Re: If Star Trek Beyond Is The Last Film Should They Start NuTNG or Re
I actually agree to a large extent. The science in Trek is largely bad or unrealistic, but there's such a thing of suspension of disbelief. We can suspend our disbelief about warp drive because perhaps in the far, far future we can make faster than light travel, and even though warp drive probably can never come about due to the laws of physics, we can suspend our disbelief because it doesn't sound on the surface that far-fetched. Then you have things like magic blood, and red matter, and all loads of silliness that just defy it. There's a limit to the pseudo-science of Trek I'm willing to take.
Between this and your ardent defense of TWOK, it completely shoots any credibility you had. Magic blood is somehow more "stupid"/"brainless"/"unscientific" than a magic terraforming torpedo that rearranges matter at the molecular level to create a living ecology on a planetary scale? Then add in a twenty-year Starfleet veteran that doesn't know how to read planetary charts, an Admiral that doesn't follow the simplest of regulations, a genetically superior man who only thinks in "two-dimensions", "hours would seem like days..." and so on...
I thought Kirk was supposed to not follow orders (though I forget which orders he disobeys in Star Trek 2?) and be this rebellious bad boy or whatever. Strange complaint because in the Abrams films, which have cadets commanding the Enterprise (I still can't wrap my head around this), has Kirk disobeying every order he's given and being a total jackass.
Anyway, the rest is chalked up to suspension of disbelief. I can believe that in a future with warp drive and transporters, that terraforming technology can be so advanced that we can fire a missile and convert a moon. It was also obviously an analogy about the nuclear arms race going on in the 80s, so it's mildly clever political commentary. On the other hand, I can't believe that a cure for death would be completely abandoned so casually and that it would be genetically engineered blood, which doesn't make any sense. Shouldn't Khan be unable to die, I guess unless you rammed a starship into him or vaporized him. I guess he's the T-1000 now. No such clever political or social questions or consequences are pondered in the film, and the most we get is a white guy playing an Indian who has magic blood and overacts. It's just not a very good film. The only good part I can remember is the Spock/Khan fight scene which is well choreographed and entertaining. Actually Qunito's Spock is probably the only thing I can tolerate in those films.
TWOK is the definition of contrived mess when it comes to the script, but it is a damned fun movie to watch. If you take off the rose-tinted nostalgia glasses, you'd find both films have their share of flaws.
I can't really refute opinions, so to each their own. I find it bizarre someone would find Star Trek 2 a contrived mess and not Into Darkness which is just a rip off of Star Trek 2, a poor one at that. In fact the last three Trek films are just pleas of "we're just like Wrath of Khan! Love us!" It's kind of weird how Star Trek 2 is the holy grail of the franchise. Excellent film but come on, why rip it off three times? Anyway.
All one has to do is watch TWOK to know that Trek is no different now than it was in 1982. The writers and directors of both put entertainment ahead of scientific accuracy and plot plausibility.
Not really. The Original Series was about breaking social taboos and racial boundaries. The Next Generation had stuff like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qX_0763FOjA Trek was philosophical, pushed boundaries, talked about the human conditions, politics, etc. The new films are just "gee whiz, it's a space adventure kids!" and dumbed down shlock from Hollywood. I think even Roger Ebert pointed this out. Neither incarnations are very scientifically accurate, but that doesn't matter (to me, anyway). The science is even worse though in the Abrams films though. The problem with the magic blood is about plotholes and just the sheer amount of damage it does to the suspension of disbelief.
Star Trek is a fantastic piece of cinema, I'll grant that. I do not enjoy the film's atmosphere, the body horror, or the one dimensional villain, at times-let me emphasize this. Khan's motivation feels one dimensional at times. That doesn't make him a bad villain, just one that irritates me at times.
I always thought he was two-dimensional? Isn't that what Spock says? XD I like the Moby Dick take of it. Feels like perfect closure to "Space Seed".
He's an excellent villain IMO, which makes Into Darkness a lot worse personally to me, because that Khan is just terrible. An apparently good actor (never seen him in anything else) is not given much to work with and just overacts the hell out of it.
Thank you for taking a simple point of mine and twisting it to make it mean what you want.
The concept of platelets being used for
healing therapy is part of
current medical research. (links are to two articles discussing platelet therapy specifically).
Since we don't know what part of Khan's blood is used to generate the serum, we can only speculate as to its effectiveness, and what part of blood is used. Various kinds of blood therapy exist (plasma, platelet, red blood cell, etc).
When I say it has roots in science, it means that they are taking a concept in science (platelet healing, perhaps) and is open to speculation that Khan's genetically engineered body is capable of healing at a more rapid rate (Space Seed mentions this fact, with McCoy remarking on Khan's "rejection of death."
BillJ made mention of this too).
Now I'm confused. Is Trek scientifically inaccurate or not? If it's the former, why are you trying to stretch current scientific understanding to claim it's probable to have magic genetically engineered blood that can cure anything and bring people back from the dead? Then that missile that can change a moon is plausable given the advances in genetic manipulation and terraforming that's occurring right now. My main problem isn't that it's fantasy nonsense, is that it makes the plot even more silly. But it's too fantastical even for Trek in my opinion, so it just adds to the negative reception I give it.
But, to each their own. And Pike, Marcus and Kirk all get speeches in that film
The writing is childish and sophomoric so who cares? I don't like any of those characters either so it doesn't phase me :P
I really like TWOK, but "intelligent" is not a word I would use to describe it. It's probably not even on my list of the top 20 intelligent SF films. It's fun, exciting and has some memorable scenes, but intelligent? Nope.
Again, oh well, each to their own. I find it cerebral and well written for an action film, the only film where Shatner can act, and one of the only Trek films I'm comfortable saying are among my favorite Sci-Fi films. Most "intelligent" sci fi though is overrated, because it's not. Blade Runner and 2001 are two examples, so I have a very contrary view to most of the zeitgeist. I just realized my list of overrated films would probably go up to the moon.
Because genetic engineering should only impact their strength?
I can't see it giving people magic blood and then that just being forgotten, no. Is death over now from now on in the Trek universe? I would hope so.
