From: yung@r-node.gts.org (Amos Yung)
Subject: Re: Shatner proposes idea for Star Trek VII
Organization: R-Node Public Access UNIX System (416-249-5366) - 24 hrs
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 05:20:32 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.114139.28868@edwards-vax.af.mil> becker@edwards-vax.af.mil writes:
>From: yung@r-node.gts.org (Amos Yung) writes....
>
>
>
>>In case you are interested, here is a list of a dozen stupid things about ST V:
>>1) Row, row, row your boat. Enough said.  
>
>I did not think singing row row row your boat was stupid.  It was a group
>of good friends sitting around a campfire on a good ol fashioned camping
>trip.  One such friend had never done this thing called CAMPING so he was
>introduced to some of the traditions and one of them was singing.  Row row
>row your boat is a good song.  I imagine any song sung around a camp fire
>would be stupid to you, yes? 

Just because it is fun in real life, doesn't mean it is funny in a movie.
Singing camp songs could be a lot of fun if you are among friends. Watching
people singing silly camp songs in a movie which lead to nothing is, imo, 
stupid.
 
>
>>2) Chekov and Sulu got lost. Where was the other stooges? 
>
>Don't know.  It is possible for folks to get lost.
>

Yes, it is. But does it make a good scene by itself? Especially when 
accompanied by the century old pun (by Chekov): "It's a miracle!" Yawn. Many
bad sit-com still use this line to get some cheap artificial laugh. I 
happen to think Star Trek should be slightly above that.       

>>3) Out of all the star ships available, they have to pick one that doesn't
>>   have a transporter for a hostage rescue mission.
>
>I do believe they made it clear as to why they were the only ones left to
>do this mission.  but I don't really remember.  Have to watch it again.
>

Yes, they did. It was because they need Kirk's experience or leadership or
something just as senseless. Firstly, when you have a ship with a functional
transporter oribiting around the planet, then just beam up the hostages and
then beam the terrorists to the holding cell. There is no need for any kind
of "experience". Secondly, if for some unfathomable reason they actually
need Kirk's presence, why not put Kirk on another ship (not necessarily as
Captain). Any *ANY* functional ship will do.


>>4) A 50 (or 60) something Uhura dancing nude in the moonlight. 
>
>I enjoyed the scene.  She has a great voice, unless it was not her voice.
>whoever it was that sang the song had a nice voice.  Uhura didn't look
>to be 50 or 60 in that scene.  Looked pretty good as a matter of fact.
>Why wasn't a beautiful little ensign used?  I don't know, maybe because of
>lack of experience.
>

Can't argue with you here. I am funny this way, the thought of a 50 or 60
old woman dancing in the nude is a major turn off for me. Not that 
the rationale  of having a woman dancing in the nude will immediately attract
the unquestioned attention of the terrorists make any sense to me either.


>
>>6) Part I of tension resolving with the touch of a button. The enterprise 
>>   vs the bird of prey sequence. You mean all they have to do was to fly 
>>   manual? Damn, and I was worry there for a moment. [Part I of tension 
>>   resolving with a magic wand]
>
>Don't remember too much about that.  But in watching the movie the scene didn't
>strike me as being stupid.
>

It raised an eye brow (mine to be exact). I was expecting something clever,
not a trick out of the blue. 

>>7) Scotty bumping his head on the bulkhead. Gee, chuckle the clown in the
>>  23rd century.
>
>No, just didn't watch where he was going.  And it was funny! :-)
>

Glad that you like it. I, however, not in the least bit share your reaction.
I actually turned off the VCR and walk away after this scene the first time
I watch it.

>>8) The idea of GOD, a metaphysical being, can be physically resided on 
>>   a planet.
>
>WHy not?  Who are we to say what God can and cannot do.  
>

I hope you are just being argumentative because the answer to your question
should be pretty obvious. 

>>9) God turns out to be Another Evil Alien(tm). Oh, how original.
>
>Yes, well noboday said the screen play would be totally original.  And
>the point was that it was not really God.  Sybok had not found HEAVEN or
>God.
>

I don't see how your "point" connected to the theme (searching for god).
So this thing is not god, what does that say about the existence of god
and more importantly, the search itself? 

>>10) Really, Captain, what did you EXPECT to be able to accomplish by 
>>    shooting a photon torpedo at god?
>
>I believe they knew it wasn't God.
>

But it is something that was powerful enough to be mis-identified to be 
god, which by definition is infinitely powerful.

>
>>12) The big speech of God is in our heart. And they say star trek is not 
>>    just for kid.
>
>No, he said maybe what we are searching for, God in this case, is right 
>here within the human heart.

What exactly does that mean? Is God a physical being? Is god an abstract
prinicple (like love)? 

>  Thats not a childish remark.

In my opinion, it is. It is a vague and extremely non-committal answer to
a very real and definitive question. Just like proposing that we "love
each other" as a way to solve the race problem. 

<much deleted>

I don't think we are heading towards any kind of agreement here. You saw
ST V made some valid points about the search of god. I disagree. I think
whatever point they made were trivial to the extreme. It serves a major
dis-service to one of mankind's most valid quest.

One more thing, I do REALLY hate ST V for ST V itself. I hate it the first
time I saw it and I still hate it today. Just so you know.... :^)
 
It's been fun.

 

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amos Yung          | Macintosh Jr.: The power to crush the other kid.
yung@r-node.gts.org| 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.misc