Star Trek Wrath of Khan backlash?

I agree. "Eugenics" doesn't discount the use of every available scientific advancement. For instance, some couples today might choose not to have a child if genetic testing turned up some defect or rare disease. So would a eugenics program. It stands to reason that more direct methods could be in play too.

 

Suspended animation is a related field to cryonics, basically the latter takes it a step further. Slowing down biological decay by means of lowering temperature is an extensively studied field, which was theoretical until recently, now it's in used in some emergency procedures, buying surgeons time by essentially slowing down a patient's dying process. Cryonics is definitely not a mainstream practice, it does what it claims to do - it preserves neural pathway architecture to the best of current abilities. Cryonics have eveolved tremendously since 1970s, the latest scans are showing virtually intact neural pathway structures. They fill vascular structure of the brain with Aldehyde-stabilized chemicals, allowing synapses, cell membranes and various intra cellular structures to remain preserved. A mammalian brain has already been preserved in this manner and then thawed out for a review two years ago, it was a success and showed perfect preservation.

This is all that cryonics claims to do and all it does. It's ultimate success depends on a number of assumptions that we haven't fully answered yet
- Person's personality/identity is nothing more or less than a precise structure and interaction of neural networks.
- In some distant future it'll be possible to restore the brain's activity either by safely removing the chemicals from the vascular networks and hydrating it, then cloning or reconstructing the original body, or by recreating the structure digitally and thereby reviving a digital version of the person

There are dozens of hypothetical scenarios for a revival post cryopreservation.

I'll agree that it does operate on the fringe of the medical field, since you have to make assumptions in lieu of any proof that we will be able to do any of these things in some future, but actually none of these are that outrageous, we'll have full brain simulations by the end of the 2020's and cloning already is part of the mainstream science.

To sum it up, it's a fact that they can now precisely preserve your neural architecture, anything beyond that is hypothetical.

 

The wrath of khan is overrated in my opinion. There are 2 sides to Star Trek: the side that explores ethics, morals and humanity and the side that is an outer space action adventure. The former is the much more interesting side, and is far closer to Roddenberry's original vision of Star Trek. While wrath of khan is a well made and well written action movie, it is the best example of the least interesting side of Star Trek. In my opinion the motion picture, the voyage home, and undiscovered country explore the more interesting side of trek and are better movies.

 

I generally agree, but GR's "original vision" was a marriage of the two, both action/adventure and commentary.

So, is Khan the Joker to Star Trek's Batman?

 

I agree to an extent but when you watch the original pilot, the cage, there is action but it is much more focused on the moral question associated with freedom at any cost. The studio wasn't too happy and ordered a 2nd pilot that had more action

 

Even GR wasn't too happy with the original pilot. The executives felt that the audience would not be able to connect with the characters, so a second pilot was requested. I do agree that the moral questions were important, but the delivery was dry, at least for the time. Personally, I think "The Cage" was one of the best Trek episodes, and few have met its equal.

 

I agree that it is one of the best episodes, it's a shame that it didn't survive in its original cut

 

Indeed.

 

I actually enjoy the cheesiness and the overacting. TOS was full of that, obviously due to budgetary restraints, but I still enjoy the schlock factor of it.

 

Yeah I think that khan gave Star Trek more of Star Wars feel. They moved away from relatively hard science fiction to blockbuster action movies, which isn't why people fell in love with tos.

 

TNG was weak to me. Everyone on that show got along far too well, especially when you consider that one of its major characters belonged to the most volatile race of their time. Plus there wasn't a single character even close to the Captain's age. Not even the ship's doctor. If you add to that the presence of young children- and they did just that- it all kind of felt like Picard was running a nursery. A starship is a floating base, which effectively means a functional city. It can't possibly be staffed only by the young and beautiful.

That's why DS9 and Voyager included character conflict, as well as just a few middle-aged ones. Odo and the holographic doctor, for instance.

 

I like a lot of TNG that I've seen, but I'm only on season 5. Even though there are some great TNG episodes I still prefer TOS. But my first exposure to TNG was seeing "Insurection", which might have ruined it for me lol

 

what bothers me about TNG is the lack of an important science officer on as part of the main bridge crew. Although some of the episodes that focus on ethical and moral quandaries are good, like the one about terrorism or the episode were the admiral ruins the career of someone who is part romulan (can't remember the names of the episodes)

 

Wrath of Khan doesn't explore morals, ethics, and humanity? I must respectfully beg to differ. The action /revenge plot is a sidebar for a very well written tale about aging, loss, consequences of past actions, etc. The whole idea around Genesis is a massive sci-if moral and ethical delimma in the very best tradition of Star Trek.

Star Trek II was far more representative of these kinds of things than the thin and ham fisted allegory of TUC or the cornball adventures of TVH.

