+- RepairmanJack.com Forums (https://repairmanjack.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Other Topics (https://repairmanjack.com/forum/forum-9.html)
+--- Forum: Off Topic (https://repairmanjack.com/forum/forum-4.html)
+--- Thread: Star Trek Into Darkness (/thread-4735.html)
Star Trek Into Darkness - PicardRex - 05-22-2013
Dervish Wrote:[spoiler]I saw a reason for Khan attacking Kirk & the Enterprise: He was betrayed by Kirk (remember stunning him on the bridge?) even after having saved his life repeatedly while they were working together. That's certainly not going to go over well with ANYONE, let alone an egotistical bigot and former dictator and sociopath like himself who holds people like Kirk as inferior. Oh, and Kirk repeatedly telling him that he would pay wouldn't help either (though I got the impression Khan didn't take the beating he got during his arrest personally, as if it would be beneath him to admit to being hurt or powerless before an inferior being like Kirk).I’ll grant you the biology because most of the aliens are humanoid, but the tech? You argue that the tech would have drastically altered society, I ask how is that not shown? Catastrophic injury and terminal illness are given little regard because of the huge advances in medicine, instead of a race obsessed with its frailties the Trek Universe human race moved past that. Due to replicator technology being able to create almost anything for anyone, people no longer live for greed or the accruement of material wealth. Instead of hating members of our own species based on the color of skin, most Trek humans have moved past such bigotry because now their confronted with a truly significant difference, namely alien life forms, granted by interstellar travel. If those examples aren’t enough to show you the difference that tech has made in the Trek verse versus society now, I don’t know what is. Those examples also go to your social point.
Granted, Abrams was definitely trying a tribute to the original arc, and it did get especially cheesy...but that was part of the fun for me.[/spoiler]
And Star Trek is junk food for the mind. Before Abrams it was myth & fable with a scifi paint job and never was realistic in biology, socially (which I consider as absurdly unrealistic as the "evil Mirror Universe"), or technologically (by this I mean if they really had that tech then society would've been so radically different that real life wouldn't have gone anything like the show, or even how the Abrams movie did). Abrams has finally made Star Trek true scifi to me rather than myth & fable, but it's still just a popcorn flick. And that's ok, because sometimes nothing satisfies like a twinkie.
Lastly, I find it interesting that you consider what Abrams did making it true sci-fi, when all he did was reuse the “myth and fable” tools that he found laying around and put a lens flare on it.
Star Trek Into Darkness - Dervish - 05-23-2013
PicardRex Wrote:I find it interesting that you consider what Abrams did making it true sci-fi, when all he did was reuse the “myth and fable” tools that he found laying around and put a lens flare on it.
Rodenberry's ST is a mythology of an utopia society ruled by philosopher kings and even, at times, indirectly endorsed by godlike powers (such as the Q). And humans aren't human at all, they've lost the tribal and survival instincts that are hardwired into the brains of most humans so that greed (btw, we have resources now to eradicate hunger, but plenty would literally rather destroy food and keep charging prices for it so I don't buy that replication tech would eliminate this either), prejudice, insecurity that spurs on bullying, oppression, and wars (meant to punish as much as defend, and of course typically having ulterior motives), and the like are gone. If only we embrace the values then we, too, can live on the Heaven on Earth (just as other religions unrealistically promise).
To top it off the gods appear in eps and even in one of the movies, as do mythic themes (I lost count how many times references, both direct and indirect, were made to the Garden of Eden in TOS). And in the middle of this are many metaphors, morality tales and heavy handed fables that promote morals & principles that are as questionable if not as unrealistic as any religion (I essentially see ST as a new religion for a more civilized & technological age born in a time when people thought we'd be driving hovercrafts on the moon by now while wrestling with Cold War fears).
That's not a dig, mind you, I think ST helped to grease the wheels of society toward positive social change, and it can still be entertaining even if it sometimes gets so absurd (especially TOS) that when I heard of a ST: TOS ep in a parody of where the Enterprises encounters Santa Clause and his elves on a world making toys in which Santa kills a red shirt, and Kirk seduces the beautiful Mrs. Clause before destroying the master computer controlling Santa in a battle of wits and then instantly revolutionizing the planetary society into a democracy, I thought this might actually have been a real ep, or at least written in all seriousness. It wouldn't be much more absurd than plenty of other ST: TOS eps.
Oh, and both for fun and all seriousness, Heaven is a Borg Cube:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/heaven.htm
Quote:The source of my interpretation comes not from me but from the Bible and from one of the worlds best-known scholars and an authority on the New Testament: Bruce M. Metzger. He has taught for many years at Princeton Theological Seminary, the author of over 35 books and the Chairman of the NRSV Translation Committee. My only contribution is the comparison of the descriptions of heaven with the Borg from the Star Trek series.
