RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 137,795
Posts: 5,325,701
Members: 24,548
Currently online: 489
Newest member: wrestlefreak36

TrekToday headlines

Seven of Nine Bobble Head
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

Pegg The Prankster
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

More Trek Stars Join Unbelievable!!!!!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

Star Trek #35 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

New ThinkGeek Trek Apparel
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Star Trek Movie Prop Auction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Drexler: NX Engineering Room Construction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

New Trek Home Fashions
By: T'Bonz on Jul 4

Star Trek Pop-Ups Book Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 3

Cho: More On Selfie
By: T'Bonz on Jul 3


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 19 2013, 11:37 PM   #61
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: What did you like/dislike about Into Darkness (Spoilers)

throwback wrote: View Post
For me, besides the unrealistic warp core...
FuckFuckFuckFuckFuckFuck!!!

Can you show me a realistic warp core? Please?
__________________
"When I first heard about it (the Enterprise underwater), my inner Trekkie was in a rage. When I saw it, my inner kid beat up my inner Trekkie and made him go sit in the corner." - Bill Jasper
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19 2013, 11:49 PM   #62
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: What did you like/dislike about Into Darkness (Spoilers)

I liked the action (though in theatre it was too loud, as usual. I prefer watching at home) and the actors did a fine job. I like the relative complexity of the story and how it matches up to previous Trek (as much as can be expected, that is).

I could've gone without the Khan re-hash but it was fairly well done. The KHAN! yell was a bit corny, but alright. And Scotty really should keep his distance from a stunned genetic superman. He's smarter than that.

Nothing much on the con side, in other words, and I usually don't go into much detail for pros.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20 2013, 01:50 AM   #63
the Sisko
Commander
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: What did you like/dislike about Into Darkness (Spoilers)

I felt like the movie was good as an action movie but it felt like it contained a story so large they copped out of telling it right. This movie is like Star Wars Episode 2, but if the clone wars were stopped in time. Or it's like DS9's homefront/paradise lost as Starfleet almost loses itself to a crazy admiral who sees a war coming. Or it's ENT's Borderlands/Augment/Forge/Affliction/Divergence plot as superhumans provoke Klingons into a more militant stance.

To me, these are big ideas (Affliction/Divergence was among my favorite ENT, Homefront/Paradise Lost was among my favorite DS9, and I liked Eps 2-3 more than the original trilogy). It didn't feel like they committed to the idea of really wresling with the Federation's purpose or... heck... reaching out to the Klingons or going in depth into the Admirals conspiracy (like having this be the moment when S31 tried to come out after a century, so that it's working the Dominion a century later has extra resonance).

I left feeling like the movie exposed me to a cool universe... but never took me away from Kirk/Spock long enough to really appreciate the future.

Given the not guarantee that the Organians will intervene, Khan's actions (including shooting down patrol ships) will have a response from the Klingons worthy of an opera (or a movie). I want to know what happened in the year between Kirk waking up and the enterprise launch that Starfleet still wants to send a flagship to explore rather than shore up the lines.

My holes plotwise: Khan killed 10-500k in SF by any reasonable estimate of destruction. THAT was a huge moment of loss in the ST universe, comparable to Wolf 359. It really wanted someone in-movie to hurt at that. That was about the worse 10 minutes in the movie. After Spock's 72 torpedos, there was a moment where I'd want to tell Khan that his crew is actually safe and it's time to surrender. Why? So he doesn't become the genocidal maniac who flies a massive starship into a crowded city after he loses his reason to live.

I loved Khan's life support threat. I can imagine as DM, in a RPG, I'd make every character do a fear save after that.

I liked the Carol Marcus characterization and that she's totally into Kirk at the end of the movie. Her running onto the bridge to save the ship reminded me of Kirk doing the same a movie ago. So I liked her ability to match mental strength with Kirk.

I liked the new Warp Animation. Can't wait to see the animation when the enterprise exits warp naturally.

I felt more like I understood why the enterprise is an effective tool from this. The crew's coordination of Kirk's jump and saving the planet gave me the feeling that this crew could really do some exploration and research and the Enterprise had the ability to do mission control for these sorts of operation.

I like that the non-cast Aliens are more alien in their looks and ubiquitous on Earth. After ENT S4 questioned whether humanity was ready for an alien presence, this movie gave the kind of answer that made Trek proud.

