Star Trek VI: A couple of questions
- Thread starter Dale Sams
- Start date
was Valeris suicidal? I dont think she was.
1. I like Kim Cattrall as Valeris. She obviously committed to the role, cutting her hair and shaving the "sideburns" to emphasize the pointy ears. They did a good job with her makeup too, totally believable for me. Her previous and later "soft porn" roles (generalizing) don't do anything for me, but here I think she did her best work.
2. The plan from the beginning was to assassinate Gorkon, frame Starfleet, and start a war. That Kirk was the captain sent to escort Kronos One was a bonus for the Klingons involved, and made it easier for the conspiring Feds. Once a basic plan is in place and set in motion, then you roll with the changes and adapt to the situation as it develops. Kirk's surrender wasn't part of the plan.
Valeris, Spock's protege, had to be the traitor. That's the only way it would have worked. Using Chekov as the traitor wouldn't have made any sense at all, in my opinion. Despite his dislike of Klingons he always showed unwavering loyalty to the Federation, to Starfleet, and to Kirk.
If it had been someone besides Valeris, anyone else, there would have been a much different playout to find the details of the conspiracy. And they still would have had to call Sulu to find out where the conference was scheduled to take place.
It doesn't matter where Chang was at the time of the attack, but I imagine that he was on the BOP. It was only after Gorkon demanded to know where he was that Chang showed up, just in time.
In my opinion, this is the best of the TOS cast movies and a nice farewell to the cast as an ensemble.
I really need to see Star Trek VI again because I haven't seen it in a while.
I'm about to start watching TOS Season 3, and will watch TAS and then the movies after that.
I like Star Trek VI.
A lot.
I just HATED the claustrophobic feel of the Enterprise corridors, crew quarters, and even the dinner table.
Every scene on the Enterprise looked like people were packed like sardines in every room on the ship, with the exception of the bridge.
The whole thing had a made-for-cable look to it.
Being the last TOS film, I think the score DEMANDED Goldsmith *or* Horner.
The score was good, but I would've liked more continuity.
I'm about to start watching TOS Season 3, and will watch TAS and then the movies after that.
I like Star Trek VI.
A lot.
I just HATED the claustrophobic feel of the Enterprise corridors, crew quarters, and even the dinner table.
Every scene on the Enterprise looked like people were packed like sardines in every room on the ship, with the exception of the bridge.
The whole thing had a made-for-cable look to it.
Being the last TOS film, I think the score DEMANDED Goldsmith *or* Horner.
The score was good, but I would've liked more continuity.
I might be misremembering, but I seem to recall reading somewhere that Cattrall was actually Nick Meyer's preferred choice for Saavik way back in 1982 for The Wrath of Khan, but for one reason or another she passed on it at that time and Kirstie Alley was cast in the role instead. When Star Trek VI came around, Cattrall professed some misgivings about simply taking up the mantle of an existing character that had already been established by someone else, and one that had in fact already been recast once, because she would prefer to create her own character. This, alongside Roddenberry's kvetching about Saavik being portrayed as a turncoat as being a betrayal of a 'beloved character', are what ultimately led to the creation of Valeris for Star Trek VI.
Excellent reasoning.
I agree that this could be what they hoped, and that Kirk surrendering was not anticipated.
Especially since his barfight was mainly motivated by his strong loyalty.
Sulu was drinking tea with Christian Slater and gardening with Janice Rand on his own ship. He was the missing member of the family.
Spock was the architect of the meeting. Bones has always been the pacifist. So they were the two optimistic members of the family.
Kirk, Scotty, Uhura and Chekov were pissed off, but the support of all the family preserved their sense of duty and the loyalty, so they couldn't fall into the dark side.
None of them could betray the others after Search for Spock and Voyage Home, especially Chekov since they refuse to abandon him in 1986.
Having one of the "big seven" among the conspirators would have been absurd since that movie is supposed to be optimistic. It's not about "darker and edgier" at all. It would have been a worse closing of the TOS chapter than "the bridge on the Captain".
Regarding whether Chang was on Kronos I or not.... I always kind of assumed he had somehow snuck off to the BOP during the incident. This was inferred when Gorkon was yelling to "find Chang". I could be just totally off, too, though.
I liked it, it had a submarine feel to it. Which I think is a lot more realistic than the 6 ft wide hallways and art deco, or carpeting and wood finish we get from the other stuff.
Seems overcrowded for a crew of somewhere between 400 and 500 beings. Assuming they didn't do more automation to reduce crew sizes since the 2270. The ship seems to have been assigned back to Earth for some reason again by the time Praxis exploded.
That and I liked the TMP film interior design. By Star Trek VI they were started to reuse what they had done for TNG and then reuse it again for the older Enterprise...sometimes poorly.
That and I liked the TMP film interior design. By Star Trek VI they were started to reuse what they had done for TNG and then reuse it again for the older Enterprise...sometimes poorly.
Remember reading somewhere (might've been a cinefan or Charting the Undiscovered Country) that Meyer wanted Alley back as Savvik in VI but when she was unavailable (again) he got original choice Catrall (and then it was decided to do a new character)
That would've been abit weird. One the plus side Alley as (evil)Savvik again would've been great and would've made VI feel even more like a true continuation of TWOK. But on the other hand it should've really been Curtis if they'd wanted Savvik again as she was the replacement and it was 'her' Savvik that witnessed the brutality of the Klingons first hand.
