How much time passes between TMP and TWoK?

[doubleohfive]

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

 

[Amasov]

Thanks, doubleoh. That's pretty awesome. I seriously never knew that the "II" was ever omitted at anytime. And here I am calling myself a "superfan".

 

[Greg Cox]

The Empire Strikes Back didn't have a "II" in its title, either. Except before anyone knew what it was going to be called, no one called it Star Wars II, and once it came out, no one called it Star Wars V, or even Star Wars Episode V. It was always The Empire Strikes Back or just Empire for short.

A decade earlier, there was no Planet of the Apes II, either. The Ape sequel was called Beneath the Planet of the Apes.

James Bond II? No. From Russia with Love.

And so forth.

At that time, there was no hard-and-fast rule that sequels had to have "II" or "2" in the title. I don't think you can make anything out of not having it, except that they chose not to put it there. They might have just thought it sounded classier without it; it does, by the way.

Yeah, the whole Roman numeral thing is a relatively recent convention, Hollywood-wise. Back in the day, sequels had titles, not numbers: Bride of Frankenstein, Tarzan Finds a Son, Sherlock Holmes and the Voice of Terror, Return of the Thin Man, Topper Takes a Trip, Godzilla versus the Smog Monster, Taste the Blood of Dracula, etc.

I suspect it was the Godfather movies that started the trend of numbering sequels, possibly because it seemed classier.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The possibly radical opinion I've formed on this (in a thread last year sometime) is that the reset performed by TWoK in reaction to the unsuccessful aspects of TMP was so complete that there was no refit. That is, the TWoK Enterprise is simply the old TV-series Enterprise as it would have looked in the 1960s had there been the budget for it. This, of course, fits with the vessel being sufficiently used-up to be judged a candidate for the scrap heap in TSFS.

Something like this unused novel cover, in other words?

Where did that image come from? It cannot be more than four or five years old.

 

[Nightowl1701]

Wasn't too long ago - it was the original German cover for Jerry Oltion's 1997 novel Mudd In Your Eye. Apparently Cross Cult was told they couldn't use Mudd on the cover (something about likeness issues) and couldn't use that particular Enterprise design either. So they 'borrowed' Vektor's instead.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Interesting thread. Its covers questions that come up on sequels in general. The recent expectation that sequels are expected to refer to events of a previous movie is very odd to me. It used to never happen. Generally sequels were just another adventure without the need to refer to earlier ones. There would be the general status quo which was in place at the beginning of a new movie. Which was necessary to attract audiences who missed the last movie. It was very much like tv series of the time. The exceptions, which use to be rare, where film series which told a continuing story in each installment. Of course now that is the norm.

I remember how Bryan Singer using the term "vague continuity" was such a big deal for Superman Returns. Some people hated the very idea, separate from their opinion of the actual film. Yet really all films and tv series use to have vague continuity. There are advantages of things being more clearly planned and connected. But I miss the old days. It allowed you to use your imagination to figure out how to fit pieces together which were not really cut well. It was fun.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Not so long ago, I tried watching through all the Highlander movies. Each sequel seemed to take the first film, ignore some elements of it (like, you know, the ending) and continue from there. None of the sequels were at all consitant with each other. It's probably the worst continuity in movie history.

Recently I saw Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance, and was a little suprised that it ignored the first Ghost Rider movie, even going so far as to flash back to a different version of the scene where he signs his soul to the devil in order to save his father. Nicholas Cage was still Johnny Blaze, but played the part differently.

Then there's X-Men: First Class and Wolverine: Origins, both prequels to the X-Men trilogy yet making several changes along the way (in fact, I recall reading an interview where the makers of XM: FC cited JJ Abrams' Star Trek as their example of putting making a good film ahead of slavishly adhering to continuity)

 

[Pauln6]

Not so long ago, I tried watching through all the Highlander movies. Each sequel seemed to take the first film, ignore some elements of it (like, you know, the ending) and continue from there. None of the sequels were at all consitant with each other. It's probably the worst continuity in movie history.

Then there's X-Men: First Class and Wolverine: Origins, both prequels to the X-Men trilogy yet making several changes along the way (in fact, I recall reading an interview where the makers of XM: FC cited JJ Abrams' Star Trek as their example of putting making a good film ahead of slavishly adhering to continuity)

Highlander 2 is probably in the top three WORST movies I've ever seen.

I didn't mind them moving some of the characters in XM:FC (like Shaw, Frost, or Havok) to the sixties but the re-imagining of Moira as an American CIA agent was a pointless, jarring oddity. Gabrielle Haller would probably have made more sense. Although I think she was Israeli, making her an American citizen with Jewish roots links her to Magnus the classic love triangle, and opens up the opportunity to bring in Legion down the line. It looked to me that Moira v2 was actually Carol Danvers but as an Avenger, they didn't have the rights to use her. It was just odd to take a scottish scientist and turn her into an american spy. Slavishly following canon or not, it was a mis-step.

