Does anyone else hope that any Trek XI medical scenes...

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

If there are any scenes in sickbay or involving some kind of emergency surgery/medical procedure, I'd want it to seem much more visceral; kinda like the Gorkon scene in TUC. While I understand that you could only show so much on 60s television, I always felt that the later shows presented us with an overly sterile medical world. Sure technology is advance, but people will still bleed, puke and have all sorts of colored fluids.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Brutal Strudel said:

ITL said:

klingongoat said:

StarMan said:
I suddenly wish Hugh Laurie were cast as McCoy.

With or without the cane?

Cane be damned!

This is the Laurie we want - see his stylish Trycoarder, by jove!

I'm not gay. At least, I wasn't until you posted that picture. Thanks a lot! Now I have to buy a whole new library of porn!

Unless you're female, that makes no sense. I'm the one here who should be put off men forever after seeing that. Eeee-yuck.

But we all know Baldrick's the sexy one in that show. Real men don't bathe.

 

[Procutus]

Sisko_is_my_captain said:

...will be a little more like 'er'?

Sorry, if I want to see excessive blood and puking, then I'll watch ER. The medical scenes can stay in the 'Trek-Lite' mode, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[BorgusFrat]

Cary L. Brown said:
It's not "stupid." Okay, fine, they have fantastic medical devices that can practically cure a rainy day... but the actual HUMAN BODY hasn't changed at all.

How do we know, for sure? Sure, you can argue that Trek hasn't touched on it too much, but it's kinda silly if there've been no improvements whatsoever to the structural aspects of the human body in nearly 300 years. Little things like ability to withstand more cold temperatures (stranded landing party in The Enemy Within), or perhaps better eyesight, or stronger bladders (never seeing a bathroom during the entire series, for instance).

Anyway, I would hope any medical scenes would maybe show a little more of the automation that would seem to be appropriate for such a type of ship, like badly injured crewmen held in stasis while others even worse off are tended to.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

BorgusFrat said:

Cary L. Brown said:
It's not "stupid." Okay, fine, they have fantastic medical devices that can practically cure a rainy day... but the actual HUMAN BODY hasn't changed at all.

How do we know, for sure? Sure, you can argue that Trek hasn't touched on it too much, but it's kinda silly if there've been no improvements whatsoever to the structural aspects of the human body in nearly 300 years. Little things like ability to withstand more cold temperatures (stranded landing party in The Enemy Within), or perhaps better eyesight, or stronger bladders (never seeing a bathroom during the entire series, for instance).

Anyway, I would hope any medical scenes would maybe show a little more of the automation that would seem to be appropriate for such a type of ship, like badly injured crewmen held in stasis while others even worse off are tended to.

Well, first off there's the whole bit from Khan's first appearance, that makes it very clear that humanity hasn't changed in any noticeable way (and that includes not just appearance but anythign that Khan might have read in the volumes of materials he reviewed upon his awakening). Second, there's the simple fact that it's clearly established that humanity OVERWHELMINGLY REJECTS both eugenics and genetic engineering (not exactly the same thing... eugenics is simply selective breeding, and involves no actual engineering of the genome proper).

Of course, assume for the moment that these argument didn't hold... we'd STILL be talking about humans, even if they were genetically-engineered humans. Life forms with blood pumping through their body through veins and arteries, under significant pressure, with digestive systems, with the necessity to filter metabolic waste products from the blood... so you WILL have all sorts of messy biological processes going on, no matter WHAT you do. Stab someone through the gut, and you're going to get HORRIBLE smells and fluids and so forth... it's really quite messy and quite nauseating. It's not CLEAN, like movies and TV shows tend to show (a little blood-spatter is NOT all that's going to come out!).

