Talk:Saavik

Rank

Why is Saavik constantly being called "lieutenant" during The Wrath of Khan, if she is still a cadet attending Starfleet Academy? Did she get a field commission for the training cruise, similar to Wesley Crusher's rank of "acting ensign"? -- Defstar 02:25, Jan 4, 2005 (CET)

She was either a Lt. and just at the Academy for additional command training or she was a Cadet-Lt.

Judging from her uniform (with a red band on the shoulder), she is a cadet. And just after the simulation, Kirk makes a remark to Spock about the efficiency rating of his cadets, suggesting that Mr. Saavik is indeed a cadet. But I have never heard of the rank of "Cadet-Lieutenant" in Star Trek, so the title of "lieutenant" just doesn't make sense. Of course, it could also be a screw-up by the script writers... -- Defstar 15:47, Jan 4, 2005 (CET)

There were three Lieutenants in STII and STIII with the red uniform, I cannot believe that a) they were all tops of their class to receive commission before promotion. I believe in the command-school version, they were lieutenants for long time and attended a special post-graduate course (Kobayashi Maru) possibly required for promotion -- Kobi 22:38, 4 Jan 2005 (CET)

In that case, the statement in the article that Saavik graduated from Starfleet Academy after ST2 is incorrect. Somehow it doesn't make sense either way: cadets wouldn't get a field commission of lieutenant before their graduation and long-graduated lieutenants wouldn't be referred to as cadets. And why would Saavik be a lieutenant (instead of an ensign) in ST3 if she had just graduated? Is there any conclusive canon information on this? -- Defstar 00:28, Jan 5, 2005 (CET)

This is based of the erroneous idea that Kirk was assigned to Starfleet academy and the Enterprise was just in orbit as a training ship. But if that was the case McCoy wouldn't say something stupid like, "Why not put an experienced crew on the ship" in Star Trek II. In truth it sounds like They were training a new crew specially for the Enterprise, with Captain Spock commanding. These plans were derailed because of Commander Spocks death. The brand new Flagship (still being built) should have a specially trained crew. --TOSrules 10:27, 15 Feb 2005 (GMT)

That would also better explain Kirk and McCoy's discussion regarding the Admiral's deskjob, and lines like McCoy saying, "Get back your command." Starfleet planned for Spock to take command.

Also, I don't believe that the training simulation was the actual Enterprise... I was under the impression that it was just a simulation room on Earth. --Defiant | Talk 09:30, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, it was an "Enterprise-class simulator". After the scenario was over, the walls opened to reveal Kirk with his clipboard. As Spock waited outside the door to for Kirk, the door clearly read "Mark iv simulator" (or something along those lines) on it. In fact, I think you even uploaded an image of it, iirc. --Gvsualan 00:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Back to Saavik's rank, i believe some suppositions are getting away with this discussion: in modern militaries, a commission is granted based on said officer's education. A commissioned officer could remain in school or return to school for a more advanced degree (if graduated at a bachelor's degree, going back for a master's degree, for example) -- they'd still hold their commissioned rank despite retaining a student status. That's what Saavik's uniform denoted -- she had already earned a level of education and graduated, granting her an officer's rank. She was a cadet however, because she wore the department color of an Academy student.

This could also be an assignment -- it was noted that Lt. James Kirk was an instructor at the Academy -- perhaps a graduated cadet is given a responsibility for other underclassmen when he remains at the academy. this would go along the lines of TOSrules's assertion that the reason Saavik and other officer cadets were training together is because they were intended to serve together -- with the lieutenants as the cadets' eventual commanding officers (or department heads). Lt. Kirk (and Lt. Saavik) would then have ended up training with some of their future junior officers. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel^talk 01:39, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I'm a R/L US NROTC Midshipman. I hold the "rank" of Midshipman Lieutenant. It's not uncommon for military academies to assign "ranks" and establish a chain of command. It educates the students in the ways of the "real" military. She could have been a Cadet LieutenantSsaint04 12:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

98.200.234.162 08:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)One possibility is that in long standing Naval tradition Saavik has been granted the temporary rank of Third Lieutenant (reserved for cadets only on training cruises). It places the cadet in the Chain of Command so that any orders they give are not only lawful but can and will be obeyed by those under them.98.200.234.162 08:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Post Graduate studies

It's obvious in ST:II that Saavik is being groomed for a command position. I don't find it at all far-fetched that she was commissioned as a Lt. and later returned for further study an SFA.--GreatBear 06:51, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)

