TWOK cut scenes excerpts...

[Therin of Andor]

I want to see decent takes IF they exist.
If any future release shows them--I assume they will be decent takes.

And, according to people who were there, there were no usable takes. Supposedly, the scene was only added to coerce Takei to sign aboard, so when the takes didn't work, no one else really cared.

You mention Paramount as being "lazy". Laziness has nothing to do with it. If the legal clearances bill is not outweighed by extra profits that new bonus scenes will bring, then it won't be an option.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I'd like someone to ask Walter Koenig or Nick Meyer about the story of the black-faced stuntman that Therin says Paul Winfield told, and if it's accurate, since the script calls for Chekov to fall down, not Terrell, and I can't figure out why Meyer would change that since he wrote the final draft of the script.

So I'm LYING?

The incident was reported in the media (Starlog?) at the time it happened, since how else did I even know to ask Paul Winfield about it when he was here in Australia, making a film for Michael Pate?

Directors change things all the time. They'd ordered a white stuntman for the day. At some point during filming, Meyer decided to feature Terrell falling (instead of Chekov, or as well as Chekov?) and they black-faced the stuntman. When the union heard about it, there were angry memos back and forth.

My interview was conducted before ST II was released, and before anyone else had seen a script (including me), and the interview was approved by Winfield himself. You really think Winfield would make up a story confirming things I'd already found out about in my research?

 

[guardian]

I've been thinking the same thing but didn't have the guts to mention it.

The script calls for Chekov to be startled. The poster says they only had a white stunt-man available. Why change the script to terrell being startled and putting the stuntman in blackface. It makes no sense at all. Meyer's is not a jerk. Even if he had re-written to have Terrell be startled why not just change it back to Chekov if that's the only race stunt-man he had?
I've never bought the story for a minute, but the guy says Winfield told him personally & I'm just not going to call him a liar.

Also the 'enbankment' he is supposed to fall down is like 2 feet of sand pushed against the cargo carrier, near the little window. It's not like he was falling down a hill---check it out in the movie it not a big stunt. Not much more than Shatner falling back on the chair in Trek 3. 40 year old Winfield couldn't take a little fall back onto some soft sand? It would have been silly to see someone take this huge fall from that little height anyway.

Anyway now I've said it and I suppose i'm gonna get reamed. But you can be damn sure I'm gonna ask Koenig next time I go to a con.
If Meyer denied it , the poster would probably claim he was lying to save his reputation anyway.

Apologies to the poster in advance, but whatever explanations he will give for my doubts, I'm not gonna believe anyway.

Winfield had a bad hip and couldn't take a little fall.
It's against rules for him to take a little fall
The fall is bigger than it looks
For some reason Meyer really really wanted it to be Terrell who falls
Koenig would not be aware of the incident
They needed two stuntmen and both were white
etc, etc I ain't buying it

But if Koenig confirms the incident I'll take it like a man and write a huge apology.

 

[guardian]

Wow, it's in Starlog???

I can get ahold of those issues.
Any idea what issue? Should i read them all from that era? There were only about 5 issues with TWOK content.
And if I don't find it, well then maybe it was Fantastic Films or Cinefantastique?

But hey if you find it and post the article I'll be happy to ban myself from this forum for 3 months just for doubting you and being proven dead wrong.

I'm not calling you a liar, just saying the story has always sounded bogus.

Oh and i had all those starlog issues and i don't remeber reading that. But I may have forgotten it after so many years.

I truly would like to know if such a stupid thing was done by Meyer.

Oh I reread the post the Starlog has a big ? next to it. Well that's really a great source. I'll check all the old starlogs and then if I don't find it, I'll just check all the other sci-fi mags of the era.

 

[Grant]

'sources' is just meaningless nonsense to make a claim sound authentic.