Even if you have "anabolic protoplasers" that apply organic compounds onto wound surfaces and cauterize those surfaces... they don't actually regrow tissue. If you scrape all the flesh off one side of a person's face, rip out an eye, etc, etc, ... you don't just wave a magic wand and have new flesh and a new eye. You may, EVENTUALLY, put it all back as good as new (that, I can buy into). But it won't be an instantaneous, nor a "messless," process, will it be?

The time may come when we have nanotechnology so advanced that we can rebuild individual cells, complete with functioning organelles and correct DNA. Even THEN, it wouldn't be instantaneous, and until the treatment was fully applied (not to mention the whole period before ANY treatment has been applied) the injuries will, simply, be much more horrific than anything we normally see on Star Trek.

I just can't imagine that (1) the people we see in Star Trek are in any measureable way different than we are today (well, the HUMANS at least!), and (2) that there would never be "messy" injuries.

Make sense?

 

[StarMan]

ITL said:

This is the Laurie we want - see his stylish Trycoarder, by jove!

Such a picture is incomplete without a view of his grandest of pants.

 

[igrokbok]

I get no "entertainment" from seeing blood spurt or bones penetrate flesh. I know it's bad and I know it's being treated and that's good enough for me. I have no need or desire have it visually "spelled out" for me.

 

[BorgusFrat]

Cary L. Brown said:

BorgusFrat said:

Cary L. Brown said:
It's not "stupid." Okay, fine, they have fantastic medical devices that can practically cure a rainy day... but the actual HUMAN BODY hasn't changed at all.

How do we know, for sure? Sure, you can argue that Trek hasn't touched on it too much, but it's kinda silly if there've been no improvements whatsoever to the structural aspects of the human body in nearly 300 years. Little things like ability to withstand more cold temperatures (stranded landing party in The Enemy Within), or perhaps better eyesight, or stronger bladders (never seeing a bathroom during the entire series, for instance).

Anyway, I would hope any medical scenes would maybe show a little more of the automation that would seem to be appropriate for such a type of ship, like badly injured crewmen held in stasis while others even worse off are tended to.

I just can't imagine that (1) the people we see in Star Trek are in any measureable way different than we are today (well, the HUMANS at least!), and (2) that there would never be "messy" injuries.

Make sense?

Oh, I'm all for a little more "messiness" in this go-round of Trek. I think space is and should be shown to be dangerous.

I don't think we have to assume, though, that what we see on aired Trek is the be-all and end-all on the subject. I'm thinking that Starfleet types, especially, would have recieved a lot of specialized training and, uh, "improvements" that maybe no one ever talked about, especially the "front-line" explorers. They'd need it the most, after all -- don't know what they're going to encounter.

I'd easily buy into the belief that there's alot of stuff that's helped to improve or been "done to" the explorer ranks to "improve" their abilities. Not superhero stuff, of course, but little things here and there that the society itself or Starfleet wouldn't even really consider to be "eugenics" in the same context that Khan was describing. It could range from the "sensciever implants" all the way to other bodily improvements that are just routine and "normal" for deep space travellers and explorers.

Plus, it'd be even more "messiness" to have to deal with onscreen.

 

[scotthm]

igrokbok said:
I get no "entertainment" from seeing blood spurt or bones penetrate flesh.

I agree 100%, but there are, unfortunately, a great many people who enjoy watching others suffer.

---------------

 

[Cary L. Brown]

scotthm said:

igrokbok said:
I get no "entertainment" from seeing blood spurt or bones penetrate flesh.

I agree 100%, but there are, unfortunately, a great many people who enjoy watching others suffer.

---------------

I sure hope that you guys aren't relating what I, and others, have been saying to "enjoying watching people suffer."

That's actually a pretty offensive comment, if that's what you're saying.

I don't enjoy watching ANYONE suffer. Not even really really bad people, who arguably might DESERVE to suffer.

I merely want to see a Star Trek which is not set in an unrealistically "sanitized" version of reality, where nobody evew gets a boo-boo... and when people die, they lay down, go "ahhh..." and just fall asleep.

