LATEST NEWS

J.J. Abrams Taking a 'Star Trek Into Darkness' as Sequel's Official Title

by
September 10, 2012
Source: TrekMovie

Star Trek

J.J. Abrams' 2009 reboot of the Star Trek series surprised a lot of people, myself included. With it's excellent casting, breakneck pacing, great sense of scale, and wonderfully adventurous tone, Abrams crafted a new take on a legendary science fiction property that could be enjoyed by diehard fans and newcomers alike. We've all been anxiously awaiting the sequel, wondering if this could be Abrams' equivalent to The Dark Knight after Star Trek's Batman Begins, and while most of the production has been shrouded in that typical Abrams mystery, TrekMovie learned Star Trek Into Darkness is the sequel's title. More below!

This news leaked late on Friday, and Deadline recently confirmed it as well, but Paramount has yet to officially comment on the title. I'm sure they were planning on a more controlled release, perhaps with a poster or logo (like The Avengers), but even filmmakers like J.J. Abrams and Christopher Nolan can't keep everything a secret. They've done a good enough job keeping us guessing about Benedict Cumberbatch's role, so in the long run I bet they're happy that it was only something as simple as a title that slipped through the cracks (at least for now).

Many are not pleased with Star Trek Into Darkness as a new title (it's the lack of a colon that's throwing a lot of people off), but I was such a huge fan of the 2009 movie that I'm willing to give this one the benefit of the doubt and ultimately judge the movie for the movie, instead of nitpicking a title months beforehand. The Dark Knight Rises title announcement caused a few snickers in the blogosphere, but eventually most of us came around to it. I'm guessing the same will happen here, but I'm more excited to see what Abrams and his team have for us when the actual movie hits the big screen on May 17th, 2013. Thoughts?

Find more posts: Hype, Movie News

Discover more around the web:

Reader Feedback - 56 Comments

1

Such a terrible title, hopefully it's not a warning sign

Daniel Koelsch on Sep 10, 2012

2

Comparing JJ Abrams to Christopher Nolan is like comparing horse manure to chocolate ice cream

Denny Crane on Sep 10, 2012

3

They're two completely different things that cater to separate needs, but still serve a valuable purpose in society?

Matt Peloquin on Sep 10, 2012

4

Haha sooo true on both points, I like both of them but definitely not equally, and no (you smartasses) I dont like horse manure.

Cody W on Sep 10, 2012

5

Valuable purpose? Debatable.

H on Sep 10, 2012

6

I'd argue that horse manure serves a more valuable purpose than chocolate ice cream, and that Abrams is more well rounded and a harder working filmmaker than Nolan. He has a much more expansive and diverse filmography by far, on both the big and small screen.

Matt Peloquin on Sep 10, 2012

7

😀 I meant more the whole "going to the movies thing to waste precious time" but yeah ,o.k.

H on Sep 10, 2012

8

On what basis can you claim Abrams is more well rounded and a harder working filmmaker. As much as i like his THREE films, they look, feel, sound pretty much the same and has nothing new to offer creatively, other than the use of light flares that seems to be present in every bloody scene of his films. Nolan's the only filmmaker in Hollywood working on huge projects without being formulaic in his approach to story telling.

rock on Sep 10, 2012

9

Bad Robot has their hands in several ongoing projects at the moment, too many to name. I also said that Abrams was more hard working when you look at their work on both the big and small screen. In my mind it just seems like Abrams history in the industry has more quantity while Nolan could arguably be more quality, but personally I enjoy their work equally. Therefore, from my perspective Abrams is slightly better because he is equal in quality to Nolan, but produces more entertainment for me to consume so therefore I like him a little more. While I enjoy Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, Memento, and The Prestige I find Insomnia, Inception, and Dark Knight Rises to be a bit overrated. While with Abrams I enjoyed Cloverfield, MI3, Star Trek, Armageddon, and Joy Ride while not caring so much for Super 8, Alias, or Person of Interest. LOST and Fringe definitely put him over the top for me though.

Matt Peloquin on Sep 10, 2012

10

Actually Insomnia is a hugely underrated film and possibly Al Pacino's last great performance. While quantity might put Abrams on top for you, the sheer brilliance of Memento and Doodlebug puts Nolan on top for me.

rock on Sep 11, 2012

11

Fair enough, I just wanted to explain my position and why I lean slightly towards Abrams.

Matt Peloquin on Sep 11, 2012

12

For the record, I LOVE Nolan...

Matt Peloquin on Sep 11, 2012

13

So you are saying Nolan is the horse manure huh? You have to be since we all know that Abrams isn't horse manure.

Sanka on Sep 10, 2012

14

If they follow Nolan and do a trilogy I would love having a Trek that isn't open ended...

Steven on Sep 10, 2012

15

dumb!

