I was not suggesting anything. I clearly stated that I could not believe I had never noticed this whilst watching the films before.
I will no longer add anything to this thread.
Why did David have to die?
- Thread starter EJA
- Start date
I was not suggesting anything. I clearly stated that I could not believe I had never noticed this whilst watching the films before.
I will no longer add anything to this thread.
Something that always bothered me about the scene is the way Saavik breaks the news to Kirk. I mean I know she's Vulcan and all, but she could have shown a little compassion. "Admiral, David is dead," she could have at least prefaced it with "Admiral, I regret to inform you..." Or something.
Saavik:
"Admiral Kirk, how do you tell someone of a death in their family?"
Kirk:
"You have to break it to them gently. For instants, years ago I had to tell a friend of the death of their cat, In the first call I said that the cat is on the roof trying to catch a bird. The second call I said that the cat lost its footing trying to catch the bird as it flew away, it fell and now it's at the vet. The third call I said that the vet says that it's not looking good for the cat. On the fourth call I said that their cat died peacefully in its sleep."
Saavik:
"Admiral ... David is on the roof roof trying to catch a bird."
.
"Admiral Kirk, how do you tell someone of a death in their family?"
Kirk:
"You have to break it to them gently. For instants, years ago I had to tell a friend of the death of their cat, In the first call I said that the cat is on the roof trying to catch a bird. The second call I said that the cat lost its footing trying to catch the bird as it flew away, it fell and now it's at the vet. The third call I said that the vet says that it's not looking good for the cat. On the fourth call I said that their cat died peacefully in its sleep."
Saavik:
"Admiral ... David is on the roof roof trying to catch a bird."
.
The Novel "The Ashes of Eden" explained this. Kirk's former classmate Drake gave it to him.
But that was kind of the whole point of the scene.
The Disney/Buena Vista book/record set of ST III says, "You Klingon monster, you killed my son!"
That's because that version of the story takes place in an alternate timeline in which Kruge's parents were legally married, unlike in the movie, when they weren't.
Novels are not canon though so the question is still valid. Also Drake was never clarified as being a classmate of Kirk's. Jim tells McCoy that he knew him at the Academy then onboard the Farragut. They were rivals.
It's a valid question but I don't see it being answered onscreen in the next forever years.
The short answer to the OP's question is: because STIII and STIV are just big reset buttons.
Kirk's got a son? Kill him.
That new crewmember, Saavik? Leave her on Vulcan.
Blowed-up the Enterprise? Give them an identical replacement.
Spock's dead? Nope, he got better.
TWoK was a wonderful movie which advanced the stories of the characters and had them grow and change only to have TSFS and TVH come along and push everything back to the status quo so that TFF is basically a big budget TOS episode. Bad move, IMO. At least TUC moved things back in the right direction a bit.
Kirk's got a son? Kill him.
That new crewmember, Saavik? Leave her on Vulcan.
Blowed-up the Enterprise? Give them an identical replacement.
Spock's dead? Nope, he got better.
TWoK was a wonderful movie which advanced the stories of the characters and had them grow and change only to have TSFS and TVH come along and push everything back to the status quo so that TFF is basically a big budget TOS episode. Bad move, IMO. At least TUC moved things back in the right direction a bit.
Always wondered what Star Trek 3 might have been like had they NOT gone the search for Spock route, but done something totally different, just without Spock.
With Nimoy wanting to come back there was no chance they wouldn't have searched for Spock.
IMO, a good follow-up to TWoK would have been to have Kirk go looking for Spock, but not be successful.
Then Kirk has to learn to accept what fate has brought him: his best firend is dead; he has a son; and there's a new vulcan in his crew.
It would have been more realistic, and would have been a good complementary piece to the movie before it. Then STIV could have been the beginning of an entirely new plot-line for the movie series.
Then Kirk has to learn to accept what fate has brought him: his best firend is dead; he has a son; and there's a new vulcan in his crew.
It would have been more realistic, and would have been a good complementary piece to the movie before it. Then STIV could have been the beginning of an entirely new plot-line for the movie series.
To add more punch to my favorite TOS film, The Undiscovered Country. :P
That's the last 5 minutes of TWOK drawn out to 2 hours.
It's interesting. The only reason Nimoy did Star Trek II in the first place was because he was intrigued with the notion of Spock getting a grandiose death. Prior to that he was not interested at all and wanted to be done with the franchise. Then when WTOK was clearly successful and saw there were possibilities to bring Spock back he jumped all over a sequel and wanted to direct. It would have been very interesting to see what a third film would be like if they had left Spock dead. I was reading something where Harve Bennett claimed that he started writing the original draft backwards for Star Trek III while II was still in production and said something like 17 different people could write the script it basically wrote it's self. As much as I love Spock, and I do, he's my favorite TOS character, it would have been fascinating to see the crew move on and deal with his death properly. I would have liked to have seen Saavik succeed Spock as the new Enterprise officer and struggle with the expectations and pressures of succeeding a legend. Kirk would request to take command of Enterprise again.
It's interesting, but I'm curious, had Spock stayed dead and Saavik took her rightful place as his replacement. Would Alley's higher salary demands for Trek III have been fulfilled?
I usually don't mind character's changing actors in sequels. But this is one time where I think the character of Saavik really suffered by not having Alley portraying her in the sequels.
I usually don't mind character's changing actors in sequels. But this is one time where I think the character of Saavik really suffered by not having Alley portraying her in the sequels.
I always get the feeling that Director Nimoy was behind the "clean slate" for Saavik. Paramount supposedly offered Kirstie Alley less for ST III than she made on ST II with the reasoning that "sequels traditionally make less money". Naturally, her agent made a counter offer that was ridiculously high (equivalent to Shatner's salary, I heard), fully expecting the counter counter offer to be something in between. The agent never received a call for renegotiation. But, contractually, Paramount had fulfilled its responsibilities to Alley by making an offer. And that was it. Had ST II not been Alley's first job in Hollywood, her contract may have been more specific about salary potentials for possible sequels.
They didn't bother fighting the situation because Alley suddenly got offered a lead stage role in Los Angeles ("Cat on a Hot Tin Roof", IIRC) and, for a young, up and coming actress, having a well rounded CV is far more important than repeating a role in a sequel film. (This anecdote came to us from Bjo Trimble, who'd talked to her not long before Bjo did a convention in Australia just before ST III came out.)
With Alley gone, Nimoy joined in the search for recasting, and molded his new Saavik into a rather different character. Had Nimoy opted for Spock to "stay dead", ST III would probably have developed a film or telemovie where Saavik and David were the leads, with Shatner as the top-billed admiral, expecting Spock-like performances from Spock' protoge. Whomever from the rest of the cast signing aboard would round out the experienced crew, but they may have populated the ship with young people (or at least the age of TOS crew members!)
With the SPFX guys still complaining about the TMP shooting model, there probably still would have been an attempt to replace the Enterprise with a different ship at some point. Maybe something more suited to a fledgling, acting captain and her non-Starfleet scientist/specialist? Maybe a Reliant repaint to save money?
Note also that ST III was written without a clear indication that Nimoy would actually decide to return as an actor, or just director. At the very last minute, he could have changed his mind - and Maltz simply would have beamed up Spock as one of the previous, younger actors playing regenerated Spock.
Yeah, audiences would have been standing in lines for that.
The real reason David was killed is that Bennett was pretty one-dimensional as a dramatist. He always liked to kill something. Kill Spock, then kill the Enterprise and David. When Nimoy finally got enough control, he explicitly wanted a move where no one died, hence TVH.
