Star Trek Movie FAQ - v 1.2.5 - updated 7/23/09

[Lord Garth]

Re: Star Trek Movie FAQ

Nope, it's just that the movie mods are too lazy to edit and I think I approached them about it a grand total of once.

I can't edit posts (after a certain amount of time) in forums that aren't mine, the same as anyone else.

I suppose I could start a new thread that's almost the same as this one and have biggles or Wookie pin it, but it doesn't seem worth it for one question when all they need to do is edit this one.

 

[cardinal biggles]

Re: Star Trek Movie FAQ

It's been fixed, so quityerbitchin.

 

[guardian]

Re: Star Trek Movie FAQ

Saavik being half-Romulan isn't just in the script.....

It WAS filmed. There are at least half a dozen clips of this cut scene on Youtube.

Saying it was in the script without mentioning that it was actually filmed makes some folks think it was just an early idea that was dropped.

I have no doubt that Meyer, who supervised the re-edit of TWOK in 1985 for ABC TV, would have added the 25 second scene back in, if ST 3 hadn't debuted in 1984, with Nomoy's dulled down version of 'full Vulcan' Saavik.

I will always believe that Nomoy hated the fact that Saavik was a highly hyped and popular charactor and would interfere with his limelight in future Trek movies.

So he redefined her as a full (boring) Vulcan who was as interesting as sawdust. Voila, she quickly fades from emerging lead charactor to a footnote in Trek history.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Re: Star Trek Movie FAQ

guardian said:
I will always believe that Nomoy hated the fact that Saavik was a highly hyped and popular charactor and would interfere with his limelight in future Trek movies.

A very strong rumour about "how could Spock return?" after ST's premiere was that Spock implanted "Remember" into McCoy to tell him that Spock's life essence had been transferred to Saavik. It was no secret that Kirstie Alley had been groomed to be the replacement Vulcan.

And yes, I think the main reason we never saw that "half-Romulan" quote was because Nimoy himself had had the opportunity to retool the character for ST III.

Vonda McIntyre produced a minor miracle by making her novelizations of ST II and ST III seem so seamless!

Mind you, I have no problem believing that, as a result of Spock's death, Saavik reacted by going into "full Vulcan mode", tempering her own behaviour as she had not been able to do earlier.

 

[digifan]

Re: Star Trek Movie FAQ

4. Saavik was pregnant with Spock's child?

That's what's in the commentary for TVH says and is what's implied in cut scenes from the script. Like the half-Romulan story, if you go by the script, then yes, if you go by canon, then no.

According to the novelization of TWoK, Saavik had an impulsive fling with David and was pregnant with his baby in TSFS. Her mindmeld with young Spock on Genesis was to stablize his ordeal through pon farr. I don't accept the implimentation of Saavik becoming pregnant with nothing more than a few touches of the fingers. (The only time I had seen this happening was Miss Q and Q doing a quickie in The Q and the Grey but that is a different matter altogether. ) This may explain why she was hesitant when she wanted to tell Kirk about David in TVH and the dismissal glance Spock gave Saavik at the end of TSFS. IMO I like this explanation better than the nearly surreal scenario given in the script or the TVH commentary.

Just my two credits worth. However the debate continues.

 

[cardinal biggles]

Re: Star Trek Movie FAQ

So what, are you reading the special Canadian versions of these novelizations?

digifan said:
According to the novelization of TWoK, Saavik had an impulsive fling with David and was pregnant with his baby in TSFS.

Umm, no. Saavik and David had a fling at the beginning of the TSFS novelization. Neither the TSFS novel nor the TVH novel mention her being pregnant with anybody's child.

Her mindmeld with young Spock on Genesis was to stablize his ordeal through pon farr. I don't accept the implimentation of Saavik becoming pregnant with nothing more than a few touches of the fingers.

What, you never heard of foreplay?

(The only time I had seen this happening was Miss Q and Q doing a quickie in The Q and the Grey but that is a different matter altogether. )

Not to mention it doesn't have jack shit to do with anything.

This may explain why she was hesitant when she wanted to tell Kirk about David in TVH and the dismissal glance Spock gave Saavik at the end of TSFS. IMO I like this explanation better than the nearly surreal scenario given in the script or the TVH commentary.

More like Spock's glance kind of embarrassed her, because she knew what they'd done on Genesis. And her awkward goodbye to Kirk was probably awkward because they were discussing her "condition" before she tells him about David's brave death. But please, read things into it that aren't there.

However the debate continues.

Only in your head.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Re: Star Trek Movie FAQ

digifan said:
I don't accept the implimentation of Saavik becoming pregnant with nothing more than a few touches of the fingers.

That was only the beginning of what went on offscreen.

And later, they both had a cigarette. It was probably a stray ash from that encounter that caused the famous fire that William Shatner had to help put out, and was covered by "Entertainment Tonight"!

 

[Son_of_Soong]

Re: Star Trek Movie FAQ

The child is mine okay? Granted I've only been here for a few days and I have no idea who the mother is, heck from my point of view the child hasnt even been conceieved yet. All I know is its mine and it timetravelled somehow.

 

[cardinal biggles]

Re: Star Trek Movie FAQ

Bumpety bumpety just to let you know that I updated this thing for the first time in a year and a half.

 

[Lord Garth]

Re: Star Trek Movie FAQ - v 1.2 - updated 1/4/09

You should remove my TrekBBS e-mail address from the very bottom of the FAQ, under the Disclaimer. It's not even active anymore.

 

[cardinal biggles]

Re: Star Trek Movie FAQ - v 1.2 - updated 1/4/09

Good to see you again, LG.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Re: Star Trek Movie FAQ

Typo alert: it's Denny Martin Flinn, not Denny Martin Flynn.

 

[cardinal biggles]

Re: Star Trek Movie FAQ

Thank'ee.

 

[cardinal biggles]

Re: Star Trek Movie FAQ

The list in Part V has been revised to reflect Ricardo Montalban's death.

 

[cardinal biggles]

Re: Star Trek Movie FAQ

Minor update in Part VI to reflect the updated info about the Blu-ray boxed set.

 

[cardinal biggles]

Re: Star Trek Movie FAQ

Another update in Part VI to bring the Blu-ray info up to date.

 

[Lord Garth]

ST XI begins in 2233.04, corresponding to January 2233.

So: TWOK, which begins with Kirk's birthday, takes place in January 228_.

I now think TWOK-TFF all take place during the same calendar year.

 

[cardinal biggles]

If it weren't for the vintage of the Romulan Ale (2283), 2283 would be as good a date as any for TWOK to begin — Kirk getting hung up about turning 50. Of course, for the time being, we're still trying to just keep this about the first ten.

 

[Neftoon]

Just in regards to khan recognizing chekov, if you look at the stardate for catspaw it places it before space speed chronologically, meaning in universe chekov was a member of the crew when khan took over the enterprise, meaning he probably would have seen his face when he went through the crew manifest.

 

[Starborn Dragon]

I have a response to data in Nemesis.

In nemesis he compares himself to B4 and says that he has no wish to aspire and to be a better person.

But I think Data is forgetting something.

People grow and develop at different rates Which is why you can have a fifteen year old with an IQ of 3945 ir a fifty year old with an IQ of 77. And of course, some people are incapable of growing, and others still simply like themselves the way they are.

And B4s positron matrix was less developed than Data.

But, we should all be given a chance to grow and to aspire.