RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 145,434
Posts: 5,727,132
Members: 25,785
Currently online: 499
Newest member: T'San

TrekToday headlines

Starship Collection Ships Arriving In August
By: T'Bonz on May 28

Farrell: Berman Was Inflexible
By: T'Bonz on May 28

Pine In Wonder Woman Talks
By: T'Bonz on May 28

Admiral – There Be Whales Here!
By: T'Bonz on May 27

Shatner To Guest On Canadian Mystery Show
By: T'Bonz on May 27

Pegg: Shatner In Star Trek 3?
By: T'Bonz on May 27

Star Trek Uniform Laptop Bag And Fanny Pack
By: T'Bonz on May 26

Star Trek: The Fifty Year Mission
By: T'Bonz on May 26

Where No Garden Gnome Has Gone Before
By: T'Bonz on May 22

Scotland Yard Trekkie Fear
By: T'Bonz on May 22


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies I-X

Star Trek Movies I-X Discuss the first ten big screen outings in this forum!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 10 2014, 11:07 PM   #16
RandyS
Vice Admiral
 
RandyS's Avatar
 
Location: Randyland
View RandyS's Twitter Profile
Re: TWOK: when was the "II" added?

Ithekro wrote: View Post
1982 was a long time ago. I simply don't remember.
I do (well, sort of, I was ONLY 12 back then!). The original theatrical run did not have the II, but the first video release tw or three years later (when I saw the movie for the second time), did.
RandyS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11 2014, 02:10 AM   #17
drt
Captain
 
Re: TWOK: when was the "II" added?

On a similar note, I swear that when I originally saw TWOK in the theater, prior to Enterprise firing the ventral port phasers in the nebula battle (right after Reliant blasts the torpedo bay), that Kirk said something like "Phaser Bank Two, FIRE!", but in the home video versions, it's just "FIRE!"

Mostly because I thought remembered the bank being numbered in such a way that I couldn't quite reconcile (i.e. being numbered "one" or "three" would have made more sense to me). Maybe I'm mixing it up with something in the novelization or something, or perhaps just too much LDS.
drt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11 2014, 03:52 AM   #18
Anji
Rear Admiral
 
Anji's Avatar
 
Location: Assisting in the birth of baby Horta on Janus VI
View Anji's Twitter Profile
Re: TWOK: when was the "II" added?

Opening night, Chicago, 1982: we had Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan on our screens

We also had Spock saying: "to go boldly where no ONE has gone before."
__________________
"You may be wrong, but you may be right." - Billy Joel
Anji is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11 2014, 04:01 AM   #19
CorporalCaptain
Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: North America
Re: TWOK: when was the "II" added?

Anji wrote: View Post
Opening night, Chicago, 1982: we had Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan on our screens
Oh, yeah?
__________________
“A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. LLAP” — Leonard Nimoy (1931-2015)
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11 2014, 05:53 AM   #20
gottacook
Commander
 
Location: Maryland
Re: TWOK: when was the "II" added?

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
Anji wrote: View Post
Opening night, Chicago, 1982: we had Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan on our screens
Oh, yeah?
I understand that some people who are old enough to know better are nonetheless certain that the original release of Star Wars (which remained in some theaters continuously for more than a year) included the "Episode IV: A New Hope" title.
gottacook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11 2014, 06:23 AM   #21
doubleohfive
Fleet Admiral
 
Location: Hollywood, CA
Re: TWOK: when was the "II" added?

This has been discussed previously. I found my post from that last conversation, which also includes a link to a post from SIX years ago, when IndySolo and I went to see TWOK in 70mm (and the title had no "II" in it):

doubleohfive wrote: View Post
Amasov wrote: View Post

doubleohfive wrote: View Post

I've seen prints where it's just "STAR TREK: THE WRATH OF KHAN." Too, there's promotional artwork and images that did not have the "II" yet.
Wow. I have NEVER seen that before. Are there any pictures online?












More importantly: here's the thread from five years ago when IndySolo and I went to see TWOK in 70mm, where he confirms that no, there was no "II" in the title at the beginning:

http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=77733
doubleohfive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11 2014, 03:39 PM   #22
Indysolo
Commodore
 
Indysolo's Avatar
 
Location: Sunny California
Re: TWOK: when was the "II" added?

Anji wrote: View Post
We also had Spock saying: "to go boldly where no ONE has gone before."
When we did the soundtrack album reissue 5 years ago we had the recording sessions for that. Your memory is incorrect.

Neil
__________________
"Gawd I hope Cushman doesn't start to become some 'authority' that people reference."
-Green Shirt
Indysolo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11 2014, 09:43 PM   #23
KirkusOveractus
Captain
 
KirkusOveractus's Avatar
 
Location: Ambler, PA
Send a message via AIM to KirkusOveractus
Re: TWOK: when was the "II" added?

Indysolo wrote: View Post
Anji wrote: View Post
We also had Spock saying: "to go boldly where no ONE has gone before."
When we did the soundtrack album reissue 5 years ago we had the recording sessions for that. Your memory is incorrect.

Neil
I knew that the Nimoy narration at the end wouldn't have been different! For one, the split infinitive has never been corrected, and the change from "man" to "one" would still be 5 years off before the airing of TNG changed that part of it.
KirkusOveractus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 12 2014, 12:06 AM   #24
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: TWOK: when was the "II" added?

