Don't get me wrong. I love TUC. Love the ideas and how it was executed. I even love the fact that so many "fans" hated it, which meant that, on some asthetic level, they were doing something right. But the idea of "inventing" a character who appears to be a white hat in the beginning but turns out to be a black hat seems like a ripoff. Imagine the emotional shock to find out that Saavik, a character that we as fans grew to love and was Spock's protoge', turned out to sell Our Heores up the river out of jingoistic paranoia. So who do we blame? Is it the studio, the ailing Great Bird, or the conservative fanbase? Because Saavik would have been the more logical (pun intended) choice as the betrayer since she was introduced in the first Meyer/Bennett Trek film.
Why Valeris and not Saavik?
- Thread starter blockaderunner
- Start date
Cuz Alley wouldn't do it and Curtis sucked.
^^^^
I've heard two versions of this:
1) Roddenberry vetoed the idea of Saavik being the betrayer becasue she was a well-liked character who would never do such a thing.
2) Robin curtis was not available and the producers did not want to cast yet a third actor in the role.
I have no idea which of these reasons (if either) are actually true.
But, I agree with you that the story would have benefitted much if it had been Saavik in that role rather than Valeris.
I've heard two versions of this:
1) Roddenberry vetoed the idea of Saavik being the betrayer becasue she was a well-liked character who would never do such a thing.
2) Robin curtis was not available and the producers did not want to cast yet a third actor in the role.
I have no idea which of these reasons (if either) are actually true.
But, I agree with you that the story would have benefitted much if it had been Saavik in that role rather than Valeris.
Considering how draconian he became in his ailing years, I'd believe that.
Riiiiight. 'Cause the scripts were just pouring in for her.
What? Did she have to do a crucial two-parter on Matlock?
GR had no vote. He barely had his marbles.
Cuz her stellar career had taken off? nah. Meyer thought she was all wrong for the part. He was right.
Bingo.
He had no right of veto, but did submit a memo re the fans reacting badly to such negative revelations about a beloved character. Meyer was amused because GR didn't want Saavik in ST II in the first place.
In a "Starlog" interview after ST VI, Robin Curtis discusses that she was hurt that Nick Meyer did not even approach her agent. She was not invited back to play Saavik.
Kim Cattrall took the role on the proviso that she would not be the third actress to play Saavik.
Correct answer: Roddenberry argued strongly against Meyer to use Saavik in a treacherous way as he felt the character would not betray Kirk & crew. This is the official and only answer. Meyer has gone on record as to state this fact and his reactions to it. Curtis was not used because Meyer did not like her portrayal of Saavik.
Sieg Heil.
Utter nonsense. GR didn't get a vote.
I can sort of understand why they didn't use Saavik, I mean off-screen she and David were supposed to have become involved and her actions in TUC could in part have been because of how David was killed by Klingons.
So if it was due to that, she'd respond by framing David's father (whome she respected and admired) for murder and have him sent away to a penal colony for the rest of his life?!
So if it was due to that, she'd respond by framing David's father (whome she respected and admired) for murder and have him sent away to a penal colony for the rest of his life?!
I think this is where the logic of having it be Saavik would have fallen apart - regardless of whether she was involved with David, she respected Kirk and knew Spock respected Kirk. Had seen Spock give his life for Kirk, and now was willing out of the blue to betray him, frame him, and see his probably executed in a Klingon prison camp?
I don't see it myself, would have ranked among the biggest 'wtf?!' out-of-character moments in Star Trek history. This isn't 24.
But people do change. Even rigidly logical Vulcans. Some time had passed between the Genesis Trilogy and TUC. Perhaps within that time, Saavik's growing animosity towards the Klingons due to David's death, coupled with a strong desire to keep the Federation intact may have made her act in the best interest of the Federation and it could have overshadowed whatever respect she had for Kirk and Spock. Pride and a need for security for one's soveriegn entity can grow into ominous proportions. Just ask any patriot or fundamentalist. And, you are right. This isn't 24. But by that same token, and for dramatic purposes, it shouldn't be TNG either. Whose defintition of character development is facical hair.
Point taken, I agree that Saavik could have changed. I think we would have needed a great deal more backstory though than we had for Valeris, detailing why exactly she had changed, the events which led from the Saavik at the 'waving off Spock' scene in STIV to 'betrayer of the Federation' in STVI. I don't think they could have had her just on the ship as the helmsman as if everything was fine without at least a little exposition to explain her change of heart. Perhaps if the intended implication in STIV that she was having Spock's baby had become canonical we could have had her wanting to protect her child from the ruin of a Klingon alliance...
I love TNG, but 
harsh but fair.
Someone put a highly logical case for Valeris's actions here a few months ago. We can be fairly certain that she sent over the two assassins and was behind the doctoring of Enterprise logs, but Valeris/Saavik didn't know in advance that Chang would hold Kirk and McCoy responsible and have them trialled, found guilty and sent to Rura Penthe. If the Chancellor had been vaporised, or if the Klingon doctor was still functioning, there'd be no need for Kirk and McCoy to race over to try to save Gorkon's life.
Perhaps she intended for the assassins to take out Chang as well the Chancellor, thus eliminating the one person on the Klingon ship: the co-conspirator, who knew that there was a traitor on Enterprise?
The problem with it being Valeris is, she's the only candidate.
Aboard the Enterprise, we're looking for a killer/conspirator. Since this is a story, the killer should be a character *in* the story. That leaves our heroes... and Valeris.
Saavik would have had a lot more OMG factor than Valeris in the reveal scene. Instead, it was really a mystery with only one possible solution... which makes it less mysterious.
I never suspected it was her but when it was revealed she was the traitor I wasn't shocked as it seemed obvious in retrospect.
