Either that, or more of the whole plan, like I've always thought... it being something like "If we faked that they're still alive, could we draw out the killer to try again?"
Weird sickbay scene in ST VI
- Thread starter Mr. Laser Beam
- Start date
Remember, Kirk and Spock were only talking for like a minute. For some reason, Kirk had to pull Spock away and we couldn't hear the conversation. I can't believe Kirk was keeping his trusted old friends in the dark, especially since Sick Bay is part of the plan and McCoy came out of the shadows and was needed for said plan. Chekov and Scotty are beyond suspicion. So it was the audience who was supposed to continue guessing. So what would Kirk want to keep from us? Certainly not "let's fake an announcement to smoke out the real villain." That's not "secret" worthy. It had to be Kirk naming Valeris.
Kirk: "Overhearing my log entry, the Romulan Ale, someone who knows how this ship works...Valeris, Spock."
Spock (quickly connecting the dots): "It's possible."
And then, between scenes, they hatched their idea to smoke her out. And when she was revealed, Spock was the only one who seemed even a little taken aback - mostly out of disappointment. Kirk had it sussed out already. .
Kirk: "Overhearing my log entry, the Romulan Ale, someone who knows how this ship works...Valeris, Spock."
Spock (quickly connecting the dots): "It's possible."
And then, between scenes, they hatched their idea to smoke her out. And when she was revealed, Spock was the only one who seemed even a little taken aback - mostly out of disappointment. Kirk had it sussed out already. .
Last edited:
Fascinating. (Sorry for the dad joke there) … but I did not know this
curtis was always a bit flat compared to alley. Her line readings were… boring. I’m sure she’s a better actress than she delivered in search, but she was terrible so I can understand meyers reluctance to use her.
this is a movie that “could have been” great. As it was it was ok.
Not that I’m a movie director or anything…but if it were me, I’d have gotten Curtis for the role regardless of how I felt about her. Unless her acting skills were so bad that it would have ruined the movie, but that’s obviously not a factor with her. It would have made so much more sense and had much more shock value and dramatic impact to have Saavik back and then show the big reveal that she was a conspirator.
Your point makes a lot of sense! .
A new star fleet enterprise crew member character is always going to be like the “red shirt” role. You know the odds are either they did it, or they’re going to die …. (Scotty’s nephew in TMP , Lieutenant hawk…etc etc). ((Yes, there are exceptions! Savaak for instance But the odds are…))
Granted I was a kid at the time, but until that "reveal" I thought that Valeris really was there to take over Spock's role as resident logician with whatever crew was going to be on the Enterprise-A in the 'next' movie. Because we were going to get a new group of heroes for even more post-TOS movies, right??
Kor
Kor
My recollection is that Curtis contributes to a commentary track for TSFS, and I'd recommend giving it a listen...I'm not convinced of her acting talent either (not having seen her in many films), but in this case she may have been acting per Nimoy's direction, which, IMO, was a dubious choice especially given how Saavik was portrayed in the prior film.
Director Nimoy to Robin Curtis in ST III: "Drier... say it drier."
This was particularly for the line "Admiral, David is dead...", but he told her to remove emotion from many lines. Nimoy seemed determined to make Saavik a full Vulcan in ST III, not the scripted half-Romulan of ST II, which Kirstie Alley had played. Nimoy also banned Curtis from watching ST II to prepare for her role.
I saw Star Trek III and VI before Star Trek II, so Robin Curtis was my first Saavik and I had no problem whatsoever with her performance. I thought she did a good job playing a dry unemotional Vulcan and I still do. In fact she likely defined Vulcans for me seeing as Leonard Nimoy's Spock wasn't around for most of Star Trek III and the movie was probably my introduction to the franchise.
That said, I'm glad she didn't come back for Star Trek VI, because I didn't want a character I liked to be the traitor! I mean I liked Valeris as well, but I'd only known her for two hours instead of years.
