Discussion in 'General Trek Discussion' started by HAL.9000, May 20, 2011.
HAL.9000 won't be responding to your post.
Whatever. I don't care about Meyer's opinion. Just mine. And mine stands.
Ok, now THAT's funny.
As to the topic, occasionally I am stunned. Truly. I am stunned that this question even came up, and that some people are going with Curtis. Not that you are wrong (though you are). It's that you could be so aMAZingly wrong.
It's like asking which celestial object comes out at night, and some people say "sun." THAT bizarre.
To me. Such variety amongst us humans.
Alley. (And "moon" btw.)
I'm shocked at the number of people here who believe wikipedia instead of the reports, based on documentation made available by Paramount, that Kirstie Alley was offered less money for a larger role, and that was the main reason she turned down STIII.
I would hardly call her role in the movie larger, as a matter of fact, I would call it about the same if not smaller.
Personally, I don't care if Curtis' career went nowhere while Alley's went skyward. Curtis still portrayed the better Saavik, IMHO.
I also don't care what Meyer, Nimoy or anybody else thinks about it. Like RandyS said, my opinion is the only one I care about and it stands.
If anybody likes Alley better than Curtis, more power to you. But for my money, Curtis was immeasurably better.
Perhaps if Alley had accepted the role it would have been larger?
If only because of her bustline.
Movie can be altered, rewritten and reimagined after production has begun, just as entire scenes can disappear. It's not impossible that with a different actress, scenes and dialog would have been different in the movie.
I wonder if Curtis' career went south because Nimoy made her act so wooden in the film. That flat acting wouldn't exactly encourage others to hire her.
You know, that's possible.
Eliminate Curtis/Saavik from the movies she appeared in and you lose nothing.
I just found myself wondering whether TWoK would be better/worse/the same without Saavik. I can imagine it logistically, but that's about it.
Fair enough. But I feel the same way about Alley.
Oh my God. I think you two just discovered... opinions.
Nah, just an "illogical" human urge to get the last word!
I occasionally wonder what it would be like if Saavik had remained a male character named Savik as originally written.
Then we would not have had Alley OR Curtis.
^Would have made TSFS more interesting.
For me there's no question. Kirstie Alley was far better.
I loved the little flashes of emotion that she showed as Saavik (it's a shame they edited out any references to her Romulan/Vulcan heritage, though). Any full, unemotional Vulcan (the way Curtis played the part) just comes off as a second-rate Spock (which may be the way that Nimoy wanted it -- why create any competition for yourself?) Alley's Saavik showed TONS of potential for character growth in future stories, and Star Treks III-VI would've been stronger movies for Alley's presence. I still think it's a shame she didn't return to the role for STVI.
And yes, she was a damn sight sexier than Curtis, too.
I seem to remember that Ms. Alley was a longtime Star Trek fan who really wanted the part, whereas Ms. Curtis took it as just another job. Naturally, trekkers preferred the former.
But you'd think that the fact that Curtis did more Trek stuff afterward would have neutralized that bias by now.
I enjoy spaghetti but I dislike meatloaf. By your logic, I should start enjoying meatloaf just as much as spaghetti if I only I was served meatloaf more often.
Fan bias is not logical, as what's-his-name might say.
Separate names with a comma.