or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Star Trek 2 - Page 14

post #391 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Why couldn't McCoy have just taken blood from any of the other 72 people from Khan's crew who were RIGHT THERE?
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Earlier in the film McCoy says that he's not sure he can revive one of the frozen crew members because the technology is beyond him. Spock asks how advanced the technology is. Carol Marcus tells him that it is not advanced but ancient. It would be like asking a new physician to remember a the formula for a 300 year old herbal remedy that existed before modern medicine. In any case, the reason why McCoy couldn't use the blood from Khan's crew was covered in the script.
post #392 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Earlier in the film McCoy says that he's not sure he can revive one of the frozen crew members because the technology is beyond him. Spock asks how advanced the technology is. Carol Marcus tells him that it is not advanced but ancient. It would be like asking a new physician to remember a the formula for a 300 year old herbal remedy that existed before modern medicine. In any case, the reason why McCoy couldn't use the blood from Khan's crew was covered in the script.

I knew I missed something! Either way, Josh got his answer......
post #393 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Earlier in the film McCoy says that he's not sure he can revive one of the frozen crew members because the technology is beyond him. Spock asks how advanced the technology is. Carol Marcus tells him that it is not advanced but ancient. It would be like asking a new physician to remember a the formula for a 300 year old herbal remedy that existed before modern medicine. In any case, the reason why McCoy couldn't use the blood from Khan's crew was covered in the script.

In the script or not, this is still a dumb explanation.
post #394 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordcloud View Post

In the script or not, this is still a dumb explanation.
What's dumb about it?
post #395 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

What's dumb about it?

Nothing, at least IMO. But you did not ask me.... wink.gif

Sure, they could have spent time back engineering the 300 yr old tech, or perhaps found at least some scraps of 3 century old info in the Starfleet data bases....but the Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
death of Kirk
was a relatively sudden thing (within the context of the story, at least) with limited time to achieve the goal of the plot device. The Enterprise crew did not actually see it coming like the audience did/does.

As far as I'm concerned, this particular bit is no more dumb than going Warp 9 around the Sun to slingshot into time warp in order to bring some whales back into the 23rd century.
post #396 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwebb1970 View Post

Sure, they could have spent time back engineering the 300 yr old tech, or perhaps found at least some scraps of 3 century old info in the Starfleet data bases....but the Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
death of Kirk
was a relatively sudden thing (within the context of the story, at least) with limited time to achieve the goal of the plot device.
Yup, and the script gives the reason for the limited time: Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
McCoy is already panicking about possible brain degradation, so much so that he hijacks one of the occupied cryo tubes to flash freeze Kirk momentarily. It should also be noted that this isn't some instant fix, as McCoy informs Kirk that he's been asleep for two weeks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwebb1970 View Post

As far as I'm concerned, this particular bit is no more dumb than going Warp 9 around the Sun to slingshot into time warp in order to bring some whales back into the 23rd century.
Agreed. As I posted previously, the types of comments made in this thread can be leveled at any film:

http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/features/if-the-internet-had-existed-when-wrath-of-khan-hit-theaters.php
post #397 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordcloud View Post

In the script or not, this is still a dumb explanation.

And if they just let it be, they'd get attacks for plot-holes.

What you're seeing here is the ridiculous effect internet criticism has got on modern movies, especially science fiction.

I also cringed that so much was flat out told or worked into awkward dialogue, but thems the breaks in this day and age. Lucasisms are now needed, less something gets picked apart by the legions of non-witty super internet nerds. After all, you're not allowed to assume or come up with your own inferences in a movie anymore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwebb1970 View Post


As far as I'm concerned, this particular bit is no more dumb than going Warp 9 around the Sun to slingshot into time warp in order to bring some whales back into the 23rd century.

Don't forget accelerated aging of 100 odd years and transferring a katra (soul) from dead man into an apparently conscious meatsack via Vulcan magic. And thats not even going back to TOS.

The reboot was always about rebooting TOS and the wild wagon train adventure into the stars. I'd say JJ's captured that feeling pretty well with a 21st century spin.
post #398 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

What's dumb about it?

Really?

Ok, so we can figure out how to open one of the tubes from 300 years ago.....but not one more? It's pretty dumb to think that a simple explanation of "well, it's really old technology, that yes, has obviously got to be documented somewhere, but we wouldn't know how to do it today because obviously no one has done it since". It's a lazy and stupid explanation.

Not to mention that they actually did open a tube.......to put Kirk in one.
Edited by lordcloud - 5/23/13 at 6:36pm
post #399 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post


Magic blood? Seriously, J.J. Abrams? F*** that noise.