Avi Smulders on Sep 10, 2012

16

Says, "Its not going to be like Batman." Calls it, "Into Darkness." -_-

DAVIDPD on Sep 10, 2012

17

fair point to a degree, but how dark can a film really be with that many bright lens flares?

son_et_lumiere on Sep 10, 2012

18

Ideed. 😀

H on Sep 10, 2012

19

*indeed

H on Sep 10, 2012

20

How dark can it be?...Star Trek is in space...its very dark there.

JBrotsis on Sep 10, 2012

21

Seems a bit anti-Roddenberry, but I guess that's like most other of Abrams' work.

Kenneth Green on Sep 10, 2012

22

NOT anti- , just different . Altho , at the end of the movie you see that the bridge crew is mostly the same characters - just coming from a different beginning . and , btw , every series had some seriously " dark " episodes ..

Dominic A on Sep 11, 2012

23

..mostly... ..they mostly come at night...

comment on Sep 11, 2012

24

I for one like it a lot, nice play on words, just drop the "Star" and say it, Trek Into Darkness!

Brad White on Sep 10, 2012

25

I liked the first (2009) Star Trek movie but I really hoped at the time they would go more SF and less action.But no.Guess the second one will be another dumbed down version of Star trek.Not that anything is wrong with that but I like my SF more on the cerebral side.

H on Sep 10, 2012

26

How on earth can you tell that from the title? Sheeesh.

Blargh on Sep 10, 2012

27

Oh,no.It's not about the title at all.My guess is based upon the previous movie,its success at the box office.I really doubt they will change the action-SF ratio this time around,hence my "prediction" about it being another dumbed down version of Star Trek.The title does not bother me.It could mean anything really.I am not comparing it to Nolans Batman.Why would I? It's a different genre.Also lol.

H on Sep 10, 2012

28

Star - Trek Into Darkness, the title is fine!

Robert L. Tuva on Sep 10, 2012

29

I'm kind of meh on the title at the moment. It would help to know what this "darkness" is. Regardless, I still plan to be in line on opening night. 🙂

Edward Curtis on Sep 10, 2012

30

title is great. "H" knows nothing considering the plot is secret. i swear one day Nolan will ascend into Godhood judging by all the love he gets. he's good, but i wouldn't get on my knees. comparisons to Batman must stop. these are 2 wildly different franchises. i'm no Trekkie, but the 2009 movie was awesome. this movie should be just as good.

Maverick Pete on Sep 10, 2012

31

lol.You misread ,or rather jumped to conclusion at my post.I havent' even thought about Nolan and his Batman.It's more than o.k. but I don't consider it to be some sort of "greatest achievement of cinema" or something. My post was about being disappointed that Abrams went for the blockbustery popcorny type of movie and not hard SF.I liked it but would have prefered and I hoped for more SF and less action. I was not comparing it to Batman. lol.It's apples and oranges.

H on Sep 10, 2012

32

when was Star Trek EVER Hard SF ?? the technology shown was always mixed with character development and humor . In that way it WAS like (some of ) Batman . Unfortunately , the type of movie u want doesn't make money ; what he did will. But let's tabulate : time travel , alternate universe created because of one person's death ,different version of Enterprise , instantaneous travel , thought up by Scotty ! , a new type of powerful spaceship used by the "heels" , the drill-thru-Vulcan's-core , atmosphere suits that jet a human from ship to planet , a new type of 1-man science vessel flown by Spock and - Spock , and oh yeah , Red Matter . But , OH NO , there's NO hard SF in the movie ....

Dominic A on Sep 11, 2012

33

Space magic .

comment on Sep 11, 2012

34

Star Trek The Next Generation was pretty much hard SF.At least it tried to be compared to Abrams Star Trek which is actually an action adventure movie dressed up as SF.

somebody on Sep 11, 2012

35

Really people the word "Dark" has been used in hundreds of movie titles way before The Dark Knight and this decade included so please shut up ever so kindly and stop bringing Nolan in every single shit about films. He doesn't run the film industry as far as we know it.

WiseBoy on Sep 10, 2012

36

Wiseboy, wake up !!! Nolan doesn't control the industry - He's forging the new industry by setting standards that have long been forgotten by the same moviemakers and that need to be reminded of who and what they were when their movies weren't diluted in the politically correct. Why else do you think he's chaperoning Man of Steel - because of what's at stakes in terms of revenue. It's a business, but Nolan doesn't give a shit about the business. He plays at the high roller tables that don't need permission from the exec's to create something that's tangiable. Peace out

Boby on Sep 10, 2012

37

Welll f*** Nolan and his new standards towards films. It's starting to piss me off every single conversation about a blockbuster movie Nolan this Nolan That no matter what movie it is some fag always brings Nolan in on the conversation. The industry doesn't revolve around his ass and no one needs further chiming in on what he accomplised every second minute. He changed the standards of movies we get it, no need to glorify him any further. All due to Nolanites and a few other buggers I would like to **** up.

