The more I read about this film...
- Thread starter Captain59
- Start date
Check out the screencap I used from Patterns Of Force - I didn't really sauce it up at all....
It's all in the perception, people.
It's all in the perception, people.
First of all if people are going make real comparison between The Motion Picture & The Wrath of Khan they need put out worldwide gross & not only domestic gross if we really want to see what movie was more profitable. You are right that The Motion Picture made (minimum) $82 million in domestic gross against The Wrath of Khan $ 79.0 million but if we add foreign gross, we clearly see advantage going to The Motion Picture who made (minimum) $ 139 million worldwide gross compare to The Wrath of Khan $ 97 million worldwide. The fact is The Motion Picture made 3 times more in foreign gross then the Wrath of Khan is eye opener.
I agree that The Wrath of Khan was much less costly to make, with a modest special effects and a budget of $ 11 million and if we follow Paramount's bookkeeping, The Motion Picture cost $44 million to make. However, Paramount is including the costs of development of the unfinished Phase II TV series. Much of the TV series elements were not used for the film itself. Only $26 million was spent on the film itself. Most sources place the film's budget at $35 million when including the cost of the usable elements of Phase II.
So if we do the math, The Motion Picture profit was $ 104 million versus The Wrath of Khan $ 86 million. If we adjust those numbers for predicted 2008 inflation then the profit for The Motion Picture is $ 298 million against The Wrath of Khan $ 207 million. Bottom line is The Motion Picture is the most profitable Trek film ever.
Agreed, although I like both Battlestar Galactica and Smallville. I don't watch either on TV, always wait for the DVD's, but since they're both still on, it counts.
That said, I am looking forward to the new Trek movie.
Kirk: Spock...do you like movies about gladiators?
You know, the new "Star Trek" movie is the only aspect of the Franchise that interests me at all these days. I'm interested in the fan film stuff because it's an activity I'm involved in, but other than that and watching the occasional TOS episode on DVD (some things, one can't do without) I just don't give a damn about Trek.
Holy crap...In an effort to halt Cogley's boycott, I whipped out my Photoshoppy and....
If you wanted Quinto and Pine....tough.
Awesome.
Jesus. We have a new "most disturbing photoshop" winner.
Check out the screencap I used from Patterns Of Force - I didn't really sauce it up at all....
It's all in the perception, people.
I originally thought you pasted Nimoys head and chest on T'Pols body, so I was going to post something like "Nimoy's shoulders look quite lovely"...but thank God I didn't (although his shoulder does look a bit girly in that photo.)
As for the last comment, I believe that while early screenings had no "II", the actual public release did.
As for II not having any references to the previous film, did you ever note them mentioning the events in the previous episodes during the run of the series? Rarely, if ever. (And I think it's "never"...except for when Harry showed up again.)
The fact there were no references to TMP in WoK means one thing-
There just weren't any.
Nobody expected there to be any, and there weren't, and that's all it means.
As for it being a true success or not, let's put it this way-
They did Star Trek II, didn't they?
It had enough success for that to happen. The change in the uniforms is the only substantial difference between it and TMP. That and they decided to start phasing out the wrist communicators in favor of going back to the handheld ones.
I agree in principle with what you said in the above post...
...but there WAS at least one other case of TOS referencing an earlier episode besides Harry Mudd: The Organian Peace Treaty was mentioned in Tribbles, which I'm sure was a reference to the Organian people from Errand of Mercy.
...but there WAS at least one other case of TOS referencing an earlier episode besides Harry Mudd: The Organian Peace Treaty was mentioned in Tribbles, which I'm sure was a reference to the Organian people from Errand of Mercy.
"As for the last comment, I believe that while early screenings had no 'II', the actual public release did."
Sorry, but the "II" was indeed absent from the release prints during the first theatrical run; I saw it on premiere night on Long Island, NY, and then a few more times over the following weeks in Philadelphia, where I was living at the time. A week before release, a four-page ad spread in People magazine (or some other Time-Life mag) also gave the title as Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan. The Vonda McIntyre novelization, evidently prepared before release, also had no "II." But as soon as the picture was in theaters, someone at Paramount decreed that "II" should be added to the posters and ads, and thereupon it appeared in the home video, etc.
I thought of one other TOS episode that explicitly refers to earlier ones: "Turnabout Intruder," where Kirk (inside Janice Lester) tries to identify himself by reminding Spock of the Vians of Minara ("The Empath") and at least one other earlier episode.
"As for it being a true success or not, let's put it this way- They did Star Trek II, didn't they? It had enough success for that to happen." Sure, but just enough; they took it out of Roddenberry's hands and gave it to the TV division of Paramount, a story that's been told elsewhere.
I still maintain that a true, explicit sequel to TMP (pajama uniforms and all, with Admiral Kirk commanding and Roddenberry producing) would have been the result if TMP were a success at all levels -- in particular, if the initial release had been edited to yield some kind of forward propulsion of the story, rather than the frequent intra-V'ger longueurs it's chiefly remembered for.
Sorry, but the "II" was indeed absent from the release prints during the first theatrical run; I saw it on premiere night on Long Island, NY, and then a few more times over the following weeks in Philadelphia, where I was living at the time. A week before release, a four-page ad spread in People magazine (or some other Time-Life mag) also gave the title as Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan. The Vonda McIntyre novelization, evidently prepared before release, also had no "II." But as soon as the picture was in theaters, someone at Paramount decreed that "II" should be added to the posters and ads, and thereupon it appeared in the home video, etc.
I thought of one other TOS episode that explicitly refers to earlier ones: "Turnabout Intruder," where Kirk (inside Janice Lester) tries to identify himself by reminding Spock of the Vians of Minara ("The Empath") and at least one other earlier episode.
"As for it being a true success or not, let's put it this way- They did Star Trek II, didn't they? It had enough success for that to happen." Sure, but just enough; they took it out of Roddenberry's hands and gave it to the TV division of Paramount, a story that's been told elsewhere.
I still maintain that a true, explicit sequel to TMP (pajama uniforms and all, with Admiral Kirk commanding and Roddenberry producing) would have been the result if TMP were a success at all levels -- in particular, if the initial release had been edited to yield some kind of forward propulsion of the story, rather than the frequent intra-V'ger longueurs it's chiefly remembered for.
Last edited:
I'm telling you, the prints used for the first three or so weeks of US public release had no "II" in the title. Our club members living in, or visiting, the US for the premiere reported this from all over. Then they started reporting prints with IIs.
Then the II-less prints went international. The first month or so of ST II here in Australia had no IIs in the titles. I know, I saw the film about four times that first few weeks. We had members in all states of Australia reporting the same. Then we also eventually got prints with IIs.
Similar threads
- Poll
