From: Scott Gorcey <scottgor@jaflrn.UUCP>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.misc
Subject: Re: Star Trek 6: New Footage (and comments)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 19:18:19 EDT
Organization: The Wizzard's Cave, East Meadow, NY

lalombard@amherst.edu writes:

> In article <1992Jul9.114347.26675@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, dnadams@isis.cs.du.ed
> > 
> > kanamori@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Atsushi Kanamori) writes:
> >  >dnadams@isis.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams) writes:
> > [...]
> 		*stuff Deleted* 
> >  >Replacing Saavik with Valeris, no matter what the reason, was the
> >  >death blow to the betrayal story.
> > 
> > I don't see any logic to that.  Why should Saavik be the one and only
> > being in the Federation who can perpetrate a "betrayal"?  Everything
> > they did with Kim Cattrall worked perfectly for me, and I find her to
> > be INFINITELY more enjoyable, capable, and talented than Curtis...
> > 
> 
> 	I must disagree here - although the portrayal of Valeris was very good,
> the story line would have made more sense had Saavik been the spy.  It would 
> have explained her relationship with Spock a little better, rather than
> suddenly pull up this character whom Spock knows quite well, but we've never 
> seen.  Saavik as the spy would also have added a little more suprise to the
> plot, as well, since her character is familiar to us, and it would not have
> been as predictable to single her out.  As for Valeris, I guessed that she wa
> the spy quite early on, just as easily as I could guess that the redshirt in
> every episode was going to die in TOS.  :^)

     Though it would be hard for me to choose the more pathetic
     actress, Katrall or Robin Curtis, Curtis was certainly less
     _abrasively_ pathetic than Katrall.  However, that's incidental:
     the reasaon Saavik was replaced with Valeris was because Nick
     Meyer wanted to get Kirstie Alley for to reprise Saavik; when
     Alley agreed but couldn't get the time off from CHEERS to
     film when Paramount insisted filming begin, Valeris was 
     rewritten.
     Saavik's presence in TrekVI would have done more than just 
     shed light on her relationship with Spock: it would have added
     quite a bit of tragedy to it.  Imagine that mind-rape-meld wit
     SAAVIK (a la Alley) at the other end of it, with our knowledge
     of the character extending back three films, instead of only
     forty-five minutes.  
     Saavik would have shed light on Kirk: "I could never forgive them
     for the death of my boy."  Kirk hates Klingons because they
     killed David (simplified reasoning, granted, but true nontheless).
     Remember that Saavik was that particular Klingon's chosen victim
     when David intervened to save her (and redeem himself for the
     Genesis debacle).
     Saavik's presence in TrekVI would have shed light on the entire
     conspiracy plot, given it depth, breadth, reason, and most
     importantly: EMOTION.  Why did Valeris conspire with Cartwright
     and the Klingons and Romulans to assassinate Gorkon?  Who knows.
     Why would Saavik have done so?  She's half-Romulan for a start.
     Klingons killed David - instead of her - for a big Number Two:
     there's the whopping guilt factor for you.  Kirk is her idol,
     number three: "Let them die," he said.  Her reasoning for that
     one could easily be: Captain Kirk's position forbids him to act;
     mine does not.  
     Valeris kind of hints that she "did it for Kirk."  That makes no
     sense - it's stupid and hollow.  For Saavik, that motivation
     would have been not only acceptable, but LOGICAL.  

     I definitely agree with the above poster who said Valeris
     replacing Saavik as the betrayor did nothing more than
     betray Star Trek VI:  with Saavik there, I fully expect
     it would have blown away II as the best of the bunch.

     -Scott Gorcey

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.misc