Unfair review?

[Dukhat]

Doesn't anyone think that bringing back Saavik (and I also think the Robin Curtis version would have worked better than the Kirstie alley version) for that particular role would have made perfect sense for the exact reason that people wouldn't have been happy that she was the culprit? No one would have ever suspected she was behind things precisely because of who she was. Everyone would have just thought she was returning to the role for one final TOS movie, like a tribute or something. Instead, we have this brand-new character, where it's all kinds of obvious that she has something to do with things precisely because of her existence in the film.

Plus, Saavik had a motive. She was there when the Klingons killed David Marcus. She saw Klingon brutality with her own eyes. What real motive did Valeris have to be part of the conspiracy?

 

[Therin of Andor]

One of the reasons that it was not Saavik is that Roddenberry threw a fit about the idea.

He did not "throw a fit". He wrote a memo to Nick Meyer saying that, as Saavik was popular with fans, it might be unfair to make her a traitor.

Not that that makes a lot of sense, it was Nick Meyer who created the character of Saavik in Wrath of Khan and was the director of Undiscovered Country. Meyer apparently really resented Roddenberry's objection.

Correct. He mentions his bemusement on the commentary track for ST VI.

Another less than compelling reason was money. It was Alley that they wanted for the role but didn't want to pay her.

Well, Kirstie Alley turned down the role. We don't know that it was money. (That was the reason she wasn't Saavik in ST III, though. Paramount offered her less to do ST III than she got to do ST II.) During ST VI, Alley was in her "Cheers" phase and had left Saavik way behind.

Doesn't anyone think that bringing back Saavik (and I also think the Robin Curtis version would have worked better than the Kirstie alley version)

Correct, but Meyer did not like Robin Curtis's interpretation in ST III and IV. Her agent was never approached re the ST VI role as a possibility. Curtis only heard about the movie after Cattrall was announced. However, Alley's rejection of ST VI meant Meyer could go back to his own original preference for ST II: Kim Catrall.

What real motive did Valeris have to be part of the conspiracy?

Sadly, only revealed in the novelization.

 

[gomtuu20]

Doesn't anyone think that bringing back Saavik (and I also think the Robin Curtis version would have worked better than the Kirstie alley version) for that particular role would have made perfect sense for the exact reason that people wouldn't have been happy that she was the culprit? No one would have ever suspected she was behind things precisely because of who she was. Everyone would have just thought she was returning to the role for one final TOS movie, like a tribute or something. Instead, we have this brand-new character, where it's all kinds of obvious that she has something to do with things precisely because of her existence in the film.

Plus, Saavik had a motive. She was there when the Klingons killed David Marcus. She saw Klingon brutality with her own eyes. What real motive did Valeris have to be part of the conspiracy?

That is an excellent point. Saavik would have had motivation.

 

[Gaith]

Plus, Saavik had a motive. She was there when the Klingons killed David Marcus. She saw Klingon brutality with her own eyes. What real motive did Valeris have to be part of the conspiracy?

Based on historical research/simple observation, Valeris, like the other conspirators, concluded that the Klingons were too inherently belligerent to be anything but a threat to galactic peace, and that this was an opportune moment to "let them die". Inhumane, certainly, but logical. My #1 complaint is wtf were they thinking in letting Rommies into maximum-security briefings?!

 

[CorporalCaptain]

In spite of all the technology and weapons, it is the HATE and MISTRUST that must be surpassed. It is a bigotry that has been fanned into flame by years and years of hostility. It is not easy to trust someone that has been your enemy for 30 years.

I agree, this is the message of the film.