 

[Greg Cox]

Yeah, I think people are more hung up today on "canon" and "continuity" than they used to be. I recently rewatched the old Universal "Mummy" movies which seemed to have a rather more laissez-faire attitude towards continuity. Decades passed between the films ("twenty years ago, your father uncovered an Egyptian tomb") and yet it always seemed to be the 1940s, the names of gods and temples changed, and, at one point, a New England town is transposed to Louisiana with no explanation!

I'm not sure anybody cared or noticed . . .

 

[gottacook]

I suspect it was the Godfather movies that started the trend of numbering sequels, possibly because it seemed classier.

That was "Part II," though, not "II" - Possibly the earliest well-known plain IIs before TWoK are Rocky II and Superman II.

(In some alternate universe this must have gone too far - e.g., Star Trek III: The Wrath of Khan II directed by, of course, Christian I. Nyby II.)

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

I suspect it was the Godfather movies that started the trend of numbering sequels, possibly because it seemed classier.

And if I recall correctly, Coppola had to fight hard with the studio to get the film titled "The Godfather, Part II" because it was virtually unheard of to do something like that, but he felt that the movie was more than just a sequel, it was a direct continuation of the story in The Godfather. Ironically, Coppola didn't want to name the third film The Godfather, Part III, because he didn't feel like it was a direct continuation of the story from the first two films, but rather a related epilogue. He wanted to call it The Death of Michael Corleone, but the studio made him call it Part III, because numbering films had become such common practice by then.

 

[gottacook]

Please correct the attribution of that last quote.

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

Please correct the attribution of that last quote.

Done. Sorry, that's what happens when I edit too quickly.

 

[T'Girl]

The thing that threw me was when Harry Morrow said
"Jim! The Enterprise is 20 Years old! We feel her day is over."

Now I was never under any illusion that the Motion Picture was 20 years before Wrath of Khan as Space Seed only occurred (according to dialogue onscreen) as 15 year before!

Pure conjecture on my part ...

Twenty years before Admiral Morrow's comments in TSFS, the Enterprise underwent major modifications even more extensive than those in TMP. Less on the exterior, more on the interior. Morrow was dating the Enterprise not from the date of her original launch, nor from the "refit," but from that event.

This would have been a few years prior to Kirk assuming command.

 

[Greg Cox]

Just noticed something this morning. A new book, Star Trek: The Visual Dictionary, states that Kirk stole the Enterprise (in ST III) twelve years after the V'Ger incident, which would imply that it was twelve years between TMP and WOK.

Wonder how they arrived at the figure?

 

[Nightowl1701]

People are still hung up on that line... (shakes head)

Look, Harry Morrow was Kirk's friend (probably from when he first became an Admiral, if not earlier). He was trying to spare his feelings. What he was saying was "Jim, you've been attached to the Enterprise for 20 years (more or less). It's time to let her go. You're an Admiral and a schoolteacher now. We (meaning the Admiralty) feel her days - and yours as captain - are over." That's why he said 20 years and not 40 - because that's how long ago Kirk took command.

That's probably also part of the reason the Enterprise was decommissioned, in addition to her age and banged-up state. "We've never gonna get this guy settled down as long as that damn ship's around."

 

[F. King Daniel]

For whatever it's worth, according the Voyages of Imagination timeline (the most up-to-date official chronology featuring all the episodes and novels up until 2006) ...

Space Seed: 2267

The Motion Picture: 2273

Wrath of Khan: 2285

That's 12 years between TMP/WoK and 18 between SS/WoK.

 

[sonak]

For whatever it's worth, according the Voyages of Imagination timeline (the most up-to-date official chronology featuring all the episodes and novels up until 2006) ...

Space Seed: 2267

The Motion Picture: 2273

Wrath of Khan: 2285

That's 12 years between TMP/WoK and 18 between SS/WoK.

huh? Within the movie itself it says that TWOK is supposed to be fifteen years after SS. How could an "official" chronology contradict lines in the actual movie?

 

[F. King Daniel]

For the same reason that Space Seed is 2267 and not 2167, as it should be per the "two hundred years ago..." references in it and WoK?

 

[Greg Cox]

For whatever it's worth, according the Voyages of Imagination timeline (the most up-to-date official chronology featuring all the episodes and novels up until 2006) ...

Space Seed: 2267

The Motion Picture: 2273

Wrath of Khan: 2285

That's 12 years between TMP/WoK and 18 between SS/WoK.

huh? Within the movie itself it says that TWOK is supposed to be fifteen years after SS. How could an "official" chronology contradict lines in the actual movie?

Well, maybe a "year" on Ceti Alpha V is different than a standard Earth-year.

(That's how I papered over things in the novel.)