Lack of follow-up on death of David Marcus

[Therin of Andor]

I actually prefer Thern's explaination to what I understood. I hope that's the acurate account.

Would I lie to you? The Harve Bennett interview was in Starlog.

But if you're referring to Bibi's comment that Shatner probably didn't want her in ST III, that's probably true, too. (Or at least her interpretation of watching his antics on set.) Tying Kirk down to one love interest was nixed during TOS (Rand) and adding Carol Marcus to the latter films would have really complicated things. I once did an interview with Paul Winfield and he sorta suggested that Shatner didn't get along terribly well with Kirstie Alley - and, of course, she was recast by the next movie. Not that I think Shatner had too much sway, except in ST V.

 

[Maurice]

And in the original cut of TUC, immediately after Kirk says "Let them die!" he expresses regret at what he's just said, but this was edited out of the released film.

I recall reading that Shatner didn't like the line and did at least one take where he played it so Kirk realizes what he's said and looks regretful; but that Meyer didn't use it. I don't recall ever hearing that is was in an edit of the film. Do you remember where you heard/read that?

David gets a lot more on-screen mourning than Kirk's brother Sam, never mentioned again after "Operation: Annihilate!" and sloppily retconned out of existence in TFF and consciously retconned out of existence in Abrams's movie.*

Don't recall if he's named, but Kirk's older brother is in the deleted scenes, so he was in the script and filmed. When the whole leadup to the car incident was cut, Sam went with it. But it wasn't a sloppy retcon. It was just a typical film trim probably for pacing.

 

[Kelso]

And in the original cut of TUC, immediately after Kirk says "Let them die!" he expresses regret at what he's just said, but this was edited out of the released film.

I recall reading that Shatner didn't like the line and did at least one take where he played it so Kirk realizes what he's said and looks regretful; but that Meyer didn't use it. I don't recall ever hearing that is was in an edit of the film. Do you remember where you heard/read that?

He's probably misremembering something he heard on the DVD special features... and IIRC, DS9Sega's version of events is accurate- there were takes filmed with Shatner's version, but they were never used in a cut of the film.

 

[Bruno]

Kirk wouldn't advocate the extinction of an entire species just because one military commander belonging to that species ordered the death of his son. He's not the type to blame a race for the actions of an individual or a government, certainly not to the extent of advocating that race's extinction. That extreme bigotry was tacked onto Kirk's character out of nowhere in the movie, and it's completely out of character for him.

I don't know. I can see where even a noble warrior, aging and worn down from years of cold war and the personal costs it had exacted from him, might suddenly be open to any excuse to have that adversary gone from his life.

 

[Sky]

I don't know. I can see where even a noble warrior, aging and worn down from years of cold war and the personal costs it had exacted from him, might suddenly be open to any excuse to have that adversary gone from his life.

I kinda have to agree with Bruce here. It was a very human moment for Kirk, who perhaps would not have said that had he thought it properly through (and had he not been angry because Spock practically volunteered him without asking him first).

Spock's expression after Kirk says "Let them die!" is telling, I think. He did not expect Kirk to feel that way - and still, for me, it is quite understandable that Kirk, in a spur of a moment, lets his not-so-noble feelings show.

 

[Kelso]

I always took "Let them die!" to mean "I'm old and tired and it's not my job to go save them." Given the lines that immediately followed, I'm surprised that anyone would think otherwise.

 

[USS KG5]

He gets more on-screen mourning than Edith, who should've been Kirk's Nexus bride in GEN and wasn't (Joan Collins too busy?).

Well the whole Nexus thing shouldn't have been in Generations, the weird stuff that happens in it is just an extension of that.

 

[Mysterion]

Well, the thing is that STIII and STIV just add up to be a giant re-set button. Spock's dead? No problem, we'll bring him back to life. Kirk's got a bastard son? Nope. Not anymore he doesn't. New character that might possibly begin to upstage regulars? Left her on Vulcan, no one will ever notice she's gone. Blowed-up the Enterprise? No problem, here's an exact copy.

Meh.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

But if you're referring to Bibi's comment that Shatner probably didn't want her in ST III, that's probably true, too. (Or at least her interpretation of watching his antics on set.)

And yet, The Ashes of Eden begins with Kirk and Carol in a relationship. I don't know if Shatner and the Reeves-Stevens were riffing off of the unused prologue for Star Trek VI or if they came up with the idea independently. It's just worth noting that a Shatner novel features Carol Marcus in some capacity.

I once did an interview with Paul Winfield and he sorta suggested that Shatner didn't get along terribly well with Kirstie Alley - and, of course, she was recast by the next movie.

But, by all reports, Saavik was recast because Alley priced herself out of the film.

Maybe she wanted a higher salary for the film because of friction with Shatner. Or maybe she wanted a higher salary because, frankly, she was more important a character in the film than any of the "Gang of Four."

The fact is, Ian, we don't know why Alley priced herself out of Star Trek III. And I think she was justified with her salary demands for Star Trek VI based on her profile at the time thanks to Cheers, but that was a salary demand the budget couldn't absorb. *shrug*

Oooh, how would that have gone over, putting Kirstie Alley at third billing in Star Trek III. It would have been accurate, but jeez, the touchy egos amongst the Gang of Four...

 

[Therin of Andor]

And yet, The Ashes of Eden begins with Kirk and Carol in a relationship. I don't know if Shatner and the Reeves-Stevens were riffing off of the unused prologue for Star Trek VI or if they came up with the idea independently. It's just worth noting that a Shatner novel features Carol Marcus in some capacity.

