Is TUC a better movie if it's Saavik who betrays the crew?

[Admiral_Young]

I think it would have had a more profound emtional effect on the characters and made for a better overall story but what would be her motivation? Betraying Spock for the sake of creating war between the Federation and Klingon Empire by entering into a conspiracy seems very much out of Saavik's character. Being afraid of change was theme of that conspiracy and Saavik never seemed to show any indication of that...Valeris was young and if you've read the novelization then you would be aware of her backstory which is touched on explaining her sympthaies towards the conspirators in the film. It would be nice to see Kristie reprise the role that started her career...and I think Meyer states his perference in the audio commentary.

 

[CorporalClegg]

There's not much that can improve TUC...

It's one of my faves...oh, and Nick Meyer is a GAWD!

A plot not full of holes would've been a nice start.

The only holes I saw in VI were in Kronos One's backside, the Enterprise's saucer section and the glass overlooking the President's podium on Khitomer. And frankly, I liked those holes.

I simple Google will keep you occupied for hours. I spent a good portion of time raking TWOK over the coals last week. I don't care to repeat the process.

 

[Yassim]

I think it would have had a more profound emtional effect on the characters and made for a better overall story but what would be her motivation?

That's *why* it works. Her motivation is the same as Kirk's - David's death. So it's more meaningful when Kirk rejects her conclusions, when they're both angry for the same reason.

In the movie, Who Threw Momma From The Train, Billy Crystal's character tries to explain to Danny DeVito's character that, when there are only two characters in a story, and one of them is murdered, it's obvious that the other character did it (it's a corollary to the Red Shirt Theory - when Spock, Kirk, McCoy and Ensign Nobody beam down, guess what happens?)

So in that respect, STVI is a murder mystery with only one suspect. With Saavik in the role, it's a lot less obvious who's going to turn up in sickbay.

 

[DarKush]

I'm in the minority, but I would not have liked Saavik. I can appreciate that David's death in TSFS would have colored her outlook on the Klingons, as Kirk's was likewise. But the notion that this would drive her to conspire to perpetuate continual war rather than accept peace is incredibly illogical and dangerous. I think having Valeris as a separate character works better because she symbolizes how many "average" Starfleet officers would have felt. She works for me because she isn't a character that's been carried over through several movies.

I've also heard the story that Kim didn't want to simply be the new Saavik, but wanted a distinct character.

I disagree. For one, if Saavik had been the conspirator it doesn't mean she supported continual war. Admiral Cartwright and the hardliners thought that the Praxis situation opened up the opportunity for a final or at least decisive war against the Klingons, to break them once and for all. The end of TUC left the Klingons as tenuous allies, but still very strong, and we see even in the TNG and DS9 time frames that the Klingons were not completely committed allies with the Federation nearly a century after TUC, and in DS9 they eventually went to war again with the Federation.

If it had been Saavik at least the audience would've had something to latch onto in an emotional and visceral way to understand Saavik's actions. We don't know why Valeris did what she did, outside of her assertion that the Klingons were too dangerous and couldn't be trusted. So we still got what could be a considered illogical and dangerous position from Valeris, though without an explanation for why she arrived at that point in the film. Personally I don't think it was illogical. It was dangerous, but the peace deal Spock was proposing also was dangerous too.

Valeris was looking at the nearly a century of Klingon aggression and it made more sense not to trust them than to trust them. How was the Federation to know or truly trust Gorkon's intentions in light of the decades of history that told them otherwise. I don't think the conspirators went about it the right way but I don't think their suspicions were wrong on their face. Unfortunately the side effect of all that suspicion did become unreasoning bias and hatred against the Klingons and I don't agree with that. But the initial wariness I do agree with. And even with the bias that was exhibited by various Starfleet officers, it was regrettable, but also made sense due to the long history of hostility between the Federation and the Klingons. If the Starfleet officers didn't harbor ill thoughts about the Klingons then that would've been unbelievable to me.

Valeris wasn't an average Starfleet officer. She was one of the best in the Academy and Spock's heir apparent. The two crewman that carried out the assassination against Gorkon were Average Joes who were easily dispatched by Valeris. Valeris was higher up than they were, but not as high as Admiral Cartwright.

I would be fine either way with Valeris or Saavik in TUC. I liked Valeris. I liked Saavik. I do feel though that including Saavik would've been more dramatically powerful and emotionally affecting, seeing her argue with Kirk over David's memory and perhaps even the need to avenge him, or Spock struggling to reconcile his pride and disappointment with her, and the mind meld scene would've been even more gripping and terrible because we 'knew' Saavik in a way we didn't know Valeris.

I also think it sucks that they didn't use Saavik because they never revisited the character. I read that she was supposed to be on TNG once, but that didn't happen. It would've been great to see her on TNG or DS9 or something.

