It was Robin Curtis Saavik, so that seems likely. If it had been Kirstie Alley Saavik? Whole different story. That chick was a goer.
It does seem slightly stingy I have to say. Was it a money issue? How much would it have cost to pay her for the reuse of the footage? I've got the same problems with Superman II. It feels unfortunate that some of the material in the fortress of solitude that was seen in the first movie is re-recorded with the actress who played Kal-El's mother, simply because reusing the footage of Marlon Brando would presumably have come with a hefty price tag. I know movie studios don't tend to write blank cheques for this kind of thing, but it does ruin the continuity a little bit when the movies are watched back-to-back on home video (admittedly they were never meant to be watched back-to-back, but with the space of a couple years distance in movie theaters).
In their past life, Spock was Saavik's Greatest of Teachers. Genesis, though, did more than rejuevenate him, it turned the tables. Now it was Saavik who had so much to teach Spock. And in him, she found an eager student - frying his Vulcan Mind with hot sex and plenty of it. I always supposed that their sexual encounter went well-beyond the requirements to satisfy Pon Farr. It kept going ... Genesis was their own, little world. For her, it was the fulfillment of fantasy: he was hers to save, to teach ... to mould! Whereas Spock's only concerns and means of expression were his most primative ... and immediate urges.
FWIW, I am not really sure why there are restrictions on bumping threads back up if the comments are of value. I think in this case, your comments are well thought out and ask a valid question. While I don't need to see Saavik reappear in the new timeline (and that's only because I really want a departure from retconning things and have a totally new story for the third film), I think this would be good material for a book. With a book - or even two, you have the freedom to explore some of these ideas and give them enough room to grow and move about. I don't think a two hour film would do it justice.
Yeh pon farr seems to be so cool unless you're the girl. Shall I go into the rant of no-soul Spock being able to walk and punch guys. No!
All Vulcans seem pretty unhappy about pon farr. There's a lot of physical suffering, embaressment, loss of control over their choices (mate or die!). I don't think Spock in Amok Time thought pon farr was cool. I've heard from Robin Curtis speaking at a convention that she was directed to be more logical and less emotional, so it seems like it was Nimoy's choice to have Saavik be so cold. It's a real shame, Alley's Saavik was much more interesting, and the emotions we could see from Saavik were a big part of that. I think if Curtis had been allowed to play Saavik more similar to how Alley had played her it would've been better.
I think you get the no soul part wrong. He was essentially a couple of days old newborn. Had they removed him from the planet as soon as they found him, he would have lived the life of a normal Vulcan child.
The more I think about it, I could see Saavik in the role of Valeris. After TWOK I could see an interpretation that had Saavik as a a racist against Klingons. Part of what makes TUC a good story is that I think there is a point to the anti-Klingons. Klingons are dangerous, and we've seen so very much bad from them, that I can at least imagine the pov of the people who are against them. The movie also does a good job to show the other side, that not all Klingons are bad, so there's a complicated well thought out plot with real moral dilemas. The movie actually gives a good pay off to David's death in STIII and makes Kirk's bigotry against the Klingons believable and easy to understand. I think there was some good chemistry with Valeris and Spock, Valeris has a pretty nice flirty personality sparking under the veneer of Vulcan cool logic. Kim Cattrall is a good actress, and the forced mind meld is really well done, very distrurbing and upseting to watch, but well written and acted.
Yeah, Kim Cattrall did a good job with Valeris, but it would have been so much more dramatic if Saavik had been the traitor. And, as you say, it would have been logical as well. After seeing David Marcus brutally butchered before her eyes, Saavik could be forgiven for distrusting any Klingon "peace" initiative . . ..
What was with Valeris mixing and matching her turtlenecks and armband colours? She thinks her shit don't stink? She feels she's special ... or what? What's her angle?
The factions of people who support peace with the Klingons, vs those who want to let them die out. It's an important step in the Federation living up to their values and becoming the utopian society, more or less, of the 24th century. The dilemma being that some people, like Valeris, were violently opposed to the Klingons, and it was somewhat understandable given how bad their relations had been with Klingons for many decades. Even Kirk had serious doubts about trying to help save the Klingon race at first.
I hope that was not the case. Because popping Spock's soul into a babiy's body is akin to murder re Ghostbuster II. I'm not sure about that. I don't think that what the Klingons were doing was particularly insidious. They were just doing what Klingons do. I just think its too much of an over reaction to hate the Klingons enough to betray the Federation and Spock, murder co=conspirators unless it was established that Saavik and Marcus were indeed 'together'. I think the novelisations reason for Valeris's betrayal was believable.
What was Valeris's motivation in the novelization? A lot of people are bigoted against races without having nearly the traumatic experience that Saavik went thru in STIII, whether David was her lover or not.