I don't know why people can't understand why something like this would irritate folks. This explanation of "it's Star Trek" doesn't really work with me. Of all the contrivances and leaps of logic in the past, they've been often guilty of several things: 1. wild scientific inaccuracy 2. inconsistency 3. retrocontinuity 4. unoriginality 5. blatant deus ex machina 6. screwing future stories Khan's magic blood is the only thing I can think of that does all of the above at the same time. TSFS's Spock resurrection, while implausible, added to Vulcan lore and cleaned up it's own mess at the end (Genesis go boom). Insurrection's magic planet didn't go so far as to cure actual death and they introduced a decent reason for it not being used again. Khan's magic blood not only cures death (humanity's greatest enemy thus far ), is easily reproduced, and reproduces the whole movie TSFS in 10 minutes, it calls nto question aspects of the greatest film in the franshise (TWOK) and paints any others you make into a corner.
Genesis wasn't cleaned up at all, since they never lost the technology behind their superweapon. I'm still waiting for 24th century Starfleet to make tiny self-destructing cubical planets out of invading Borg ships. How is Khan's blood 1 and 2? And as for 6, that can't possibly be known until the next movie either ignores it, embraces it or sweeps it under the rug as Genesis was.
Star Trek isn't about science. It never has been. It's about adventure in the unknown. The science is part of the "fiction." Trying to define something as broad as Star Trek has been over the last 50 years by the "science" is like trying to define ... something ... as ... something. Screw it. You know what I mean.
I think our own Harvey fairly demolishes the idea that the "magic blood" is any more or less universe changing than 10 Episodes That Should Have Changed Star Trek Forever – But Didn’t (link).
That's a cool article (well, except for #6). But aren't some of those on the list not desirable? I mean, isn't saying, "Well, Voyager's Threshold did it," not really an argument at all? That episode was terrible, and it doesn't excuse anything in the future from being terrible either. If the moral is that terrible things will be forgotten, then ok, but shouldn't we be desiring fiction that doesn't revert to those kinds of tropes? Another example of not a technology, but just something that shouldn't have been dropped was in DS9's "Hard Time". I like DS9, and that was a decent episode, but Miles' problem still seemed like something that should come up later. That kind of episodic, everything is back to normal stuff shouldn't really fly these days.
The point with the article is that the Khan Magic Blood is no different from a lot of other "discoveries" on Trek which should/could have changed things, but didn't, and that griping about the blood as if it's some new level of dumb is to ignore the facts that Trek does this all the time.
Exactly. It's not that I have a problem with criticising the flaws in STiD, just the rank hypocrisy of those that criticise while lamenting for the old, 'good' Trek, as if it wasn't just as bad, or worse.
Maybe some fans just want to see Star Trek grow up and move past the convenient life saving "whatever". Whether this sort of thing has happened all the time in Star Trek before doesn't really matter because it's still a tool that's used to cheat your way out of a moment that should be taken seriously.
And how was Kirk's death not taken seriously? He grew as a character, solidified the friendship between himself and Spock, and demonstrated just how fragile Spock is in this timeline. It was an event rich with drama that was exploited for full effect. Once those goals were accomplished, Kirk was resurrected because this is, of course, a franchise that needs its star. Why does the manner of resurrection matter, provided that it had grounding in the story? For me, the bottom line is thus: 1) Star Trek is not real. 2) Star Trek does not follow the rules of the real world. This includes magic teleporters, ray guns, faster-than-light-travel, artificial gravity, etc, etc, etc. Given those two conditions, I don't see why one particular fantasy is worse than another. How is magic blood worse than magic gravity, or magic ray guns? The answer is, of course, that it isn't. Star Trek isn't hard s/f. It's never been hard s/f. Star Trek is an action-adventure drama set in a fictitious universe. Hoping for Star Trek to 'grow up,' and treat itself more seriously is destined for failure and disappointment. Star Trek cannot 'grow up' without fundamentally changing the character of the property.
You're wrong. Compare the utter ridiculousness of Seasons 1 and 2 of TNG to the later seasons where the show quite literally started to take itself more seriously. The characters were more mature, professional and had a much broader perspective in the situations they faced. Deep Space Nine by your standards is a fundamental change in the character of the property by having the series set in an alien environment where the alien characters have dedicated episodes of their own and humanity isn't treated as the perfect, always right species that Gene Roddenberry envisioned. Star Trek not only survived when it took itself more seriously and started doing things "out of character", it thrived.
The list of things wrong with TNG S1/2 is legion, but taking itself seriously doesn't even rank. S1 and 2 of TNG was stiflingly pompous. The show took itself extra-serious, all the while producing episodes devoid of character growth, interaction and drama in general. It was a stultifying mess of drek that sucked all the air out of every exchange. No, they were written as (sort-of) people, which was a huge departure to be sure. This was thanks to Roddenberry stepping back and handing the creative reins over to people like Michael Piller and (gasp!) Rick Berman. The plots began to let conflict and tension creep into the show and it got much, much better. I'd like to first say that I couldn't care less about what Roddenberry envisioned. He was way high on his own supply by the time that TNG premiered and could be reliably counted-upon to be wrong about everything. If I never hear about his 'vision' again, it will be too soon. Now, so far as Deep Space Nine goes, it didn't really deviate much from the latter-season TNG mold and, in most cases, left the really questionable stuff to the aliens so the Starfleet crew could remain pure and untainted. Even the most referenced 'dark' episode (In the Pale Moonlight) had all the really nefarious stuff left to the Cardassian to do, leaving Sisko to whine and commit sins of omission, rather than actively do the dirty work. Seriously. You keep using that word. I don't think that word means what you think it means. Star Trek 'survived' by continually shedding viewers after TNG until it was put on the last-place network to languish until it couldn't even muster up enough viewers to survive on the network that brought us 'Homeboys from Space.' Come to think of it, I'm not sure you know what 'thrived' means, either.
Problem is, I like seasons one and two of TNG far better than what came later. Star Trek moved to a point where it took itself too seriously and I, for one, didn't like it. But did Star Trek actually "survive"? Ratings slid for all the series after TNG. The shows had trouble gaining traction in strip syndication (even TNG) and the movie franchise after First Contact (a zombie-movie) was an utter failure. Everyone has their own tastes and no one is more correct than another. But I like Star Trek when its fun. I never cared for the nuances of Bajoran religion or Cardassian government.
Well that's just crazy-talk. I tried rewatching S1/S2 recently and I couldn't hack it. It was worse than TOS S3 and that's no mean feat. To each his own and all that, but damn.
How does the blood effect the child at the start of the movie? How does the bllod effect Kirk after the movie?
That would at least help with the "we've cured death" thing. "We've cured death, but there's a catch, you turn into a supervillain!"