I don't like the current model of space combat. The weapons are overpowered relative to the Enterprise's shields and hull armor. It may look good but it's bad for the ability for captains to attempt peaceful resolution and innovative strategy midcombat (Enterprise was dead save Scotty giving them a few minutes to think, prepare torpedo transport and storm the bridge).
the Sisko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20 2013, 02:17 AM   #64
ATimson
Rear Admiral
 
ATimson's Avatar
 
Location: Andrew Timson
Re: What did you like/dislike about Into Darkness (Spoilers)

BillJ wrote: View Post
throwback wrote: View Post
For me, besides the unrealistic warp core...
FuckFuckFuckFuckFuckFuck!!!

Can you show me a realistic warp core? Please?
I don't know about "realistic", per se, but something with matter, antimatter, and dilithium would be nice. What we saw just looked like an electric arc.

the Sisko wrote: View Post
My holes plotwise: Khan killed 10-500k in SF by any reasonable estimate of destruction. THAT was a huge moment of loss in the ST universe, comparable to Wolf 359. It really wanted someone in-movie to hurt at that.
At the same time, I don't think it was completely brushed over; if it was as pain free as you intimate, Kirk wouldn't have brought it up during his "one year later" speech at the end.

the Sisko wrote: View Post
I don't like the current model of space combat. The weapons are overpowered relative to the Enterprise's shields and hull armor. It may look good but it's bad for the ability for captains to attempt peaceful resolution and innovative strategy midcombat (Enterprise was dead save Scotty giving them a few minutes to think, prepare torpedo transport and storm the bridge).
I don't know if it's the weapons in general, or rather the specific instances of "we need a big ship to dwarf the Enterprise". I would've liked to see something more along the lines of the Defiant: small ship, small crew, exact same weapons power as her front-line contemporary (Galaxy-class in the Defiant's case, Constitution-class for the Vengeance). Unfortunately that doesn't play as well on-screen as "big imposing adversary".
__________________
Andrew Timson
===============
"Niceness is the greatest human flaw, except for all the others." - Brendan Moody

"...don't mistake a few fans bitching on the Internet for any kind of trend." - Keith R.A. DeCandido
ATimson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20 2013, 02:25 AM   #65
tmosler
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: What did you like/dislike about Into Darkness (Spoilers)

I am a big fan of star trek and have watched very episode of original series, next generation, ds9, and all the feature films. With that being said I loved it. Without a doubt this movie is now my favorite star trek movie ( sorry wrath of kahn) my family loved it and parts such as the kahn scream which I was holding my breath for didn't seem that bad. in fact the scream only lasted 2 seconds before the cut to another scene so I dont see the big deal. The only part I didnot like was that the villain is khan but I think it worked out good in the end. Also the Kirk death scene was not a copy of the original they added plenty of new dialog and there was only 3 short lines they copied. Lastly the audience greatly enjoyed it and laughed at all the funny parts.
tmosler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20 2013, 02:26 AM   #66
wissaboo
Captain
 
wissaboo's Avatar
 
Location: canada
View wissaboo's Twitter Profile
Re: What did you like/dislike about Into Darkness (Spoilers)

Admiral Buzzkill wrote: View Post
The call to Old Spock was a clever storytelling choice, IMAO, because they turned a potentially flat expository sequence into a Moment.

I mean, it could have just been one of those droning conversation's with the ship's computer in which the gadget recited Khan's true life history and nature, thus alerting Spock to the danger he represented. That choice fulfills the plot requirement while adding nothing to the entertainment.
I almost wept with joy when Old Spock came on the screen. I want to know more about nu Vulcan.

my major quibble? and I'm sure it's mine alone. Kirk and Spock's haircuts were horrible. I was dying to fix them the whole time.
wissaboo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20 2013, 03:41 AM   #67
bullethead
Fleet Captain
 
bullethead's Avatar
 
Re: What did you like/dislike about Into Darkness (Spoilers)

What I liked:
-Kirk breaking the TNG style Prime Directive to save the natives
-Scotty and his little subplot
-USS Vengeance
-All the mystery surrounding Harrison/Khan
-The look of the Klingons

What I didn't like
-Making Section 31 into dumb villains. Seriously, shoot Khan's people into the sun or Jupiter after he runs off to Qo'nos.
-Harrison being Khan. It would've been so much cooler if Harrison was just augmented Section 31 agent engaging in a convoluted covert op instead of Khan going for revenge.
-All that stuff with the blood. I can buy red matter, I'm not buying regenerative blood unless it's from those Species aliens.
-The Klingons being chumps. It's like all of Worf's bad luck with fights from TNG and DS9 got channeled into those guys.
-Killing Kirk felt like a cheap move because we knew that it wouldn't stick due to the 3 movie contract
-Dr. McCoy wasn't replaced by Judge Dredd in the tribble scenes at the end
__________________
A business man and engineer discuss how to launch a communications satellite in the 1960s:
Biz Dev Guy: Your communications satellite has to be the size, shape, and weight of a hydrogen bomb.
bullethead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20 2013, 03:50 AM   #68
Ancient Mariner
Rear Admiral
 
