Should TMP be ignored?

[Commishsleer]

From another thread on this website:
Oh yes [prints of WoK had II] did! The first three or so weeks in the US had no "II" in the title, and then these prints were sent out to the international markets. While the US started to see titles with "II" in them, the movie then opened here in Australia with no "II". Then, about three weeks later, our club organised a return trip for a group booking and our prints were likewise marked with "II"."

So it seems only the first few prints had no II.

And to settle the point, the next film was called III even in its very first prints...So unless you want to argue there was no Star Trek II, or no Star Trek....Then yes....TMP shouldn't be ignored.

Any issues with Kirk being Admiral can easily be brushed aside.

I'm from Australia too and when I initially saw TWOK at the cinema I bought the program which has Star Trek II Wrath of Khan written on the title. Now I probably saw it in the first week but can't remember what the title was. The only evidence I have is my program.
So I guess the programs had been printed months before and the intention was to have Star Trek II associated with the picture. So perhaps the initial screenings without Star Trek II on the title were a mistake??? Unless of course someone was sneakily ignoring TMP.

 

[Tallguy]

Unless of course someone was sneakily ignoring TMP.

I dunno. SHOULD TMP be ignored?

:: RUNS ::

 

[Valenti]

The scope of it should never be ignored. At least it tried to be Star Trek again. I would actually rather ignore everything that came after it.
The idea of Star Trek meets God is a good one. It's just that nobody has ever told it right yet. Larry Brody tried with the animated series but alas Gene was an egomaniac by this time.

 

[gottacook]

Yeah but as it stands, it is Star Trek II. Also, wasn't this the theatrical release poster?

Once again, here is the pre-release four-page U.S. magazine insert (which I personally saw in an issue of People magazine in May 1982) with no "II" to be seen, just like the paperback novelization and the initial release prints:

 

[Tallguy]

I had that. (I still might in a box someplace.) Did we have this conversation upthread?

Awesome scans, BTW. I think that's my favorite TOS cast photo.

Oh, and I always loved that publicity photo of David crawling over Kirk's body.

 

[mb22]

Someone should do a timeline of the various TWOK title changes.

I wonder when that insert was produced. Interestingly enough, I seem to recall Variety using the title
"Star Trek II" in the films in production listings it used to provide. The "Vengeance" and "Wrath" parts came later.
http://trekcore.com/blog/2015/09/early-star-trek-feature-film-artwork-that-didnt-make-it/

 

[gottacook]

Another data point (extending a massive tangent from the stated topic...): Title was still "Star Trek II: The Undiscovered Country" as late as the end of January 1982, if this call sheet is accurate. So, irrespective of what the subtitle might be, there was a decision to take away the "II" and then, immediately upon theatrical release, a decision to put it back for newspaper ads, posters, and eventually prints and home video. (Of course, theater marquees would, and did, shorten it to "Star Trek II" anyway.)

 

[JonnyQuest037]

Oh, and I always loved that publicity photo of David crawling over Kirk's body.

He's not crawling over Kirk's body. He's overpowered him. David is holding a knife in his right hand and has clearly won the shuffle they had in the Genesis Cave, playing into Kirk being old, worn out, and off his game. From what I understand, this was changed at Shatner's request. You could argue that Shatner just didn't want to be upstaged, but it makes sense. Kirk had hand-to-hand combat training. David presumably didn't.

 

[Tallguy]

Given the way he's looking at the camera I'm making the leap that this was a publicity photo. Much like how TUC showed Kirk getting vaporized instead of ONE Kirk getting vaporized.

 

[Maurice]

Just FYI once production starts you generally do not change the names of ANYTHING on the production documents because it may cause confusion within the production, hence why Valeris is still Saavik in the TUC script revisions done during production.

 

[gottacook]

Just FYI once production starts you generally do not change the names of ANYTHING on the production documents because it may cause confusion within the production, hence why Valeris is still Saavik in the TUC script revisions done during production.

Certainly, but this just reinforces my point - that the decision was taken to remove the "II" (irrespective of changes in subtitle) sometime in early 1982, but then, virtually as soon as the movie was released, the decision was taken to restore the "II" (in newspaper ads, etc.) despite the absence of "II" on the initial theatrical prints. I would love to see some documentation on the decision to remove the "II", as I think it would have been better left off (even though, as mentioned above, theaters would have shortened it to "STAR TREK II [or 2]" anyway on their marquees).

 

[Maurice]

I wasn't arguing the point. I was explaining that a production doc doesn't necessarily tell you the currently planned title, just the title as it stood at the start of the production.

 

[F. King Daniel]

If you're the current Discovery writing team, the answer is YES, TMP must be ignored!

 

[Tallguy]

If you're the current Discovery writing team, the answer is YES, TMP must be ignored!

Pity they've already included the big RED ALERT sign from TMP.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

Given the way he's looking at the camera I'm making the leap that this was a publicity photo. Much like how TUC showed Kirk getting vaporized instead of ONE Kirk getting vaporized.

I wasn't debating that it was a publicity photo. Obviously it is. I was debating you stating that David was crawling over Kirk. He's not. He's holding him immobile after having just overpowered him. Not the same thing.