• That's my take on it as well. When Rho Laren took Advanced Tactical Training, she was advanced from ensign to lieutenant. We also know there is such a thing as Starfleet Command School, which teaches the sort of subjects Saavik would have been learning. I'll also advance the possibility that the Kobayashi Maru scenario is the "final" not for SFA proper but for the Command School. Furthermore, if Saavik was actually a Command School student, then the circumstances shown in Wrath of Khan mean that it is co-located with SFA proper in Starfleet's San Francisco complex, and shares facilities with it. This would also help explain some of the anomallies in James Kirk's background, like how he could be an ensign on the Republic but was a lieutenant teaching Gary Mitchell at the Academy, and still serve under Capt. Garrovick "since he left the Academy". Add in a stint as Command School student and Academy instructor, and his odd things smooth out nicely. In this is the case, and Saavik and Foster were really Command School students, they likely would have graduated SFA proper about a year or two earlier. (Peter Preston, giving his rank as "Midshipman 1st class" would have been a 4th year Academy undergrad, if they use the same terminology as present-day US service academies) --Emperorkalan 20:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Half Romulan

In a cutscene from Wrath of Kahn, it is said that Saavik is half Romulan. An anon just added this to the sidebar. Is that proper? The scene was cut, after all. --OuroborosCobra 02:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

If it didn't make it to the film or if it wasn't integrated into the film at a later time (which it hasn't been, yet), then the Romulan reference can only remain background info. --From Andoria with Love 08:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the novelization, too, though that doesn't make it any more canon than the cut scene does. Does "cut scene" mean that such a scene was actually filmed? Or is this a reference from the script?

I'm not sure, though most likely, it was cut from the script since no such scene was re-integrated into the director's cut of the film. --From Andoria with Love 04:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The scene was filmed, some small talk between Kirk and Spock shortly before he is unwrapping his present in the corridor of Star Fleet Academy, and the scene was also used in promotional material for the movie. -- Kobi 14:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The discussion about Saavik scene, the revelation of Preston's relation to Scotty and some of Sulu's promotion were all filmed and then dropped from the movie. The first two i mentioned were in fact cut in with the film, when it was broadcast on ABC. Is this a canon "gray area"? -- Captain M.K.B. 14:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It's non-canon enough for me. If it is placed back into a relased version of the film we can move it out of the background. Jaf 15:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Jaf

The problem is that the cut-scenes entirely influenced Alley's interpretation of the character. She does things which are not entirely Vulcan, that are all motivated from the two scenes that were cut. (Not mentioned yet in this discussion or the article is the fact that the Spock/Saavik Vulcan language scene also included an extended discussion of her "Romulan-ness" that would've happened after Spock said, "We can't all be perfect, Saavik".) Alley plays the character as someone in the process of balancing emotion with logic, rather than attempting to entirely suppress her emotions, the way Spock and Sarek do. There are all sorts of little clues that she's not quite a typical Vulcan: her swearing, her crying, her occasional half-smiles, her casual hairstyle. I can quite vividly remember knowing before the movie came out that she was meant to be half-Romulan, and having that knowledge confirmed by having one of her first lines be the quite illogical "Damn!" What was wrong with Curtis' interpretation, really, is that she was playing the character so differently from Alley's approach. Beyond the physical, they didn't even seem like the same character. I mean, regardless of the status of this one cut scene, the script description of her does say she's half-Romulan and half-Vulcan. We've used scripts as canonical reference points before; don't know why we're reluctant in the case, especially since the actor is playing the character as the script noted. Saying that she's a full Vulcan implies that either a) Alley's performance is way off or b) the writing is just terribly inconsistent. Neither thing is true.

This article really needs to note — in a bigger way than just saying a single scene was cut — that the character Alley believed she was playing was half Romulan and half Vulcan, and that this has had profound ramifications for how her character a) behaves on screen and b) has often been treated in non-canon sources. Should that notice come in the form of a background note? Maybe. But then again, it's a unique case; the scenes were cut for time and/or comedic effect, not for content. I don't think there was any intent on the part of the producers to prevent us from knowing that she was half-Romulan half-Vulcan; it just accidentally worked out that way.

