From: becker@edwards-vax.af.mil
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.misc
Subject: Re: Shatner proposes idea for Star Trek VII
Date: 23 Jul 92 10:10:33 -0800
Organization: IFAST - EDWARDS Air Force Base

From: murphy@npri6.npri.com (David P. Murphy)writes.....

>becker@edwards-vax.af.mil and i are at it again:

Yes, and I hope you aren't taking any of this personally.

>>The Star Trek movies keep the heart of TOS [meaning Kirk, Spock, and McCoy]
>>which is what they are supposed to do.

>well then, we are stalemated.  you think that any movie about Star Trek
>_must_ center around The Holy Trinity, while i think that the rich background
>of Star Trek history which has been built up over the last 25 years
>is a gold mine of untapped stories and movies, none of which involve
>The Three Stooges.  you think these stories should not be told and
>these movies should not be made; i do.  obviously there is no point
>in continuing this discussion.

Just because I said Star Trek as we know it is centered around the 
awesome threesome, doesn't mean that I don't think there are many
other stories that could be told.  If another story is told that
has its roots from Star Trek, I say great, but don't call it Star
Trek.  The title has to change.  Because Star Trek is Star Trek with
our main characters, it is not the same when you get rid of them and
center around others.  It would be a take off so to speak.  Like lets
see, Knots Landing was to Dallas. (I know, bad example but thats all I
could think of at the moment)

>>>some of us, in fact, are pretty friggin' tired of seeing Kirk in action.

>>Well, I'm not.

>see what i mean?

No, what do you mean?  

>>>oh, and i'm afraid i can't really agree with your claim that "the other
>>>actors interact more in the movies than in TOS".  i become very angry
>>>when i think of all the cheap laughs they're forced into (scotty banging
>>>his head against a beam which is obviously in plain sight, uhura flipping
>>>through klingon dictionaries, etc.) instead of decent roles.

>>I do not think that the humor added to the ST movies is cheap.  Scotty
>>banging his head against the beam was hysterical!  I know, you have never
>>in your life banged your foot into your dresser, or table, or door, or
>>wall because you know your surroundings so well.  You've never bumped your
>>head as you entered your car or got out.  But, I must admit I have.  I
>>have stubbed my toes in my home that I've lived in for years, a home I
>>know like "the back of my hand" and I have also bumped my head entering
>>into my car.  And it was funny.  At least my friends thought so, I did
>>too once the pain went away.  And by the way, I believe Scotty was looking
>>downward as he was walking mumbling that he knew the ship like the back
>>of his hand and then wacko smack in the head!

>hello?  hello?  my point was not that that scene was not funny (it wasn't
>IMHO) but that sulu&chekov&uhura&scotty are just comedy relief to the 3
>when they could be so much more.

I'm here.  Well the awesome threesome had their comical moments too.  More so 
with words then actions but the comedy was still there and I found it 
refreshing.  In TOS there were those times when the comedy was put in and
it was nice. (really usually only at the end words between the three)

>and no, he was looking neither down nor straight ahead; about halfway down.
>it was not funny to me because they showed it in every preview and commercial
>before the movie even started playing, so i saw it coming a mile away,
>so it wasn't funny.

Ok, I stand corrected.  As for them previewing with that particular scene,
I wasn't looking for the scene while watching the movie.  I was just into
the movie, so when that particular scene came up I did find it to be quite
funny.

>ok
>dpm
>-- 
>murphy@npri6.npri.com 602 Cameron St. Alexandria, VA 22314 (703) 683-9090

              When every one is dead the Great Game is finished.  Not before.
                              --- Hurree Babu, "Kim"