This long lost question came to mind when I saw the Star Trek II question thread.
Spock’s brother* is on the planet surface and sees “god” who then morphs into a few different faces. I believe he then takes on the look of the brother and says something along the lines of “Is this better?”. Spock’s brother then freaks and starts blubbering about it being all his fault, his vanity caused this. So what the heck was all the face changing about, then the final look which sent the brother over the edge?
Nopie, it has been too long and I don’t remember his name. I also don’t remember this scene exactly so my description is horrible,
It did explain how bad it was. The klingon shooting voyager makes me cringe just thinking about it. I mean, come on, it’s bad enough when they they inject something like 70’s music into a sci-fi movie but that scene was just plain stupid.
I need answers people! Where’s Otto when I need him?
And I’m not really sure what the answer to your question is or exactly what you’re asking either. It’s been a couple years since I last saw the film and don’t remember the specifics of the confrontation but I always took the meeting to be that “God” was actually Satan or some equivalent thereof.
The real answer, of course, is what **Soapbox Monkey **said: Shatner wrote it.
In that case, my interpretation is that his contant changing was an admission that he wasn’t God as he pretended to be and Sybok, being a True Believer, did not take it well.
The alien/demon is claiming to be God, the Almighty. To bolster this claim, he shows the various forms iworldn which he has appeared to various people throughout the galaxy. The last image (Sybock himself) is a not-too-gentle jab at Sybock, who has been acting as the demon’s prophet and servant, while believing (and proclaiming) it to be God. It implies that the demon tricked Sybock by appealing to his ego, and that Sybock was actually serving himself.
I’ve heard that one of the big guys in the star trek franchise (gene rodenberry or rick berman or who-have-you) described that movie a few years later as ‘apocryphal’
Which isn’t quite the same as saying it doesn’t exist, but “It’s not real in the canon. It’s the dramatization of a legend that grew up around kirk &co after their time, not something that really happened to them.”
Which is kinda funny, when you think about it – that they’re distancing it from the other star trek movies by saying that it wasn’t as real as they were. Ehh. :]
I remember getting a videotape in a set of five, and I think it was even labelled “Star Trek V–So Why does God need a Starship, Anyway?” I don’t remember much about it, really, but I do recall spending a couple hours lying in a foetal position behind my couch with my hands over my ears, yelling “LAH LAH LAH I CAN’T HEAR YOU…”
I have never heard anything even remotely simliar to this and am a diehard Trekkie that’s read way too much about all the series. The only aired Trek that isn’t canon or considered apocryphal is the aborted Animated Series from the Seventies as far as I have read.
Nothing in print that I could find, but I myself definitely heard it in person at a Trek convention from both Okuda and Nemecek. They said that for canon and continuity purposes (HA!) they tend to regard V as not having happened. This was, of course, way back in the day, when TNG was still being shot.
IIRC, they never actually said it was apocrypal, just that it made writing easier if they treated it as non existant, ot the essense there of…
Nothing in print that I could find, but I myself definitely heard it in person at a Trek convention from both Okuda and Nemecek. They said that for canon and continuity purposes (HA!) they tend to regard V as not having happened. This was, of course, way back in the day, when TNG was still being shot.
IIRC, they never actually said it was apocrypal, just that it made writing easier if they treated it as non existant, ot the essense there of…
I believe it was a ‘complete guide to star trek chronology’ that I got in the library or something - under the entry for the year that the events of star trek 5 possibly took place in.
And by the way, for all you guys with the denial routines – a little over the top. :wally
I’m not what I would call a trekker by any stretch, but I do like the whole Star Trek thing.
Now, Uhura was hot back in the day, but after ST V, I’d rather kiss a Horta than have to see her dancing around with a couple of palm branches again. :eek:
Tripler
Besides, we all know Capt Pike should have run the show. Poor guy. . .