I personally believe that the script's reference to her character as half Romulan, half Vulcan trumps the removal of scenes, and that the background note should be that the final cut of the movie no longer contains a specific reference to her as half-Romulan. In other words, the way the information is presented in this article is exactly the converse of how it should be, in my view. The script establishes her as half-Romulan, lines and action indicate her as atypically Vulcan, Nicholas Meyer allowed her interpretation along less logical lines, so therefore the script mention of her as half-Romulan and half-Vulcan is upheld. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 03:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Something being in the script NEVER trumps being removed. On screen ALWAYS come before script in terms canon. We are mentioning all we can. Also, I hate to ask, but can you make your arguments more concise, no one wants to read through three text-wall like paragraphs like that for a simple point like this (I'll admit that I only skimmed it). --GO RED SOX 03:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for being long-winded. I'll try to put it in this nutshell: her on-screen performance, as well as lines included in the final cut, betray her as not Vulcan in the way we've come to expect from the more staid performances of Mark Lenard, Leonard Nimoy, et al. Since there's no explicit reference to her being fully Vulcan, either, the article is non-canonically stating her to be such. The unremarked fact is that she's described in the scripts of both Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and Star Trek III: The Search for Spock as not fully Vulcan; we could include the script's description of her character without breaking the back of canonicity. Indeed, the fact that she's described as half-Vulcan in the script of Star Trek III: The Search for Spock indicates there was no intent to rob her of her identity by cutting the scenes from Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 11:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

What we do know is that she was a Vulcan. The article doesn't state she was a full Vulcan, just that she is a Vulcan, which is a canon fact. That much we know from the films. The fact that she was conceived as a Vulcan-Romulan hybrid belongs in the background. If she was referenced as half-Romulan in the script, that should be added in the background section. --From Andoria with Love 05:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Where it already is. Hopefully we don't have to revisit this one again. --GO RED SOX 08:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

For what its worth, if we ever make allowances for the usage of information from scripts, I don't see why it wouldn't be allowed now. We accept the names of races not mentioned on screen, if they were named in the script (I would be happy to provide dozens of citations, but I think someone is going to say that isn't the point). I don't see why this is any different. The screen never stated she wasn't half-Romulan, and the script stated she was. There is no contradiction, just further exposition. We've accepted this in the past.Hossrex 09:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The difference here is that this isn't just some background note in the script, this is a scene that the makers of the film decided to cut. They deleted the scene. This is why we don't have Martin Madden as a canon character, despite mention in the script. The scene he was in was intentionally cut. --GO RED SOX 10:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This is different. This is an expanded description of a character. We've allowed that in the past, if I'm not wrong. Do we know why the filmed line was cut? Wouldn't it make a difference if it was cut for time, or cut for content? If it were simply cut for time/irrelevance to the plot (except for us), why is that any less canon then all the other aliens we have names for, or Star Fleet officers, all of whom were named only in script? It must be understood that the film makers in 1982, or today, aren't editing their movies with wiki's in mind.Hossrex 01:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not it was allowed in the past doesn't matter, only if it's allowed now... and, alas, it isn't. It makes no difference why it was cut – if it didn't make it into some form of the final product, it's not canon and information on the cut scene is placed as background information. --From Andoria with Love 06:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

User:OuroborosCobra stated, "The difference here is that this isn't just some background note in the script, this is a scene that the makers of the film decided to cut." Yet, that's exactly what I'm saying. She's described as "half Vulcan and half Romulan" in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and "half Vulcan" in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock as a part of background notes in scenes that were not cut. Here's the exact language:

from Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, scene 1:

                  As the ANGLE WIDENS, we see the crew at stations; (screens and visual displays are in use): COMMANDER
                  SULU at the helm, COMMANDER UHURA at the Comm Con-
                  sole, DR. BONES McCOY and SPOCK at his post. The
                  Captain is new -- and unexpected. LT. SAAVIK is young
                  and beautiful. She is half Vulcan and half Romulan.
                  In appearance she is Vulcan with pointed ears, but her
                  skin is fair and she has none of the expressionless
                  facial immobility of a Vulcan.

from Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, scene 229

                                          SAAVIK
                            Oh, Admiral.
                  Even a half-Vulcan has a breaking point. She sags for
                  just a moment.
                                          KIRK
                            Easy, Saavik. It's all right.