To ponder, perchance to grok, the Shakespeare in the film, and the film's title, here is Hamlet's famous speech:

HAMLET
56 To be, or not to be: that is the question:
57 Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
58 The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
59 Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
60 And by opposing end them? To die, to sleep—
61 No more—and by a sleep to say we end
62 The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
63 That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation
64 Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;
65 To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub;
66 For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
67 When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
68 Must give us pause: there's the respect
69 That makes calamity of so long life;
70 For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
71 The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
72 The pangs of despised love, the law's delay,
73 The insolence of office and the spurns
74 That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
75 When he himself might his quietus make
76 With a bare bodkin? Who would fardels bear,
77 To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
78 But that the dread of something after death,
79 The undiscover'd country from whose bourn
80 No traveller returns, puzzles the will
81 And makes us rather bear those ills we have
82 Than fly to others that we know not of?
83 Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
84 And thus the native hue of resolution
85 Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
86 And enterprises of great pitch and moment
87 With this regard their currents turn awry,
88 And lose the name of action.—Soft you now,
89 The fair Ophelia! Nymph, in thy orisons
90 Be all my sins remember'd.

 

[Dukhat]

Inhumane, certainly, but logical.

If it was so logical to just "let them die," then why did Spock feel the complete opposite of that in trying to forge a peace treaty and helping them? That sounds like the more logical way to think, wouldn't you agree? Especially considering the outcome? Did the Allied powers just let Germany and Japan die after WWII concluded?

 

[Gaith]

Inhumane, certainly, but logical.

If it was so logical to just "let them die," then why did Spock feel the complete opposite of that in trying to forge a peace treaty and helping them? That sounds like the more logical way to think, wouldn't you agree? Especially considering the outcome? Did the Allied powers just let Germany and Japan die after WWII concluded?

From her POV, Spock's plan of rescuing them will simply allow them to re-arm and wreak devastation later on. Remember how WWII was allowed to happen because, from a certain point of view, the Allies got lax about enforcing the Treaty of Versailles?

Also, you are aware that different people can employ separate and even diverging logical tracks to justify their subjective views, oui?

 

[Dukhat]

Also, you are aware that different people can employ separate and even diverging logical tracks to justify their subjective views, oui?

I know that people can justify any actions based on their own preconceived notions of "logic" or whatever buzz-word you want to use there. That doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

 

[Gaith]

I never said it was; I only said that it was a credible motive. Those who imply that Valeris had no motive aren't troubling themselves with much thinking, imho.

 

[Aldo]

Also, you are aware that different people can employ separate and even diverging logical tracks to justify their subjective views, oui?

I know that people can justify any actions based on their own preconceived notions of "logic" or whatever buzz-word you want to use there. That doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

They made a big deal about the "right thing to do" versus "the logical thing to do" in Trek IV. So it would seem that many Vulcans will often take the logical course of action even if it is not the right course of action.

That could be why we don't see a lot of Vulcan Captains in Starfleet (Spock being an exception).

 

[gomtuu20]

Gaith noted the oddity of allowing the Romulan ambassador in on top secret meetings. That was something I found annoying too. Having said that, I must say that the actor that portrayed him had just the right amount of calm, calculating and creepiness about him. He only had a few lines, but you really got a sense that this guy was alway
s scheming and could not be trusted. This character make a Chicago politician feel skeezy (if that were even possible).

 

[Gaith]

^ Sure it is. There's a whole American right-of-center party devoted to doing just that.

 

[Therin of Andor]

My #1 complaint is wtf were they thinking in letting Rommies into maximum-security briefings?!

Both the Romulan and Vulcan delegations wore yellow sashes, when other UFP races wore blue. Some form of unification was being attempted?

 

[Winterwind]

Paragraphs do indeed help. I didn't read the post until someone else broke it up.

Yes, reviews are simply that: An opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.

And I stopped reading Michelle Erica Green's reviews/retro reviews a long time ago. Everyone is indeed entitled to an opinion, and I believe in equality but I just got rather tired, rather quickly, of the reviewer's less than subtle feminist rants.

As for TUC itself, I liked it when it came out but it's way down on my list now for many reasons. People complain about Scotty bumping his head in TFF (in a scene that is actually funny and I'm a Scotty fan) but Chekov looks like a complete idiot in the phaser scene during the investigation in TUC. I could go on but I've only just gotten up and have barely had two sips of my coffee.