(Besides the reason of it being written that way) I was watching TMP DE the other day and it made me think, maybe it noticed she had the tricorder in her hand and thought she was curious about it and wanted to oblige. And that it probably could have learned from Spock, but being only half human/logical without feeling and the fact he smashed the computer console disqualified him.
I wonder about that, too. Even more, I don't know why V'Ger took Ilia from the bridge, then returned her, essentially, in the bathroom!
It got POed at Spock, that nasty little carbon unit, but he got too close to Ilia and...well, ya know, all carbon units look alike. I always thought they shoulda had Spock smash the computer with his tricorder and that is what the probe's zeroing in on, so when Ilia picks it up she becomes the bullseye.
Indeed, the strength of Bridge station console materials you can smash with bare hands begs for a couple of explanations. Spock could have probably just pulled a couple of glass fiber cables but maybe the director felt that would have looked to archaic. Bob
I always thought it was implied she had mental powers of some sort: healing Chekhov, being a bald Alien, making Extra Interested faces during the cloud journey and flyover, and attempting some form of communication when the first probe was getting near Decker. Maybe V'Ger thought she would make the best candidate as a result? Maybe she sensed that it wanted to digitize Decker and communicated for her to be taken instead?
I think V'ger was considering a digitization target, and it thought that topical hair would've pushed its 256MB memory storage, so it went with Ilia, who had no hair on her head....and who knows how little hair in...um...other places.
Remember the sequence of events: The probe taps into Spock's console to read the computer banks, Spock smashes the console, the probe zaps him, Spock falls next to Ilia, the probe comes at Spock, Spock gets out of the way while Ilia calls to him, then the probe locks onto Ilia and takes her. Both the script and the novelization state that the probe was targeting Spock in retaliation for his interruption of its scan, but Ilia got in the way -- according to the novel, she was intentionally trying to distract the probe and succeeded. However, in the film, the scene is edited so that there's a gap of several seconds after Spock gets out of the way when Ilia is just standing there staring before the probe takes her, so that cause and effect is less clear. I suspect that gap would've been trimmed if Wise had had time to finish editing the film back in '79, although I don't think it was altered in the Director's Edition. Yes, Deltans were meant to be empaths. Ilia was the template for TNG's Deanna Troi, just as Decker was for Riker.
This is such an interesting and romantic idea, that I think that should be the actual case. But it still makes me wonder how "intelligent" that probe beam actually was. Considering that Spock had already established a remote mental link with V'ger on Vulcan, he would have probably been the digitizing target of the probe. Next, he is the one interfering with the probe pulling data by "disabling" his console. If the probe was randomly looking for a digitizing target, Spock should have been the first choice because this particular carbon unit had sabotaged the probe's work and would have probably been doing so later again. Bob
Once Spock disabled the computer, it (the probe) needed to find another source of information. I don't know why Ilia, or if anyone would do. And why the probe wanted to check her back before zapping her???? Also curious is that the computer became disabled after the keyboard was broken, AND it was restored to function with the same broken keyboard.
As I said, it's in the script that the probe was targeting Spock and Ilia basically got in the way. Since V'Ger considered the "carbon units" as nothing more than parasites infecting the life form called Enterprise, one sample would do as well as any other, so it just grabbed the one that got in its path. And... "check her back?" Do you mean the way she was spun around by the probe's attack before her digitization? I figure that was just the probe grabbing her and pulling her toward it, like roughly grabbing someone by the arm and twisting them around when you pull them toward you. It's just a side effect of the rough treatment.
Nah, he's a super-strong Vulcan, and he already has a history of violence against Enterprise computers!
That bridge console was...interesting. When it smashed, it looked both cheap and futuristic at the same time! But nothing here addresses why Ilia was returned to the ship via the sonic shower!
Well, the Ilia-Probe's temperature was reported as dropping radically once it appeared and while the shower was operating. Presumably it was created as something quite hot (from the energy of turning from the Vejur energy-probe into the robot, perhaps?) and was cooling down.
You're right, Nebusj. I had forgotten all about the "Temperature four zero degrees, three zero degrees. Temperature curve flattening" stuff. Maybe you're onto something!
Because they wanted to introduce more sex appeal in to the film, in a rather cheap and jarring way I might add (Illia probe's outfit is so insulting... worse than the crew's uniforms!).
I guess I can see that...but I must say it's admirable in the sense that that costume somehow made the Ming the Merciless stand-up collar work without looking foolish.
Since rough cuts typically include every line and action shot, the omission of filmed dialog (i.e. the missing line of Ilia's seen in the script) is almost always a deliberate editorial choice. In short, if Wise shot it (not every lines gets filmed) and thought it necessary he'd not have trimmed it in the first place. Sure, maybe he'd have reconsidered once he saw the sequence with all the effects in place, but that never happened. If it was omitted for a technical reason or a performance reason, the most likely thing would be that the line in question was in a shot which required an effects element that couldn't be completed in time. IMHO. YMMV.
One person's insult is another's eye-candy. It was pretty edgy for a G-rated movie. (Probably part of why the retro rated it to PG for the 2000 DC release...in addition to the mild language.)
Are you saying it's preferable to have female actors in skimpy, impractical/jarring outfits that serve no purpose other than to provide gawking material for the male audience members? Do you not find that to be a hypocrisy or demeaning? I appreciate Benedict Cumberbatch's everything yet I'm not crying for a Carol Marcus-esque undressing scene that only serves to demean the actor, character, and the intelligence/maturity of the audience by throwing titillation where it isn't warranted and ONLY to a certain audience 99% of the time (heterosexual males in most cases).