Sure, but it's not like she's fighting him for closeups in a novel.

But, by all reports, Saavik was recast because Alley priced herself out of the film.

My understanding is that Paramount attempted to offer her less than she got for ST II. That was their opening offer: "... because sequels usually make less money". And they had figures to prove it: ST II had made less money than TMP. Alley's agent countered with a salary in the vicinity of Shatner's, fully expecting a lower counter offer to be presented, which they would have accepted. But no other offer was forthcoming, and then Alley was suddenly offered the lead in a play, so she went with the role that would best extend her acting chops.

The fact is, Ian, we don't know why Alley priced herself out of Star Trek III.

Well, we do know stories from people who knew her; we can only trust they they weren't vexatious rumours. The above info came from convention anecdotes of both Bjo Trimble and Richard Arnold (both during Australian conventions over several years - and while many fans like writing off RA anecdotes completely, Bjo's account of a discussion she'd had with Alley sounded pretty convincing) - and, IIRC, Alley herself briefly discusses it, either in a print interview or her diet book (which I have here somewhere).

And I think she was justified with her salary demands for Star Trek VI based on her profile at the time thanks to Cheers, but that was a salary demand the budget couldn't absorb. *shrug*

Definitely, but I have a feeling she was also worried she didn't look much like Saavik by then. By her own admission, she was at her skinniest only while auditioning for ST II because her mother had just been killed in a horrific car accident. During "Cheers" she didn't have to be squeezed into a slender Starfleet uniform.

Oooh, how would that have gone over, putting Kirstie Alley at third billing in Star Trek III. It would have been accurate, but jeez, the touchy egos amongst the Gang of Four...

Exactly! But at the time, there was also a strong sentiment in the newszines of the day that said things like, "Oh well, if Spock and Nimoy are really gone forever, at least I don't mind having this new Saavik character, as played by Kirstie Alley." As director, Nimoy certainly chose to put the revised Saavik (Robin Curtis) into a rather different direction, changing the character's demeanor, but even hair/eyebrows/eye colour.

 

[Trekwatcher]

Which is kind of a continuity error, since TFF ended with Kirk making nice with the Klingons and the prospect of a new peace, and then in the very next movie he's expressing out-of-character genocidal thoughts about them. J. M. Dillard's novelization tried to rationalize this sudden bigotry by postulating that Carol had been injured in an unprovoked Klingon attack shortly before the events of the movie.

In Shatner's Movie Memories he says that the shot where he says "Let them die!" was originally filmed to convey Kirk regretting having said it as soon as it was out of his mouth. Meyer cut out the bit afterwards where his face and gestures show the regret, to Shatner's disappointment.

 

[A beaker full of death]

In Shatner's Movie Memories he says that the shot where he says "Let them die!" was originally filmed to convey Kirk regretting having said it as soon as it was out of his mouth. Meyer cut out the bit afterwards where his face and gestures show the regret, to Shatner's disappointment.

Shatner says that, but I believe the shot is there. he's very clearly retreating from "Let them die" when he starts with "has it occurred to you..."

 

[Admiral James Kirk]

But it's an extremely choppy cut. It's clear there was more to his reaction than what we saw but Meyer cut it to get it closer to the way he had it scripted.

 

[Chrisisall]

Shatner says that, but I believe the shot is there. he's very clearly retreating from "Let them die" when he starts with "has it occurred to you..."

I totally saw that.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

He gets more on-screen mourning than Edith, who should've been Kirk's Nexus bride in GEN and wasn't (Joan Collins too busy?).

Well the whole Nexus thing shouldn't have been in Generations, the weird stuff that happens in it is just an extension of that.

Good point. Very good point, indeed.

 

[plynch]

Not following up on major things is pretty characteristic of most Trek.

A TOS ep. stunned me because they referred to events from a previous ep.! I want to say it was By Any Other Name. I talk about things that happened weeks ago or several years ago with my colleagues. Trek people seem not to. I know episodic tv was like that in the 60s.

 

[Therin of Andor]

A TOS ep. stunned me because they referred to events from a previous ep.! I want to say it was By Any Other Name. I talk about things that happened weeks ago or several years ago with my colleagues. Trek people seem not to. I know episodic tv was like that in the 60s.

Also:

"I, Mudd" - Harry is reminded of his previous crimes from "Mudd's Women".

"Turnabout Intruder" - Kirk in Janice Lester's body rattles off several old events featured in past episodes.

And Koloth and Kang were originally scripted to be a returning Kor, but John Colicos was unavailable both times.

At least four TAS episodes are sequels to TOS episodes: "Yesteryear", "Once Upon a Planet", "Mudd's Passion" and "More Tribble, More Troubles".

 

[EJA]

I was actually more peeved by the fact that Khan Noonien Singh, Kirk's nemesis and the orchestrator of all the violence and destruction in ST II, isn't even referred to once in ST III. Yeah, I know he was dead and all, but it still strikes me as a little bit odd.

 

[DonIago]

^How would actually mentioning him have improved the movie? I doubt anyone saw it without being well-aware of what happened previously in any case...

 

[plynch]

^How would actually mentioning him have improved the movie? I doubt anyone saw it without being well-aware of what happened previously in any case...

Would've been more realistic. We talk about big things/people in the past, esp. recent past, esp a huge life/death adventure.

The reference to past is one thing I like about TAS. By that point Trek was becoming a phenomenon, so referring to past made more sense than when doing a possibly one-off network thing? Plus DCFontana was story editor or something right? She was a quality writer/thinker.