What if I said I had sources that said there were usable takes. Meaningless.
We're all just anonymous posters. Quoting unnamed sources is BS.
I don't believe Takei--things he has said sound nutty to me.
Yes shatner has an ego, he wanted more lines etc etc. But i don't believe he'd being take after take to ruin another actors spotlight. maybe in a hurried TV scheduld with a director of the week.
But Meyer would have had enough clout to say to him 'pretty funny, but time a wasting, lets get this shot done.

I don't believe Takei
I don't believe Doohan
I don't believe your 'sources'
I don't believe you in these instances.

I've noted that you're a knowlegdeable poster with a lot of good facts, but there is a little bit of 'know-it-all-ism' in most of us trek fans and i believe your comments on this subject are like your personal hunting grounds where you just keep posting & re-posting your assertions that there are NO USABLE TAKES, 'WE'LL NEVER SEE THE BABY AT THE WINDOW BECAUSE OF THE STUNTMAN.' ETC

I am willing to entertain the possibility of those facts but you can't convince me 100% by posting 30 times.

But keep trying, I'll ignore you in this thread.

No hate, just disbelief.

 

[ScatmanRescueMe]

I can't take "someone told me..." as gospel either.

Sure it could be true--but maybe not.

I love the deleted scenes feature. I hope every time someone wishes to see scenes from the TOS movies we don't hear,
"you'll never see that because....."

Paramount IS lazy & cheap and/or coniving. That's why we're not getting the DE in Blu-ray this time around, because they didn't render the CGI in 1080p.
Either they were short-sighted or they just felt--we'll do more than one Blu-ray release and a lot of fans will buy it twice.

Either way it cost us.
Please let us speculate on deleted scenes without telling us why we'll never see them.


And I do think Takei is somewhat crazy.
He clung to the "Captain Sulu" series idea for a 'deludingly' long time.

Sure I would have watched it, but it just was never going to happen--never--he's not a lead--in looks, in talent, in charisma, & no way.

 

[Maurice]

So I'm LYING?

Did I accuse you of anything? No. However, given how many different variations people tell of the same event, I'd be interested in hearing it from more than one source, to see if others corraborate the events as I've heard it related, and if so, why was that decision made.

 

[trevanian]

The 'blacking up' thing definitely happened, it was reported in VARIETY and/or THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER at the time. My friend who subscribed to and read those things religiously called me at work and read me the story. It had happened years earlier on LIVE & LET DIE and practically caused a riot on set, but this was a lot more quiet, less fallout. I think Paramount just paid a fine.

I've heard good and bad things about Winfield, but he didn't make this up when he talked with the poster.

 

[Maurice]

The 'blacking up' thing definitely happened, it was reported in VARIETY and/or THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER at the time. My friend who subscribed to and read those things religiously called me at work and read me the story. It had happened years earlier on LIVE & LET DIE and practically caused a riot on set, but this was a lot more quiet, less fallout. I think Paramount just paid a fine.

I've heard good and bad things about Winfield, but he didn't make this up when he talked with the poster.

Which is exactly what I'm asking for...corroboration. Thanks, T!

 

[trevanian]

Wow, it's in Starlog???

I can get ahold of those issues.
Any idea what issue? Should i read them all from that era? There were only about 5 issues with TWOK content.
And if I don't find it, well then maybe it was Fantastic Films or Cinefantastique?

But hey if you find it and post the article I'll be happy to ban myself from this forum for 3 months just for doubting you and being proven dead wrong.

I'm not calling you a liar, just saying the story has always sounded bogus.

Oh and i had all those starlog issues and i don't remeber reading that. But I may have forgotten it after so many years.

I truly would like to know if such a stupid thing was done by Meyer.

Oh I reread the post the Starlog has a big ? next to it. Well that's really a great source. I'll check all the old starlogs and then if I don't find it, I'll just check all the other sci-fi mags of the era.

Since you're going to be so thorough, you should also check that digest-sized trek newsletter, it came out 6 or 8 times per year. It might have had something on this.