It's the spice of the 23rd century!

wink.gif
post #400 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

I know they only supress them, which still means 50% vulcan and 50% human means an whole lot more "visible" emotions than 100% vulcan.


...But does the core of the old show have to be the core of the new show? I don't think so.

I think his struggle is great personally. Not only is it interesting, but it reflective of human nature. Trek drifted too far away from Vulcans having emotion and suppressing it, to being emotionless IMO. You lose a good story device when that happens.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Kirks speech at the end is apt, and even more so when thinking of Spock. He almost lost it there in the last few moments with Khan. He's carrying a much larger plate then he did in the original universe after-all, where it was only his split herritiage that was ripping him apart.
post #401 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmarqueset View Post

I like the movie but find it too predictable. Some things you can see coming from a mile away. I really like the fact you don't have to be a Trekkie to follow the movie. The action sequences are well done and visuals are great, especially the opening scene. There are some comedic elements to the movie as well that are very well placed. I would be interested to hear a Trekkie's take on the movie to see if there are any "nuggets" placed in the movie for Trekkies and general fans of the series. I might go and watch it again in IMAX 3D and see if it adds to the movie.

I'll start:
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
- Not really a nugget, but Scotty breaking the 4th wall and stating how redic it is to keep a starship under water was a great touch, because that was a scene you knew trekkies were groaning at until Scotty literally becomes them to bring up their complaint. Even as a uber Trek nerd knows there's technically nothing wrong with it based on super Trek tech from the series, it's still a weird plan and risky plan.

- When Kirk is talking to Admiral Marcus he walks by every ship to carry the name Enterprise, including Porberts XCV Warp 2 Enterprise and the warp 5 NX-01 Enterprise which was Starfleets first interplanetary Starship (star trek enterprise)

- The Klingons apparently destroyed their moon Praxis (Trek VI) a bit quicker in this timeline. They also have their Bat'leth sword like weapons.

- The nebula near the Klingon home world appears to be the Pillars of Creation.

- Could have sworn I heard a few score ques at one point ripped right from Star Trek V: The Final Frontier

- The shuttle they use in their mission is commandeered from "The Mudd incident" TOS

- Tribbles

- Scotty's dialogue is 80% ripped from TWOK in the end, and I'm sure Simon Pegg was ecstatic to deliver it. He nailed it.

- Engineering is attacked and many engineers are lost

- They switched the roles, but Kirk/Spock ending "has happened before and will happen again" to take a line from another space series.

- Nothing new, but I love how the texture weave of their uniforms is actually the Starfleet seal ^
post #402 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordcloud View Post

Ok, so we can figure out how to open one of the tubes from 300 years ago.....but not one more?
Who's "we"? Just because Section 31 figured out how to revive one of them (and who knows how many they might have killed while figuring out how to do it correctly) doesn't automatically mean that the knowledge magically gets transferred to McCoy. And it's not like Section 31 is going to document the technique, let alone admit they'd even done it. So McCoy wouldn't be able to Google it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordcloud View Post

Not to mention that they actually did open a tube.......to put Kirk in one.
You're having to resort to deliberately misstating things in order to criticize. It was never a question of 'opening a tube' but reviving the contents.
post #403 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Who's "we"? Just because Section 31 figured out how to revive one of them (and who knows how many they might have killed while figuring out how to do it correctly) doesn't automatically mean that the knowledge magically gets transferred to McCoy. And it's not like Section 31 is going to document the technique, let alone admit they'd even done it. So McCoy wouldn't be able to Google it.
You're having to resort to deliberately misstating things in order to criticize. It was never a question of 'opening a tube' but reviving the contents.

Do I really need to explain to you who "we"? Seriously? And because Section 31 figured it out, it means that it's a logical leap to say that someone placed on board a starship for their scientific knowledge and ability, should be able to open one. Something obviously JJ thought as well, since later on in the movie, they did.

And who said anything about reviving the inhabitants of the tube? They only needed the contents of their blood. Try as you might, to to defend this point, it was still one of the dumb parts of a very good movie.
post #404 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordcloud View Post

And because Section 31 figured it out, it means that it's a logical leap to say that someone placed on board a starship for their scientific knowledge and ability, should be able to open one.
Yes, McCoy doesn't have a shared conciousness with Section 31, so it is a logical leap to assume that he would automatically know what they knew.
post #405 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by TyrantII View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
- The nebula near the Klingon home world appears to be the Pillars of Creation.