Moving on from that is how unrealistic society is from a purely social point of view (I'll get to the technology next). How REAL people would behave is that as we colonized other worlds they'd find themselves facing unique environments (and unless very carefully controlled, as in a strict police state, then colonists would also include a great many misfits, malcontents, and visionaries which would further alienate them from the central planets) while the government (still populated by liars and worse, and that's also hardwired into our brains in why such people rise to power and why other people support them and march in step) pandered to the central worlds as well as oppressive interests so that the colonies would revolt and break away as they no longer wish to pay taxes to a government that is callous of them. Of course military might could keep them in line, as could fear of very powerful enemies that menace them (in which case the military is likely to have bases there and contribute strongly to both the legal and illicit economy giving even further reason for locals to support it). Furthermore, a society that provides much doesn't produce gratitude in people raised in it but entitlement with a desire for novelty (and such people sent to the colonies could be even more embittered by how soft the spoiled brats of the central planets have it while ignoring their troubles as they're so far away and politically negligible in terms of votes).
That said, empathy and a sincere desire for justice (however tainted it is by self-interest and the brain's ability to rationalize injustice) also make the Mirror Universes just as unrealistic in their unrelenting evil as well. It's true that a minority of people are born without the innate ability to feel compassion or sense of fair play (at least thought of as fair so as to not be punished) just as a minority are also not afflicted with the tribal circuits in the brain that make most of us jerks, but they're the exception to the rule, and for society to become like Roddenberry's ST or the Mirror Universe then the brain itself would have to be artificially altered (slugs count which have made appearances in ST at times) on a mass scale.
Abrams reboot has, so far, skipped this, and while the future is much better than today (and believable to me) it's still not absurdly utopian where human beings have ceased to be human.
Star Trek Into Darkness - Dervish - 05-23-2013
PicardRex Wrote:the tech? You argue that the tech would have drastically altered society, I ask how is that not shown?
Even in the Abrams reboot the second movie would not have happened anywhere as it did. First, Khan would likely have been held prisoner in "transporter stasis" (rematerializing later, it minimizes both risk and resource expenditure, and some would even consider it humane to being kept in a brig, and it's also easier than applying manacles). And neither ship would've crashed at the end because the global sats (which are no doubt much more mobile and quicker than today with at least the ability to emulate AI along with guidance from Star Fleet, and IIRC one ep of ST mentioned global sats that controlled the weather around Earth) equipped with the transporter tech and mastery of gravity displayed elsewhere would've made it impossible with a mix of emergency beam outs and artificial gravity (and if all else failed, disintegration of said falling debris).
Furthermore, while I can see why robots would be limited in such a society they'd still be there for emergencies to deal with deadly radiation (and that's assuming even if the engineer room was itself not self-correcting, automated, and robotic). And if they can store the molecules of food to appear later then they could of a protective suit as well which should be easily available around the affected areas (along with other protections they might have) which could create (maybe even adorn) the suit in an instant.
And as for speaking of robots if the daughter could be beamed off the bridge then they could also beam in a robotic drone (much like how we use drones on enemy targets now to great destruction and theirs would be outfitted with even deadlier capabilities with defenses against mere hand phasers), or even beam away a section of the hull instantly exposing the entire bridge to vacuum. Even if they couldn't for some strange reason then everyone else could be transported off the bridge as well (either into the waiting phasers of a security team ready to kill them or intentionally "lost" as has been known to happen accidentally, effectively disintegrating them). Of course their control of gravity has powerful military application potential as well. And the attacking ship was itself a military vessel, not an exploratory one, so all these options should be reasonably expected (and the Enterprise unable to quickly counter such tactics).
This is what happens in the real world, inventions aren't static, but rather adapted into every field, especially military (some even say our military society spurred on technological development that then filtered down to the rest of society to make a buck, including the internet, and by the way our international highways were constructed to move military assets across the nation quickly rather than to facilitate civilian traffic).
And going into Roddenberry's version it gets far more extreme what would be possible. Can you see in the dark? The Borg can with their cybernetic devices that would probably be superior to Geordie's VISOR and thus prefer cutting lights (and obscuring vision in other ways which the Borg would be immune to), and artificial lungs would help them fight in toxic, debilitating, or stunning gasses that they can release from canisters if not hijacked life support systems, certainly on the Borg Cubes themselves, and they can use transporter tech which is superior to Federation to deliver said cannisters as well as other projectile weapons, including needles with the transformative nanites in them. Just one example of how things would be different. Of course the Federation would adapt new weapons and turn them against the Borg as well, and very likely produce their own nanites that serve as inoculation against assimilation (which is when the Borg switch to their advanced transporter tech to shoot them with transponders that instantly stun or transport them where a more invasive approach can be used to assimilate).