I'm astonished that you people won't take a legit poster like THERIN at face value. It happens to me too, but geez, THERIN actually probably knows more about a lot of this stuff than me, and that IS saying something.

 

[guardian]

I subscribed to the little Trek booklet in 1985-87---it wasn't in there.
And it wasn't in Starlog because I bought all those issue from about issue 28 to 90 something.

Because now another person says they saw an article 26 years ago we are supposed to take it as gospel??
Oh and now there are two more magazines we supposed to look it up in!
Wow that makes 100% true. Why not just say you read it somewhere and therefore must be true.

Sorry, you guys are fine knowledgeable posters, but still are just guys on the internet.

I love the ---"You're saying I'm LYING!!!"

Well yeah maybe. Because you post here doesn't mean your honest or infallable.

1982 was not 1952 or 1932. Blackface was a huge outrage by then and Meyer seems way to smart to try and pull that. He also seems sensitive about race. It smells to me but hey, I'd love to eat my words. SHOW me proof and I'll believe. saying it appeared in some magazine, your not sure which, 26 years ago isn't proof.
A story that odd and outrageous requires proof for some folks to believe.

Maybe you're right and honest and maybe you're not.

 

[ScatmanRescueMe]

If I was gambling person, I'd say the scene was cut for reasons of 'pace'
I think they wanted to get on to meeting Khan and propelling the movie toward the eventual battles.

The knock on TMP was that it was slow and had no action---I think they wanted to intro the heroes and the villain and get rolling.
Having the kid frighten Chekov might have been a cool jump moment but they were thinking opening weekend buzz and critical reaction.

That's why am fine with having two versions of movies.
I understand the priorities of the theater box office, but after you've seen the movie and if you like it--it's great to have an alternate version that explores the story in more depth.

I love both versions of Abyss, T2, Aliens etc, but if I'm sitting at home and have the time I'm happy to get the extra scenes and watch the movie at my pace.

Also, I'd be grateful if we could drop the debate here and talk about the cut scenes. I wouldn't call anybody here a liar. Niether would I DEMAND anybody believe an antecdotal story I told.

Believing and skeptcism are both fine.

Heck, i don't believe Takei's version but i wouldn't say he's lying, he just has his point of view. He could be telling the straight-up truth as well. I just can't take his word and 'sources' as pure fact.

Hell every divorce has two totally different naratives, but one person is not purely lying most of the time.

Sorry for preaching.

Long live the deleted scenes portion of this thread.

 

[trevanian]

I subscribed to the little Trek booklet in 1985-87---it wasn't in there.
And it wasn't in Starlog because I bought all those issue from about issue 28 to 90 something.

Because now another person says they saw an article 26 years ago we are supposed to take it as gospel??
Oh and now there are two more magazines we supposed to look it up in!
Wow that makes 100% true. Why not just say you read it somewhere and therefore must be true.

Sorry, you guys are fine knowledgeable posters, but still are just guys on the internet.

I love the ---"You're saying I'm LYING!!!"

Well yeah maybe. Because you post here doesn't mean your honest or infallable.

1982 was not 1952 or 1932. Blackface was a huge outrage by then and Meyer seems way to smart to try and pull that. He also seems sensitive about race. It smells to me but hey, I'd love to eat my words. SHOW me proof and I'll believe. saying it appeared in some magazine, your not sure which, 26 years ago isn't proof.
A story that odd and outrageous requires proof for some folks to believe.

Maybe you're right and honest and maybe you're not.

Can you give us any reason why we'd bring it up if it weren't true? I've interviewed Meyer, and while it was not a good interview on his part, I don't consider him a dick.

I have disagreed with THERIN on any number of things, but in terms of veracity, THAT is my thing, as it is his. So he's justified in being a little outraged, because he's proved his worth in this area time and again.

This is almost like the klingonbloodcolor thing I used to have to go through every few months. Just because Berman, who had nothing to do with TUC, made an offhand comment in a trek magazine, a comment that was 100% wrong, everybody still thinks the blood color was ratings-related, which is 100% bullshit.

