And probably the big one, it has Gene's name freaking on it.
Also, 'can't be compared' is a weak argument. They're all official Star Trek stories in the end.
Should TMP be ignored?
- Thread starter WarpFactorZ
- Start date
Also, 'can't be compared' is a weak argument. They're all official Star Trek stories in the end.
Here is a simple solution to any canon issues:
TMP takes place 3 years after TOS/TAS. TOS/TAS is 5 years long. Due to the historic nature of the Mission, he's bumped up to Admiral (also to keep him from causing trouble).
IIRC he never 'officially' renounces his Commission as Admiral in TMP.
Allow 7 years to have occurred from TMP to TWOK. This explains the characters' aging, Kirk having settled into being Admiral but feeling bored again, and it fits in with the "15 year" long gap between Space Speed and TWOK.
I don't see why we have to pick and choose when we can have both.
And besides, TWOK is STARK TREK II. Not just plain "Star Trek." It is a sequel to TMP whether one likes that or not. They could've easily labelled it "Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan" minus the two.
TMP takes place 3 years after TOS/TAS. TOS/TAS is 5 years long. Due to the historic nature of the Mission, he's bumped up to Admiral (also to keep him from causing trouble).
IIRC he never 'officially' renounces his Commission as Admiral in TMP.
Allow 7 years to have occurred from TMP to TWOK. This explains the characters' aging, Kirk having settled into being Admiral but feeling bored again, and it fits in with the "15 year" long gap between Space Speed and TWOK.
I don't see why we have to pick and choose when we can have both.
And besides, TWOK is STARK TREK II. Not just plain "Star Trek." It is a sequel to TMP whether one likes that or not. They could've easily labelled it "Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan" minus the two.
The II was added later. It WAS created to be Star Trek: Vengeance of Khan.
Yeah but as it stands, it is Star Trek II. Also, wasn't this the theatrical release poster?
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.
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.
The original onscreen title was Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan.
From http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Trek_II:_The_Wrath_of_Khan:
From http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Trek_II:_The_Wrath_of_Khan:
When the film first appeared in theaters in June of 1982, the opening credits listed the movie simply as Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan. This was also done for the official movie novelization. Subsequent prints of the film retitled it Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.
According to William Shatner's Star Trek Movie Memories, the original title of the film was The Undiscovered Country, the undiscovered country in this case being death. According to Shatner, as he told Chris Kreski in quoting Nicholas Meyer, Meyer was outraged when Paramount marketing exec Frank Mancuso renamed the film Star Trek: The Vengeance of Khan without consulting him. Meyer said that the title was ridiculous and that they would be forbidden to keep it with George Lucas making a movie called Revenge of the Jedi at the same time. Months later, Paramount changed the subtitle to The Wrath of Khan, and Meyer hated that even more but was made to live with it, although it became a moot point when Lucas changed the title of his movie to Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi. Meyer's original title was eventually used for Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, which Meyer also directed.
According to William Shatner's Star Trek Movie Memories, the original title of the film was The Undiscovered Country, the undiscovered country in this case being death. According to Shatner, as he told Chris Kreski in quoting Nicholas Meyer, Meyer was outraged when Paramount marketing exec Frank Mancuso renamed the film Star Trek: The Vengeance of Khan without consulting him. Meyer said that the title was ridiculous and that they would be forbidden to keep it with George Lucas making a movie called Revenge of the Jedi at the same time. Months later, Paramount changed the subtitle to The Wrath of Khan, and Meyer hated that even more but was made to live with it, although it became a moot point when Lucas changed the title of his movie to Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi. Meyer's original title was eventually used for Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, which Meyer also directed.
Yeah but that was just the initial prints for the first few weeks of release. It seems by the time it became internationally released it was changed to II.
And every subsequent film followed as III, IV, V and VI.
So again I ask, are you saying we should pretend there was never a Star Trek I?
V wasn't the best received film and yet UC was labelled as VI.
And every subsequent film followed as III, IV, V and VI.
So again I ask, are you saying we should pretend there was never a Star Trek I?
V wasn't the best received film and yet UC was labelled as VI.
The official title of TMP is and always was Star Trek: The Motion Picture. There's nothing wrong with informally referring to it was "Star Trek I," but that's not really its title.
Now you're just splitting hairs, you know my point. The fact that it is I is is implied in the existence of II, III, IV, V and VI. You can't have six films with Roman numerals signifying their birth order in essence without a first film.
I'm not really splitting hairs, and no I don't know your point. TMP was not retroactively renamed. If it's not OK with you that I accept it to refer to TMP informally as "Star Trek I," then shrug.
Last edited:
Agree.I'm perfectly happy with Star Wars going from Star Wars to Episode V.
Star Wars (1977) not Episode IV:A New Hope
Empire Strikes Back(1980)
Superman:The Movie(1978)
Superman II(1981)
Star Trek:The Motion Picture(1979)
Star Trek II:Wrath Of Khan(1982)
Idk it was that in 1978.Ahhhh. See, the posters said Superman: The Movie but the film just says Superman.
Superman(1978)
Superman II(1981)
Star Wars (1977) not Episode IV:A New Hope
Empire Strikes Back(1980)
Star Trek:The Motion Picture(1979)
Star Trek II:Wrath Of Khan(1982)
I'll hazard a guess that later prints had the II. If you were in a city that opened on June 4 you didn't get a II.
1982 was different.
EDIT: Sorry, Maurice. I didn't see your avatar and it's early. I'm sure you know this. But I stand by my statement.
Star Trek:The Motion Picture(1979)
Star Trek II:Wrath Of Khan(1982)
For the few years after it's release TMP was usually written with a dash, not a colon (i.e. Star Trek -- The Motion Picture). I think there was even a piece in Starlog about that after TWOK came out.
Star Trek II:Wrath Of Khan(1982)
For the few years after it's release TMP was usually written with a dash, not a colon (i.e. Star Trek -- The Motion Picture). I think there was even a piece in Starlog about that after TWOK came out.
No need to apologize. And the idea that subsequent prints might have this change is logical.
The only thing that makes sense to me is they originally had two English versions of the title sequence done, one with and the other without the II, presumably for different markets, and at some point early on stopped using the prints without the II domestically.
But my problem with this whole thing is it makes little economic or practical sense. People are not going to walk out of the movie because the title does or does not have a Roman numeral appended to it.
I'm guessing that the prints without the II were Meyer's preference. Then the suits blinked and thought "It HAS to have a TWO, doesn't it?" It was too late (costly) to change the prints they had already made, not too late to change the posters.
At a guess. But the true story is probably weirder.
At a guess. But the true story is probably weirder.
Similar threads
