My Gripes with STID!

Game. Set. Match.

 

This. The recuperative blood seemed entirely plausible in the film. I had no issue with it.

 

Yes, but there is a notable difference, Kirk was dead. It's much easier to restore something that's sick but not dead (because it actually gives a hand in its recovery), than something that's dead and therefore busy breaking down to its constitutive substances (IE rotting).

 

Kirk was only clinically dead, and very briefly, the kind of clinical death that can still result in revival now depending on the type of injury sustained.

In this case, it was severe radiation poisoning, we have no cure for that to repair the cell damage. Kirk was frozen before brain damage or full braindeath set in, as McCoy even states in the film.

They revived him, while transfusing Khans blood to repair the cellular damage, which still seemed to have Kirk in catatonia/coma like state for two full weeks where his recovery was not guaranted to begin with.

There was no magic, he was subject to a brief clinical death where the only difference what caused it, and a "cure" that was the product of the best minds of a generations best genetic engineering, coupled with 23rd century's best medical knowledge and ability, to just manage to save him.

Really had Khan walked over, did the "hand glowy thing" curing of all ills, fair enough that's magic, this was a long grueling medical recovery with a blood transfusion, that's a lot more realistic than Trek usually plays it.

 

According to McCoy, Kirk was barely dead. We're also not talking days, but minutes. Hell, there was a skier in Sweden, I believe, who was clinically dead between 40-80 minutes, and we brought her back. Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Bågenholm

 

Kirk was only mostly dead, not all dead. Khan's blood didn't revive him, it just repaired the damage done by the radiation.

Not that big a stretch, by Trek standards.

 

This.

Star Trek has the same respect of death as your average super-hero comic.

 

Not that I know of, although maybe some more information so I can give a proper answer, put think it would be a no!

Haha didnt even think of that!!!

Just so people know, I am not a JJ Abrams Hater or anything like that, I loved the first Star Trek reboot film and I really enjoyed STID but like a lot of films, there are always elements that I just tut at (I have just watched Olympus has Fallen, which I love but moaned about almost everything in it hahaha). And these two was my biggest.
To be honest never even thought as much would be commented on it. But I do feel better knowing that other people have similar gripes!

 

You realize that in order to repair any damage there need to be blood circulation, blood circulation doesn't happen in dead bodies, even in mostly dead bodies. If you inject anything into a mostly dead body, even if it's miraculous panacea it will not work because it will just stay still, never reaching the cells it's supposed to repair.

 

One thing that stretches credibility in that movie is that Spock seems much more upset by the death of Kirk than he was by the death of nearly his entire species, including his own mother.


We didn't see him shout whatever the name of the villain was in the first movie, did we?

 

Yes, I realize that.

From frozen mostly dead Kirk to unfrozen mostly dead Kirk. Get the heart pumping, inject the blood, and wait.

At that point there was not much to lose.

Not everything has to play out onscreen.

Did you miss the part where he very nearly killed Kirk for ridiculing his faux stocism?

"I am compromised," to paraphrase what old Spock told Kirk.

 

You obviously missed Spock's mega meltdown when Kirk was dissing his feelings for his Mama in Star Trek (2009).

 

I didn't miss anything. Spock didn't need any "dissing" to yell "KAHN" at the top of his lungs, did he? Plus he only knew Kirk for a couple of years, maximum then, to see him so upset is kinda forced and unnatural. A clumsy attempt by the writers at mimicking the first scene with Shatner which had some credibility that this one lacks.

 

I enjoyed the scene to be quite honest. Part of the fun of doing a reboot is seeing iconic elements remixed.

Been a major fan of Star Trek since 1975.

 

So am I, not for that long a time though, blame it on my parents for not conceiving me at an earlier date.

 

Yeah, I agree. Kirk also appears to have a much stronger friendship with Dr. "Buckle up" McCoy than Mr. Spock, plus having only known Spock only a fraction of the time that they Knew each other in TWOK. I didn't buy Spock's reaction in that crappy rip-off death scene at all.

 

I don't understand people who can't quickly become emotionally attached to someone. I proposed to my wife three weeks after I met her.

 

Spock is a Vulcan. The only times we see him manifest any emotion at all in TOS are in Amok time where he's supposed to be undergoing a severe/deadly hormonal unbalance and in all our yesterdays, where he's regressed to a prehistorical form of his species.

Do you know of any other?

 

But the fact is that the emotions are there, they've always been there. People seem to think that Vulcan means robotic and Spock was never robotic. There was no logical point in constantly needling McCoy other than he knew it got under his skin and that gave Spock satisfaction. Just like it gave McCoy satisfaction when the reversed happened. That is emotion.

The fact of the matter is this Spock is a decade younger than the Spock we see in TOS-proper and has gone through a life altering event.

It is definitely a fine line to walk, I admit it. But what they've done with Spock in the Abrams films works for me. He is different, yet undeniably "Spock".

 

And in This Side of Paradise where once again he kicks Kirk's ass. And in TMP where V'Ger makes him cry, And in The Cage, where he laughs and raises his voice. And in The Naked Time where he cries about his mom. Then there are the times he get perturbed with McCoy or some other human. ( different episodes) You see it in Nimoy's expression or tone.