Ancient Mariner's Avatar
 
Location: A ship of Samuel Walters' imagination.
View Ancient Mariner's Twitter Profile
Re: What did you like/dislike about Into Darkness (Spoilers)

The more I think about it, the more I see the brilliance in this film. Its layers. Entertaining? Sure, no question. But even a minor sequence, such as Khan's seduction of the Starfleet officer, underscores so many elements of the film: The lengths we go for our families, the possibilities for using Khan's blood, Section 31, the whole impetus for gathering senior Starfleet Command together. Absolutely brilliant.
__________________
I'm starting to worry about this voyage ...
Ancient Mariner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20 2013, 06:46 AM   #69
sj4iy
Commander
 
sj4iy's Avatar
 
Location: US
Re: What did you like/dislike about Into Darkness (Spoilers)

My favorite part? Acute radiation poisoning depicted realistically- no smoke, green lights or skin falling off (old Spock, eh HEM). I always hate when movies make radiation out to be something you can see, and it's not.
sj4iy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20 2013, 10:46 AM   #70
Crazyewok
Commander
 
Re: What did you like/dislike about Into Darkness (Spoilers)

Liked:

Good story line

Use of section 31

Klingons

USS Vengeance its nice to see the federation have a battleship.

Look at 22nd Century England (nice to see we survived the 3rd world war )

Dislike:

Inconsistent warp seeds. It seemed to take a few minutes to reach the edge of klingon space. Not JJ Abraham's fault as this unnecessary plot device has been used so many times before.... Like first contact and how the Enterprise got from Romluan neutral zone to earth in a few hours.

Beer brewery engine room. But I guess if you strip all the bulk heads and panelling down from the "old" trek that's what you will see.

Lack of Horror from the Vengeance crashing into down town San Francisco. I mean thats like 9/11 x a thousand! Action and exploding city's are good BUT SHOW THE DAM REPOCUSSIONS! Still other treks have been just as guilty.

Lack of any Earth Defences. Again Not something JJ abrahams is solely guilty of......

Some on here are sayingt he augment blood was a cop out but its already been established in DS9 that augment based treatment can do amazing things. Hence why Julian Bashir is one of the top doctors in start fleet and not a dribbling retard like opee from family guy (though that would have been a interesting character) and its explained that the reason "magic blood " treatment is not legal is because it can have dangerous side effects, note mcoys questions when Kirk wakes up. Now the question is whether or not Mcoys broke any laws and faced repercussions and or if he got let off the hook seeing as Kirk just saved the world or If because that version of the treatment was new it did not fall under regulation. Its not made clear but its safe to assume it has most likely been banned.
Crazyewok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20 2013, 11:58 AM   #71
seven14
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Location: Virginia
Re: What did you like/dislike about Into Darkness (Spoilers)

KittyDuran wrote: View Post
To leave Khan once again imprisoned "on ice" was such a cop out. No, the bad guy shouldn't win, but Star Fleet hasn't won by returning him to a cryogenic state either.
If SF can find a way to use the "magical" blood maybe...
I actually got behind his blood having properties that could aid and speed up recovery of the sick (I'm guessing blood types don't matter in the future as you could end up in a very bad way if they don't match or aren't compatible right?)---but bringing a human back from the dead??? was too ridiculous imo---even bringing a tribble back from the dead was silly-I'm thinking the poor tribble may simply put itself in a form of stasis to recover peacefully to trick Bones into stopping with the constant poking.

I think Star Fleet is too honorable (the Admirable not with-standing) to simply stick IVs in the arms of Khan and his crew without consent.

Even keeping them in this state knowing that they have been used and "abused" is not right which is why I could understand Khan's mentality somewhat...

