek 2" wouldn’t be an option because there already is a "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan."

As far back as June 2009, Abrams acknowledged that his second Star Trek film would not have a number, saying at a press conference in Mexico

JJ Abrams: [The sequel title] would have a subtitle instead of a number

Here is what Bob Orci wrote on the TrekMovie comments in April of this year:

BobOrci: Damon [lindelof] might have a title, but we’re not sure.

Can’t just be STAR TREK: INSERT FANCY WORD HERE.

Can’t be STAR TREK 2, or II, or TOO

Very tricky.

Any ideas?

Trek fans will just have to get used to "Star Trek 2" being used to discuss the film until a title is agreed upon.

But what to call it?

Of course I have been arguing that the final title for "Star Trek 2" does not even have to have "Star Trek" in it. Like with all the James Bond films and the last and next Batman films, you can ensure people know it is a Star Trek film via the associated branding (logo, etc). And you can use some kind of evocative title, like say "Prime Directive." As Bob Orci indicated, coming up with a title for the film is just one of the things they are dealing with for the sequel.


http://trekmovie.com/2011/06/15/paramount-promotes-star-trek-2-at-licensing-expo-but-just-working-title/

posted on June 23rd, 2011, 4:03 pm

no way am i calling it star trek II/2, wrath of khan was way too good to insult like that. even their own production staff dont want it to be called star trek 2. hope paramount/cbs dont ignore them and do it anyway.

i like the idea of naming it something without star trek in the name, people have got to be smart enough to figure out a connection without it right in their faces. doubt cbs/paramount will go for it though, they always assume their audiences have tiny brains like them.

posted on June 23rd, 2011, 6:19 pm

Its just a placeholder! They arn't gonna call it that anyways.

just a working title

The reason why I didn't post this was that it really wasn't anything to post about other than what the next MI was gonna be called but thats it.

Plus STXI was never that anyways its just Star Trek. Again same with the sequal its gonna be Star Trek: Something.

posted on June 23rd, 2011, 6:38 pm

Trek fans will just have to get used to "Star Trek 2" being used to discuss the film until a title is agreed upon.

@086gf: that's what i was objecting to, so keep your silly [glow=red,2,300]formatting[/glow] to yourself.

i have no plans to "get used to" star trek 2 being used for jjtrek 2, whether or not they decide to go against jj/orci and call it that as a final name after all (which is still possible, just because jj/orci want something doesnt mean its certain, as they dont own the rights to trek, cbs/para do)

posted on June 23rd, 2011, 6:47 pm

Star Trek II is the second Star Trek movie, the twelth movie is Star Trek XII. Regardless of what its final official name is, it will never be #2.

[Abraxas]

posted on June 28th, 2011, 10:25 pm

Last edited by Abraxas on June 28th, 2011, 10:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

One thing that stands out is...

... that 2/3 of the movies there are sequels or remakes and the other 2 are adaptations of some other print media.

Is there not ONE fucking original concept left in Hollywood?

posted on June 28th, 2011, 11:24 pm

80% to 90% of all new movies are remakes or continuations of past moves. Its not just star trek.

... that 2/3 of the movies there are sequels or remakes and the other 2 are adaptations of some other print media.

Is there not ONE fucking original concept left in Hollywood?

posted on June 28th, 2011, 11:33 pm

I didn't say it was. It's Hollywood in general.

posted on June 29th, 2011, 11:46 am

we just have to accept that in this era remakes/adaptations/daylight robbery of old ideas is gonna be the norm.

there is so much competition for cinema viewers these days, cinema tech is much cheaper than decades ago so there's many more cinemas, and there are many more TV channels, and tvs are cheap, and there's on demand stuff like sky anytime over the tv, and there's on demand stuff over the internet, there's games consoles and music players, the list goes on.

these days when making a movie they pick franchises with existing brand recognition (such as star trek and comic books) because they dont wanna risk their money on things people dont already recognise as a brand.

people already like star trek, so lets give them more!

its all about making money.