I always remember it having the "II" in the title. But that was thirty-plus years ago and I was twelve.
__________________
Self-appointed Knight of the Abrams Table! - Thanks Marsden!
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 12 2014, 02:57 AM   #25
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: TWOK: when was the "II" added?

KirkusOveractus wrote: View Post
For one, the split infinitive has never been corrected...
Doesn't need to be. The incorrectness of the "split" infinitive is a myth dating back only to the mid-19th century. It's just something that was rarely used in Modern English but not formally prohibited (after being more commonly used in Middle English), but then started to become more common in the 18th-19th century, and traditionalists' distaste for the shift in usage eventually got codified as a manufactured prohibition. Even the term "split infinitive" wasn't coined until 1897. And most modern style guides are okay with split infinitives; even those that advise against them don't actually call them incorrect, just not stylistically preferable. The general consensus is that it's fine if the sentence is clearer or more elegant with a split than without one. And "To boldly go" is definitely clearer and more elegant (or at least more iambic) than "Boldly to go" or "To go boldly."
__________________
Written Worlds -- My blog and webpage
Christopher is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 7 2014, 04:18 AM   #26
Hober Mallow
Commodore
 
Location: The planet Terminus, site of the Encyclopedia Foundation on the periphery of the galaxy
Re: TWOK: when was the "II" added?

Christopher wrote: View Post
KirkusOveractus wrote: View Post
For one, the split infinitive has never been corrected...
Doesn't need to be. The incorrectness of the "split" infinitive is a myth dating back only to the mid-19th century. It's just something that was rarely used in Modern English but not formally prohibited (after being more commonly used in Middle English), but then started to become more common in the 18th-19th century, and traditionalists' distaste for the shift in usage eventually got codified as a manufactured prohibition. Even the term "split infinitive" wasn't coined until 1897. And most modern style guides are okay with split infinitives; even those that advise against them don't actually call them incorrect, just not stylistically preferable. The general consensus is that it's fine if the sentence is clearer or more elegant with a split than without one. And "To boldly go" is definitely clearer and more elegant (or at least more iambic) than "Boldly to go" or "To go boldly."
Yes, there's nothing inherently wrong with splitting an infinitive. A "to" is no more a part of the verb than a "the" is part of a noun. Inserting an adverb between the "to" and verb is no more wrong than placing an adjective between "the" and a noun. We don't call such constructions as "the good fight" or "the lost cause" split nominatives.

Early on, grammarians deferred to Latin, thought to be the most elevated of languages, when deciding on what to do and what not to do in elevated English. Since it isn't possible to split infinitives in Latin, then, they reasoned, it should be avoided in English. The main problem with that thinking is that English isn't Latin.

A writer may want to avoid splitting infinitives because it places emphasis on the adverb instead of the verb. But that could be exactly why a writer would want to do it.
__________________
"Beep... beep!" --Captain Pike
Hober Mallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 7 2014, 04:27 AM   #27
Nebusj
Rear Admiral
 
Nebusj's Avatar
 
View Nebusj's Twitter Profile
Re: TWOK: when was the "II" added?

I missed this thread when it was apparently really going last month, but I did want to say that however they fiddle around with stuff after the initial theatrical release, as far as I'm concerned, Khan shot first.
Nebusj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 7 2014, 04:31 AM   #28
LMFAOschwarz
Fleet Captain
 
LMFAOschwarz's Avatar
 
Re: TWOK: when was the "II" added?

A minor thing, but I always wished that they hadn't used the numbering at all. What's wrong with:

Star Trek: The Motion Picture
Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan
Star Trek: The Search for Spock
Star Trek: The Voyage Home
Star Trek: The Final Frontier
Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country

I know it's common practice for sequels...but it just always struck me as a extension of the 'audiences are stupid' mindset. It's not as if they were all in the theaters at the same time, leading to confusion!
LMFAOschwarz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 7 2014, 04:32 AM   #29
Hober Mallow
Commodore
 
Location: The planet Terminus, site of the Encyclopedia Foundation on the periphery of the galaxy
Re: TWOK: when was the "II" added?

LMFAOschwarz wrote: View Post
A minor thing, but I always wished that they hadn't used the numbering at all. What's wrong with:

Star Trek: The Motion Picture
Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan
Star Trek: The Search for Spock
Star Trek: The Voyage Home
Star Trek: The Final Frontier
Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country

I know it's common practice for sequels...but it just always struck me as a extension of the 'audiences are stupid' mindset. It's not as if they were all in the theaters at the same time, leading to confusion!
At least they didn't retitle TMP "Episode IV."
__________________
"Beep... beep!" --Captain Pike
Hober Mallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 7 2014, 04:53 PM   #30
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Ferguson, Missouri, USA
Re: TWOK: when was the "II" added?

LMFAOschwarz wrote: View Post
A minor thing, but I always wished that they hadn't used the numbering at all. What's wrong with:

Star Trek: The Motion Picture
Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan
Star Trek: The Search for Spock
Star Trek: The Voyage Home
Star Trek: The Final Frontier
Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country

I know it's common practice for sequels...but it just always struck me as a extension of the 'audiences are stupid' mindset. It's not as if they were all in the theaters at the same time, leading to confusion!
It just wasn't a big deal to number movie sequels back then.
__________________
"Don't sweat the small stuff--it makes you small-minded..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:29 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.