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
It is. And I think it's also partly visible in Star Trek 2009 as well, but not as clearly... Might have to check it again
post #406 of 682
"The Mudd Incident" is a reference to the Countdown to Darkness prequel comic.
post #407 of 682
Purchased my tickets, ready for tomorrow night.
post #408 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post

Purchased my tickets, ready for tomorrow night.

Report back Franin. I would be curious to hear your thoughts. I have not seen it yet, but the local friends I have talked to all thought this movie was a blast! I loved the first one and part 2 is the film I am looking forward to most out of the big summer movies.
post #409 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post

Purchased my tickets, ready for tomorrow night.

"let's punch it" then! wink.gif
post #410 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Yes, McCoy doesn't have a shared conciousness with Section 31, so it is a logical leap to assume that he would automatically know what they knew.

Ok. rolleyes.gif
post #411 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Earlier in the film McCoy says that he's not sure he can revive one of the frozen crew members because the technology is beyond him. Spock asks how advanced the technology is. Carol Marcus tells him that it is not advanced but ancient. It would be like asking a new physician to remember a the formula for a 300 year old herbal remedy that existed before modern medicine. In any case, the reason why McCoy couldn't use the blood from Khan's crew was covered in the script.

And yet in Star Trek IV, Scotty uses an Apple iie to produce a beautifully-rendered 3D animatic for "transparent aluminum" after about four seconds of mashing at its keyboard. smile.gif

Here's the thing: Even if an explanation for this plot-point is "covered in the script," is still a blatant contrivance. Abrams wanted to put another action scene at the end of the film, so the writers invented a convenient crisis to give him the excuse. Now, you can argue that most things in movies are contrived to some extent, but if the movie is well written, it shouldn't feel contrived. This one does, and when the plot machinations are this transparent, that's just bad writing.
post #412 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

And yet in Star Trek IV, Scotty uses an Apple iie to produce a beautifully-rendered 3D animatic for "transparent aluminum" after about four seconds of mashing at its keyboard. smile.gif

Here's the thing: Even if an explanation for this plot-point is "covered in the script," is still a blatant contrivance. Abrams wanted to put another action scene at the end of the film, so the writers invented a convenient crisis to give him the excuse. Now, you can argue that most things in movies are contrived to some extent, but if the movie is well written, it shouldn't feel contrived. This one does, and when the plot machinations are this transparent, that's just bad writing.

Nonsense. Since the crisis never came into it until later.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
First, Spock was already going after him before that was thrown in to make him stop from killing Khan. Khan forcing Kirks sacrifice and surviving the crash was the "convenient crisis" that sparked the chase.

Second, I mean, when you start getting this critical of something, where do you stop?

"Khan was only allowed to survive the crash to start a chase scene"
"Pike was only killed to allow Kirk to get his command back"
"JJ created another Trek to tell a Trek story"

Yeah... no kidding. Things need to happen to advance a narrative and allow resolutions. That you don't like them doesn't negate the need for them. All plot points in a narrative are contrived Josh... it's fiction!

"Like" is subjective and ain't nothing wrong with that. But lets stop with the smelling of our own non stinking farts as an explanation. Thats the biggest contrived explanation of all.
post #413 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

Report back Franin. I would be curious to hear your thoughts. I have not seen it yet, but the local friends I have talked to all thought this movie was a blast! I loved the first one and part 2 is the film I am looking forward to most out of the big summer movies.

Will do mate.
post #414 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

"let's punch it" then! wink.gif

Ill be doing that around 5pm smile.gif
post #415 of 682
Beam me up, Scotty. I'm going in.


post #416 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Even if an explanation for this plot-point is "covered in the script," is still a blatant contrivance.
So now the criticism changes from not being explained to you not liking the explanation. I showed how the former was covered in the script, can't do anything about the latter (wouldn't argue your subjective preference, except to say that it is your subjective preference, not an objective evaluation of the script).
post #417 of 682
I hope you gentlemen realize you are arguing....about Star Trek....on the internet.
post #418 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

I hope you gentlemen realize you are arguing....about Star Trek....on the internet.

Isnt that the purpose of internet? What did you think, finding a cure for cancer?
post #419 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waboman View Post

Beam me up, Scotty. I'm going in.



I'm on my way smile.gif
post #420 of 682
Just came back from watching Star Trek 2 what a fantastic film, loved every minute of it from beginning to end.

The only thing I did not like and will deduct 1 point is:
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
why is Leonard Nimoy in it, yes hes the original spock but hes had his time there is no need for his appearance.

Apart what i mentioned in the spoiler I give the film 8 out of 10. I hope they continue to release another one.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home