Young children may need to be protected from realistic portrayals of the realistic consequences of violence... but anyone over the age of six NEEDS to know that violence isn't like they might THINK it is based upon the "soft" version we're accustomed to from watching Star Trek.

If a shuttlecraft were to crash-land... you would NOT be likely to have the crew get up and start walking around with a few bruises and contusions. More likely, you'd have serious broken bones, tremendous blunt-force-trauma... I'd be shocked if at LEAST one person's neck didn't just snap.

Star Trek is accustomed to showing that sort of "softened" consquences. A shuttlecraft is ripped open... yet the people inside are alive. Well, even with TODAY'S construction techniques and materials, a hard landing that would be sufficient to rip open an aircraft fuselage is most likely going to PULP anyone on board. It's just a matter of basic physics and basic anatomy.

We're not saying we wanna see gratuitous gore. We just want to see realistic consequences to realistic situations, set within a fictional universe that is close enough to real for us to believe that this COULD be the future of our own reality for the duration of the movie.

That is NOT the same as "taking pleasure in the suffering of others" and anyone who actually thinks that is both utterly naive and a total self-righteous asshole.

So, I'm going to HOPE that nobody is actually saying that.

 

[Jack Bauer]

I think someone is the movie should have an exploding tumor. They could just blow up into a million pieces.

 

[Stardate]

I want see separate arm being reattached or burn victim getting a new skin by genetic engineering methods.

 

[Sharr Khan]

I'd easily buy into the belief that there's alot of stuff that's helped to improve or been "done to" the explorer ranks to "improve" their abilities. Not superhero stuff, of course, but little things here and there that the society itself or Starfleet wouldn't even really consider to be "eugenics" in the same context that Khan was describing.

The only time where this possibly came up it was never follow through with is when Dr Crusher made the claim "humans don't get headaches in the 24th Century" or words like that. But it was never explained at all.

It would still be hard to make this extrapolation as you are doing more or less out of nothing given there's evidence in the form of Dr Bashir that they don't do such a thing. You can't use wishful thinking in place or logic here.

Given the almost religious fervor that StarFleet and the Federation hate genetic engineering can't buy them allowing such "improvements" or they would have smoothed over Bashir's augmented nature and moved on rather then making a big deal out of how morally wrong it was.

Oh I also want more "real" medical situations.

Sharr

 

[scotthm]

Cary L. Brown said:

scotthm said:

igrokbok said:
I get no "entertainment" from seeing blood spurt or bones penetrate flesh.

I agree 100%, but there are, unfortunately, a great many people who enjoy watching others suffer.

I sure hope that you guys aren't relating what I, and others, have been saying to "enjoying watching people suffer."
`
That's actually a pretty offensive comment, if that's what you're saying.

If what I said doesn't apply to you then you have no reason to be offended.

Nevertheless, there is a whole genre of film devoted to torture and murder and I suspect many of the people wanting violent harm portrayed more 'realistically' in Star Trek also enjoy such films as Saw and Hostel, etc. Not that I think Star Trek is headed in that direction, but I say just nip that idea in the bud.

---------------

 

[Ovation]

There is a middle ground (I was going to say "happy medium", but that seemed wrong in relation to serious injuries).

Sam Peckinpah-like balletic blood-spatter is not necessary, nor do we need the kind of kinetic battlefield horror from Saving Private Ryan or Black Hawk Down. But some indication of a "realistic" consequence can be presented without becoming an ode to gore. The difference between a PG and an R film in such matters is often a question of time spent on the shot, rather than the content of the shot. Brief glimpses (and used judiciously, not gratuitously--IF called for) should be sufficient to establish that such things happen without having to dwell on it. Besides, it is STAR Trek, not ER Trek, so as much as I like the character of McCoy, I don't want to spend a third of the film in the sickbay. I would hope the movie is not just one long battle.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

scotthm said:

Cary L. Brown said:

scotthm said:

igrokbok said:
I get no "entertainment" from seeing blood spurt or bones penetrate flesh.

