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

[steveman]

I know this was in the works around the time the story for TUC was being developed, that Saavik would've been in TUC instead of Valeris, and that she would've been the one who ultimately betrayed the crew. Roddenberry, however, shot down the idea because he felt that Saavik was just too popular of a character to do that to.

But what do you think? Is TUC better if it's Saavik who betrays the crew instead of Valeris, a character whom we hadn't met before this film?

I'm inclined to say yes. The only sticking point for me is if it would've been too out of character for Saavik. However, I think her motivations could've been justified in the same way Valeris' were. Having Saavik find it illogical to make peace with the Klingons would've helped pay-off her experiences in TSFS quite nicely. After all, she was there when David died, which was Kirk's primary reason for hating the Klingons. Seeing her let those experiences drive her to destroy any chance of peace with the Klingons would've forced Kirk to examine his own feelings and question them -- were they really worth it?

Also, it would've completed a character arc of sorts for Saavik (someone we had seen throughout the films) and given us a certain sense of closure with her.

Overall, I think TUC is, indeed, a better film if you swap out Valeris for Saavik. Not only would her betrayal have been more impactful to the crew and the audience, it wouldn't have been totally unprecedented, either.

 

[arch101]

I've always thought so. It would have brought a Trek film a little closer to 'A'list drama to have a major and well-liked character take an unpopular viewpoint in opposition of the heroes. What would have been even better is if Saavik had felt Kirk's opinion out to decide wether to involve him or not, only for him to realize in the end that she went he extra step that he couldn't. Kirk felt that HE had a hard opinion of the Klingons only to find that this trusted assistant of many years, Spock's protegee and a possible next Captain of the Enterprise, had a harder opinion of them. Enough to commit treason. Powerful stuff and a missed opportunity.

 

[Brian]

^ What arch said.

 

[Bacl]

I dunno. Saavik never cemented for me as a character with any more importance than TUC's Vulcan-of-the-Week. Saavik just had the good combination to be present in what is considered one of the most memorable, if not the best, Star Trek film. Add to it the star power of Khirstie Alley, and the character is more memorable than the Vulcan-babe from TUC.

I get tired of all this emphasis on battling Rodenberry about CONFLICT. Rodenberry wanted no character conflict between his advanced humans, and The Suits (Berman & Co in particular) thought that conflict was the end-all, be-all to good story telling.

Neither were right.

When Star Trek was at it's best was when both sides had to compromise and meet somewhere in the middle. Seasons 3-6 of TNG prove that. They had to fight just to gain (or keep) an inch, and the product prospered as a result.

Thus, getting back to the original question....no. No, Saavik wouldn't have changed anything. She was never a main character and so we're just talking about changing a name. Would DS9 have been a different show if Major Kira had been called Ensign Ro from day 1? No, it would have been the same, and aside from a few lines in the pilot, probably every script following would have been more or less identical.

 

[TheGodBen]

Yes, it would have kept Kim Cattrall out of my Star Trek.

 

[Seven of Five]

I watch TUC, and I watch Sex and the City, and I think "Really? Same person?"

Saavik would have been bloody perfect for the Valeris role in TUC. Really would have been could to have one of our people to be the traitor. Well, perhaps if they hadn't recast Kirsty Alley. And perhaps if they hadn't buried the half-Romulan heritage. And perhaps if the character hadn't suddenly just set up shop on Vulcan at the start of TVH... But aside from all of those things, I give it three thumbs up!

 

[Mysterion]

Short answer is: yes, it would have been a better story if Saavik had been the one to betray the crew.

 

[Ward Fowler]

^Agreed.

 

[HRHTheKING]

Yes, because it was obvious that Valaris was up to no good. Otherwise, why bother introducing her? Just like Mr Hawk in FC. When Picard first said "Hawk!" I thought "who?" then I thought "oh, he's definitely going to die"

 

[flightmech73]

I think it would've been better. Granted Saavik may not have been a main character as bacl said but there was history with her. We knew her and followed her growth. We didn't get that history from "Kim" so for me she was just another character. I think I also might have been a bit distracted to waiting for her to turn into a manaquin.

 

[Praetor]

I've always thought so. It would have brought a Trek film a little closer to 'A'list drama to have a major and well-liked character take an unpopular viewpoint in opposition of the heroes. What would have been even better is if Saavik had felt Kirk's opinion out to decide wether to involve him or not, only for him to realize in the end that she went he extra step that he couldn't. Kirk felt that HE had a hard opinion of the Klingons only to find that this trusted assistant of many years, Spock's protegee and a possible next Captain of the Enterprise, had a harder opinion of them. Enough to commit treason. Powerful stuff and a missed opportunity.

Sums up my thoughts as well. Also, having it be someone we've seen before would have added mystery to it; instead it's like 'oh, the new chick's the traitor.'