Really, I could go on forever, and I'm having a hard time to decide what to go onto next, so I'll just end with medical advances. Even without transporter tech, lifespan should be centuries by the time of ST, and that's even without finding all the plants and devices that negate aging (adapting them of course). In the ep Rascals Dr. Crusher learned how to replicate the original pattern of the affected crew members able to effectively change their age. That alone, especially after some work, should make death and aging near obsolete, especially as healthy organs are preserved (essentially "cloned" at the molecular level to be instantly transferred through surgical transporter/replicator tech) and can be replaced with healthy ones once broken down (and that assumes one just isn't rebooted whole). And they wouldn't wait for a freak accident like in Rascals to do that, the tech would IMMEDIATELY be adapted (at least they'd attempt it), so it's possible that even someone dying of radiation sickness could be revived easily from an old pattern and healthy transplants so that Kirk (or Spock) didn't have to die.
But the way of ST is to keep it limited to serving the mythos and the story, not what society would actually do with such technology and how it would change things as a result (besides "making people nicer," which of course would not happen).
Star Trek Into Darkness - Sigokat - 05-23-2013
Abrams had one goal in making Star Trek...getting to make Star Wars. He's admitted this numerous times and even admitted to being a SW fanboy and not really liking Trek. Therefore he relied on his Trekkie co-workers to develop a story that would get him what he wanted...enough recognition to make SW. Abrams thinks he's Pete Jackson...he's not.
I was thinking about this some more and by altering the timeline Abrams had a chance to do whatever he wanted, which he did. However, there still needs to be SOME continuity to keep ST fans happy. Abrams threw all that out the window...he didn't make these movies to please ST fans, he made them to make money.
In ST09 he played on so many Kirk cliches it was sickening. An Orion girl in Starfleet? Really? Oh that just happens to be the one Kirk hooks up with as to keep the "Kirk is a dog that will sleep with any green skinned alien" myth alive. While Kirk was charming in TOS and the movies, he didn't run around spreading STD to all the new alien lifeforms out there. He really never engaged in as much sexual escapades as people want to believe.
In both ST09 and STiD Kirk is shown as a maverick that says damn the rules, orders, and expecailly the PD. Again, this is played off of the myths that have developed over the last 40 years. How many times in TOS did Kirk violate the PD? The only reason it was mentioned in DS9 was to again play on that idea that Kirk was a maverick. Kirk didn't rise to the rank of Captain to command Starfleet's flagship by being a maverick that said "to hell" with the PD and did whatever he wanted. It just doesn't make sense to anyone that truly knows ST, versus what they think they know of ST based on 40 years of jokes and rumors.
In STiD they threw in as many references to TOS as they could. Why? To pay homage? I doubt it. More like to make TOS fans happy, but I think it backfired (they didn't meet their projected $$ on opening weekend). If you think about it, we had Gorn, tribbles, Klingons, the BB, and a slew of other "references". Well how the hell has Starfleet made contact and formed alliances (or made enemies) with all these other aliens races when the Enterprises 5 year mission hasn't even happened yet!! And how many starships were in TOS versus JJtrek??
Uhura...TOS Uhura was a communications officer that couldn't speak Klingon. In JJTrek she was a linguistic that not only spoke fluent Klingon but just happened to intercept the communication message that allowed Kirk and Co. do save the day.
Kirk...TOS Kirk grimaced when drinking Michelob...JJtrek makes him a drunken renegade that kicks Cupcake and Co. butts!
McCoy...TOS McCoy, doesn't know enough about Klingon anatomy to save the Chancellor's life...JJTrek McCoy can perform C-sections on the Gorn!?
I could go on, but I actually need to get to work. All I have to say is...you Star Wars fan...enjoy...and pray that JJ doesn't ruin your beloved franchise as he has done with ST just so he can line his pockets with some gold pressed latinum.
Star Trek Into Darkness - Dervish - 05-23-2013
Just for the record, I considered Star Wars to be myth & fable with a scifi paint job as well, even more than Star Trek actually. And it's also junk food for the mind.
But I'm enjoying Abrams reboot very much, thank you.
Star Trek Into Darkness - Sigokat - 05-23-2013
MCoy: What's the matter with you?
Elderly patient: Kidney dialysis.
McCoy: Dialysis? What is this, the Dark Ages?
In reference to what PicardRex said about medical advances.
.
Star Trek Into Darkness - Fenian1916 - 05-23-2013
The question is moot, Star Wars always has been and always will be be better than Star Trek
Star Trek Into Darkness - Sigokat - 05-23-2013
Fenian1916 Wrote:The question is moot, Star Wars always has been and always will be be better than Star Trek
Really? Jar-Jar Binks, Ewoks, elite troops that cannot hit the broad side of an Imperial Walker? I can go on if you want LOL
Star Trek Into Darkness - Fenian1916 - 05-23-2013
Sigokat Wrote:Really? Jar-Jar Binks, Ewoks, elite troops that cannot hit the broad side of an Imperial Walker? I can go on if you want LOL
I love The Money Pit is my response to that statement
Star Trek Into Darkness - Sigokat - 05-23-2013
Fenian1916 Wrote:I love The Money Pit is my response to that statement
The Money Pit is awesome