RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,551
Posts: 5,513,596
Members: 25,144
Currently online: 594
Newest member: A.E.Andres

TrekToday headlines

Two New Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Dec 26

Captain Kirk’s Boldest Missions
By: T'Bonz on Dec 25

Trek Paper Clips
By: T'Bonz on Dec 24

Sargent Passes
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

QMx Trek Insignia Badges
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

And The New Director Of Star Trek 3 Is…
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

TV Alert: Pine On Tonight Show
By: T'Bonz on Dec 22

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies I-X

Star Trek Movies I-X Discuss the first ten big screen outings in this forum!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 11 2006, 07:34 AM   #31
MauriceNavidad
Vice Admiral
 
MauriceNavidad's Avatar
 
Location: Maurice in San Francisco
View MauriceNavidad's Twitter Profile
Re: Star Trek Movie FAQ

Therin of Andor said:
The FAQs aren't disputing the child's existence. When it says, "Whether or not it's Khan's child is never said, it's not in the script either", it means the relationship to Khan is not spelt out by the script.
"Draw your own conclusions. Mine would be that it was a production member's kid and they took the picture for kicks."

^^^
That's the problem, Therin.
__________________
* * *
“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip.”
― Winston S. Churchill
MauriceNavidad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 27 2006, 08:41 PM   #32
Clym
Captain
 
Clym's Avatar
 
Location: The Dawn of the Third Age of Mankind
Re: Star Trek Movie FAQ

it's Kirstie Alley, not Kristie.

how can you make such a glaring mistake?!
Clym is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 27 2006, 09:33 PM   #33
cardinal biggles
THE ZEPPO
 
cardinal biggles's Avatar
 
Location: potrzebie
Send a message via ICQ to cardinal biggles Send a message via AIM to cardinal biggles Send a message via Yahoo to cardinal biggles
Re: Star Trek Movie FAQ

Oops.

Fixed it.
__________________
"They quickly settled on the slender island at the head of the bay, which they called 'Mannahatta', after an old Indian word thought by some to mean 'island of hills', and by others 'place of general inebriation'."
—New York: A Documentary Film
cardinal biggles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 28 2006, 10:45 AM   #34
Therin of Andor
Admiral
 
Therin of Andor's Avatar
 
Location: New Therin Park, Andor (via Australia)
View Therin of Andor's Twitter Profile
Re: Star Trek Movie FAQ

DS9Sega said:
"Draw your own conclusions. Mine would be that it was a production member's kid and they took the picture for kicks."
^^^
That's the problem, Therin.
Well, it wasn't a production person's set visit snaps. The child actor did exist. In my interview with Paul Winfield he discussed the child's appearance at the porthole, which "caused" Terrell (played by a white stuntman in blackface) to fall down a sand dune.
__________________
Thiptho lapth! Ian (Entire post is personal opinion)
The Andor Files @ http://andorfiles.blogspot.com/
http://therinofandor.blogspot.com/
Therin of Andor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 29 2006, 09:59 AM   #35
MauriceNavidad
Vice Admiral
 
MauriceNavidad's Avatar
 
Location: Maurice in San Francisco
View MauriceNavidad's Twitter Profile
Re: Star Trek Movie FAQ

I think we've fairly well established that said child was part of the production...so when does the FAQ get fixed?
__________________
* * *
“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip.”
― Winston S. Churchill
MauriceNavidad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 30 2006, 02:33 AM   #36
cardinal biggles
THE ZEPPO
 
cardinal biggles's Avatar
 
Location: potrzebie
Send a message via ICQ to cardinal biggles Send a message via AIM to cardinal biggles Send a message via Yahoo to cardinal biggles
Re: Star Trek Movie FAQ

When Lord Garth tells me what he wants it to read. This is his project, and I don't feel comfortable about changing it in such a substantial manner. It's not like I'm just fixing a typo.
__________________
"They quickly settled on the slender island at the head of the bay, which they called 'Mannahatta', after an old Indian word thought by some to mean 'island of hills', and by others 'place of general inebriation'."
—New York: A Documentary Film
cardinal biggles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 31 2006, 12:27 AM   #37
Lord Garth
Guest
 
Re: Star Trek Movie FAQ

Just quote one of the posters of your choice in the answer.
  Reply With Quote
Old December 20 2006, 12:56 PM   #38
Good Will Riker
Admiral
 
Location: Southern California, USA
Re: Star Trek Movie FAQ

santa biggles said:
Oops.

