Why were TNG Movies Mediocre?

[Stofsk]

If I remember right, Kirstie Alley either wasn't interested or wanted too much money, Nick Meyer didn't want a third actress to play Saavik, and supposedly Robin Curtis wasn't considered for whatever reason.

Huge slap in the face for Robin Curtis. She played Saavick in two films for fuck's sake!

I also heard that Roddenberry didn't want Saavik to be the traitor because the character was very popular with fans, and thought her betraying the Federation would be out of character.

To which Meyer basically shot back, "Gene didn't know what the hell he was talking about. I'm the one who wrote the character in the first place, and I say she would."

Um, then Meyer is an idiot. Gene was basically right: Saavick is a 'by the book' type of character, and I am pretty sure there are regulations against 'conspiring to assassinate the Federation President'.

It would have been cool to see Saavick again, but if all she was going to do was betray Spock and the Federation, I'd rather she was out of the film. Leave Valeris as Spock's new protege. It's been awhile since I last saw TUC anyway, I don't clearly remember what Valeris' motivations were for her actions.

[Gandalf]

It would have been cool to see Saavick again, but if all she was going to do was betray Spock and the Federation, I'd rather she was out of the film. Leave Valeris as Spock's new protege. It's been awhile since I last saw TUC anyway, I don't clearly remember what Valeris' motivations were for her actions.

There really weren't any.

She apparently just didn't like the Klingon Empire, but not so much as to prevent her collaborating with them to prevent peace.

[Uraniun235]

Valeris said that she was "saving Starfleet" and that the Klingons could not be trusted. She felt that ultimately she was serving the interests of the Federation. There might be a war now, as a result of her actions, but it'll be one the Federation can definitely win; who knows what the balance of power will be in twenty, forty, or sixty years?

[Androsphinx]

You could make that all fit with Saavik, and the contrast between her and Kirk over the events of Search for Spock would have been much more resonant that what we ended up with.

[Stofsk]

Perhaps. But I think the way Valeris was portrayed - unapologetic, downright treacherous - would not fit Saavick. And my earlier point, that Saavick was by the book, and I'm pretty sure assassinating the Federation's Big Boss wouldn't be strictly allowed.

But that would have been problem with the writing. You could have had Saavick enter the picture as someone on the ground floor of the conspiracy - acting against the Klingons without knowing that the Klingons and tob brass of Starfleet are actually working together. As far as she was aware, the plan only involved assassinating Chancellor Gorkon. When the truth gets revealed, she's suitably shocked.

But Valeris standing on the bridge and pointing the finger back at the crew... I can't see that working exactly as is for Saavick. An outsider like Valeris, yes, but not Saavick.

[tim31]

But that would have been problem with the writing. You could have had Saavick enter the picture as someone on the ground floor of the conspiracy - acting against the Klingons without knowing that the Klingons and tob brass of Starfleet are actually working together. As far as she was aware, the plan only involved assassinating Chancellor Gorkon. When the truth gets revealed, she's suitably shocked.

I was thinking along these lines myself, but then what? In TUC, Valeris is arrested, thrown in the brig, and never heard from again. I know it was good drama to end the film where it did, but what of Valeris and Cartwright? Court Martial, or War Crimes Tribunal? Surely they would have been charged with high treason, which even the Federation would put people to death for... Otherwise Valeris would be spending about a hundred and fifty years in the stockade. For Cartwright, a life sentence would not be so long.

[Nephtys]

It would have been cool to see Saavick again, but if all she was going to do was betray Spock and the Federation, I'd rather she was out of the film. Leave Valeris as Spock's new protege. It's been awhile since I last saw TUC anyway, I don't clearly remember what Valeris' motivations were for her actions.

There really weren't any.
She apparently just didn't like the Klingon Empire, but not so much as to prevent her collaborating with them to prevent peace.

My take on it (from years ago when I last saw the thing) was that she thought propping up a collapsing Klingon Empire was a bad political move, and would eventually lead to trouble. So it's better to hit them when they're down, to make sure they stay down.

It could have been a decent way to have her logic be the motivating factor, instead of 'Some of us just hate peace, you know'. Like analyzing the Klingon Empire's past track record of aggression and antagonizing the Federation, and suggesting that winning a short, victorious war and demanding terms that way would result in a better outcome than negotiating a peace that could lead to a later resurgence. The Klingon side of the conspiracy could have been considered foolish dupes.

[Uraniun235]

But that would have been problem with the writing. You could have had Saavick enter the picture as someone on the ground floor of the conspiracy - acting against the Klingons without knowing that the Klingons and tob brass of Starfleet are actually working together. As far as she was aware, the plan only involved assassinating Chancellor Gorkon. When the truth gets revealed, she's suitably shocked.