That said, I'm glad she didn't come back for Star Trek VI, because I didn't want a character I liked to be the traitor! I mean I liked Valeris as well, but I'd only known her for two hours instead of years.
For those of us who'd understood that Saavik was supposed to be half-Romulan though, seeing her go full emotionless Vulcan could be a let-down, especially if we'd already seen Alley's more nuanced portrayal.
Wow, did not know that.
Search for Spock was….not a good movie. (My opinion, mind you)
Lots of plot issues, acting issues and … as I now see… major directing issues
Seeing the film first run as a much younger person than I am today and not at all in the know, Saavik was just an emotional Vulcan. I couldn't figure out why she was crying and swearing ("damn...plot an intercept course").
Nope it wasn't a good movie...it was a GREAT movie.
Everything about second Saavik is so different, like the makeup, the portrayal, the hair, that I think I almost treat them like separate people.
Producer Harve Bennett had an idea where the story would dive more into Saavik's background and be more Romulan involved. I wish Harve went with THAT idea than that pile of dogsh*t he produced. THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK is the most disappointing follow up to one the best Star Trek movie ever made "The Wrath of Khan" IMO.
It's so funny how we all look at things differently. I didn't find Saavik all that amazing, really. I thought she was cute but flatly played and "okay." She was "Spock's replacement." I wasn't all that crazy about David either. So recasting and changing Saavik didn't bother me in the slightest and David's death was only important to me because it was important to Kirk (Bennett forgot that when he was nonplussed when fans were more upset over losing the Enterprise). But since they omitted her half Romulan lineage in TWOK, Saavik was simply a weird Vulcan who became more traditional in the next movie. I thought Robin Curtis was just fine, her only real disadvantage was that Kirstie was a striking looking woman (who didn't have the traditional eyebrows), not that she was an amazing actor and that Robin's first lines were leadenly delivered.
The problem is that Nimoy forgot that Vulcans weren't emotionless, they were simply suppressing them. Note Sarek in the same film. Obviously Nimoy just let Mark Lenard do it as he always did and didn't say "flatter." If Robin Curtis were permitted to let some variety creep in, people may have liked her better.
What makes Star Trek III work for me, and make it my favorite of the films, was the focus on the core cast and their bond. Saavik Shmaavik.
The problem is that Nimoy forgot that Vulcans weren't emotionless, they were simply suppressing them. Note Sarek in the same film. Obviously Nimoy just let Mark Lenard do it as he always did and didn't say "flatter." If Robin Curtis were permitted to let some variety creep in, people may have liked her better.
What makes Star Trek III work for me, and make it my favorite of the films, was the focus on the core cast and their bond. Saavik Shmaavik.
A highly decorated officer of Kirk's stature has saved the planet from V'Ger and took out a maniacal space tyrant in the sequel, asks Starfleet to take the Enterprise to voyage to Genesis and he's rejected by a whole lot restrictions which couldn't possibly be implemented from the window of time the movie sets for itself. I honestly don't give a shit about what damn novelization explained things that III couldn't poorly do. Genesis is forbidden but New-Saavik and her science ship can explore it, just to get blown to bits??? The Enterprise was the great explorer* and could've handled a Romulan ship that happens to be Klingon if the writing didn't dictate that it would be shut down by one shot.
Kirk, Scotty, Chekov, and Sulu stealing the Enterprise and handling that massive vessel's ships operations is 100% prime bullsh!t. Only a movie as sh*tty as III could think that's plausible without an audience of laughter; there's a reason the ship requires a crew of 400 plus. Including the fact the ship suffered a vicious battle recently, TWOK, it definitely needed an operations crew to keep it stabled. Even after repairs, there would be a long series of maintenance overviewing the ship through space travel. No way an engineer would administer or support a dangerous travel through outer space when the ship was not satisfactory for even a full crew on board. Kirk was better off asking some favors to be aboard another ship and go its way than producing that clown show. The entire sequence was beneath the character and was a major weakness of that terrible script.