This isn't just about what was cut, but what remains. It seems to me this is one case in which going off of what's just on screen creates more speculation, and frankly inaccuracy, than just saying the character was intended as a hybrid, but that specific lines to that effect were cut. As for this business of her being positively referred to as a Vulcan in canon, as far as I can tell, it never happened. Thus the article's assertion of her as a Vulcan is as much based on simple visual information (pointy ears, a logic-based world view, command of Vulcan language) as is the assertion that she is a hybrid ("Damn!", incomplete Vulcan makeup, tears at the funeral). Strict observation of canon gives us a "tie"; these references in the script to scenes not deleted breaks that tie. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 07:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

However, it wasn't mentioned on-screen. Without any on-screen reference, we can't add it as canon. This is a unique case, though; while we don't use unused information from the scripts (except for the purposes of naming articles where needed), this is a bit of information that, although not in the film, has some support through observation and wasn't really "cut." Because of that, there may not be any harm in canonically calling her a Vulcan-Romulan hybrid. There is strong evidence that she was a Vulcan, but only observable traits as to her Romulan heritage, so this could go either way and still technically be accurate. Based on the evidence provided, though, if it were decided that she is, indeed, a hybrid, I wouldn't complain (I've always taken her to be one anyway). --From Andoria with Love 08:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I would complain. She could just as easily be a Vulcan-Human hybrid that chose a more human path for a single year (given her ST IV performance was solidly Vulcan in behavior), or a V'tosh ka'tur, or something like Sybok. We have NO on screen evidence she is a hybrid, and definitely no evidence that it is with a Romulan, something very unlikely given that she would have to have been conceived at a time when Spock (and therefore Vulcan) didn't even know Romulans were an offshoot of Vulcans, let alone what they looked like, or how to ask them out on a date. --GO RED SOX 09:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand the whole wiki thing of "don't mess with other articles to prove a point" thing... so understand thats not where I'm coming from. But there are dozens... of not hundreds... of other articles that use the script as a source for the naming of the race of a minor character. Dozens. To say this is a different circumstance, would require that we eliminate half of the races listed on the Alpha and Beta Quadrant species page. All I'm asking is that we give Saavik the same allowances the majority of the races listed on that link have been afforded, or explain how its different. What would the official reaction be if I were to recommend for deletion all the pages of alien races not mentioned on screen?Hossrex 10:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the canon policy explains why we only use script info to name articles, but the only exception is for naming purposes only, not for specific information about a character (i.e. where they are from, their age, etc.). I agree with Cobra that just because she showed a bit of emotion doesn't necessarily mean she was half-Romulan... but the script does say she was half-Romulan, and nothing on-screen really contradicts that and even somewhat supports it (aside from the whole not knowing what a Romulan looked like thing). So, like I said, it could really go either way, and I don't really care which, but just keeping the half-Romulan part as background would probably more closely follow policy. --From Andoria with Love 11:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It's unreasonable to suggest there's no onscreen evidence for her being a hybrid. Alley's makeup design makes her an obvious hybrid. I'll agree we've got nothing onscreen to suggest what kind of hybrid, but she's visually distinct from any other known full Vulcan female ever depicted. (And, as an aside, it's quite possible for her to be a Romulan-Vulcan hybrid without offending canon. Spock's knowledge does not equal the sum total of every Vulcan's knowledge. As "Kir'Shara" proved concusively, some Vulcans were in league with Romulans long before Spock was born.)

While we've not yet reached consensus in this debate, I do think it useful in that we're trying to find a way to obey our own policies and yet give useful information to the average, non-editing reader. The most immediate thing to note in this regard is that I think Saavik is precisely the wrong character to hold up in canon policy as a "clear" example of "tolerance in valid resources", She's not clearly depicted as anything in canon. Never called Vulcan, never called Romulan, never called a hybrid, the only things we have to go by are our eyes and, I think, scripted information which wasn't deliberately excised. I think it's fair to say that while the editorial department clipped scenes that would've given positive reference to her heritage, the makeup department obeyed the background notes of the Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan script. The visual appearance of the character is a valid resource, under canon policy. Yet that visual appearance changes in the next two films. Canon policy says we shouldn't place any one conflicting valid resource over another, but try to find some rationale which explains both.

But, in truth, there is no canonical reason why her eyebrows should suddenly be arched in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, that takes place immediately after Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Nor can it be explained why she is suddenly behaving much more like a full Vulcan in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock. It just can't be done. (What'd she do? Have an accident in the sonic shower?) It would therefore seem to me that we need to add the word "ostensibly" before the word "Vulcan" in the lead. Then, we need a more extensive subsection under the "Background" section which deals with this issue at some length. Put all the known facts out there and let the reader decide what to do with it. The article feels somehow unbalanced to suggest that the half-Romulan thing was just a cut scene of no more importance than the "mother of Spock's love child" speculation. Saavik ain't Braxton or Bok — or perhaps of more relevance, Kimara Cretak or Tora Ziyal; the change in actor made for an unresolvable change in the fundamental nature of the character. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 14:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It should go in the background, such as:

The script for Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan noted that:

LT. SAAVIK is young and beautiful. She is half Vulcan and half Romulan. In appearance she is Vulcan with pointed ears, but her skin is fair and she has none of the expressionless facial immobility of a Vulcan.