WiseBoy on Sep 10, 2012

38

He changed shit.What he did is he established his style,"the Nolan type of movie".Sure he influences others trying to emulate his kind of success,but I don't think he has such a huge impact on movies like say Scorcese did when he first hit it big time or Spielberg with Jaws ,defining blockbuster phenomenon and their generation of film makers.He is not reinventing movie making like say Orson Welles did with Citizen Kane. Nolan is what you call "an author" .Those leave some kind of impact but I think he is overhyped.There are others who are still very relevant and others who are currently overlooked by general public due to tremendous success of the goddamn Batman. Don't get me wrong I like his movies but the way people make them to be "the shit" is just hilarious.Well ,Hollywood tends to produce crap generaly so it's no wonder when somebody comes along with some kind of substance people elevate them to almost godly status.

rant on Sep 10, 2012

39

Mmm, 2 back to back billion dollar movies? I think your assessment is out of touch. Especially considering that there was no spoilers back in those days to crush the impact of a movie.

Boby on Sep 11, 2012

40

Still ,Nolan is overhyped.And just because of Batman and his legion of fanboys. Where were they when he made Memento? Which is a much better movie than any of the Batmans in my opinion.

Mmm? on Sep 11, 2012

41

Only ignorant people still use the word "fag", if you are going to insult someone do it the proper way and keep your derogatory comments to yourself

Steven Hernandez on Sep 10, 2012

42

wow what did Nolan do to you ? I'm no fanboy of his , but you wanna know how to keep any mention of Nolan away from your consciousness ? DON"T READ THE FFF-ING ARTICLE ! you're out-of-bounds on this ...

Dominic A on Sep 11, 2012

43

agree on the '09 movie, ben.....i was very impressed as well. i'm really looking forward to the next one.

beevis on Sep 10, 2012

44

This is so great. Next to the Hobbit, I'm most excited for this.

buildakicker on Sep 10, 2012

45

And screw yah all yah packers

WiseBoy on Sep 10, 2012

46

Please delete this comment above, I am deeply ashamed of how not mature I can be at times.

WiseBoy on Sep 10, 2012

47

Meh! Better titles off the top of my head... Star Trek a Lek a Hi, Meka Hiney Ho! Star Trex n Effect Star Trek: There and Back Again Star Trek n Toe Jam n Earl Star Trek to the Future Star Trek 2: The Search for More Money

Akirakorn on Sep 10, 2012

48

I choose Star Trek a Lek a Hi, Meka Hiney Ho! It's got a nice ring to it.

comment on Sep 11, 2012

49

Star Trek 2: Electric Boogaloo...?

Wheres_The_Money_Lebowski on Sep 11, 2012

50

this seems just more "preview hype" probably a leak on purpose .right on the heels of Chris Pine talking about it . Unnecessary , cause it's ST - I'm already sold on it . and the negativity here ain't affecting that ....

Dominic A on Sep 11, 2012

51

Yeah, it surprised me too... by how BAD it was.

max on Sep 11, 2012

52

Why do you think they're making a sequel if it was bad or so you think it was I enjoyed it and many others did so what's your fuckin problem

elvisreptilicus on Sep 11, 2012

53

Star Trek: The Future Begins(2009) was not a very good title, so they changed it. They might change this new one as well. Really looking forward to this; who would have guessed that wiping out 10 movies, 800 episodes(spoiler) would be what was needed to bring Star Trek to the top 🙂

David Banner on Sep 11, 2012

54

Hey! at least it's not "Rise"

TOONFED on Sep 11, 2012

55

I am a huge fan of everything Star Trek, but I don't care for this title, Sounds too copy cat of Batman, (and I chose not to watch that particular Batman movie) Yes, I can't wait to see this new movie, but... CHANGE THE TITLE!

Jeanette on Sep 11, 2012

56

This must be the tenth article I've read where the lack of a colon in the title has been mentioned as an error. Has everyone forgotten the meaning of the word trek? Star trek into darkness is perfectly fine. Break it down. Star trek - journey through the stars. Star trek into darkness makes perfect sense. Journey through the stars into darkness. ... Maybe through the stars isn't the greatest choice of phrase but surely someone gets my drift. But otherwise good article, thanks for the update.

melachi on Sep 19, 2012

Sorry, no commenting is allowed at this time.

FEATURED POSTS

POPULAR COMMENTS

LAST YEAR'S TOP 10

Alex's Top 10 - 2017
1. Call Me By Your...
2. War for Apes
3. Shape of Water
4. Florida Project
5. Dunkirk
6. Jane
7. Foxtrot
8. Faces, Places
9. Never Really Here
10. Thelma
Click Here for Thoughts

Jeremy's Top 10- 2017
1. mother!
2. Lady Bird
3. A Ghost Story
4. The Big Sick
5. Dunkirk
6. Get Out
7. Killing Sacred Deer
8. John Wick 2
9. War for Apes
10. The Beguiled
Click Here for Thoughts

FOLLOW US HERE

Subscribe to our feed or daily newsletter:
Follow Alex's main profile on twitter:
For the news posts only, follow this acct:
Add our feed to your Feedly: follow us in feedly

FS.NET ON FACEBOOK