Let's make sure we are on the same page, OK? Could you please paraphrase what it is that I said in my first post that the film fails to convey a connection between, which I called a missed opportunity. Then, could you please point to me where the film makes that connection explicit? You already assured me the connection was intentionally made in the film; please show me where.
^He didn't say the connection was made explicit in the film. He said there were resonances and that they weren't there by accident. Something can be implicit yet still intentional. It's called subtext.
Huh? You were the one who brought up the thematic resonance between the transporter accident and the whole V'Ger thing in the first place. So you're already fully aware of the subtext. The only question, then, is whether it was intended by the filmmakers or a result of your own interpretation. Subtext can be either or both. Sometimes it can be consciously inserted by the filmmakers, and sometimes it can be more unconscious but still reflecting the general ideas and goals they have in mind.
^Thanks Christopher. Well, I didn't invent it in my head. As I mentioned, interviews with, and about, Wise's directing of TMP published in 1979 and 1980, I guess. Almost any issue of "Starlog" in the year leading up to the premiere. I fear we ain't getting anywhere. Forget I ever asked you to clarify your earlier post. Obviously, I did not understand it.
Right, sorry, I meant, of course, is there anything that can back up whether it was intentional, which is what this whole little side bar has been about. Vague references to an interview about how Wise says that space travel is dangerous isn't what I'm looking for, or enough to convince me that the filmmakers were conscious of the subtext. Certainly, there was no evidence in the film that they were conscious of it, none that I could see. I simply said, in the beginning, that I found the lack of evidence that it was intentional to be, essentially, unfortunate.
Does it really matter, though? Even if a creator isn't consciously, actively thinking "I want to insert this theme/subtext," it can still be a part of their underlying way of thinking about the project and its concepts. I've seen it said that often, a writer discovers the theme of a work after it's written. If it's too self-conscious and planned, that isn't necessarily a good thing, because that can make it contrived or forced.
It's not bad if it wasn't in the film. What I really meant is that I think it's a good thing to think about. I brought it up because I thought it was an interesting connection. The main reason I think it was missed in the film is because in the Star Trek universe, ultimately the transporter is safe when operating as intended. McCoy's concerns about having his molecules scrambled are treated as an eccentricity, and the fact that TMP treats them that way is really my exhibit A that the film missed the connection between the transporter and V'Ger.
While I wouldn't go so far as to say I can't watch it today, I say this much; As kid of proabably eleven first watching this, I have three recollections: While not being frightened to the point of tears, nightmares, bedwetting, turning the movie off, or even averting my eyes, I remember being unsettled by that distorted scream, to the point of being relieved when the unfortunate pair vanished from the pad and it finally stopped. (In retrospect I wouldn't dare imagine what it must've been like for that guy at the other end who says "fortunately"). My other two recollections were 1) really liking Ilia in that skimpy bathrobe and being a bit disappointed at her disappearing at the end, and 2) "My God, these ship shots go on forever! Get on with it, already!!!" Actually, in the intervening years, I wasn't entirely sure which of them that distorted scream belonged to. There's something eerie about the idea of a stoic Vulcan being driven to scream like that. (I know it was the female victim now). As a side note, I prefer Robert Wise's assumption that the female victim was the ship's original navigator, rather than some admiral that Kirk was screwing. The crew's surprised reaction to Ilia's arrival (especially Decker) makes far more sense if she was a last-minute replacement.
Except she'd already, presumably, been to Dr Chapel some time earlier - pre-flight medical assessments? - because Ilia "once mentioned" the significance of her Deltan headband.
From http://www.chakoteya.net/movies/movie1.html: Sounds like Ilia is a last minute crew replacement who goes directly from the transporter room to the bridge, to me. I agree, it's plausible that she's replacing the female killed with Commander Sonak. As for when Christine heard Ilia mention wearing her headband? There's plenty of opportunity for Ilia and Chapel to talk off screen, such as right after the wormhole, when she's on her way somewhere in the corridor and crosses paths with Decker. However, I must say that "I remember [her] once mentioning" sounds like they've talked quite a bit over an extended period of time. That would kinda suggest that they've served together before the film starts. But when and where? Not on the Enterprise. Kirk doesn't seem to know her, and Decker hasn't seen her since he was on Delta IV. Perhaps Chapel wasn't continuously on the Enterprise after Kirk left.
Ilia was last-minute, but that doesn't necessarily make her a replacement for someone else. After all, the Enterprise was rushed into service to intercept the "intruder." It wasn't supposed to be launched for days, even weeks, and that would've just been for a shakedown, not active service. So they didn't necessarily have the full crew complement already assigned and ready to go. They were scrambling to pull together enough personnel to let them launch in 12 hours. It's not unreasonable that some of the posts weren't filled until late in the game.
Agreed. And as Decker- who handpicked most of the crew himself- didn't seem to know that Ilia would be serving aboard Enterprise, it's possible that Kirk selected her name from a list of available navigators before he left Starfleet Headquarters, knowing that someone would need to fill the position. Come to think of it, it's not entirely clear who Decker's first-officer would have been had he remained in command of the Enterprise. Sulu would seem to be the most obvious choice, but it's possible that he had someone else in mind altogether. Sonak was wearing commander's rank stripes on his uniform, but based on his dialogue with Kirk, it seemed as though he had only recently been posted to the Enterprise- and given that Decker intended for him to complete his mission briefing before even boarding the ship, it's not clear how well they knew each other or if they had even spoken face-to-face. It's not clear who the female officer was supposed to be. Various novels suggest that she was Admiral Lori Ciana, a former love interest of Kirk's who had been involved in his initial promotion to admiral and acceptance of a position at Starfleet. A photograph of the transporter accident (minus the effects) was included in a 1980 calendar, and clearly depicts a woman not wearing an admiral's uniform.
Agreed. As I said in my previous post, I get the impression that Kirk may have chosen her name from a list of available navigators before leaving Earth, as he didn't have much time before the Enterprise was to depart.
And Roddenberry's novelization covers that by specifically stating that Vice Admiral Ciana took a vacant berth as a regular crewmember to get aboard. But Roddenberry was also writing the novelization long after the transporter accident scene had been filmed. The script itself certainly never specified that the woman was connected to Kirk, although the character was essentially another holdover from "Phase II", in which she was called Alexandra Keys.
I don't recall this Alexandra Keys in any of the Phase II material I've seen. Where was she supposed to be?
In the opening Kirk scene of "In Thy Image", he is swimming naked with a woman he has been in a relationship with.