This discussion and the other remarks on the forum are the reasons I liked the movie so much---it does get you thinking and it was enjoyable. I can't wait until the next movie where I doubt they will answer every question as some things we just have to deal with and move on :-)
seven14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20 2013, 12:19 PM   #72
Crazyewok
Commander
 
Re: What did you like/dislike about Into Darkness (Spoilers)

seven14 wrote: View Post
KittyDuran wrote: View Post
To leave Khan once again imprisoned "on ice" was such a cop out. No, the bad guy shouldn't win, but Star Fleet hasn't won by returning him to a cryogenic state either.
If SF can find a way to use the "magical" blood maybe...
I actually got behind his blood having properties that could aid and speed up recovery of the sick (I'm guessing blood types don't matter in the future as you could end up in a very bad way if they don't match or aren't compatible right?)---but bringing a human back from the dead??? was too ridiculous imo---even bringing a tribble back from the dead was silly-I'm thinking the poor tribble may simply put itself in a form of stasis to recover peacefully to trick Bones into stopping with the constant poking.

I think Star Fleet is too honorable (the Admirable not with-standing) to simply stick IVs in the arms of Khan and his crew without consent.

Even keeping them in this state knowing that they have been used and "abused" is not right which is why I could understand Khan's mentality somewhat...

This discussion and the other remarks on the forum are the reasons I liked the movie so much---it does get you thinking and it was enjoyable. I can't wait until the next movie where I doubt they will answer every question as some things we just have to deal with and move on :-)
Maybe a deal was struck with Khan? Seeing as he took out half of San Francisco I think he got off lightly at the end. They could have quite easily given him life in some penal colony or worse extridited him to the Klingons were he would most deffinatly have faced execution and the federation have shown in TNG, DS9 and Voyger that it can and will allow the extridition of Citizens even if they possibly face a corpral or capital punishment.

As for the healing properties of Augment blood? Well its been estabilised in DS9 it has miraculous but unpredictable health effects.

Last edited by Crazyewok; May 20 2013 at 12:29 PM.
Crazyewok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20 2013, 01:48 PM   #73
sj4iy
Commander
 
sj4iy's Avatar
 
Location: US
Re: What did you like/dislike about Into Darkness (Spoilers)

seven14 wrote: View Post
KittyDuran wrote: View Post
To leave Khan once again imprisoned "on ice" was such a cop out. No, the bad guy shouldn't win, but Star Fleet hasn't won by returning him to a cryogenic state either.
If SF can find a way to use the "magical" blood maybe...
I actually got behind his blood having properties that could aid and speed up recovery of the sick (I'm guessing blood types don't matter in the future as you could end up in a very bad way if they don't match or aren't compatible right?)---but bringing a human back from the dead??? was too ridiculous imo---even bringing a tribble back from the dead was silly-I'm thinking the poor tribble may simply put itself in a form of stasis to recover peacefully to trick Bones into stopping with the constant poking.

I think Star Fleet is too honorable (the Admirable not with-standing) to simply stick IVs in the arms of Khan and his crew without consent.

Even keeping them in this state knowing that they have been used and "abused" is not right which is why I could understand Khan's mentality somewhat...

This discussion and the other remarks on the forum are the reasons I liked the movie so much---it does get you thinking and it was enjoyable. I can't wait until the next movie where I doubt they will answer every question as some things we just have to deal with and move on :-)
I can get behind that he brought Kirk back because he did one thing- he froze him. McCoy even said that they had to hurry to preserve Kirk's brain function. Even today, doctors use hypothermia to slow down cell death even after a relatively long time...for instance, just recently a baby was born who didn't breathe for 30 minutes. The doctors then wrapped the child in cold blankets for three days to keep her from dying, and they were able to revive her. Another example I've read about was a boy drowned in a bathtub and without oxygen for a while until he was brought to the hospital, where they did the same and he revived with almost no brain damage.

High exposure to radiation results in something called Central Nervous System (CNS) Syndrome. Death results from respiratory failure and/or brain edema resulting from fluid leakage due to a combination of cellular and vascular damage. 100,000 rads would cause death pretty quickly. I'm assuming that he didn't quite receive this amount, because death wasn't instantaneous. A dose of 2000-5000 rads is the dose given on the CDC website that can cause CNS syndrome. If he died like that, I think it's very believable that they could save him if they stopped the cell damage and brain swelling in time and then used a serum that contained blood cells to repair Kirk's own damaged cells. Of course, this is the future, so I am assuming that they know more about the brain and how it functions as compared to today. Otherwise, it could cause memory loss unless the serum (or some other advanced medical technique) also repairs the neural pathways made in memory creation.