I agree 100%, but there are, unfortunately, a great many people who enjoy watching others suffer.

I sure hope that you guys aren't relating what I, and others, have been saying to "enjoying watching people suffer."
`
That's actually a pretty offensive comment, if that's what you're saying.

If what I said doesn't apply to you then you have no reason to be offended.

Nevertheless, there is a whole genre of film devoted to torture and murder and I suspect many of the people wanting violent harm portrayed more 'realistically' in Star Trek also enjoy such films as Saw and Hostel, etc. Not that I think Star Trek is headed in that direction, but I say just nip that idea in the bud.

---------------

For the record, I haven't seen either "Saw" or Hostel. The only "horror" films I ever really enjoyed have been:

1) The Thing
2) At some weird level, the Freddy Krueger stuff (but that's because Freddy is such a totally tongue-in-cheek character...)
3) The "Resident Evil" films (not due to the gore but due to the sheer "fun level," plus I have to admit I'm SOOOO into Mila
4) Sean of the Dead (same as above on the "fun level" bit... shame there's no Mila in it!)

Oddly, none of those are all THAT explicitly gory... the Freddy Krueger stuff isn't really GORY so much as just over-the-top, SILLY stuff (800 gallons of blood out of a body? Phones that sprout tongues? Ya CAN'T take that stuff seriously! Still, I haven't seen any of those in many, many years.)

The Thing is "gory" in a sense... except it's not really GORE for the most when we see it (Okay, having a guy's head come off his body, grow legs, and crawl away to a corner is grotesque, but it's not "harm coming to other people" per-se).

Sean of the Dead is just silly.. and even as such, the only really GROSS bit is over-the-top in a very silly way... (Involving David and a window...)

And as for R:E... well, considering the thematic material, it's not nearly as explicit as it might have been... yes, there's zombie makeup and some cool CGI slime-monsters, but you don't see the sort of REALISTIC injury stuff we're talking about here.

I have NO INTEREST in seeing "Saw" or "Hostel" because I see no point to those films whatsoever, except to watch people suffer. I saw a few of the "Friday the 13th" flicks when I was a kid... and I didn't like 'em, because they were pointless violence (though it was vaguely amusing, once you realized that 13 kids died in every movie, to "keep score" at the theater with a group of rowdy friends.)

But MASH... just for example... showed the impact of injuries in a realistic way without resorting to having to show gore. I think that MASH, or some of the better recent WWII films/series ("Band of Brothers" comes to mind) are good references for how this ought to be handled.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

Jack Bauer said:
I think someone is the movie should have an exploding tumor. They could just blow up into a million pieces.

It's not a tumor!

 

[Sisko_is_my_captain]

For the record, I also have not seen saw or hostel (not sure what that one's about, but I get the idea). I don't get off on violence. What I'm talking about is a realistic portrayal of life in the Trekverse - and that includes injuries. ER is somewhat over the top on occasion, but I think overall it does a decent job of portraying injuries in a PG manner while maintaining some degree of realism. I'm not asking for Saving Private Ryan (although I think that it would have worked very well in the DS9 episode where Jake landed on the planet the Klingons were attacking (sorry, forgot the title)). I am asking for a portrayal of injuries that's more realistic than a red patch on a uniform.

 

[darkshadow0001]

Sisko_is_my_captain said:
...will be a little more like 'er'? By that I mean I'd like to see a little blood spurting for a change. I want to hear injured crew members moaning like getting sliced by a bug eyed monster hurts. I want to see some phaser-induced seizures! I want some realistic medical situations, in other words. So often, on Trek, the medical scenes played out so tame and unrealistic. Does anyone else hope that this movie ends up being a little more edgy when it comes to medical drama?

No, the medical scenes should stick with how things are in Trek. No copying/simularities of other shows. It should be a look between Enterprise and TOS, I think