 

[TheGodBen]

Personally, when I watch the film I like to imagine that she is Saavik. She changed actress once already, so it's not hard to imagine it happening again.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

I know this was in the works around the time the story for TUC was being developed, that Saavik would've been in TUC instead of Valeris, and that she would've been the one who ultimately betrayed the crew. Roddenberry, however, shot down the idea because he felt that Saavik was just too popular of a character to do that to.

You vastly overstate Roddenberry's role in the change from Saavik to Valeris.

Yes, Roddenberry believed that fans would not stand for Saavik betraying the crew. But Nick Meyer was under no obligation to take any of Roddenberry's suggestions, and he actually walked out of a meeting with Roddenberry, saying that when Roddenberry gave back all the monies he had earned from Saavik, a character that Roddenberry had not created, then he, Meyer, might actually give a damn what Roddenberry thought.

The real reason for the change was the Kirstie Alley was not interested in reprising the role of Saavik, and Meyer had no interest in working with Robin Curtis. Thus, either recast the character again, or write it as a new character. For what it's worth, the script Kim Cattrell was given still had Saavik; Eris, later Valeris, hadn't yet been created.

 

[steveman]

I know this was in the works around the time the story for TUC was being developed, that Saavik would've been in TUC instead of Valeris, and that she would've been the one who ultimately betrayed the crew. Roddenberry, however, shot down the idea because he felt that Saavik was just too popular of a character to do that to.

You vastly overstate Roddenberry's role in the change from Saavik to Valeris.

Yes, Roddenberry believed that fans would not stand for Saavik betraying the crew. But Nick Meyer was under no obligation to take any of Roddenberry's suggestions, and he actually walked out of a meeting with Roddenberry, saying that when Roddenberry gave back all the monies he had earned from Saavik, a character that Roddenberry had not created, then he, Meyer, might actually give a damn what Roddenberry thought.

The real reason for the change was the Kirstie Alley was not interested in reprising the role of Saavik, and Meyer had no interest in working with Robin Curtis. Thus, either recast the character again, or write it as a new character. For what it's worth, the script Kim Cattrell was given still had Saavik; Eris, later Valeris, hadn't yet been created.

Vastly overstate? Let's cut down on the hyperbole, please.

I viewed some of the special features on the TUC DVD, and that's simply what it seemed like. Not trying to pull the wool over anybody's eyes here. Just a simple misinterpretation on my part.

Saavik didn't end up in TUC either way. Why she didn't is just semantics.

 

[steveman]

I've always thought so. It would have brought a Trek film a little closer to 'A'list drama to have a major and well-liked character take an unpopular viewpoint in opposition of the heroes. What would have been even better is if Saavik had felt Kirk's opinion out to decide wether to involve him or not, only for him to realize in the end that she went he extra step that he couldn't. Kirk felt that HE had a hard opinion of the Klingons only to find that this trusted assistant of many years, Spock's protegee and a possible next Captain of the Enterprise, had a harder opinion of them. Enough to commit treason. Powerful stuff and a missed opportunity.

Totally agree. Saavik's inclusion over Valeris' makes the exploration of Kirk's hatred toward the Klingons and even more complex story point -- and really shines a spotlight on the whole David situation in TSFS.

And, just for the record, I'd like to point out that I enjoyed Robin Curtis' portrayal of Saavik more than I did Kristie Alley's.

 

[Falcor5]

The real reason for the change was the Kirstie Alley was not interested in reprising the role of Saavik, and Meyer had no interest in working with Robin Curtis. Thus, either recast the character again, or write it as a new character. For what it's worth, the script Kim Cattrell was given still had Saavik; Eris, later Valeris, hadn't yet been created.

Anyone know why Meyer disliked Robin Curtis so much? I wish he could have worked with her as having Saavik be the traitor instead would have made an already good movie into a great one IMO.

 

[Harvey]

Yes, because it was obvious that Valaris was up to no good. Otherwise, why bother introducing her? Just like Mr Hawk in FC. When Picard first said "Hawk!" I thought "who?" then I thought "oh, he's definitely going to die"

I can't say anything about Hawk--he was obviously canon fodder.

But with Valeris, there was, at least, a sense that Spock was passing the torch to her, TUC being the last movie with the original crew upon inception. That makes the betrayal a little unexpected.

Still would have preferred it with Saavik, though, be it Curtis or Alley.

 

[DarKush]

I don't think so. I thought Valeris was fine. However, I must admit it would've been sweet to see Saavik rake Kirk over the coals for not supporting a war with the Klingons as an affront to David's memory. Since she watched him die it could've been a very powerful scene.

 

[FalTorPan]

If you prefer the TUC traitor to have been Saavik rather than Valeris, you need only change her name. Saavik from TWOK was already quite different from Saavik in TSFS/TVH. If you do the simple name change in the TUC script, does anything significant change in TUC's story? I don't think so. I suspect that's what was done to change Saavik to Valeris in the first place.

The situation is not unlike GEN, in which Spock and McCoy's parts became Scotty and Chekov's parts.

 

[Unicron]

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.