TWOK: when was the "II" added?

[doubleohfive]

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):

I've seen prints where it's just "STAR TREK: THE WRATH OF KHAN." Too, there's promotional artwork and images that did not have the "II" yet.

Wow. I have NEVER seen that before. Are there any pictures online?

More importantly: here's the thread from five years ago when IndySolo and I went to see TWOK in 70mm, where he confirms that no, there was no "II" in the title at the beginning:

http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=77733

 

[Indysolo]

We also had Spock saying: "to go boldly where no ONE has gone before."

When we did the soundtrack album reissue 5 years ago we had the recording sessions for that. Your memory is incorrect.

Neil

 

[KirkusOveractus]

We also had Spock saying: "to go boldly where no ONE has gone before."

When we did the soundtrack album reissue 5 years ago we had the recording sessions for that. Your memory is incorrect.

Neil

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.

 

[BillJ]

I always remember it having the "II" in the title. But that was thirty-plus years ago and I was twelve.

 

[Christopher]

For one, the split infinitive has never been corrected...

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."

 

[Hober Mallow]

For one, the split infinitive has never been corrected...

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."

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.

 

[Nebusj]

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.

 

[LMFAOschwarz]

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!

 

[Hober Mallow]

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!

At least they didn't retitle TMP "Episode IV."

 

[C.E. Evans]

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!

It just wasn't a big deal to number movie sequels back then.

 

[martok2112]

Opening night, Chicago, 1982: we had Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan on our screens

Oh, yeah?

I understand that some people who are old enough to know better are nonetheless certain that the original release of Star Wars (which remained in some theaters continuously for more than a year) included the "Episode IV: A New Hope" title.

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 Wars...no 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:"...no 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 in....it 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.

 

[Indysolo]

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.

Neil