I think too many Trek fans assume that just because something has action it strangely equates to being less cerebral and thoughtful. It's simply not true. In fact, the reason TWOK is a classic is that it perfectly blended those two elements

 

I agree that genesis represents a moral dilemma about terraforming in SCI FI but TWOK doesn't really delve deeply into the moral dilemma, it's just an obstacle. it does comment on questioning leadership, through khan ignoring pleas of his 2nd in command. But it is mainly a bad guy revenge plot.
I do agree that TVH is hammy, and certainly less Star Trek then TWOK. While it is mainly a comedy it delves more deeply into environmetal ethics, even though TWOK could have done the same but didn't.
TUC was appears to be an allegory for the political situation of the time. It mirrors the Cold War and the differing of people at the time. And in the grand tradition of Star Trek depicts two different cultures finding a way to exist together, like how so many different people could work together on the enterprise in TOS

 

I think you missed a lot about Star Trek II, quite frankly, if this is all you got out of it. The film delves PLENTY deep into the dilemma over Genesis. Here is a device and a technology with the capability of transforming entire dead worlds into planets teeming with life and opportunity. The possibilities for improving the galaxy are endless. In the beginning, you see the scientists in charge of the project and how careful they are about the need to sustain life and not disrupt evolution on any potential life-generating planet (there can't be so much as a microbe). Later, you see the conflicting ideology between the civilians and their perception of the dangers of being in bed with the "military" (hey...is Starfleet a military? We should engage in a thoughtful discussion on this one) on the project. Later, we see the triad engaged in a very lively debate about the "moral implications" of developing such a device, given that it could be used to destroy the populations and eco systems of entire planets in "favor of its new matrix." And ultimately, the very first deployment of the devise is as a weapon "in the wrong hands."

If that's not a Star Trek moral and ethical dilemma...I'm not sure what exactly you're looking for.

To say the only other element that isn't action/revenge driven in the film is Khan's henchman questioning authority makes me wonder if you've actually seen the movie in the last 20 years, quite frankly.

There is a massive character arc for Kirk filled with heavy themes that we never saw again portrayed as well in Trek...probably an even better arc than what was presented in TMP. Kirk is dealing with mid-life ennui and depression. He's surrounded by younger and optimistic cadets (just like in today's workforce where there are tons of people of the Baby Boomer generation starting to learn how to deal with the massive influx of Millennials) and this makes the situation even more pronounced. It takes his two best friends to open his eyes to how his "best destiny" is commanding a starship...and it takes the unfortunate crisis to initiate the change.

Moreover, Kirk is confronted with his own past and his life choices. The re-appearance of Carol and David has shaken Kirk to the core. We learn that he now even further questions his life and the decisions he's made / path he's followed. This, combined with the resurfacing of Khan, causes Kirk to examine his past decisions and choices in a way that really defines the character.

Finally, there is the Spock sacrifice. This brings Spock's arc established in TMP and brings it to its full conclusion. Enough has been written about this where I don't feel the need to pontificate. Suffice it to say, this provides the audience with the insight into the fact that Spock's soul truly has become the most "human." It also brings Kirk's arc to a climax, as he admits that he's never faced death like this, and has spent his life laughing at danger because he's been more lucky than good. It's the most humanizing element for both Kirk and Spock in the entire franchise.

I also totally disagree with what you said about TUC. No shit it's an "allegory for the end of the Cold War," but it's done so obviously and without any finesse that it's not NEARLY as effective as the deeper themes explored in TWOK. What you see as a "grand" illustration of two cultures learning to work together (to do what, BTW, prove they can collaborate on an assassination attempt), I see as a pretty mundane outing. Compare Kirk's closing statements/revelations in TWOK ("I've cheated death" and "young...I feel young") with his closing statements in TUC ("people can be very frightened of change" and "once again we've saved civilization as we know it") and I clearly see that TWOK is a senior thesis paper while TUC is a Sophomore frat party. Sophomore frat parties can be fun (and TUC was fun), but they're not to be mistaken for anything deeper. The stuff in TUC is hand-waving and surface material. Kirk's prejudice arc is not nearly as emotional or "adultly portrayed" as the arc he goes through in TWOK. "Hey, now I know how prejudiced I really was." Ok??

TUC was a light and obvious allegory, basically in the same category as "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" while TWOK was a taught thriller with very subtle in interconnected themes and character explorations, similar to the classic "Balance of Terror."

TUC also has an equally sophomoric villain compared to Khan. Khan is truly a menace from Kirk's past. He has fought to keep his people alive in a nightmarish hell for 15 years. He is a man of tremendous (engineered!) ego. This combination, plus the growing resentment for Kirk (not for leaving him there, but for never caring to follow-up) has driven him mad. He throws his entire life away, and the lives of the people he fought so hard to protect, just to attempt to kill Kirk. Chang, on the other hand, just doesn't like peace. He's a cold warrior (or something) who twirls his moustache, apparently doubles as a legal prosecutor, and pretentiously quotes Shakespeare. No depth. He just "doesn't like change" and he's going to further an inane plot to continuously assassinate whatever leaders in his government continue to push the peace process forward because he'd rather die than live in peace with the Federation. Which makes.....NO sense given that the Klingons have pently of other challenges and enemies to motivate them throughout the galaxy.

I guess the difference is in the preference for the way these themes are presented. If you want them interwoven masterfully into a tense and action filled story, then TWOK is for you. If you want them obvious and laid-out for you (like a TNG Picard speech or Ready Room scene filled with lame exposition), then TVH and TUC hit the mark perfectly. I for one prefer Star Trek when the message is subtle but powerful, not overt and ham-fisted.

But hey man, to each their own.

 

@Vger23, that's a very good defense of TWOK. The only major element that I didn't see there was a discussion of Khan's surprise attack on the Enterprise. There's a lot going on there too, in terms of Kirk not only making a mistake but also arrogantly disregarding the good advice of one of those bright and young up-and-comers. That's a mistake that others pay for with their lives, but again Kirk skirts free and saves the day. That's showing that he's really almost at the end of his rope. It's at this point that Kirk begins to rise again to the occasion, though, because of the damage sustained in that attack, he's already ultimately in too deep and it will require one more major sacrifice this time to get him out.