Fixed it.
Good.
Good Will Riker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20 2007, 08:26 AM   #39
MauriceNavidad
Vice Admiral
 
MauriceNavidad's Avatar
 
Location: Maurice in San Francisco
View MauriceNavidad's Twitter Profile
Re: Star Trek Movie FAQ

It's been almost a year since the error has been pointed out about the FAQ re the child in TWOK. How long does it take before someone makes an edit?
__________________
* * *
“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip.”
― Winston S. Churchill
MauriceNavidad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20 2007, 08:40 AM   #40
Therin of Andor
Admiral
 
Therin of Andor's Avatar
 
Location: New Therin Park, Andor (via Australia)
View Therin of Andor's Twitter Profile
Re: Star Trek Movie FAQ

DS9Sega said:
It's been almost a year since the error has been pointed out about the FAQ re the child in TWOK. How long does it take before someone makes an edit?
Maybe Lord Garth remains unconvinced?
__________________
Thiptho lapth! Ian (Entire post is personal opinion)
The Andor Files @ http://andorfiles.blogspot.com/
http://therinofandor.blogspot.com/
Therin of Andor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20 2007, 05:56 PM   #41
Lord Garth
Guest
 
Re: Star Trek Movie FAQ

Nope, it's just that the movie mods are too lazy to edit and I think I approached them about it a grand total of once.

I can't edit posts (after a certain amount of time) in forums that aren't mine, the same as anyone else.

I suppose I could start a new thread that's almost the same as this one and have biggles or Wookie pin it, but it doesn't seem worth it for one question when all they need to do is edit this one.
  Reply With Quote
Old May 21 2007, 02:33 AM   #42
cardinal biggles
THE ZEPPO
 
cardinal biggles's Avatar
 
Location: potrzebie
Send a message via ICQ to cardinal biggles Send a message via AIM to cardinal biggles Send a message via Yahoo to cardinal biggles
Re: Star Trek Movie FAQ

It's been fixed, so quityerbitchin.
__________________
"They quickly settled on the slender island at the head of the bay, which they called 'Mannahatta', after an old Indian word thought by some to mean 'island of hills', and by others 'place of general inebriation'."
—New York: A Documentary Film
cardinal biggles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 3 2007, 08:18 PM   #43
guardian
Commodore
 
Re: Star Trek Movie FAQ

Saavik being half-Romulan isn't just in the script.....

It WAS filmed. There are at least half a dozen clips of this cut scene on Youtube.

Saying it was in the script without mentioning that it was actually filmed makes some folks think it was just an early idea that was dropped.

I have no doubt that Meyer, who supervised the re-edit of TWOK in 1985 for ABC TV, would have added the 25 second scene back in, if ST 3 hadn't debuted in 1984, with Nomoy's dulled down version of 'full Vulcan' Saavik.

I will always believe that Nomoy hated the fact that Saavik was a highly hyped and popular charactor and would interfere with his limelight in future Trek movies.

So he redefined her as a full (boring) Vulcan who was as interesting as sawdust. Voila, she quickly fades from emerging lead charactor to a footnote in Trek history.
guardian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 3 2007, 11:29 PM   #44
Therin of Andor
Admiral
 
Therin of Andor's Avatar
 
Location: New Therin Park, Andor (via Australia)
View Therin of Andor's Twitter Profile
Re: Star Trek Movie FAQ

guardian said:
I will always believe that Nomoy hated the fact that Saavik was a highly hyped and popular charactor and would interfere with his limelight in future Trek movies.
A very strong rumour about "how could Spock return?" after ST's premiere was that Spock implanted "Remember" into McCoy to tell him that Spock's life essence had been transferred to Saavik. It was no secret that Kirstie Alley had been groomed to be the replacement Vulcan.

And yes, I think the main reason we never saw that "half-Romulan" quote was because Nimoy himself had had the opportunity to retool the character for ST III.

Vonda McIntyre produced a minor miracle by making her novelizations of ST II and ST III seem so seamless!

Mind you, I have no problem believing that, as a result of Spock's death, Saavik reacted by going into "full Vulcan mode", tempering her own behaviour as she had not been able to do earlier.
__________________
Thiptho lapth! Ian (Entire post is personal opinion)
The Andor Files @ http://andorfiles.blogspot.com/
http://therinofandor.blogspot.com/
Therin of Andor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 18 2007, 07:54 PM   #45
digifan
Commodore
 
Location: North of 60
Re: Star Trek Movie FAQ

4. Saavik was pregnant with Spock's child?

That's what's in the commentary for TVH says and is what's implied in cut scenes from the script. Like the half-Romulan story, if you go by the script, then yes, if you go by canon, then no.
According to the novelization of TWoK, Saavik had an impulsive fling with David and was pregnant with his baby in TSFS. Her mindmeld with young Spock on Genesis was to stablize his ordeal through pon farr. I don't accept the implimentation of Saavik becoming pregnant with nothing more than a few touches of the fingers. (The only time I had seen this happening was Miss Q and Q doing a quickie in The Q and the Grey but that is a different matter altogether. ) This may explain why she was hesitant when she wanted to tell Kirk about David in TVH and the dismissal glance Spock gave Saavik at the end of TSFS. IMO I like this explanation better than the nearly surreal scenario given in the script or the TVH commentary.

Just my two credits worth. However the debate continues.
__________________
View the world through my eyes. Click here to view.
Premium TrekBBS Member since 2004.
digifan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:20 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.