I must be deaf or something...but why did Kirk feel like he had to back to Genesis? Stark had let Kirk know that MCCoy had Spocks karta...but did either know about young Spock being found regenerated on Genesis? That didn't seem clear...I mean to the audience, yes. But to the Enterprise crew???
I'm not sure whether the explanation ever made it into the movie, but in the novelisation it's explained that the Vulcans needed both the katra and the body for the ceremony. I'm not sure how that would have actually worked given that there was no expectation of a live body and the possibility of reuniting the katra and body. Perhaps a simple (unconfirmable) explanation is that while the katra was in McCoy's head, it also retained a connection with the body of Spock. In order for the katra to be removed from McCoy it also had to be fully sepatated from the body and that could only be done with the body being present.
I always took it as a "he should be buried at home; you buried him at sea; go get the body back" thing... dJE
Yeah, they were going to retrieve the body. That Spock was resurrected in the meantime was just a bonus.
Spock axed Kirk -- through Bones -- "... you left me on Genesis. Why did you do that? Help me!" and this was the earliest indication that a trip to Genesis might be required. How Sarek caught onto the idea, I don't know. Even when he and Kirk were at STARFLEET reviewing the flight logs and its obvious that Spock gave Bones his Katra, there's no further justification for it ... just complete resolve, now, to retrieve the body -- regardless of what state its in. Decomposed ... reverted to childhood years ... whathaveyou ...
How did they know the photon tube made a soft landing? it could have hit a mountain or something an mostly disintegrated or some other scenario where the body was not recoverable.
"The fact that Dr. McCoy retains even a semblance of sanity gives me some cause for hope. You are fortunate that you failed in your plan to burn my son like a barbarian chieftain. Had it succeeded, McCoy would surely be lost to us by now. The mind and the body are not a duality, they are parts of a whole. If one is destroyed, the other must disintegrate. If they are separated... the greater the distance, the greater the strain, until it becomes intolerable." "The strain on McCoy, you mean." "Precisely." - Sarek and Kirk, STIII novelization Because in the original script the Grissom would have reached Genesis, and discovered Spock's burial tube intact and lying on the surface, in the very first scene of the movie. (Picking up life signs from the tube would have come later.) When we then switch to the Enterprise, Kirk would mention in his log that 'the news of Spock's burial tube (presumably in a private message from Saavik) has shaken me,' hence the maudlin tone of that first bridge scene. As the film is now, we can presume Kirk found out about it from Morrow ('What the hell were you thinking with that stunt, Jim??') after arriving on Earth.
I very much thought that Sarek was referring to McCoy and Spock in McCoy's head - not the corpse. . Sarek should have just said (on screen) they needed Spock's decomposing corpse and the Enterprise heist shenanigans to Genesis would have made sense. . I watched this movie the other day and once they detected life signs on Genesis Saavik immediately jumped to the conclusion that Spock had been resurrected. I'm thinking (after reading the novelisation where it says that Saavik deliberately sent the tube to a soft landing when Spock asked to be burnt up in space) that Saavik was hoping that something good might happen. That there might be a chance that Spock might be resurrected. Maybe it was a farfetched chance but what did she have to lose. This idea wasn't in the novelisation or perhaps its just my World Cup drink session kicking in.
It really doesn't make any sense. This has bothered me for years. Any sort of Vulcan custom doesn't explain it. It is inconceivable that Starfleet wouldn't know about Vulcan burial practices considering that there had been Vulcans serving on Strafleet ships for decades. Besides, Saavik was right there at the burial, if there was anything wrong with what they were doing she would have informed Kirk.
It's probably not clear in the movie but the original script (and the novelisation) makes it clear that Saavik was half Vulcan half Romulan, a child of rape and raised on a fairly lawless world until she was discovered and rescued by Spock. Her exposure to Vulcan ways was fairly limited.
True but it gives an understanding of the intentions of the writers as to why Saavik didn't stop the burial in space.
Honestly, it doesn't matter what Saavik's backstory was or the intentions of the writers or whatever. As a military service (yeah, I said it, deal with it) Starfleet would require its personnel to specify any customs or rituals they expect regarding their body or remains in the event of death in service. If being taken to Mount Seleya were important to Spock, and evidently it was given that Dr. McCoy is in Spock's quarters babbling about Mount Seleya at the start of TSFS, it would have been in Spock's file, a file Kirk would have consulted upon Spock's death.
I can't remember whether the novelization touches on it, but perhaps Spock considered having the opportunity to transfer his katra to McCoy to be a "lucky break". In other words, Mount Seleya's not in Spock's file because he never really thought it would be an option for him. Let's not forget that Spock was also close-mouthed enough about Vulcan traditions that he almost died rather than just tell Kirk and McCoy he needed to go to Vulcan to get laid.
A response that would limit many discussions here on Trekbbs; I'm trying to decide if that would be a good or bad thing.
Kirk received a message from the regenerated Spock saying, "You were going to resurrect me, Kirk. You're going to have to come down here! You're going to have to... come... down... here!"
Oh, new rules for what we can comment on based on "canon"? Or maybe just ignore the discussions we can't handle?