• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Wrath of Khan deleted scene audio clip.

Thank you for this thread and all the fantastic information. This is one of my favorite films. One piece of information: Bob Sallin was a guest on Inglorious Treksperts and, if I remember correctly, revealed that placing Star Trek II under Paramount's television division was simply a ruse to get better deals from the trade unions. It was always going to be a feature film.

Sallin's memory on this point is incorrect (I can't blame him; it's been nearly 40 years).

I have a scan of a September 29, 1981 memo which details Paramount's decision to upgrade the project from a movie-of-the-week to a theatrical feature.

Forgive me if I missed it, but what are the details of the Star Trek II work print at UCLA? In whose collection is it...and is it viewable by the public? What format? Thanks!

It can be viewed at ARSC, which has viewing stations and also viewing rooms you can reserve. (Obviously, that's not going to happen again at UCLA anytime soon.)
 
Wish we had similar for Star Trek 3 and Star Trek 6

Yes, apparently there is a lot of deleted material on the cutting room floor, particularly for III.

If I recall correctly among the deleted material is an extended scene with Kirk and Sarek, some more of Vulcan, David encountering the Klingons and a longer opening sequence.
 
If Paramount was interested in releasing these movies one more time on disc clearly deleted scenes from two three and six would be pretty good selling point along with restoring the movies properly.
But I'm not sure they are interested in selling them again on physical media. Heck I'd buy a disc that contain nothing but deleted scenes from the first six movies
 
Last edited:
So would I, but the Roddenberry Vault didn’t sell.
I would argue because it was in part because it was just repacked episodes with extra content and not just the "vault" material. The presentation was also meh, with too much of the usual suspects spewing the same old tired self-congratulatory clichés about the show instead of providing much in the way of context or new insights.
 
I absolutely love seeing the deleted material shown in the Roddenberry vault but not putting all the deleted material in context with the existing episode was a huge mistake. I mean for years they have shown deleted scenes in context on movie bonus features sections and they decide they're going to randomly split up the deleted scenes from the episodes across multiple discs where you couldn't see all the scenes from a particular episode on a single disc? How about putting the episode with all the deleted scenes from that particular episode at the end with a framing device to see exactly where they would have gone. Plus the fact they said they found hundreds of reels of film but they only came up with like an hour of material. I guess they figured we wanted to see the Talking Heads more than we actually wanted to see the deleted footage. Or they thought it would be such a big seller they were saving some of the material for a volume 2.
For the movies if you included every alternate, extended and deleted scene along with deleted sequences that weren't filmed it would be hours of material but maybe the demand is just not there even for a well-done package.
 
It also didn't help that the majority of the deleted material was presented in low-rez clips that looked like they were pulled from 10-year-old YouTube clips at the wrong aspect ratio. I understand the footage obviously being scratched and faded, but why make the clips look even worse?
 
My guess is they didn’t have the budget to go back and do a proper HD scan of the material. Too bad. But at least we have the clips. I just wish we could see all of the footage, if only for its historic value.
 
My guess is they didn’t have the budget to go back and do a proper HD scan of the material. Too bad. But at least we have the clips. I just wish we could see all of the footage, if only for its historic value.
Wellllll, there are ways of doing it relatively cheaply. They just didn't call the right people.

I do wonder what the budget was for that project, though.
 
"Yeah, we'll finally give you what you've been wanting for decades - but in the least satisfying way imaginable." That disc was just dripping with carelessness and contempt.
 
Of course, the obvious answer as to why that dialogue was never put back in the Director's Cut, is simply that the music crescendos around the original edit. And it having nothing to do with Takei's grievance with Shatner. It would've required rescoring the scene. Clearly James Horner came to the project, and the edits were designed to be "in-time" with his music.
Movies are typically scored after they're edited, not the other way around. Steven Spielberg edited the ending of E.T. to John Williams' score to make the most of the emotion Williams' music conveyed, but that's the exception, not the rule. James Horner would have scored this scene after it was edited, not before.

I think there are pretty obvious reasons why the lines about Sulu's promotion were cut:

1) It's completely irrelevant to the plot. We never see Sulu take command of a ship at any point in the film, so why bother setting it up? Yeah, it's another way of telling that Kirk is upset that he isn't captaining a ship, but we knew this already. The movie's already shown us this in about half a dozen different ways by this point. The Sulu dialogue adds nothing.

2) "I'm delighted. Any chance to go aboard the Enterprise, however briefly, is always an excuse for nostalgia." is a badly written and horribly stilted line, and Takei's delivery doesn't make it sound any better. As has been pointed out here in other BBS threads about this moment, most of the Trek supporting actors were pretty rusty and out of practice by the time the movies rolled around, and at times it showed.

