I realize this made for a major storyline for ST VI with Kirk's hatred of Klingons. But David was an interesting character IMO. Savek was a more dispensable character.
They at least should have made Savek pregnant with David's child.
I hate that they replaced Kirstey Alley with that other actress lady. Kirsty was Savik in Star Trek 2 the Wrath of Khan. If she is such a dispensable character then why use a different actress? Why not just have it be a different character entirely? Not sure why it had to be Savak?
Also, why the hell did Kirstey Alley turn the sequel down? Her career was not going that great and being in a Star Trek movie is major honor.
Kirstie wanted a lot more money.
As for David, I hate that they basically undid everything interesting that happened in the previous movie.
"Lovey-dovey. Bonk bonk on the head!"
She was also worried about being typecast (this was several years before she joined Cheers, which officially made her a household name) still relatively early in her career.
shareAs for David, I hate that they basically undid everything interesting that happened in the previous movie.
[deleted]
http://www.treknews.net/2015/01/14/kirstie-alley-forever-grateful-for- star-trek/
On Monday, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan star Kirstie Alley turned 64.share
The actress, who made her feature film debut playing Saavik in the film, was offered the chance to reprise the role in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, but declined to return. Following unfruitful contract and salary negotiations, director and star Leonard Nimoy decided to instead to recast the role of Saavik — ultimately hiring Robin Curtis to play the female Vulcan.
Alley would go on to have a very successful career, best known for her role as Rebecca Howe on Cheers.
As we do with many former Star Trek actors, we wished Alley a happy birthday on Twitter. Our tweet was met with a myriad of responses from fans, one of which said that she “has pretty much disavowed that she has ever appeared in this movie (Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan).”
Alley personally responded and set the record straight, saying: “That’s not true..Star Trek was my first job and one of the most stunning moments of my life…forever grateful.”
Read more: http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?p=4987866#post49878 66#ixzz3TjGvNH2D
Having just re-watched this, my interpretation of the reason for killing David was having him take full responsibility for his Genesis creation. Unlike an Oppenhemier and Von Braun, David took responsibility for his creation. When the Genesis planet was going down, he did what he could to rectify the situation by sacrificing himself to save Saavik and Spock. Saavik was needed for Spock should he go into Pon Far again, so she wasn't dispensable. And face it, David was every bit Kirk's son. There has to be an order to things. There was a Karmaic balance in this film. Kirk gained Spock back, but had to suffer a loss: His son. I loved this film because of it. The arc between Kahn to Voyage Home was perfect. This film is flawless. Considering the small amount of time between Kahn and this film, it would been 'illogical' to have anything between David and Saavik.
Sometimes my ruminations are too confusing for someone not inside my head. -Anon
I was super bummed that they killed off David.
The ending scene of TWOK, when David tells Kirk how proud his is to be his son, is one of the most emotional moments in all of Star Trek. I was really hoping they could build on that for atleast one more movie.
Then again, I get that it had to happen for the sake of this movie, and atleast we got the great Star Trek VI out of it.
"Super Bowl XLVIII will be most evenly-matched Super Bowl in 32 years"- AH_Fan
But it did lead up to the ultimate Kirk moment: I've- had- enough- of YOU!
Iwi101, are you watching this right now on BBCAM? I am.
sharerex,
I was! But posted a few minutes befoe that scene, and realize I quoted it wrong, it's "I have had enough etc." It my defense, I don't think I've seen it in at least 10 years.
I saw it in a theater back when it was first realeased.
Lou
My gut says yes, just because I liked the character and I liked Merritt. My head also says yes, because it's not like they really handled it well after that. Since we don't want Captain Kirk moping around and mourning for every movie after III, he basically just gets on with life starting with IV. I realize they weren't close (although they seemed to be building a relationship as of the end of II), but to me he seemed to get over it unrealistically fast, and then it was just weird that he went right back along with his adventures as if nothing happened. It doesn't really come back into play until VI, where it does make Kirk's prejudice more understandable, but the movie could have existed without David's death. I'm not a fan of it, but I think the point they were trying to make, with Kirk presumably losing his place in Starfleet, his son and the Enterprise, was how loyal Kirk was to Spock and McCoy. He lost everything to save his friends. And I guess it kind of works in that regard, but I think everything would still work (perhaps even better) if David had survived.
See you guys at the 10 year prison reunion - Ben Richards
I personally wish they didn't because I would have loved to have seen more interaction between Kirk and his son...watch that relationship grow. However, David did a noble thing by stopping the Klingon from killing Saavik and taking him on himself. Someone mentioned in another post David was taking responsibility for his screw up with Genesis, and perhaps it was less of Saavik getting killed that he didn't want, but more that he didn't want anyone killed for his mistake. I never thought about that before until now. Saavik telling Kirk in The Voyage Home that "David died most bravely" was a very touching moment, and reminded the viewers David died honorably. BUT, I still wish he wasn't killed.
shareI wouldn't exactly call it a "mistake" killing off David, but given a choice, I'd rather they kept him.
shareI feel like TWOK gave Trek another chance to expand the core cast beyond the main seven, with the introductions of Saavik, David Marcus, and Carol Marcus.share
Unfortunately, Saavik was doubly sabotaged both by being recast in her second appearance, and by Spock's return. Harve Bennett was pretty upfront about why Saavik was written out of TVH, as "she would've just been another pair of ears to hide." Understandable, but still unfortunate.
Similarly, David and Carol were both written out as the stories that developed for the subsequent sequels didn't really have a place for them. Bennett said that when he was breaking the story for STIII, it became obvious that David was the one to kill because "he was the one I didn't need."
It's a shame, because all three of them were filled with potential in their first appearances. I wonder if any of them would've stuck around for longer if Nicholas Meyer had chosen to return for STIII...
Christine chapel was in the novelization and I think it would have been interesting to see how she would have reacted upon McCoy possessing Spock mannerisms thus bringing back her former fling with the Vulcan.
shareIt was so melodramatic his death but added great drama for Star Trek 6.
share