It's not the deus ex machina that everyone is calling it, but based on real science (induced hypothermia, transfusions, etc). However, I also think that there was a deal struck with Khan about it- blood to save Kirk then you are returned to stasis- I doubt they will tell people about it because it could have terrible consequences for anyone even thought to be an augment. But I would say that even though there are probably only a few in Starfleet who would use them if they knew, there would be many other people who would kill for it. The augments are only safe if their secret is kept by the people on the Enterprise who knew about it. I also doubt that Khan would refuse because he would survive, and he also probably couldn't do much after the beating he took from Spock (broken arm OUCH!).

Since we don't know how long the tribble was dead, how it died or its physiology, I can't make a guess as to how it was brought back by an augment's blood.

Where did I get my information? I got most of my radiation information from my nuclear engineer husband and a several different sites and message boards. I got the information about induced hypothermia from the news (the baby story is very recent). Brain function details I read from a couple of neuroscience sites as well as my own knowledge from a class I took in college about physiology. Just to let people know.

Last edited by sj4iy; May 20 2013 at 02:31 PM.
sj4iy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20 2013, 06:29 PM   #74
Psion
Commodore
 
Psion's Avatar
 
Location: Lat: 40.1630936 Lon: -75.1183777
View Psion's Twitter Profile
Re: What did you like/dislike about Into Darkness (Spoilers)

sj4iy wrote: View Post
seven14 wrote: View Post
KittyDuran wrote: View Post
If SF can find a way to use the "magical" blood maybe...
I actually got behind his blood having properties that could aid and speed up recovery of the sick (I'm guessing blood types don't matter in the future as you could end up in a very bad way if they don't match or aren't compatible right?)---but bringing a human back from the dead??? was too ridiculous imo---even bringing a tribble back from the dead was silly-I'm thinking the poor tribble may simply put itself in a form of stasis to recover peacefully to trick Bones into stopping with the constant poking.

I think Star Fleet is too honorable (the Admirable not with-standing) to simply stick IVs in the arms of Khan and his crew without consent.

Even keeping them in this state knowing that they have been used and "abused" is not right which is why I could understand Khan's mentality somewhat...

This discussion and the other remarks on the forum are the reasons I liked the movie so much---it does get you thinking and it was enjoyable. I can't wait until the next movie where I doubt they will answer every question as some things we just have to deal with and move on :-)
I can get behind that he brought Kirk back because he did one thing- he froze him. McCoy even said that they had to hurry to preserve Kirk's brain function. Even today, doctors use hypothermia to slow down cell death even after a relatively long time...for instance, just recently a baby was born who didn't breathe for 30 minutes. The doctors then wrapped the child in cold blankets for three days to keep her from dying, and they were able to revive her. Another example I've read about was a boy drowned in a bathtub and without oxygen for a while until he was brought to the hospital, where they did the same and he revived with almost no brain damage.

High exposure to radiation results in something called Central Nervous System (CNS) Syndrome. Death results from respiratory failure and/or brain edema resulting from fluid leakage due to a combination of cellular and vascular damage. 100,000 rads would cause death pretty quickly. I'm assuming that he didn't quite receive this amount, because death wasn't instantaneous. A dose of 2000-5000 rads is the dose given on the CDC website that can cause CNS syndrome. If he died like that, I think it's very believable that they could save him if they stopped the cell damage and brain swelling in time and then used a serum that contained blood cells to repair Kirk's own damaged cells. Of course, this is the future, so I am assuming that they know more about the brain and how it functions as compared to today. Otherwise, it could cause memory loss unless the serum (or some other advanced medical technique) also repairs the neural pathways made in memory creation.

It's not the deus ex machina that everyone is calling it, but based on real science (induced hypothermia, transfusions, etc). However, I also think that there was a deal struck with Khan about it- blood to save Kirk then you are returned to stasis- I doubt they will tell people about it because it could have terrible consequences for anyone even thought to be an augment. But I would say that even though there are probably only a few in Starfleet who would use them if they knew, there would be many other people who would kill for it. The augments are only safe if their secret is kept by the people on the Enterprise who knew about it. I also doubt that Khan would refuse because he would survive, and he also probably couldn't do much after the beating he took from Spock (broken arm OUCH!).

Since we don't know how long the tribble was dead, how it died or its physiology, I can't make a guess as to how it was brought back by an augment's blood.

Where did I get my information? I got most of my radiation information from my nuclear engineer husband and a several different sites and message boards. I got the information about induced hypothermia from the news (the baby story is very recent). Brain function details I read from a couple of neuroscience sites as well as my own knowledge from a class I took in college about physiology. Just to let people know.
That's all well and good, but Khan was the product of a selective breeding program that originated somewhere in the 1950s to 1960s. Assuming he was born around 1970, that means that doctors and scientists knew he had blood with remarkable restorative properties for nearly 300 years and they somehow forgot it.

