Star Trek Movie FAQ - v 1.2.5 - updated 7/23/09 - Page 3

Maurice · July 11 2006, 07:34 AM

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.

Clym · July 27 2006, 08:41 PM

it's Kirstie Alley, not Kristie.

how can you make such a glaring mistake?!

cardinal biggles · July 27 2006, 09:33 PM

Oops.

Fixed it.

Therin of Andor · July 28 2006, 10:45 AM

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.

Maurice · July 29 2006, 09:59 AM

I think we've fairly well established that said child was part of the production...so when does the FAQ get fixed?

cardinal biggles · July 30 2006, 02:33 AM

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.

July 31 2006, 12:27 AM

Just quote one of the posters of your choice in the answer.

Good Will Riker · December 20 2006, 12:56 PM

santa biggles said:
Oops.

Fixed it.

Good.

Maurice · May 20 2007, 08:26 AM

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?

Therin of Andor · May 20 2007, 08:40 AM

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?

May 20 2007, 05:56 PM

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.

cardinal biggles · May 21 2007, 02:33 AM

It's been fixed, so quityerbitchin.

guardian · July 3 2007, 08:18 PM

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.

Therin of Andor · July 3 2007, 11:29 PM

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.

digifan · August 18 2007, 07:54 PM

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.

July 27 2006, 08:41 PM	#32
Clym Captain 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?!

July 27 2006, 09:33 PM	#33
cardinal biggles Danny Donkey Hates You Location: potrzebie	Re: Star Trek Movie FAQ Oops. Fixed it.

July 29 2006, 09:59 AM	#35
Maurice Rear Admiral Location: Maurice in San Francisco	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? __________________ * * * "Star Trek…at times sparkled with true ingenuity, and pure science fiction approaches, and at other times was more carnival like, and very much more the creature of television than the creature of a legitimate literary form." —Rod Serling, 1970"

July 30 2006, 02:33 AM	#36
cardinal biggles Danny Donkey Hates You Location: potrzebie	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.

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.

STAR TREK

CSI

ABOUT US

May 20 2007, 08:26 AM	#39
Maurice Rear Admiral Location: Maurice in San Francisco	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? __________________ * * * "Star Trek…at times sparkled with true ingenuity, and pure science fiction approaches, and at other times was more carnival like, and very much more the creature of television than the creature of a legitimate literary form." —Rod Serling, 1970"

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.

May 21 2007, 02:33 AM	#42
cardinal biggles Danny Donkey Hates You Location: potrzebie	Re: Star Trek Movie FAQ It's been fixed, so quityerbitchin.

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.