Wrath of Khan Blu Ray - Kobayashi Maru Klingons

[Tosk]

Where was this fixed staircase? I may be misremembering.

Kor

On the previous Blu-ray release, the stairs of the foreground miniature in the corridor outside the simulator were digitally fixed up to appear pristine and dent-free. This wasn't repeated on the new remastered disc.

 

[KirkusOveractus]

Are tiy sure - I saw it first run in Theatres about 5 times in 1982 (three different theaters) and I honestly recall seeing:

STAR TREK II
THE WRATH OF KHAN

in Blue outline on a moving star field for the opening credits.

The times I saw it in the theatre (all were from the 1982 prints, save for this past Wednesday) just said Star Trek/The Wrath of Khan. The copy on Wednesday night had the Roman numeral.

 

[Tallguy]

I do remember that. My brother and I were very particular about the fact that the poster, record cover, and novel all said II but the REAL FILM just said Star Trek. I don't remember what the VHS said.

 

[KirkusOveractus]

I do remember that. My brother and I were very particular about the fact that the poster, record cover, and novel all said II but the REAL FILM just said Star Trek. I don't remember what the VHS said.

I'll double check at home, but I'm pretty sure the first VHS release also has the II. In fact, I think only the very first posters that were out for the movie were without the numeral, then added it just before release.

 

[starmike]

Are tiy sure - I saw it first run in Theatres about 5 times in 1982 (three different theaters) and I honestly recall seeing:

STAR TREK II
THE WRATH OF KHAN

in Blue outline on a moving star field for the opening credits.

100% sure. It's been documented as well. Also, when we did the 6-movie marathon a few years back, the II was missing.

Also...

#16

 

[Noname Given]

100% sure. It's been documented as well. Also, when we did the 6-movie marathon a few years back, the II was missing.

Also...

#16

Maybe I am conflating the two as I also remember running out to by the VHS tape the day it was released; and I played it to death.
(I was 19 in 1982)

 

[Tallguy]

Thanks again @starmike. Memories are funny things. That's why I wanted harder "proof" about the mesh on the screen than my old memory.

From the link you provided:

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."

People's memories are funny. I had a friend in the 80's who swore up and down he saw a print with schematics of David Nielsen's Kobayashi Maru.

Facts are stubborn things, but people can be more stubborn than that.

@Indysolo indicated that the 70mm prints did not have II but the 35mm prints did. Of course the ones in Cupertino said ][.

Maybe I am conflating the two as I also remember running out to by the VHS tape the day it was released; and I played it to death.
(I was 19 in 1982)

Buying TWOK on VHS in 1983 cost $39.95. Not SUPER crazy expensive, I guess. (It would have been to me, I was 14.) $19.99 VHS wouldn't become a thing until Top Gun in 1987. And then only for really big releases. Like The Voyage Home.

 

[Noname Given]

Buying TWOK on VHS in 1983 cost $39.95. Not SUPER crazy expensive, I guess. (It would have been to me, I was 14.) $19.99 VHS wouldn't become a thing until Top Gun in 1987. And then only for really big releases. Like The Voyage Home.

No, I was 19 years old in 1982 (I wasn't talking about the cost. <--- That said, I remember rushing out to buy it the day it was released in part because the video store I usually bought stuff from had it on 'special for $19.99. I remember that very clearly.

 

[Tallguy]

TWOK came out on VHS and Beta in 1983. And most VHS tapes were in the $80 range until a few years later. (I'll assume the same was true for Betamax?)

 

[Kor]

$39.95 in 1983 was $98.58 in today's money.

$19.99 in 1983 was $49.33 in today's money.



Kor

 

[Tallguy]

$39.95 in 1983 was $98.58 in today's money.

$19.99 in 1983 was $49.33 in today's money.



Kor

That's funny. Because in '86 $20 seemed very "reasonable". But I wouldn't pay $50 for a movie today. And I paid HUNDREDS of dollars for laser discs.

 

[Kor]

That's funny. Because in '86 $20 seemed very "reasonable". But I wouldn't pay $50 for a movie today. And I paid HUNDREDS of dollars for laser discs.

Yeah, inflation doesn't necessarily mean an exact equivalency when it came to value.

Kor

 

[Indysolo]

Facts are stubborn things, but people can be more stubborn than that.

@Indysolo indicated that the 70mm prints did not have II but the 35mm prints did. Of course the ones in Cupertino said ][.

Are you saying a 70mm print in Cupertino had the "II" on-screen? That's not possible. It doesn't work that way. If you saw it with the Roman numeral you saw a 35mm print.

Or are you saying I'm stubborn? That part's true.

Neil

 

[Tallguy]

Are you saying a 70mm print in Cupertino had the "II" on-screen? That's not possible. It doesn't work that way. If you saw it with the Roman numeral you saw a 35mm print.

Or are you saying I'm stubborn? That part's true.

Neil

No I said they said ][ on the screen. Like Apple ][. Humor is not logical. Or in my case, funny.

 

[starmike]

Are you saying a 70mm print in Cupertino had the "II" on-screen? That's not possible. It doesn't work that way. If you saw it with the Roman numeral you saw a 35mm print.

Or are you saying I'm stubborn? That part's true.

Neil

Nope, that's not true. Our theater ran 35mm because it didn't have 70mm (that was the General Cinema down the road) and it did not have II. Also, the 35mm print we ran at the 6-film marathon in 1994 did NOT have "II".

 

[KirkusOveractus]

Now I'm thinking of when our local video store put up the small rectangular poster (a pinkish purple color?) that said it was coming to VHS for $39.95. Up till that point, we only owned a few movies on VHS (TMP, Grease, Airplane!, the five-volume set of TOS episodes Paramount did).

I remember the guy who ran the video store was so stoked that he could take orders for a sell-through movie! This was one of the trips that my dad went with us to the store, and as soon as he saw the poster, he ripped out his wallet and slammed the money on the counter. He couldn't order it fast enough!

I guess that's where I get my love of Trek from...

 

[starmike]

I just posted in a General Cinema forum on FB. These guys know their stuff. This was the reply I got about II being on a theatrical run:

"The "II" was added for the television airing on ABC. It was never part of the theatrical release title."

 

[Indysolo]

That explanation makes even less sense, as the "II" has been on every video release, prior to the TV airing. And since the "TV version" was finished on video and not film, how could a revised main title suddenly wind up on film?

Neil

 

[starmike]

Here's another reference from BDM saying the same thing:

http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2012/06/12/the-baby-that-was-cut-out-of-star-trek-ii-the-wrath-of-khan

"* which means you may know the movie's official title is actually Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan."

 

[Indysolo]

Opening day movie ad has the "II".

So forgive me if I don't take everything Devin Faraci has to say at face value.

Neil