Redemption Part II Nagging Question

[jwb]

The B5 traitor plots were there from the beginning of the series, and made sense. Saavik being a traitor who would try to FRAME KIRK and have him sent to prison forever? Not so much.

I agree with that. I know Roddenberry and Meyer were divided over the issue, with Roddenberry saying Saavik's character had reached "beloved status" with the fans and shouldn't be a traitor, Meyer thinking it would be great drama to have a known character like that turn out to be "evil". I think it worked out for the best, with a new Vulcan being created for the part.

 

[Pauln6]

Framing Kirk and working with the Romulans would seem daft, although not insurmountable. The logic argument falls flat though, since Valeris is also logical and betrays her mentor who helped her career. The story elements were tweaked only slightly. One could also argue that Saavik would not have known that Kirk and McCoy would surrender themselves to the Klingons as far as the framing thread goes - possibly gambling that Kirk's own dislike of the Klingons would lead him to resist Klingon 'justice'.

And if Saavik was such a beloved fan favourite, why did they shaft her and ignore her character for the last 20 years?

 

[Christopher]

The logic argument falls flat though, since Valeris is also logical and betrays her mentor who helped her career.

The point was that a motive of revenge in particular, i.e. wanting war with the Klingons to continue because Kruge's men killed David, would not be logical. Valeris wasn't motivated by revenge, just by a general belief that lowering the Federation's guard against the Klingons would be unacceptably dangerous.

 

[Pauln6]

The logic argument falls flat though, since Valeris is also logical and betrays her mentor who helped her career.

The point was that a motive of revenge in particular, i.e. wanting war with the Klingons to continue because Kruge's men killed David, would not be logical. Valeris wasn't motivated by revenge, just by a general belief that lowering the Federation's guard against the Klingons would be unacceptably dangerous.

Yes that does make more sense, although there is no reason why Saavik would not have been able to reach that same conclusion by applying that same logic.

Part of me is glad that Saavik wasn't turned into a murderous villain, I admit. Another part of me would have been glad to see her go out in a blaze of glory (or infamy).

 

[DonIago]

They were somewhat in a catch-22. I can't think of a reasonable explanation for Saavik being the traitor and am glad they didn't go that route, but introducing a new character into a whodunit plot makes it rather obvious who the prime suspect is. The movie adaptation of "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" suffered from the same problem...cutting down the sub-plots and the "extraneous" characters just highlighted the remaining non-primaries.

 

[SpyOne]

The original script for TUC had Saavik in place of Valeris, however Nick Meyer, Leonard Nimoy and Gene Roddenberry agreed that it would be wrong for Saavik to be a traitor, since she was regarded as a fan favourite, not only that but also her motivations would be complicated...for example:

Funny, I had head that the reason for Valeris instead of Saavik was that "the producers" balked at having the same character played by three different actresses in four films. Robin Curtis was unavailable (though I can't imagine why, as the imdb shows her making a single TV movie and appearing on General Hospital that year), and Kirsty Alley was either unavailable, had put on more weight than the producers thought acceptable, or they just balked at the idea of going back to her for some other reason (including money, as she'd gone from unknown in Wrath of Khan to having been on one of the highest rated shows in TV for 3 years by Undiscovered Country).
Just rumor, but that's what I'd heard.

I can see Saavik having much the same motivations as Valeris.
But try this one: we have seen it is possible for Vulcans to disagree. Each would believe their position to be the logical one, but each would have based their position on certain assumptions.
Spock extending the olive branch is based on a belief that kindness pays off in the end, and that absolutely everyone is better to have as a friend than an enemy. And perhaps most importantly, a belief in the ability of people to change, and that exposure to humans breeds friendliness towards them.
Saavik/Valeris believes the Klingons are incapable of meaningful fundamental change in a useful time frame. That is, the peace cannot last: the Klingons will eventually attack the Federation again. That being the case, it is best to destroy them now, when they are weak, rather than let them rebuild before fighting them. Better still if they will destroy themselves and you don't have to lift a finger.

Both believe their position to be the only logical course of action. One says "hope" and the other says "safety".
After all, the very best bad guys think that they are the hero of the picture.

 

[SpyOne]

The B5 traitor plots were there from the beginning of the series, and made sense. Saavik being a traitor who would try to FRAME KIRK and have him sent to prison forever? Not so much.

Well, the plot probably was expecting Kirk to resist, violently. Kirk, after all, didn't actually want peace with the Klingons. They didn't count on Kirk's devotion to duty being as strong as it is.

And think about it: Saavik of all people would expect Kirk to find a way out of it. There are no no-win situations when you are Jim Kirk.

 

[Mr Silver]

Funny, I had head that the reason for Valeris instead of Saavik was that "the producers" balked at having the same character played by three different actresses in four films. Robin Curtis was unavailable (though I can't imagine why, as the imdb shows her making a single TV movie and appearing on General Hospital that year), and Kirsty Alley was either unavailable, had put on more weight than the producers thought acceptable, or they just balked at the idea of going back to her for some other reason (including money, as she'd gone from unknown in Wrath of Khan to having been on one of the highest rated shows in TV for 3 years by Undiscovered Country).
Just rumor, but that's what I'd heard.

That was another reason, however the most "Public" reason was that Leonard Nimoy and Gene Roddenberry, rejected the idea that a "fan favourite" such as Saavik would betray the Federation and with that they went to Nicholas Meyer and then Nimoy and Meyer wrote in the Valeris character

 

[Pauln6]

That was another reason, however the most "Public" reason was that Leonard Nimoy and Gene Roddenberry, rejected the idea that a "fan favourite" such as Saavik would betray the Federation and with that they went to Nicholas Meyer and then Nimoy and Meyer wrote in the Valeris character

It's indicative of stilted storytelling and blinkered thinking though. The same mentality that hindered Voyager. The modern writers will have to up their game if they want take the franchise through the 21st century.

On second thoughts if you remove the blinkers completely you end up with little or no real science, speed of plot, violence as a first resort, and wibbly wobbly timey wimey excuses for plot holes. What was I thinking?

 

[Anwar]

It's indicative of stilted storytelling and blinkered thinking though. The same mentality that hindered Voyager. The modern writers will have to up their game if they want take the franchise through the 21st century.

Like I said, Saavik betraying and setting up Kirk wouldn't have made any sense especially since getting revenge for David would've been part of her motive. Why do that to David's own father, who was even more devastated by what happened than she was?

It was a bad idea to begin with. The real problem here is people not realizing that people like Meyer and Moore are just as capable of lousy storytelling as Trek's worst (and no, Berman and Braga are NOT "Trek's worst").

 

[DGCatAniSiri]

Berman and Braga wrote A Night In Sickbay. I call that some of Trek's worst.

 

[Anwar]

Meh, it wasn't THAT bad. Hell, I don't even mind Archer's Gazelle speech.