Even if you bring in the Eugenics Wars as an excuse to lose that valuable discovery, for twenty to thirty years the eugenics doctors could cure death.

Khan's blood is nonsense. How does selective breeding bring such a curative substance into existence? And if it's so simple that these guys stumbling in the dark of genetics (about seventeen years at most after Watson and Crick figured out what DNA looked like), why wasn't such a discovery repeated after the Eugenics War? It's got to be made up of common proteins and enzymes already present in human blood, after all!

This is where J.J.'s rebooted Trek falls short ... they didn't reboot enough. They're still too tied to the original show. In Wrath of Khan, Nick Meyers tried to update things a bit by claiming Khan and his followers had been genetically engineered ... a concept that was new and exciting in the 1980s, but not part of the original conceit. But he made an effort to clean up a mistake in the Trek timeline that anyone alive back then knew was coming: there were no eugenic supermen, and there would be no Eugenics Wars. 1992 wasn't that far in the future any longer.

Now, Orci et al had an opportunity to fix this by pushing Khan's origins back into the 21st century. A time when we're learning more about gene therapy, cloning, stem cell treatments, and organ rejuvenation. A time when something like the Eugenics Wars might still happen. They could have coupled it to World War III, for example. But they couldn't because the conceit of the new Trek features is that they are still based on the same flawed timeline inherited from the original series.

Mind you, I loved this latest film. I liked it a lot more than Trek 2009. The bit with the blood is a minor nuisance, but I'm not going to just pretend it's not there. Just like the ridiculous physics of the Enterprise's freefall and Spock's take on "Khaaaaannnnn!", I'd rather those nits were cleaned up before they made it to the big screen.
__________________
Twinkies are back. I knew they couldn't stay away from me for long.
Psion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20 2013, 06:39 PM   #75
sj4iy
Commander
 
sj4iy's Avatar
 
Location: US
Re: What did you like/dislike about Into Darkness (Spoilers)

Psion wrote: View Post
That's all well and good, but Khan was the product of a selective breeding program that originated somewhere in the 1950s to 1960s. Assuming he was born around 1970, that means that doctors and scientists knew he had blood with remarkable restorative properties for nearly 300 years and they somehow forgot it.

Even if you bring in the Eugenics Wars as an excuse to lose that valuable discovery, for twenty to thirty years the eugenics doctors could cure death.

Khan's blood is nonsense. How does selective breeding bring such a curative substance into existence? And if it's so simple that these guys stumbling in the dark of genetics (about seventeen years at most after Watson and Crick figured out what DNA looked like), why wasn't such a discovery repeated after the Eugenics War? It's got to be made up of common proteins and enzymes already present in human blood, after all!

This is where J.J.'s rebooted Trek falls short ... they didn't reboot enough. They're still too tied to the original show. In Wrath of Khan, Nick Meyers tried to update things a bit by claiming Khan and his followers had been genetically engineered ... a concept that was new and exciting in the 1980s, but not part of the original conceit. But he made an effort to clean up a mistake in the Trek timeline that anyone alive back then knew was coming: there were no eugenic supermen, and there would be no Eugenics Wars. 1992 wasn't that far in the future any longer.

Now, Orci et al had an opportunity to fix this by pushing Khan's origins back into the 21st century. A time when we're learning more about gene therapy, cloning, stem cell treatments, and organ rejuvenation. A time when something like the Eugenics Wars might still happen. They could have coupled it to World War III, for example. But they couldn't because the conceit of the new Trek features is that they are still based on the same flawed timeline inherited from the original series.

Mind you, I loved this latest film. I liked it a lot more than Trek 2009. The bit with the blood is a minor nuisance, but I'm not going to just pretend it's not there. Just like the ridiculous physics of the Enterprise's freefall and Spock's take on "Khaaaaannnnn!", I'd rather those nits were cleaned up before they made it to the big screen.
Well, you're arguing against established canon- I didn't make up that Khan's blood has regenerative properties, that's how it is in Star Trek. I don't know what the properties of his blood are anymore than you do, that's just how it is in the Star Trek universe. I simply made the argument that IF McCoy had a way to repair the damaged cells in Kirk's body and if Kirk wasn't entirely brain-dead at that point, then freezing Kirk the way he did was a great way to buy time.
sj4iy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:57 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.