Similarity to Cytherian?Edit
Does anyone else notice the similarity between the 'god' at Sha Ka Ree and the aliens in the centre of the galaxy in TNG:The Nth Degree called the Cytherian? Perhaps he was an exile or something? i haven't heard anyone making comparisions about this and i'm sure i'm not the only one who noticed this or am i missing something?
- You're not the only one who noticed this. This is one of two places where I think it would be easy to associate things from different parts of the overall Star Trek storyline with things fitting together easily and simply.
- The other is my idea that the ancient Greek gods who left Earth, of which Apollo was discovered in 'Who Mourns for Adonis' were of the Q.
- Oops.. addendum - one of THREE.
- The third is the possibility of an outcast and forgotten 'sub' species of Xindi who spell their name slightly differently due to seperation and dialectical variance. These felinoid Xindi would, of course, be the Kzinti.
- Add possibility four; Sargon's race as seen in TOS:Return to Tomorrow. They also sought a starship and crew to spread their wisdom beyond the planet they were trapped on. Although they seem to have lacked the ability to communicate telepathically (Sybok was called from far away) or even ordinary long range communication. They also lacked the ability to exist independently of some kind of mundane physical form (a biological body, mechanical body, or a starship with a built-in computer). The sean connery god had a very exotic body (though still physical, since it reacted to phaser fire).– Zerothis 05:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Personally, I think the photo-negative image of one of the other "avatars" of the Sha Ka Ree Entity (top-right) looks more like Darth Andeddu of Prakith.
"the Enterprise destroyed the being." This didn't seem very clear to me. Certainly it was detoured as it doesn't cause any trouble during the subsequent celebration. But the conversation indicates they still believe something lives on the planet. Or could this have been referring to the hordes of demons we never saw because of the movie's reduced budget?
Further more, perhaps this being and the Cytherian are one in the same. After being knocked down a peg by 'Kirk almighty', the Cytherian decided to try a more subtle approach to escape his prison cell. If this was the case, its likely he succeeded in "spreading his wisdom" this time and quietly used the Enterprise to escaped into the universe seeking the beings who imprisoned him there.– Zerothis 05:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Destroyed or not, it wasn't the Enterprise that did it. Spock shot the being from aboard the Klingon Bird of Prey.– 220.127.116.11 02:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
This article was just moved from "Sha Ka Ree" to "Shakari" with this comment:
- I am Alt+Tabbed from my MediaDirect DVD-playing program at the moment. I have closed caption turned on, and the spelling is "S-H-A-K-A-R-I."
In the past, closed-captioning has proven to be very... unreliable. Heck, one TNG episode spells "Picard" as "Pickard"... but not consistently! :)
I may be mistaken, but I seem to recall that the other spelling was either from the script or the Encyclopedia... can someone confirm this? -- Sulfur 18:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- From the subtitles (english and swedish) on my region 2, special edition of Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, it is spelled Sha Ka Ree. -- Rom Ulan 19:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think the version of the first country the DVD was released in (the USA, in this case) has a final authority on things of this nature. I'm sure this DVD I rented is a US version or else it wouldn't play on this laptop. (AFAIK, this laptop (or at least the version of MediaDirect on my laptop) cannot play DVDs from anywhere else, but I don't know for sure. --K. Shinohara 19:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
And as a followup to myself, both StarTrek.com and... wait for it... the novelization of the movie and... wait for it... the script spell it as "Sha Ka Ree". Reverting the move. -- Sulfur 19:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- For the record, captions and subtitles have no authority on anything. They are done people not affiliated with the actual movie's production or its script. --From Andoria with Love 04:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- I wonder if the mention of the Shakari spelling in the subtitles should be removed outright. I think it would open up a big can of worms if we start putting errors with the subtitles on the various articles, especially when the subtitles are the only source of the error, as in this case.--31dot 04:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Sean Connery Edit
It has been widely reported that Sha Ka Ree is a play on the pronunciation of Sean Connery as he was intended to play to roll of Sybok. Based on the low budget, and the obvious short cuts made in the film (Kirk falling from the face of El Capitan is a prime example) I'd say Sean Connery was a pipe dream that never had any chance of materializing. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vince47 (talk • contribs).
- The expectations of talk pages is not to invite personal commentary. --Alan 02:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Creation point Edit
This fact is already listed on the page for the video game Does it make sense to list it here, like this? (as well as other planets/systems so included) – The preceding unsigned comment was added by LauraCC (talk • contribs) at 16:42hrs GMT on 17 April 2015.
- It seems like a relevant piece of apocrypha so yeah go ahead and add it. --| TrekFan Open a channel 16:10, April 17, 2015 (UTC)
Separate page for planet and mythological location? Edit
I edited the page to more focus that this is the planet, and not the Vulcan mythological location. However, it seems there should be two separate pages for these. Note that there are separate pages for Vorta Vor, Qui'Tu, Eden, etc.
- The disambig would actually be "(mythology)", but, yeah, you've brought up something worth considering. --LauraCC (talk) 16:27, February 23, 2017 (UTC)
- Support. The movie makes it pretty clear that Sybok is wrong to identify the unnamed planet as the place from his mythology - even God seems to agree. And I think the this unnamed planet can have a name rather then be at unnamed planets because Sybok identifies it as Sha Ka Ree. I see there's no split notice up yet, I'll add one if you don't mind. -- Capricorn (talk) 20:35, February 23, 2017 (UTC)
- By all means feel free. There's no real protocol, but it tends to be assumed that the person who brought the issue up might want to do it, or feel responsible for it, or whatever you want to call it. So people tend to try not to in their way unless time passes and it looks like someone else is going to have to take the initiative. -- Capricorn (talk) 14:39, March 9, 2017 (UTC)
Rename suggestion (following up from the previous discussion)Edit
Now that we have separate pages for the mythological location and the unnamed planet suggested to be it, it seems like it would be more logical for the "real" Sha Ka Ree to be at Sha Ka Ree (instead of Sha Ka Ree (mythology)), and the planet being the one that's disambiguated. -- Capricorn (talk) 16:38, March 16, 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced that's the right solution -- perhaps simply leaving them both disambiguated with the base being a disambiguation page is a better solution.
- Then again, the planet is ACTUALLY visited/seen in the film, while the other is simply a concept we don't really get to experience. -- sulfur (talk) 16:40, March 16, 2017 (UTC)
We may not have gotten to experience it, but it sure was discussed extensively. Arguably the mythical Sha Ka Ree was more important in the film then the planet thought to be it. -- Capricorn (talk) 16:56, March 16, 2017 (UTC)
- LauraCC: When neither page has a greater reason to be at the base name (ie, both disambiguate equally), then we put the disambiguation in place. When one is obvious for the base name (ie, in-universe vs real world), then we use a note at the top of the base name article (only). Typically when there are two, each gets a disambig note to the other, but NOT to the base disambiguation page. -- sulfur (talk) 17:08, March 16, 2017 (UTC)
I'd think that's funny, except part of this discussion involved explaining some nuance of how to disambiguate to a user that has been here for a few years now, not exactly a sign pointing towards arguing for another type of special case. -- Capricorn (talk) 21:23, March 18, 2017 (UTC)