Which is why he would conspire: he would be thinking that what he does is in the best interests of the UFP, of Starfleet, and of his personal hero James "Let Them Die!" Kirk...
The plot would naturally have slight differences in that Chekov would get pangs of conscience when Kirk and McCoy get blamed: exposing the deal there would betray what Chekov believed in, and supposedly betray what Jim Kirk believed in. And the final shock would come when Chekov realizes that his longtime idol is actually a pinko bleeding-heart Klingon collabo... And in the right about it. So we get either the touching suicide scene, or the mindmeld and the coatturning event that saves the universe.
With Saavik as the traitor, there would be less issue in Kirk and McCoy taking the blame, though.
Timo Saloniemi
I can't see Chekov murdering those goons in cold blood.
Its a complete turn around for the character.
Not worth it for the little spike of interest it would create.
Even Valeris motives were not explained and thus unsatisfactory. The same if it were Saavik. If you had wanted it to be Saavik then a motive should have been established in ST3. Simply killing David would not be enough IMO. Valeris had a motive explained in the novelisation but if its not onscreen I don't know it.
Kim Catrall was very sweet and charming as Valeris. I did not care for her hair style, but ... nobody's perfect. Her "betrayal," when it was finally revealed, couldn't help but make you feel disappointed in her. But there's no sense of shock involved. As pointed out, Valeris' motives are never established onscreen, so it really might as well have been anybody else who was the collaborator. The no-name janitor. Anybody. Not only did that take from the climatic reveal - and the character herself, frankly - but Spock's mind rape of the poor woman for information that he, himself knew he could covertly ask Sulu for, kind of mitigated it, almost. Even the crew - including Uhura - is wide eyed and slack jawed in horror over Spock's misdeed. And yet, even in the same movie, it's immediately dismissed, while the Victimised Valeris' lower lip is still quivering.
The problem I have with Valeris is the same problem I have with the trimming of secondary characters in the film version of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. When you do a whodunit plot and there's a limited selection of potential responsible parties, it's easy enough to guess who was responsible. It would have been more interesting as a story if Chekov was the responsible party, perhaps having framed Valeris initially.
I'm not sure how I feel about the idea of Saavik being a conspirator, but I think it would have been a stronger story versus a character who frankly comes across as nuSaavik anyway.
As for the "mind-rape", I don't think you're supposed to approve of what Spock does, per se, but in terms of learning who the co-conspirators were, I don't really see how Our Heroes had a much better choice under the circumstances. IIRC the novelization makes a point of making it so that during the meld Valeris is convinced by Spock to give up the names rather than having them forced from her.
As for it being "dismissed"...we really have no idea what may have happened there so it's not really reasonable to make that assumption.
I'm not sure how I feel about the idea of Saavik being a conspirator, but I think it would have been a stronger story versus a character who frankly comes across as nuSaavik anyway.
As for the "mind-rape", I don't think you're supposed to approve of what Spock does, per se, but in terms of learning who the co-conspirators were, I don't really see how Our Heroes had a much better choice under the circumstances. IIRC the novelization makes a point of making it so that during the meld Valeris is convinced by Spock to give up the names rather than having them forced from her.
As for it being "dismissed"...we really have no idea what may have happened there so it's not really reasonable to make that assumption.
1. Yes, Valerius works, mainly because it's well written, and competently performed. May have been more shock value to have it be Saavik, but it still works as is, for me.
2. I too assume that the plan hinges on Kirk the hero Klingon hater engaging in battle and not just surrendering to keep the peace. I don't think Kronos One was in any danger of being destroyed. It's two against one. Evidence of the " Federation" assassination of Gorkon is on Kronos One & no one knows about the cloaked ship. Both Gorkon & the Enterprise were sacrificial offerings. None of them were going to live.... Until Kirk surrendered. One of the savviest calls we've ever seen him make, imho
2. I too assume that the plan hinges on Kirk the hero Klingon hater engaging in battle and not just surrendering to keep the peace. I don't think Kronos One was in any danger of being destroyed. It's two against one. Evidence of the " Federation" assassination of Gorkon is on Kronos One & no one knows about the cloaked ship. Both Gorkon & the Enterprise were sacrificial offerings. None of them were going to live.... Until Kirk surrendered. One of the savviest calls we've ever seen him make, imho
It's a bit difficult to see how Kirk's surrender would have made a difference then. If the Klingons and/or Cartwright really wanted him dead, they wouldn't pay any attention to the surrender, as the final outcome in any case would be the Enterprise lost with all hands and only the Klingons surviving to tell the story. They'd simply omit the bit where Kirk doesn't open fire...
It seems Chang is fine with the Enterprise surviving, though - as if he had been thinking all along that placing the "murderers" on trial would be enough to give his cause the needed boost.
Timo Saloniemi
It seems Chang is fine with the Enterprise surviving, though - as if he had been thinking all along that placing the "murderers" on trial would be enough to give his cause the needed boost.
Timo Saloniemi
Presumably there were enough pro-peace supporters on Kronos One that Chang couldn't just go ahead and destroy the E without some damn good evidence, especially when one of the people on Kronos One was the next chancellor and decidedly in favor of Gorkon's initiative. Once Kirk's surrender was a matter of record Chang's people couldn't just go ahead and destroy the Enterprise; it would be dishonorable among other things. Not to say that Chang's assassination of Gorkon was honorable, but we're talking about an openly dishonorable act versus one committed in secret.
Similar threads
