Lack of follow-up on death of David Marcus

[DonIago]

Without an example of how the dialog could have been changed to mention him without seeming superfluous, I don't really agree.

I'm sure Khan's name came up all the time during the events of the film, just not during what we saw.

Really, Kirk & Co. had more than enough to keep them busy.

 

[Herbert1]

oops, yeah I did forget about Saavik's "David died most bravely," comment in TVH. But Kirk doesn't even react much to it.

My problem with that line is, why did Saavik wait three months to tell him that?

I am pleased that they acknowledged the death of David Marcus in the finished film. I don't know where else they could have placed the line of dialogue in the screenplay than in the parting scene between Kirk and Saavik. At least they brought Robin Curtis back instead of just ignoring the Saavik and David Marcus characters completely.

(They also did a pretty good job with Star Trek III: The Search for Spock considering that Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan was intended to be the last Star Trek film.)

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home was meant to be a happy and upbeat adventure film and so I am pleased that they didn't dwell on the death of Kirk's son. We had the downer of Spock's death in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and Star Trek III: The Search for Spock we had the death of the Starship Enterprise and David Marcus. If I remember correctly, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home was also the biggest box office money-maker until Star Trek (2009).

Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country is really out of character for the TOS cast because they all come across as rascist bigots. Nicholas Meyer acknowledges that this portrayal was distressing to Gene Roddenberry because it was out of character for Kirk and the rest of the cast. If Meyer had kept the cast in character he may have lost the allegorical story of the end of the Cold War he was trying to tell.

 

[Herbert1]

Post Script

I was wondering if between Star Trek V: The Final Frontier and Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country that a conservative hawk was elected President of the United Federation of Planets, that the Klingon Empire invaded territory like the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, or the Klingon Empire destroyed a civilian transport that had wandered into its territory like the shoot down of Korean Airlines Flight 007. It could be that tensions between the United Federation of Planets and the Klingon Empire increased between the two films. Perhaps the cast began to parrot anti-Klingon propaganda or a savage act by the Klingons re-opened Kirk's wounds concerning David? Remember that Kruge and Klaa were renegades. What if there was an official act of the government that was savage? Star Fleet certainly seems more marshal between the two films. Maybe a new chancellor came to power in the Klingon Empire between the two films before Gorkon?

Maybe it was the before the time of some members on the TrekBBS, but I remember seeing President Reagan on television asserting that the Soviet Union was an evil empire. That the KAL 007 shoot down occurred because they did not value human life. That the Soviet Union was characterized as a state that did not value human life and that they were less human. Also remember that this was the time of the Rambo in which the Soviets were portrayed as evil and capable of horrendous atrocities. Remember Margaret Thatcher spouting anti-Soviet propaganda. They were certainly times in which relations between the United States/Great Britain and the Soviet Union were hostile.

 

[UssGlenn]

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..."

I know I've seen the whole shot somewhere, complete with his gestures of regret. I want to say it's in the special features of the TUC directors edition DVD.

 

[plynch]

Meyer deliberately made Trek more military twice, didn't he? (II and VI)

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

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

Star Trek is not realistic in style.

 

[Anji]

From what I heard back then (in the 1980s) is in TWOK the writers set themselves up a successor to Spock in the form of David Marcus. Nimoy showed no interest in wanting to continue in ST at that time. Then when the movie became a success and Nimoy wanted back in they were stuck with David...and Saavik (a kinda next generation) and didn't know what to do with them.

I always thought that's why the beginning of TSFS seemed so rushed. They had to get those characters out of the way before continuing with the real story.

 

[Gagarin]

Bibi Besch died in 1996, but she was battling cancer for years before that, if I remember correctly.

I chatted with Bibi Besch some years ago - I don't remember the year, but at the time there was no knowledge of her illness. She made some comments that seemed to indicate that Shatner didn't want her in any more Trek films. As for if that is the reason or not, I have no idea. But it might have had to do with some kind of personality clashes. But again, I don't know for sure, and I've never heard Shatner's side to it.

You can always ask Shatner on YouTube.

They DO show Shatner's "I didn't mean that" reaction on the Special Edition DVD features. It's not particulary good. BUT the gesture still comes out before he delivers "has it occured to you..."

I'm not exacly sure why it would be that out of character, anyway. It's one thing to be an explorer, it's another thing to be an explorer while constantly being harrassed, attacked, annoyed, and otherwise delployed because of the agressive expansionism, murderous tendancys, and instability of another Super Power. Letting the course of events happen without stepping in to save the day is not genocide. It's... the Prime Directive. Hah.