Roman Numerals Ended with "The Undiscovered Country"

[maximus92]

This has been sort of a pet peave of mine, but I've never been able to figure out why people refer to the movies beyond ST:VI with roman numerals. Now, I can sort of accept the TNG movies being refered by them because they continue with the original (sort of) vision of Roddenberry.

However, the new movie, that I do like, doesn't deserve to be lumped in by refering to it as ST:XI or XII. This is a completely new vision, and I consider a new IP.

Well, got that off my chest, now I feel better.

 

[Freman]

You say "lumped in" like it's including Star Trek XI with a bunch of bad movies, when in fact it's the complete opposite.

The new movie may be a reboot of sorts, BUT it has Ambassador Spock and Nero in it, both of whom hail from the same timeline as the other 10 ST movies, and from a point in the timeline after Nemesis. So it is a sequel and a reboot at the same time, and there is no reason it shouldn't be referred to as ST XI.

 

[Timo]

Well,

1) What else to call it? It sort of forfeits the use of its self-appointed name because it stole that from the original TV series. So it has to be "Star Trek 2009" or "STXI" to create a distinction. And that regardless of whether it's distinguished in any other sense.

2) It is a sequel even if it tries hard not to be. If it really wanted to be an independent scifi movie, it shouldn't have stolen the characters of Kirk, Spock and Enterprise.

3) It didn't really make an effort to market itself with a catchy nano-slogan like M:I or xXx. So we get to invent one.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[BlobVanDam]

You say "lumped in" like it's including Star Trek XI with a bunch of bad movies, when in fact it's the complete opposite.

The new movie may be a reboot of sorts, BUT it has Ambassador Spock and Nero in it, both of whom hail from the same timeline as the other 10 ST movies, and from a point in the timeline after Nemesis. So it is a sequel and a reboot at the same time, and there is no reason it shouldn't be referred to as ST XI.

Sums up my thoughts perfectly.

And one major peeve of mine recently is seeing people refer to the upcoming Trek movie as Star Trek 2. It is not the 2nd Trek movie. It is the 12th.

 

[JarodRussell]

I hate it that they didn't number the goddamned Harry Potter movies. How is one supposed to know which part takes place before the other?

 

[T'Girl]

I've finally settled down to calling it "Eleven."

Perhaps Abrams will do something like Lucas did with the first Star Wars movie when he tacked "The New Hope" on to it, even something unimaginative like "Star Trek: The New Beginning" would give it an official hook that we all could use.

 

[C.E. Evans]

I think it was purely a marketing thing. I think it was felt the numbers were starting to get a little bit too high by the producers or the studio, either making subsequent movies come across as films only really for longtime fans or something entering the realm of low-budget slasher flicks and direct-to-home video releases), IMO.

 

[Rarewolf]

1) What else to call it? It sort of forfeits the use of its self-appointed name because it stole that from the original TV series. So it has to be "Star Trek 2009" or "STXI" to create a distinction. And that regardless of whether it's distinguished in any other sense.

The next one will be interesting. Star Trek 2 or Star Trek XII.

 

[BlobVanDam]

1) What else to call it? It sort of forfeits the use of its self-appointed name because it stole that from the original TV series. So it has to be "Star Trek 2009" or "STXI" to create a distinction. And that regardless of whether it's distinguished in any other sense.

The next one will be interesting. Star Trek 2 or Star Trek XII.

I'm expecting them to just go with the sub title, and ignore numbering altogether, and let the fans worry about anything beyond that. They know the fans will jump on them for trying to call it Star Trek 2, and I doubt the studio will want a 12 in the title confusing the casual fans who don't care. I think it's just best they avoid the number issue entirely.

 

[C.E. Evans]

1) What else to call it? It sort of forfeits the use of its self-appointed name because it stole that from the original TV series. So it has to be "Star Trek 2009" or "STXI" to create a distinction. And that regardless of whether it's distinguished in any other sense.

The next one will be interesting. Star Trek 2 or Star Trek XII.

I'm expecting them to just go with the sub title, and ignore numbering altogether, and let the fans worry about anything beyond that. They know the fans will jump on them for trying to call it Star Trek 2, and I doubt the studio will want a 12 in the title confusing the casual fans who don't care. I think it's just best they avoid the number issue entirely.

This.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I hate it that they didn't number the goddamned Harry Potter movies. How is one supposed to know which part takes place before the other?

Read the copyright date on the box art?

 

[RRtexasranger]

I hate it that they didn't number the goddamned Harry Potter movies. How is one supposed to know which part takes place before the other?

Read the copyright date on the box art?

Actually towards the top of the spine on each of the books it tells you what year it is.

Edit: Year as in what year Harry is in school (1,2,3,4, ect...)

Edit again: Didn't realize that you were talking about movies and not the books...

 

[Green Shirt]

Didn't they stop Roman Numeralizing them when the Next Gen took over to distinguish them from the TOS cast films for the benefit of those who didn't know better?

 

[C.E. Evans]

I do recall that Star Trek VII was originally set up to be a TNG-only movie, but I believe Berman thought it would be a cool idea for it to be a "passing of the torch" from TOS to TNG.

 

[MikeS]

This thread is funny on many levels.

We Brits made a film called "The Madness of King George" in the nineties. It was actually a film about The Madness of King George III (the third), but in order not to confuse the Yanks it was decided they would drop the "III". The producers didn't want Americans to think "I've not seen the first and second films, so I won't bother with this", thus eliminating an entire market.

Star Trek:Generations, Star Trek:First Contact, Star Trek:Insurrection and Star Trek:Nemesis had no numbers in the UK. I still managed to list them in the order they were released though...

 

[MikeS]

I hate it that they didn't number the goddamned Harry Potter movies. How is one supposed to know which part takes place before the other?

Read the copyright date on the box art?

I think he was being ironic.

 

[SchwEnt]

Is this really such a problem?

Bond films have no Roman numerals at all and each has a unique title without any preface of
James Bond: Goldfinger or 007 XI: Moonraker

Hasn't been a problem for Bond films for almost 50 years.
Why the hangup for ST?

 

[The Wormhole]

The 2009 Star Trek movie had no movie other than Star Trek. Since it is the eleventh movie, people differentiate by calling it Star Trek XI, since that was the unofficial title it had when rumours first started. What the hell else are we going to refer to it as? Star Trek 11? Star Trek 011?

 

[SchwEnt]

^^^ Star Trek 011 !! FTW!!

 

[shadowedgalaxy]

Because saying "Star Trek Eight First Contact" sounds weird.