• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

The Khan Blood Conundrum

Here I was, incredulously thinking the third movie was going to be "The Search for Kirk", right up until the second that the dead tribble started breathing again. Suddenly, it dawned on me how they would resurrect Kirk.

So it worked for me. Plenty of "impact". But purposely not like the original, which took another whole movie to play out a resurrection. I guess that makes me dumb? :confused:

You may just not be linguistically sophisticated. :bolian:

It never dawned on me who Marion Coutillard was playing in the Dark Knight Rises. I'm not a Batman fan but even so, I should have seen that coming. Who am I to throw stones?

The point is that if they had made the whole thing more subtle or more organic, you would have been just as surprised and so would more other people. If it was a death they wanted, they should have just really gone for a scene that stood on its own rather than the (unintentionally?) comedic remake.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
King Daniel Into Darkness said:
and then written out of the universe.

Say what? :vulcan:
The formula is confiscated from Scotty by Section 31, who manufactured the portable transwarp beaming device in their underground London lair, which is then destroyed by Suicide Bomber Dad. Unless Section 31 posted the formula online or distributed a memo fleet-wide, it now only exists in the elder Spock's head.

Or Scotty's ( not to mention anyone else who may have learned about it, including BenedictKhan ). And since Scotty still appears to be a part of the main cast, he should be able to pull it out when the situation calls for it - such that it will be really noticeable if a future Abramsverse film gets the crew into a situation where transwarp beaming could help but they don't use it. Also, if Section 31 had any sense at all, they didn't make themselves totally vulnerable by putting everything in one location. This especially applies to data.
 
rather than the (unintentionally?) comedic remake.

I didn't hear anyone laughing, not one of the eight or so times I saw the film in crowded cinemas. Many people were quietly sobbing, and quite a few cheered when McCoy realised what to do. A few people groaned as Kirk died - but they groaned at the Khan reveal, too, so they already weren't enjoying the movie.
 
rather than the (unintentionally?) comedic remake.

I didn't hear anyone laughing, not one of the eight or so times I saw the film in crowded cinemas. Many people were quietly sobbing, and quite a few cheered when McCoy realised what to do. A few people groaned as Kirk died - but they groaned at the Khan reveal, too, so they already weren't enjoying the movie.

Groaning at certain parts doesn't mean they didn't enjoy the movie overall. I enjoyed it fine on the second viewing. The fact that many people didn't find it funny is also why I prefaced that it was unintentionally comedic. I burst out laughing. I couldn't help myself.
 
The fact that many people didn't find it funny is also why I prefaced that it was unintentionally comedic. I burst out laughing. I couldn't help myself.

Your reaction was atypical, and yet the rest of us need the movie changed so, in future, we would all react like you? :confused:
 
Laughing, groaning, cheering, quiet sobbing (???)

...I think I'm glad I didn't see the film with either of you. ;)
 
I find it amusing that people complain about the Khan blood when :
•Insurrection had a magical healing planet.
•Star Trek 3 bought Spock back to life from his DNA in the tube exactly as he was before.
•Star Trek Into Darkness is based on the original series - in which Spock's bran is removed - he doesn't die and McCoy keeps him alive by remote control.

It's Star Trek.

And yeah - as mentioned earlier - Khan is already established to have restorative powers in "Space Seed".
 
The fact that many people didn't find it funny is also why I prefaced that it was unintentionally comedic. I burst out laughing. I couldn't help myself.

Your reaction was atypical, and yet the rest of us need the movie changed so, in future, we would all react like you? :confused:

Lol. Should they be as judgmental as you instead? :p

I try to remember to make sure my opinions contain 'IMO' so as to be clear I'm not seeking to invalidate anybody else's. Plus I cannot say if my overall opinion i.e. that the way those collection of scenes played out could have been improved is a general one or if more people would have disliked any kind of alterations at all. The truth doesn't lie at the extremes and just because because my reaction was atypical doesn't mean that nudging the scene in a different direction would not have improved more people's enjoyment than not.