The stupid Klingon wanted Genesis, sees the planet is literally deteriorating right before his eyes; Kirk had to actually spell it out for this idiot and Kruge still wants to fight him??? As a matter of fact, what was the f^cking point to even bring Genesis to the table??? Star Trek was about exploring ideas with a sense of adventure, II was opening the palette to wonder even when things seemed quite grim while III flushed them down the toilet.
That horrible movie kept fighting its internal logic and scene after scene kept pissing me off.
That movie had a strange kind of Alien3 vibe, where "Aliens" had a nice set up to explore many avenues for characters and situations all intact and some a$$hole decided that it is not the franchise and kill them off.
*Before the one which was highly praised in the movie (USS EXCELSIOR) which didn't work. Best kinds of storytelling is when a ship is glorified to do Transwarp it should be seen, not told.
Kirk, Scotty, Chekov, and Sulu stealing the Enterprise and handling that massive vessel's ships operations is 100% prime bullsh!t. Only a movie as sh*tty as III could think that's plausible without an audience of laughter; there's a reason the ship requires a crew of 400 plus. Including the fact the ship suffered a vicious battle recently, TWOK, it definitely needed an operations crew to keep it stabled. Even after repairs, there would be a long series of maintenance overviewing the ship through space travel. No way an engineer would administer or support a dangerous travel through outer space when the ship was not satisfactory for even a full crew on board. Kirk was better off asking some favors to be aboard another ship and go its way than producing that clown show. The entire sequence was beneath the character and was a major weakness of that terrible script.
The stupid Klingon wanted Genesis, sees the planet is literally deteriorating right before his eyes; Kirk had to actually spell it out for this idiot and Kruge still wants to fight him??? As a matter of fact, what was the f^cking point to even bring Genesis to the table??? Star Trek was about exploring ideas with a sense of adventure, II was opening the palette to wonder even when things seemed quite grim while III flushed them down the toilet.
That horrible movie kept fighting its internal logic and scene after scene kept pissing me off.
That movie had a strange kind of Alien3 vibe, where "Aliens" had a nice set up to explore many avenues for characters and situations all intact and some a$$hole decided that it is not the franchise and kill them off.
*Before the one which was highly praised in the movie (USS EXCELSIOR) which didn't work. Best kinds of storytelling is when a ship is glorified to do Transwarp it should be seen, not told.
I'm sorry you had such a lousy time with it and hate it with such fervor. The sequence that you seem to think was greeted with laughter is considered the most fun portion of the film by many people. During the 7 times I saw it in the theater in 1984 and the one time I saw it in a revival a few years back, nobody laughed. The only laughter in the audience during any of it was during moments of intentional humor.
I remember vividly my local paper (Newsday) considered Star Trek III an improvement over The Wrath of Khan, bringing more of a feel of the original series, giving it 3 stars over their rating of 2 for the previous. Naturally, not everyone felt the same way (Siskel and Ebert seemed to find it not quite as good but they still liked it plenty).
Anyway, your mileage varies, but you sure seem to really be offended by it. That's too bad, I wish you enjoyed it more. Ah well.
By the way, I loved Alien 3. I love most sequels which upset the applecart and go in an unexpected direction. The Last Jedi among them.
I know it has nothing to do with the weird sickbay scene in ST VI, but I love the awesome Stealing the Enterprise scene in ST III.
It's a slow motion chase scene where one vehicle doesn't turn and the other's parked, we know the whole time there's no chance of the ship hitting the doors, and the actors don't really have anything to do during the whole escape except look concerned, but it's still somehow a highlight of the movie. A highlight of all the movies in fact. I blame ILM and James Horner.
It's a slow motion chase scene where one vehicle doesn't turn and the other's parked, we know the whole time there's no chance of the ship hitting the doors, and the actors don't really have anything to do during the whole escape except look concerned, but it's still somehow a highlight of the movie. A highlight of all the movies in fact. I blame ILM and James Horner.
Well, go ahead, you can restart it.Does anyone else remember when we were talking about the weird sickbay scene in TUC?
Similar threads