I was thinking along these lines myself, but then what? In TUC, Valeris is arrested, thrown in the brig, and never heard from again. I know it was good drama to end the film where it did, but what of Valeris and Cartwright? Court Martial, or War Crimes Tribunal? Surely they would have been charged with high treason, which even the Federation would put people to death for... Otherwise Valeris would be spending about a hundred and fifty years in the stockade. For Cartwright, a life sentence would not be so long.

The only death penalty under Federation law, as of TOS, was proscribed for visiting Talos IV.

[Stofsk]

Crime and punishment are barely covered in the series. We know of the existence of rehabilitation colonies thanks to "Dagger of the Mind". The death penalty is inconsistent: in "The Menagerie" I believe it's Commodore Mendez in conversation with Kirk who says "Visiting Talos IV, the only death penalty left on the books" or something; yet in the final episode, "Turnabout Intruder", mutiny is punishiable by death, as the Dr Janice Lester-possessed Captain Kirk attempts to have enforced on Spock.

We can safely assume Valeris and Cartwright didn't have an easy time of it.

EDIT: Just remembered another example, and this one is a lot more interesting: In "The Ultimate Computer" Kirk gets M-5 to deactivate itself by forcing it to acknowledge it had murdered hundreds of people. When he asked M-5 what the punishment for the crime of murder was, the reply was "Death". Could M-5 have been talking about civilian law, since starfleet doesn't have the death penalty for anything other than visiting the Planet of the Buttheads or committing mutiny?

[Morilore]

Um, then Meyer is an idiot. Gene was basically right: Saavick is a 'by the book' type of character, and I am pretty sure there are regulations against 'conspiring to assassinate the Federation President'.

It would have been cool to see Saavick again, but if all she was going to do was betray Spock and the Federation, I'd rather she was out of the film. Leave Valeris as Spock's new protege. It's been awhile since I last saw TUC anyway, I don't clearly remember what Valeris' motivations were for her actions.

Saavik was a by-the-book type of character in ST2, but it would have been cool to have her back years later in ST6 with everyone, including Spock, commenting on how she's more seasoned, she's more experienced, they're so proud of her, etc. And then IRONY: "Yeah guys, I realize you have to go against the book sometimes. Like when the survival of the Federation is at stake."

[Stark]

Sorry, saying a particular Vulcan would be out-of-character for being unapologetic, or arrogant, or cold, or detached is so absurd I nearly coughed up my kebab. Valeris was a bit snooty, but nothing that couldn't have been mollified to fit with Saavik (who was hardly a bundle of joy herself).

[Stofsk]

Sorry, saying a particular Vulcan would be out-of-character for being unapologetic, or arrogant, or cold, or detached is so absurd I nearly coughed up my kebab. Valeris was a bit snooty, but nothing that couldn't have been mollified to fit with Saavik (who was hardly a bundle of joy herself).

No, she was a treacherous cunt who committed high treason, knowingly, and was unapologetic about it. That's not the same thing as saying "Vulcan's are cold and arrogant" and I never said that.

[Stark]

Right, and she thought it was the sensible thing to do. What's your problem with that? Are you in love with Saavik and can't bear to think she'd come to a different conclusion than you? Or even WORSE, fall under the influence of an influential clique in Starfleet and work to further it's interests, being fooled, misled or convinced that they're serving the best interests of Starfleet?

[Uraniun235]

Crime and punishment are barely covered in the series. We know of the existence of rehabilitation colonies thanks to "Dagger of the Mind". The death penalty is inconsistent: in "The Menagerie" I believe it's Commodore Mendez in conversation with Kirk who says "Visiting Talos IV, the only death penalty left on the books" or something; yet in the final episode, "Turnabout Intruder", mutiny is punishiable by death, as the Dr Janice Lester-possessed Captain Kirk attempts to have enforced on Spock.

We can safely assume Valeris and Cartwright didn't have an easy time of it.

EDIT: Just remembered another example, and this one is a lot more interesting: In "The Ultimate Computer" Kirk gets M-5 to deactivate itself by forcing it to acknowledge it had murdered hundreds of people. When he asked M-5 what the punishment for the crime of murder was, the reply was "Death". Could M-5 have been talking about civilian law, since starfleet doesn't have the death penalty for anything other than visiting the Planet of the Buttheads or committing mutiny?