Kirstie Alley thus portrayed her with these notes in mind. When Robin Curtis took over the role for Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, the script simply noted that she was "half-Vulcan".

That text indicates the background note about being Romulan, and also points out the change in portrayal style between the two films. In fact, being a keener, I've gone and fixed a number of other errors in the text, and added this text at the same time. -- Sulfur 12:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any reference in the script, nor do I remember from either movie any direct "canonical" evidence that Saavik was a Vulcan. What is the justification for using information from the script to definitively say she's Vulcan, but not to acknowledge the same level of evidence exists to call her "half Romulan"? Aren't we breaking our own rules by calling her a Vulcan? If the only reason thats acceptable is that "we all know she's at least part Vulcan"... it could just as easily be said that "we all *know* she is intended to be half Romulan."Hossrex 21:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's see, she looks Vulcan, sticks to Vulcan logic, speaks Vulcan, knows of Vulcan Pon Farr, stays on Vulcan in ST IV, etc. --GO RED SOX 22:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

But is that canon? To me she looks Romulan (TOS/Movie era), strays from logic several times ("Damn"), speaks a common Federation language, knows as much about Pon Farr as the crew of the NX-01, and she missed her flight to Earth. Its all conjecture. You can't say "we can't call her Romulan if it isn't said on screen", and then say "well, she looks Vulcan, so we'll just call her that". Romulans, and Vulcans look identical (TOS/Movie era).Hossrex 23:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean "she looks Romulan"? TOS/Movie era Romulans has identical make-up to Vulcans,slanted eyebrows and all. Straying once or twice from logic can be explained with a hell of a lot more than Romulan blood, and for the vast vast vast majority she doesn't stray. If you watched Star Trek III, you wouldn't make that claim about her knowledge of Pon Farr. It is not all conjecture, it matches everything we know about Vulcans. By this level of scrutiny, we can't call anyone a Klingon either. --GO RED SOX 00:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

She doesn't match everything we know about Vulcans. It would be an easier assumption to make that she was full Romulan, then that she were full Vulcan. You're disallowing a script reference with one hand, and insisting a script reference is valid on the other. There is absolutely no chain of logic that will allow for Saavik to be canonically called a Vulcan, but not a Romulan.Hossrex 00:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not insisting on a script reference at all, I am insisting on following on screen information. With exception of her "damn" statement, nothing makes her anything but Vulcan. By your statement, we should say Spock has Romulan blood because of File:Death of intrepid.jpg. --GO RED SOX 01:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

As has been pointed out, which I hope you're not purposely ignoring (considering I read you scolding someone for doing precisely that in another thread), there were multiple instances of Saavik acting in an unVulcan-like manner throughout TWoK. And even if there weren't, she was never specifically stated as being Vulcan. That means by the logic you're insisting we use in the other case, it isn't canon.Hossrex 02:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, crying has consistently been portrayed as symptomatic of medical distress in Vulcans. There's no sense in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan or its contemporary, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, that Saavik requires medical treatment. Sarek lets one tear out in TNG: "Sarek" and Crusher and Picard are all over him. T'Pol's tears are linked to her Pa'nar Syndrome. When she's cured of her illness, and put on the "true" path of Surak, she does not cry even when she loses her child. (She comes close, I'll grant, but there's not a tear.) Spock and Tuvok have similarly had moments where they've cried and it's always been seen as an indication that something wasn't quite right with them. But it's revelatory, to me, that Saavik lets a tear out right there in front of everyone and no one does a double-take. Now you could say that the bulk of the main crew are standing at the wrong angle to see her, or that they were too caught up in their own thoughts, or whatever, but the fact is she cried, the producers wrote no subsequent scene in any of her followup appearances which explored why. It's treated as if it's totally appropriate. How? Well it's been suggested that maybe she's obviously "like Sybok" or a V'tosh ka'tur. But that seems hardly likely. Vulcans like these two examples were much more emotional than Saavik. And you'd have to question really how committed Spock would be to mentoring someone like that, given his own struggles to keep his emotions in check. A fellow half-Vulcan, committed to the Vulcan path, though? One can see the logic in that tutorial arrangement. No, the only way Saavik can cry and it not be seen as a medical problem is if she's a hybrid not fully in control of her non-Vulcan self.