This isn't unique to the Abrams movies as people have pointed out. I'm currently watching TOS and there are few episodes that couldn't be tweaked to be less silly IMO. Credit where it's due though, although I think they laid it on with a trowel, the progression of Kirk the Jerk has been reasonably well done and his own death may add a further layer of humility. It's a bit of an oversimplification if his arrogance only affects him though. It could have had more impact if someone else had died instead (not that I'm saying his arrogance led him to die per se). It's also worth noting that if Kirk had been taking Troi's command test, he would have failed!

To summarise IMO the scenes could have been improved for the majority but none of us can know if that's true or not. I would say that movies can be intelligent AND popular. I usually just advocate minor alterations since nobody can deny that the movies were popular. I just wanted them to be popular and a bit less ... dumb.
 
Last edited:
Knock it off, both of you. Therin's comment was unnecessary and so was a response in kind.

My apologies.

My sig's message - (Entire post is personal opinion) - was added several years ago after being told several times that I should not forget to say IMO in my posts.

Is that considered inflammatory? I can remove if deemed necessary.
 
My sig's message - (Entire post is personal opinion) - was added several years ago after being told several times that I should not forget to say IMO in my posts.

Is that considered inflammatory? I can remove if deemed necessary.
Inflammatory? No. Unnecessary? Probably. (I'm not familiar with the circumstances under which you were told that, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't I who'd have given you that instruction.)

As long as it's clearly put, it's usually sufficiently obvious to the reader when someone is stating a personal opinion that I don't feel it requires an "IMO" or any other qualification automatically appended; I'd say to save that kind of disclaimer for occasions in which it might be unclear whether an opinion is being offered, or whose opinion it might be.

Not that IMOs, etc. had anything whatsoever to do with my caution, of course, which was plainly addressing your personal dig at Pauln6 and his personal dig in response, both of which were completely unnecessary to the discussion. Respond to the post and refrain from taking a poke at the poster, that's all.
 
Apologies also, although I hadn't taken any offence. We've all been dancing this dance for years. It probably has more to do with British and Australian sense of humour than anything else. ;P
 
Apologies also, although I hadn't taken any offence. We've all been dancing this dance for years. It probably has more to do with British and Australian sense of humour than anything else. ;P

Indeed. As I usually say, read my post aloud with Mel Gibson or Hugh Jackman's accent, imagine it being said in a pub, and it should carry the sentiment with which it was intended. ;)
 
Apologies also, although I hadn't taken any offence. We've all been dancing this dance for years. It probably has more to do with British and Australian sense of humour than anything else. ;P

Indeed. As I usually say, read my post aloud with Mel Gibson or Hugh Jackman's accent, imagine it being said in a pub, and it should carry the sentiment with which it was intended. ;)
Well, if you come to America, try to refrain from complimenting our Police Officers on their Sugar Tits. The sexy accent doesn't make it any better received ;)
 
Apologies also, although I hadn't taken any offence. We've all been dancing this dance for years. It probably has more to do with British and Australian sense of humour than anything else. ;P

Indeed. As I usually say, read my post aloud with Mel Gibson or Hugh Jackman's accent, imagine it being said in a pub, and it should carry the sentiment with which it was intended. ;)
Well, if you come to America, try to refrain from complimenting our Police Officers on their Sugar Tits. The sexy accent doesn't make it any better received ;)

LOL! In England that plays out just fine.
 
•Star Trek Into Darkness is based on the original series - in which Spock's bran is removed - he doesn't die and McCoy keeps him alive by remote control.

It's Star Trek.

"I'm a doctor not a laxative damnit!"

Plus, you have to figure that Picard "died" when his heart was pierced. I don't care how quick they are in the 24th century, that type of injury would be fatal.
 
•Star Trek Into Darkness is based on the original series - in which Spock's bran is removed - he doesn't die and McCoy keeps him alive by remote control.

It's Star Trek.

"I'm a doctor not a laxative damnit!"

Plus, you have to figure that Picard "died" when his heart was pierced. I don't care how quick they are in the 24th century, that type of injury would be fatal.
And had his body turned into pure energy and dispersed into a cloud being...then restored with the transporter.

At times, Trek treats death like a petty annoyance. "You're dead? *hssssssss* follow up with your GP in a week". "You got a headache? Well you're fucked"
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top