It is just more of the 'print the legend' crap that whittles away at historical accuracy.

That little mag was published in 1982 as I recall, so you'd have to dig a little deeper. But you'd probably be better off trying to find confirmation through variety or THR, since those are industry bibles.

I'd bet that you could find plenty of references to 'blacking up' for stuntwork online, but I'll leave that to you. Burden of disproof is yours.

 

[Data Holmes]

I've interviewed Meyer...

What did you think of him?

 

[trevanian]

I've interviewed Meyer...

What did you think of him?

I was an insane fan of his, based on TWOK and his novel CONFESSIONS OF A HOMING PIGEON. And his office's response to my letter (beginning of 1991) was perhaps the most positive one I've ever gotten to a query ... I was asking for a phone interview, but they were saying, can you come in this morning and spend the day (yeah, I was 400 miles north and working grave shift, fat chance of that.)

But when the interview took place, he was very irritable, to the point that I was taken a bit aback. It was years later when I realized the interview took place only hours (certainly no more than a day) after TUC had been belatedly green-lit, after weeks of back and forth over a million bucks, and Meyer having screaming fits with Paramount. So he was probably pretty shot when I spoke with him. Plus a writer guy I know in England said Meyer's wife had started to get sick around that time, so that could have been a factor too.

 

[Grant]

Burden of disproof So we should all search high and low for proof of something we don't think exists?

You're making a clain that to my ears sounds bogus with no proof other than 'I know it to be true' and you then tell others to search for the proof.
Don't tell me bigfoot exists and then tell me to go find proof for myself.

I'm not calling anybody a liar, I just don't believe it and I won't hunt for something I don't think exists. If you are so passionate about it--you find the proof. post a link, or show an article, etc.
I WON'T accuse you of forging it. But don't tell us to hunt for it.
I'll let it drop.

Back on the subject,

I like the idea of a little scare as they explore the planet. I don't think it would have taken too much time to show them get spooked by the kid.
But, like the romulan deletion (to save 30 seconds) I think they made some questionable choices. I mean having her act somewhat emotionally for the whole movie and then removing a couple of lines to explain it doesn't seem to make sense.

 

[trevanian]

Burden of disproof So we should all search high and low for proof of something we don't think exists?

You're making a clain that to my ears sounds bogus with no proof other than 'I know it to be true' and you then tell others to search for the proof.
Don't tell me bigfoot exists and then tell me to go find proof for myself.

I'm not calling anybody a liar, I just don't believe it and I won't hunt for something I don't think exists. If you are so passionate about it--you find the proof. post a link, or show an article, etc.
I WON'T accuse you of forging it. But don't tell us to hunt for it.
I'll let it drop.

Sorry I don't speak emoticon, I write in english.

As for the rest, I guess we'll conclude that some folks have vision and the rest REFUSE to wear bifocals. But this does speak to how disinformation becomes fact. All you need is enough people to just put their hands over their eyes, ears, and mouth.

 

[Grant]

Last word much?


The delted scenes from WOK I'd most like to see are the ones with David and / or Saavik since we got a new Saavik and David was just a sacrificial
lamb in SFS. Butrick was sad they were cut and as much as I love the main cast--we did get to see a lot more of them in later movies. For Saavik and David this was their best stuff.

Also I'd like to see where McCoy works on Chekov as a deleted scene. I'd like to see him work on someone who didn't die in WOK.

 

[trevanian]

Last word much?

Meaning what? Snipes without context are just snipes, not information, and as such are not worthy of posting. Support or step off.

 

[ScatmanRescueMe]

Enough bullying.


I'd like to see the Terrell, Kyle, Beach scene where terrell tricks the ship into beaming up the 'guests'

It's clear why it was cut--it's just exposition, but I'd like to see Winston one last time as Kyle.