+- 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 - 05-23-2013
Dervish Wrote: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).
I’m not disagreeing that Trek can be a bit fantastical or even a lot. I was more questioning how you can see one that way without seeing the other the same. As far as Abrams trek goes, he may not have done the more fantasy like movie like the ST:V, but he uses the elements of Trek mythology just as much.
Taking the latest trek movie, as Sig has posted, it’s filled with the mythology of real Trek. Kirk as a maverick, not so much true when you watch TOS and TOS movies, but a mythology has built up that he is so he’s shown to be. His fabled promiscuity is yet another factor that shows how slavish Abrams is to the mythology. Now perhaps you meant more in-verse mythology as opposed to the meta-myths that we have about it, but I would say that you can’t have one without the other. We as viewers have a myth that Kirk is a whore, therefore in Abrams trek he is.
Addressing the in-verse myths, such as utopian societies and a radically different human society, well what sci-fi doesn’t use that? Maybe we have a different definition of sci-fi, but plenty of sci-fi uses fantasy elements. 1984 shows a dystopian society with an unrealistically downtrodden human race. Brave New World shows a sexual utopia where most live a hedonistic life. Jurassic Park brings back dinosaurs. Starship Troopers has supermen fighting our wars. Invasion of the Body Snatchers has our dopplegangers taking over our lives. I Am Legend has vampires taking over and humans becoming the myth. I understand there is harder sci-fi and softer sci-fi, but I would say Trek has displayed both of these aspects.
As far as the social issues go, there is a catalyst that prompts those types of changes in people. WWIII. It wipes out most of the world’s population, it devastates us a race, almost ends us, it’s a sobering experience for the human race and combine that with contacting alien life forms, until we actually experience that, you’re absolutely right we’d be just as we are now. My point is you’re using today’s template to make those determinations, that’s just not the case where Trek is concerned, we radically change as a species to make a new template for ourselves. Although I do agree that human nature would still have its numerous flaws, which is why Trek, in a lot of episodes and movies, shows humans as the bad guys. Take ST:VI, a massive conspiracy headed in part by high ranking humans or ST:IX where again humans are the douchebags repeating the same travesties that we did to the Native Americans.
Star Trek Into Darkness - PicardRex - 05-23-2013
Dervish Wrote: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).
I agree that one of the biggest issues is the deus ex type cure or invention that’s used one episode and then completely forgotten the next, of course that’s where the real world steps in, can’t have all problems being solved by one episode. That’s one of the issues with the new movie, Khan’s blood regenerated Kirk from death, you’ve got 72 more Khans in storage, you could make everyone immortal from their blood, of course that’s what you get when you have a half ass story. Speaking of, back to the myths for a second, Khans blood gave life, “the blood is the life”, perhaps from one of the greatest mythological books, depending on your views. And yes, inventions aren’t static and would be applied to a myriad of uses, but I would argue two points there. First, we only see a small window of the Trek verse, we have no idea that these last minute cures, using your medical example, don’t go beyond the uses shown. Secondly, the larger application of the tech may have been tried and rejected. Take Geordi’s VISOR, in all ways he can see better than a normal human, so, why not have everyone in VISOR’s. Scrap the normal eyes and put the implants in so we can all see the EM spectrum. Would you give up your eyes for that? If not, why not? It’s an advancement.
Your immortality/advanced lifespan argument is the same thing. Perhaps life spans could be increased to near immortality, but who says people would want to live that long? Again, I think you’re using the mind frame of today, where we cling to our lives desperately for fear of the unknown. People of Trek, embrace the unknown, have experienced all sorts of life forms, they’ve truly seen that energy never gets destroyed but merely changes forms. If you knew your life’s energy could go on after death so that you’d no longer be restricted by your physical form, would you cling to it as much? I’m not saying that’s a definite case for everyone in the Trek verse, but it’s a high possibility. From Riker being turned into a Q by a snap of the fingers to Wesley evolving to a higher life form, life was shown to be much more than we know it to be now. And in the face of all that, who knows what would happen.
Star Trek Into Darkness - Sigokat - 05-23-2013
IIRC, CPT Picard was 60 when he took command of the Enterprise in Encounter at Farpoint (the character, not the actor obviously).
PicardRex, your example of Geordi's VISOR and asking if its an advancement why not have everyone do it reminds me of an old TZ episode. I can't recall the name off the top of my head (The Replacement, maybe?) where an old couple has the chance to have their "essencse" or "spirit" transferred into younger bodies. The catch is that they can only afford one body and so in the end they do not go through with it (even after the man has tried it) and leave as the same old and fraile couple as when they entered. Just because its an advancement doesn't mean that everyone will choose to have it done.
And in case I just made no sense whatsoever (Its been a long day and even longer week here) I'm agreeing with you, PicardRex.
Star Trek Into Darkness - PicardRex - 05-23-2013
Sigokat Wrote:IIRC, CPT Picard was 60 when he took command of the Enterprise in Encounter at Farpoint (the character, not the actor obviously).
PicardRex, your example of Geordi's VISOR and asking if its an advancement why not have everyone do it reminds me of an old TZ episode. I can't recall the name off the top of my head (The Replacement, maybe?) where an old couple has the chance to have their "essencse" or "spirit" transferred into younger bodies. The catch is that they can only afford one body and so in the end they do not go through with it (even after the man has tried it) and leave as the same old and fraile couple as when they entered. Just because its an advancement doesn't mean that everyone will choose to have it done.
And in case I just made no sense whatsoever (Its been a long day and even longer week here) I'm agreeing with you, PicardRex.
He was roughly 60, born in 2305, I think TNG took off in 2363? And yeah I know the episode of TZ you mean, The Trade-Ins and was pretty much what i was going for.
Star Trek Into Darkness - Sigokat - 05-23-2013
PicardRex, that's right, The Trade-Ins.
I forgot to add in my post that while it was an advancement you could see that as happy as the man was in his younger body and he could see his wife was happy for him as well, he also saw the underlying pain and hurt and realized that the love they had for each other was more important than having younger bodies. I know its a bit off from the topic of JJTrek but I wanted to add that.
And lens flares....shudders!!
Star Trek Into Darkness - Sigokat - 06-05-2013
I'll be seeing this next week if all goes well.
While I have my reservations about the things that were earlier discussed in this thread I still want to see the movie because
1. BC is a fantastic actor. Ever since seeing him in Sherlock a couple years ago I've been impressed with him and I've heard he just steals the show here.
2. It's still Star Trek...even with JJ's twists and lens flares...nuTrek is still better than noTrek.