Most of the times deleted scenes are interesting curiosities, nothing more. They're neat to see, but 9 times out of 10, you still say, "Yeah, I can see why that was cut." Any talk about Shatner deliberately sabotaging Sulu's big moment is just George Takei's wounded pride and paranoia talking.
 
Last edited:
1) It's completely irrelevant to the plot. We never see Sulu take command of a ship at any point in the film, so why bother setting it up? Yeah, it's another way of telling that Kirk is upset that he isn't captaining a ship, but we knew this already. The movie's already shown us this in about a half a of dozen different ways by this point. The Sulu dialogue adds nothing.

More to the point, it became irrelevant once it became clear that Nimoy wanted back in and the Alley/Butrick TV-movie spinoff series (in which a more-affordable-than-Shatner Captain Sulu would no doubt have appeared from time to time to check in on 'the kids') wasn't necessary after all. So maybe it's Nimoy Takei should have been mad at! :rofl::vulcan:
 
More to the point, it became irrelevant once it became clear that Nimoy wanted back in and the Alley/Butrick TV-movie spinoff series (in which a more-affordable-than-Shatner Captain Sulu would no doubt have appeared from time to time to check in on 'the kids') wasn't necessary after all. So maybe it's Nimoy Takei should have been mad at!
No, that wasn't my point at all. The Sulu subplot was utterly irrelevant to TWOK as a story, which, while they were making it, pretty much everyone expected it to be the last Star Trek movie. Any plans for a spinoff series of TV movies were probably a pipe dream at best. I'm sure that @Harvey and/or @Maurice can speak to how far those plans got, but my guess is "Not very."

My point was that, in the grand scheme of things, Sulu just isn't that important.*

*(This also applies to Chekov and Uhura. It doesn't particularly matter whether Chekov was the Duty Officer or the First Officer on the Reliant, because it doesn't affect the plot of TWOK one iota. And it's never clear exactly what Uhura's regular duties are around the time of TWOK. Is she Admiral Kirk's attache? Is she regularly assigned to the Enterprise under Spock? Does she have some position at the Academy? Maybe she's already working at the San Francisco transporter station we saw her at in TSFS? Or maybe something else altogether? Who knows? At the end of the day, it doesn't matter.

The truth is that the supporting actors were in the movies just so that they could have everyone from the show there. But as others in this thread have already noted, them being absent wouldn't be a dealbreaker for anyone. You'd just go, "Oh, too bad Sulu's gone," and go see the movie anyway. The only people they truly couldn't do the movies without were Shatner and Nimoy. Even DeForest Kelley was considered more expendable than they were.)
 
Captain Sulu was a concession to attract Takei to come back for the film. That's all. There's zip sign there was any intention for that to go anywhere.

In The Genesis Project script there were additional named cadets with larger roles, and the intent there seems to be to have them set up to be the next generation if sequels happened, presumably with the old secondary characters shuffled off. Giving Sulu a command a is good way to send him bye-bye.

In that script Uhura is explicitly Kirk's aide. That carried over in intent though it's not stated.

Also in that script, the Reliant's C.O. is Beach. Terrell is the mission commander/Genesis liaison, and Chekov is assigned to the project. Nowhere there or in the final film is it explicitly stated that Chekov is anything like the X.O. EDIT: See next msg.
 
Last edited:
Also in that script, the Reliant's C.O. is Beach. Terrell is the mission commander/Genesis liaison, and Chekov is assigned to the project. Nowhere there or in the final film is it explicitly stated that Chekov is anything like the X.O.

No character identifies Chekov as the XO in on-screen dialogue. Chekov being XO doesn't appear to have been the intent when they shot the movie. But at some point they rewrote Chekov's first log recording to give him the line, "Log entry by First Officer Pavel Chekov" (emphasis mine). A post-production promotion, I suppose?

I wonder if Koenig mentions this in his memoir?
 
Chekov is well-known enough for Marcus to respond to him on the comm, so there's nothing inconsistent with him being the XO. But if he was originally intended to be a Genesis project attaché, that would make sense too.

As for the rest of the crew, the impression the film gives is that they are attached to the ship under Captain Spock and are training the cadets. This certainly seems to be the case for Scotty.

Sulu's a bit different because his line "any chance to go aboard the Enterprise" suggests he's not a permanent fixture, and there more as a favour to Kirk. That never made much sense to me - why go on a training cruise but not actually let the cadets fly the ship? You could cut him from the film completely and it wouldn't have mattered at all. Same for Uhura.
 
I get all the behind the scenes stuff and all of the notes about the "importance" of the supporting cast are spot on. But it was an established Trek convention that the two most important people on the ship beam down together. Unless they need to give the co-star a parallel storyline back on the ship. Chekov and Terrel's interaction didn't make anybody bat an eye about how a Captain and First Officer act.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top