 

[Ithekro]

I never liked the idea of Saavik being the traitor, but that's probably an attachment to the character from my youth, as Star Trek II was one of the first films I saw in a theater. I half assume that Saavik was Spock's wife, since it is mentioned that Picard attended the wedding of Sarek's son, and that he'd only met Spock once prior to the mission to Romulus. Though authors recently seem to be giving Sarek more and more children. Be they blood relations or adopted. Also we don't know if Sarek had children with his second (known) human wife. It is assumed not, but than what was the logical reason for marrying her? He needed a caretaker that could handle emotions? He was use to human women and a bit lonely after Amanda's death?

However, if Saavik's half-Romulan heritage had been used, it would make the involvement of the Romulans and Spock's efforts on Romulus make more sense. As it is, the Romulan involvement in the plot makes basically no sense....what did they do for the plot (both the assassination plots and he story plot)?


Also this is a old thread, but I've not seen it before (so its new to me).

 

[Vger23]

The movie would have been far more powerful if Saavik had been the traitor. No question about it.

 

[Vger23]

The only holes I saw in VI were in Kronos One's backside, the Enterprise's saucer section and the glass overlooking the President's podium on Khitomer. And frankly, I liked those holes.

I simple Google will keep you occupied for hours. I spent a good portion of time raking TWOK over the coals last week. I don't care to repeat the process.

Star Trek VI, while enjoyable to some degree, is so riddled with lazy /rushed writing, utter nonsense, and plot contrivances that it can never break into my favorites.

This film really suffered from being rushed, and is very sloppy as a result. Nobody's level of "But I LOVE IT!!!" can make up for how unbelievably porous the film is.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

ZOMBIE THREAD!!!!

 

[DarKush]

I never liked the idea of Saavik being the traitor, but that's probably an attachment to the character from my youth, as Star Trek II was one of the first films I saw in a theater. I half assume that Saavik was Spock's wife, since it is mentioned that Picard attended the wedding of Sarek's son, and that he'd only met Spock once prior to the mission to Romulus. Though authors recently seem to be giving Sarek more and more children. Be they blood relations or adopted. Also we don't know if Sarek had children with his second (known) human wife. It is assumed not, but than what was the logical reason for marrying her? He needed a caretaker that could handle emotions? He was use to human women and a bit lonely after Amanda's death?

However, if Saavik's half-Romulan heritage had been used, it would make the involvement of the Romulans and Spock's efforts on Romulus make more sense. As it is, the Romulan involvement in the plot makes basically no sense....what did they do for the plot (both the assassination plots and he story plot)?


Also this is a old thread, but I've not seen it before (so its new to me).

Good points, especially about the Romulan involvement in the plot. I get that the Romulans would want to take advantage of a weakened Klingon Empire, but it was always odd to me that Nanclus was involved in that high-level meeting with Sarek and the Federation President. But what exactly did they add to the plot at all? I wish that had been better thought out and explained.

I do wish they had made Saavik's Romulan heritage canon, even if she hadn't been in Star Trek IV. It was just a cool aspect of the character I enjoyed from the novelverse.

 

[Galileo7]

The movie would have been far more powerful if Saavik had been the traitor. No question about it.

Agree.

 

[FormerLurker]

A more powerful movie? Certainly. Better? In my opinion, certainly not.

Saavik was introduced to give the fans a signpost that all things Star Trek, Starfleet, the Federation, etc., would continue, even if the string of movies petered out. Making her the traitor does two things; first, it does establish a stronger and more impactful storyline of betrayal at the heart of our heroes supposedly solid core of stalwarts.

But it also destroys the hope for the future that Saavik had represented since her introduction. Indeed, it lays the groundwork for the worst of every bad thing we've ever hated about the 24th century stories, presenting us with the idea that never again will our heroes be so true and solid of character that they are utterly trustworthy. Saavik being the traitor makes it too easy to believe that every promise of forthright upstanding behavior from anyone from TNG forward is a lie. Do you hate the idea of Section 31, and wish it had never been introduced? Saavik being the traitor makes it inevitable. Do you hate the idea that Admiral Dougherty may have been operating either without Federation Council sanction, or had lied to them to get it? Saavik being the traitor makes it commonplace.

Admiral Cartright was enough of an enigma that his being a traitor could be explained as "some people just go bad." Saavik being a traitor too easily gives the impression that everyone will, eventually, which we know just isn't true. And that damages Star Trek, at least to me.

 

[Kor]

The mind meld scene would have been all the more distasteful.

Kor

 

[Ithekro]

Agree.

Picture 1: Half Romulan: Mildly interested, keeping her emotions cool and remaining sexy
Picture 2: Full Vulcan: Fully surprised and given a moderate emotional response

 

[Peach Wookiee]

Guys, please look at the date of the last comment before you post to a thread. This is a zombie thread, but since you've added to it, I'm leaving it open. Thank you for your attention.

