Sub-names or 1 2 &3 ?

Some sequels have numbers to signify which movie it is, (Iron Man 2, Spiderman 2 & 3, and so on.) and some have sub-names, (Pirates of the Carrabeian: Dead Man's Chest, Matrix: Reloaded) and some even do both, (X2: United, Superman 5: the quest for peace) and some change their name altogether (The Dark Knight, Catching Fire (it comes out in 2013)).

Personally I like it when they keep the original name and put sub-names for each movie. It gives you a hint of what you're in for and it seem more creative to me. (unless it is based on a book with a completely different name, then you should follow the book.) IMO just putting a 2 after it is kind of lame.
I thought I would bring up since I saw the they have sub-names for the new Mavel movies (exept Iron Man 3...lame.) They could have called IM2 Iron Man: Whiplash (or rise of Whiplash or whiplashed...<=Eh? ) and thenIM3, Iron Man: Extremis. <=Com'on that's an awesome name!

I find movie titles that are basically the same as the original except with a number added to be very dry. I was very disappointed when the second Raimi Spiderman wasn't called The Amazing Spiderman; I thought it would have worked out well, and rounding off the trilogy with The Spectacular Spiderman. That would have been fun. I'm glad we do now have a movie called the Amazing Spiderman, but I hope they don't call it's follow-up The Amazing Spiderman 2 or II. If it has to be a numbered sequel, I like roman numerals, which seems more grand or dignified (maybe some film makers have felt it would be pretentious, though).

I like the original Star Wars movies naming convention: Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi. I prefer it to the ponderous paradigm Star Wars: Episode I: The Phantom Menace. Initially fun in a geeky way, but now I just call it The Phantom Menace or Episode I. I don't like colon craziness: Star Trek: Nemesis, Captain America: The First Avenger. The latter example, although Capt. America was a very enjoyable movie, worried me as a naming convention; something about getting ahead of itself before having properly established itself.

James Bond movies work well. The really fun ones are the titles that draw on the lore of the series, "Licence to Kill" "The World is Not Enough" and "Goldeneye". I expect them to name one of the movies "Shaken, Not Stirred" in my lifetime. Christopher Nolan's Batman has an interesting naming convention going on, although I felt discomfort at how unfinished "The Dark Knight" seemed, I would have felt more at ease if it had been "The Dark Knight Detective".

I'm hoping a variation on these conventions will be applied to the new Star Trek movie: some fans are hoping for To Boldy Go, or Where No Man/One Has Gone Before, or Starship Enterprise. I like WNMHGB or WNOHGB, but what about, The Voyage/s of the Starship Enterprise? Actually, my preference would be that the official title of the next ST movie be: The New Star Trek. It fits with the way I usually order my ticket at the box office, "One for the new Iron Man/James Bond/Harry Potter/ect."

So yeah, I don't like title with colons and a number counting up; I like seeing a bit more than (what I consider to be) a generic title.

Well, as someone who has agonized over titles only to have publishers change them or drop them, I'll say this: you've got to consider the branding.

For Nolan's Batman movies, he was able to find and use a phrase that kept the branding and meant the character name, while effectively conveying the mood of the movie. But with Star Trek, there is no phrase that will be recognized by the general public AND make a catchy name. All the fan suggested names I've seen feel awkward or nerdy or forced or contrived.

Personally, I don't mind the colon. It uses the branding and gives a chapter title that builds the mood of the movie. Thor: The Dark World is one example. I don't know what the plot will be, but I do get a sense of mood and tone.

Also, by dropping the number I think studios hope you don't feel like you have to see the previous one to enjoy this one.

I know that when I was working on The Hedge Knight II: The Sworn Sword, George Martin was not happy that Marvel wanted to use that for the title. George wanted the books to follow his titling, so the first book was The Hedge Knight and the second book was The Sworn Sword and the third book was The Mystery Knight and so on. Marvel wanted The Hedge Knight in the title of the second book, though, for branding purposes. So, The Hedge Knight II: The Sworn Sword it was!

Whatever they do, I only care about it being consistent. Iron Man 2 . . . set the stage for the title of the third one. Yes, Iron Man: Extremis would be VERY cool.

And as I said in our podcast -- I really hope that the Spidey sequel is Spectacular Spider-Man and the third is Web of Spider-Man. The only problem there is that there is no indication what order to watch them in if you just have three movies sitting in front of you. Harry Potter didn't use numbers so when I bought the movies, unfamiliar with the books, I puzzled over what order to watch them in until I noticed on the spine they put a little symbol that said "Year One", "Year Two", and so on.