TWOK: when was the "II" added?

Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies I-X' started by KirkusOveractus, Jul 7, 2014.

  1. doubleohfive

    doubleohfive Fleet Admiral

    Aug 17, 2001
    Hollywood, CA
    This has been discussed previously. I found my post from that last conversation, which also includes a link to a post from SIX years ago, when IndySolo and I went to see TWOK in 70mm (and the title had no "II" in it):

  2. Indysolo

    Indysolo Commodore Commodore

    Mar 19, 2001
    Sunny California
    When we did the soundtrack album reissue 5 years ago we had the recording sessions for that. Your memory is incorrect.

    Tallguy likes this.
  3. KirkusOveractus

    KirkusOveractus Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Mar 27, 2009
    Ambler, PA
    I knew that the Nimoy narration at the end wouldn't have been different! For one, the split infinitive has never been corrected, and the change from "man" to "one" would still be 5 years off before the airing of TNG changed that part of it.
  4. Ricky Spanish

    Ricky Spanish Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Jan 30, 2001
    I always remember it having the "II" in the title. But that was thirty-plus years ago and I was twelve.
  5. Christopher

    Christopher Writer Admiral

    Mar 15, 2001
    Doesn't need to be. The incorrectness of the "split" infinitive is a myth dating back only to the mid-19th century. It's just something that was rarely used in Modern English but not formally prohibited (after being more commonly used in Middle English), but then started to become more common in the 18th-19th century, and traditionalists' distaste for the shift in usage eventually got codified as a manufactured prohibition. Even the term "split infinitive" wasn't coined until 1897. And most modern style guides are okay with split infinitives; even those that advise against them don't actually call them incorrect, just not stylistically preferable. The general consensus is that it's fine if the sentence is clearer or more elegant with a split than without one. And "To boldly go" is definitely clearer and more elegant (or at least more iambic) than "Boldly to go" or "To go boldly."
  6. Hober Mallow

    Hober Mallow Commodore Commodore

    Yes, there's nothing inherently wrong with splitting an infinitive. A "to" is no more a part of the verb than a "the" is part of a noun. Inserting an adverb between the "to" and verb is no more wrong than placing an adjective between "the" and a noun. We don't call such constructions as "the good fight" or "the lost cause" split nominatives.

    Early on, grammarians deferred to Latin, thought to be the most elevated of languages, when deciding on what to do and what not to do in elevated English. Since it isn't possible to split infinitives in Latin, then, they reasoned, it should be avoided in English. The main problem with that thinking is that English isn't Latin.

    A writer may want to avoid splitting infinitives because it places emphasis on the adverb instead of the verb. But that could be exactly why a writer would want to do it.
  7. Nebusj

    Nebusj Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Jan 27, 2005
    I missed this thread when it was apparently really going last month, but I did want to say that however they fiddle around with stuff after the initial theatrical release, as far as I'm concerned, Khan shot first.
  8. LMFAOschwarz

    LMFAOschwarz Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Oct 1, 2013
    A minor thing, but I always wished that they hadn't used the numbering at all. What's wrong with:

    Star Trek: The Motion Picture
    Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan
    Star Trek: The Search for Spock
    Star Trek: The Voyage Home
    Star Trek: The Final Frontier
    Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country

    I know it's common practice for sequels...but it just always struck me as a extension of the 'audiences are stupid' mindset. It's not as if they were all in the theaters at the same time, leading to confusion!
  9. Hober Mallow

    Hober Mallow Commodore Commodore

    At least they didn't retitle TMP "Episode IV."
  10. C.E. Evans

    C.E. Evans Admiral Admiral

    Nov 22, 2001
    Saint Louis, Missouri, USA
    It just wasn't a big deal to number movie sequels back then.
  11. martok2112

    martok2112 Commodore Commodore

    Oct 8, 2013

    As I recall, Star Wars never got the Episode IV subtitle until it hit home video, well after Empire Strikes Back was released to theaters. And each time I saw it in two of its return engagements, it was still just Star Wars. I never saw the subtitles on the big screen until the Special Edition re-release in 1997.

    When I saw SW the first time in '77, it was just Star subtitles. And the DVD of the original version I have also confirms this.

    As for Star Trek II, sadly, I never got to see it in the theaters, so I cannot confirm or deny whether it had the II on the title in the theatrical release or not. It did when I saw it on HBO. It was always called "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" in the ads, both printed and televised. I do remember when it first came to ABC (in it's extended edition), the announcer simply said "Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan:" II...but the title of the film, when presented on screen still said: "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan".

    What actually threw me back then was "why did the logos for Star Trek II look one way (the way we generally knew it after Star Trek III:TSFS), and look different on the movie?" The type styles are different. (As shown in the images above this post.)

    But, changes are common between televised ads, and sometimes theatrical previews and final releases.

    I remember when Star Wars was first teased in the drive had no specific logo style.

    Then, when it was being promoted on TV, the logo was red and receded into the background of space, not golden yellow like in the opening of the movie.
  12. Indysolo

    Indysolo Commodore Commodore

    Mar 19, 2001
    Sunny California
    Star Wars became "Episode IV - A New Hope" with the April 10, 1981 re-issue.

    I've never seen a 35mm print (new or old) of TWOK without "II" while the 70mm print I saw was without the roman numeral.