 

[MAGolding]

Good points, especially about the Romulan involvement in the plot. I get that the Romulans would want to take advantage of a weakened Klingon Empire, but it was always odd to me that Nanclus was involved in that high-level meeting with Sarek and the Federation President. But what exactly did they add to the plot at all? I wish that had been better thought out and explained.

I do wish they had made Saavik's Romulan heritage canon, even if she hadn't been in Star Trek IV. It was just a cool aspect of the character I enjoyed from the novelverse.

At the beginning of TUC the Federation and the Klingons are at peace, with a treaty. Excelsior has been doing scientific research for three years so the peace has lasted at least 3 years. But there was probably a big shooting war with the Klingons not long before that. Possibly the Federation was being defeated and only Kirk's brilliant victories saved the Federation from Klingon conquest. Then Nanclus negotiated a Romulan-Federation alliance and the Klingons were defeated and agreed to a peace treaty and the Federation became a sort of Romulan client state, explaining why Nanclus was at the meeting. The Romulan goal was to defeat the Klingons more and annex more Klingon worlds whenever a new war would erupt, so the prospect of Klingon-federation peace was something they wanted to stop.

 

[STEPhon IT]

Agree.

If it was Kirstie Alley, not the other one.
Alley created an interesting character who very eager to be more than she can be. She struggled to accept failing her training test and questioned the merits. She represented young guns who get put off of her pedestal, and had to bounce back --along with Veterans-- getting some vital, scary, and tragic circumstances to learn every mission is always a test, and how you embraced them shows character.

Curtis was simply a female Spock, a completely different character from the previous film, and I doubt Alley's Saavik would serve on another ship. The time span for ST:III is an odd one and all of it based upon a bad script, but nothing Saavik experienced for II was brought over in the film. She was integral in II.

Alley returning for VI would be an odd one because Meyer would have to ignore what Nimoy did to his character. Time had passed since II and Saavik would have to be a completely different character; literally recreating the character. She's a woman now and would hold the rank of Commander, and it would've been an appropriate heir to Spock.

What I'm trying to say is I don't think swapping Valeris to Saavik would've been an easy one; there has to be some backstory which must be integral to the plot. Did Saavik had feelings for David??? Secretly it's possible, and it would've been interesting to see it played out. Would the plot finally reveal Saavik was Romulan and she shared some of their beliefs along with Starfleet's? This element would bring back the test of character Kirk was teaching her in II.
Unfortunately, the mystery only leads to Valeris/Saavik and I doubt it would've been a shock at all. Bringing in Saavik Kirstie Alley would've made Meyer's work a little harder.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

Bringing in Saavik Kirstie Alley would've made Meyer's work a little harder.

I doubt it, unless you think that retyping "Valeris" as "Saavik" throughout the script would've been hard work. It's pretty obvious that what we got with Valeris was exactly what Meyer had planned for Saavik. The "A lie? / An error" callback to TWOK's "You lied / I exaggerated" exchange makes it obvious that Meyer and Flynn didn't bother changing much else about the part. The only differences lie in the two actresses' interpretations.

 

[Captain Nebula]

Saavik's romantic backstory with David was expanded on in the movie novelizations and there were publicity stills of them together for The Wrath of Khan. From that standpoint, it would have made a lot of sense for Saavik to hate the Klingons. Especially if she was thinking with her Romulan half more than Vulcan. I would have love to have seen Kirstie Alley take on that role.

 

[Timo]

I wouldn't worry too much about character continuity. The main heroes change all the time, from movie to movie and sometimes from episode to episode. With Saavik, there'd be a better excuse than usual, with a greater timespan between appearances than with most heroes.

It would also be fun to see the "Vulcans make for excellent cold-blooded murderers" aspect put to use. A new character may be evil and wicked and out of her mind and for that reason so cold-blooded. An old one may have been established as a white hat, though, so her being cold-blooded regardless is all the more effective.

The ultimate for a send-off movie would have been to make one of the regular heroes the villain, though. In that scenario, it wouldn't much matter which sort of a red herring was dangled in front of us, Saavik or an all-new character, when it turns out Chekov did it because he thought this was what Kirk wanted, or Uhura did it because she thought Kirk was too soft on the Klingons, or Spock did it because this was the only logical course of action. But the red herring would absolutely be required, and making her Saavik-shaped would be great fun.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Commishsleer]

I don't think it would have made sense for Saavik to be the traitor. She seemed too calm after TSFS. Even if she was so cut up over David's death like someone else said I can't see her condemning David's father to death or even thinking about killing Spock.
If they had made Saavik the traitor then they would have needed a bit more on-screen explanation.