And I still think if one ignores the Alley eyebrows in preference for the Curtis ones, one is putting one valid canonical reference above another. Alley's version was intentionally visually designed as a clear hybrid. Does it make a lot of sense to call her a Romulan-Vulcan hybrid, then give her rounded eyebrows? Not really. But the point is that she's meant to look distinct from Spock and Sarek and Xon and every other Vulcan we've seen. It has occurred to me, despite my earlier posting that there was no way to explain the difference between the two visual designs, that there is in fact a simple and elegant solution. One could easily say that Curtis' reversion to the slanted eyebrows is a correction of this silly notion that a Romulan-Vulcan pairing would produce a child with rounded eyebrows. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 03:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking at this issue from the other direction: The article currently states that Saavik is "Vulcan." I posit that this statement is misleading and possibly even non-canonical. When do the movies ever mention that she is a Vulcan? Although it was never stated on-screen that she was half Vulcan, nor even half Romulan; it also was never stated that she was full-Vulcan, nor (if I remember correctly) even partially Vulcan, which the sentence as it stands clearly states. (and given the information in the novels and in the scripts, this assertion is clearly false.) I agree that we cannot mention the Romulan heritage as canonical, but neither is the Vulcan. She could be Vulcan, she could be Romulan, or she could be a Romulan/Vulcan/Human hybrid. If we can't mention Romulan, then we can't mention Vulcan. All we know about her is that she has pointed ears and apparently follows some of Vulcan's ways. Anything else is conjecture. Stekev 20:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Mr Saavik?

Is it my imagination or does everyone in TWOK refer to Saavik as "Mister"?

They do -- its a form of respectful military address. -- Captain M.K.B. 17:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

In Star Trek everyone is referred to as Sir or Mister regardless of gender (which makes sense seeing as some races may not have or may have several genders). This can be seen in TNG and DS9 also. Janeway was an odd exception. Cory 00:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

In "Caretaker", Janeway explicitly mentions her deviation from common Starfleet practice, which would further support what we've observed in TWOK regarding Saavik. Defstar 02:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but nobody calls Janeway "Mister"; she objects to Harry Kim's calling her "sir."

That's right. She was deviating from the normal practice, which was to call her "sir". --OuroborosCobra ^talk 01:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. It's normal practice for superiors to be addressed as "sir", whereas subordinates would be called "mister". Makes perfect sense to me. -- Defstar 01:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This definitely reveals the gender bias of the writers, though: since when are males normative for humanity? 74.138.198.167 19:03, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

The normative practice being discussed isn't "being male." --OuroborosCobra ^talk 23:42, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, c'mon; eye color?

This whole section is really pushing it.

Saavik was played by Kirstie Alley in Star Trek II, and by Robin Curtis in Star Trek III and IV. There are, however, a few inconsistencies present with this change of actress. Alley's eyebrows were not characteristically slanted like all other Vulcans seen to that point. Her hair has also changed from straight to curled when picked up by Curtis, although her eyebrows now have a familiar Vulcan slant. Additionally, Alley's eyes are green while Curtis has brown eyes.

The difference in eyebrows is probably worth noting, but it's attributed here to the change in actresses rather than to what it most likely was, a decision by the Makeup Department or some other authority to give Saavik a more Vulcan appearance. As for the difference in the two women's eye color, that's just silly. We might as well say, "Because Robin Curtis is not Kirstie Alley, Saavik had an entirely different face in her second and third appearances than she did in her first."

I don't know if Cyia Batten, Tracy Middendorf and Melanie Smith have the same color eyes, but if they didn't would we make a similar note about Tora Ziyal's eyes? - Bridge 21:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

"You knew enough to tell Saavik that how he faced death was at least as important as how he faced life." -- David Marcus, Wrath of Khan. What's up with "He???"69.140.47.213 23:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It's been a while since I've seen TWoK, but I'm going to assume that "he" refers to Spock. It's a context issue, I'd imagine. -- RiggerMantis 19:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe he said "how we face death."Blair2009 21:18, February 11, 2010 (UTC)

Removed

I removed:

It is unclear exactly how Saavik was simultaneously a cadet and a lieutenant, although it is possible she was a "graduate" student taking command training. There is also suggestion from various sources that the reason she remained on Vulcan was that she was pregnant with Spock's child. {{incite}}

Not finding any references to this. --Alan del Beccio 02:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Saavik a "He"?

This has bothered me for a long time. Near the end of STII, Kirk and his son have a talk. Kirk's son refers to Saavik as "he" in his lines. What is the reasoning behind this?