In Turnabout Intruder, when Janice-Kirk proscribes the death penalty, Chekov and Sulu immediately object on the grounds that it is only applicable to one crime, and that crime had not been committed. (The number that Chekov lists does differ with the number for the Talos ban. It seems more consistent with the flow of the scene, however, that this was just a writer's flub; if the GO that Chekov referenced had been mutiny, Janice-Kirk would have retorted that it had been violated. She did not.) Further, Chekov and Sulu then go on to defy Janice-Kirk's orders because of what they felt was an illegal order to execute Kirk-Lester, Spock, McCoy, and Scott.

In The Ultimate Computer, the M-5 was basically an imperfect duplicate of Dr. Daystrom's own mind, and in the course of Kirk's conversation with it, M-5 references the "law of Man and God" - so when M-5 responds that the penalty for murder is death, it may be reflecting not the laws laid out for Starfleet or the Federation, but rather the personal beliefs of its creator. (Additionally, the writer was not the same one that had written The Menagerie, so he or she may simply not have known or remembered what had been said last season.)


I suppose it's possible that the death penalty was later re-instated for treason, but I think it's more likely that Valeris and Cartwright would not be executed.

[tim31]

Are you in love with Saavik and can't bear to think she'd come to a different conclusion than you?

And so it comes down to schoolyard bickering Fight behind the sports shed after the home-time bell!

[Stark]

The logical demeanour of Vulcans, regardless of the ethical status of their activities, is my trolley bar.

[Stofsk]

The logical demeanour of Vulcans, regardless of the ethical status of their activities, is my trolley bar.

Stark, you're talking about logical demeanour sans ethical consideration of activities, while I'm talking about the complete opposite.

My problem was never that Saavick wouldn't or couldn't be portrayed as a cold Vulcan, it's the whole committing treason against the Federation thing, when she was shown to be such a stickler for the rules.

Witnessing the murder of David no doubt altered her priorities quite a bit, and I can actually see her going along with it if all she thinks she's doing is assassinating Gorkon. The biggest problem with TUC was Valeris being 'in' on it from the beginning. It's convenient for the plot because otherwise they wouldn't have found out about the other conspirators. But why would you let a junior officer know the architects behind a conspiracy as big as the one in TUC was? My problem with Saavick subbing in for Valeris is also an extension of the plot absurdity. If Valeris had been portrayed as more of a pawn then it would make a hell of a lot more sense.

[Stark]

Ah. I'm still not really seeing it; Saavik was a young officer, and young officers sometimes get invovled in dubious plots. You'd have to change the gloating and Ze Germanz stuff out of ST6, but I think it'd still work with Saavik and have more pathos because she's like their kid who's been misled by some sophistry whereby she thinks she's doing the right thing. It'd also serve to make Cartwright etc even more sinister and military-coup-alike, since instead of having a smug toadie they'd lied and wheedled to get support.

[Nephtys]

The logical demeanour of Vulcans, regardless of the ethical status of their activities, is my trolley bar.

Stark, you're talking about logical demeanour sans ethical consideration of activities, while I'm talking about the complete opposite.

My problem was never that Saavick wouldn't or couldn't be portrayed as a cold Vulcan, it's the whole committing treason against the Federation thing, when she was shown to be such a stickler for the rules.

Witnessing the murder of David no doubt altered her priorities quite a bit, and I can actually see her going along with it if all she thinks she's doing is assassinating Gorkon. The biggest problem with TUC was Valeris being 'in' on it from the beginning. It's convenient for the plot because otherwise they wouldn't have found out about the other conspirators. But why would you let a junior officer know the architects behind a conspiracy as big as the one in TUC was? My problem with Saavick subbing in for Valeris is also an extension of the plot absurdity. If Valeris had been portrayed as more of a pawn then it would make a hell of a lot more sense.

What would be out of character if say, Saavik did it out of a 'The needs of the Many outweigh the needs of the Few' logic perspective, saying that a crushed Klingon Empire would be a better result for future people than one propped up by the Federation, and potentially still dangerous? Sounds like a good argument to me, with a lot of historical parallels.

[Stark]

Add pathos by her saying - as suggested above - 'sometimes you have to break the rules, right guys? You understand'.

[Stofsk]

Having Saavick try to, almost pleadingly, convince the others to see her way of thinking, including both of your ideas, would have been more dramatic than the "Lolz I didn't betray the federation - YOU GUYS DID" shit we got from Valeris.

[Stark]

Done right it could have played into the existing bigotry of the main cast; Valeris isn't a bigot, but she's a traitor - they're bigots, but loyal to the Federation. There's a lot of ground to cover there.

[Nephtys]

On a random and sort of hilarious note, today I saw a boxed set at the store.

'The Complete Star Trek Movie Trilogy', packaged in a font that greatly resembled the movie art. I wondered what the heck this was.

Then I read the back. The Wrath of Khan, the Search for Spock and the Voyage Home. I laughed. Because it was true.