'Star Trek Into Darkness' Preview: Prepare To Cry

Who said anything about drooling. Part of the whole back story of the Federation is that having eliminated poverty people are freed to explore self expression. That “eliminated poverty” phrase appears a lot. How does one eliminate poverty, well replicators are a good start. Of course there is some borderline drooling with some of civilians they encounter, like the space hippies, Mudd.

Notice how studiously they had to be to make sure we can’t replicate dilithium. The only time there’s ever scarcity it’s because that item is one of the “special” items. Meanwhile we know replicators can provide all the basics of life, all food, clothing, and basic household goods (most of which you don’t actually need anymore because you have a replicator).

The physics of transporting is actually pretty well understood. The energy requirements are literally astronomical (as in our sun could provide enough energy to transport 2 people, tops, ever), it’s a total magic box.

You dislike JJ-Trek because you’re another stuck on whiny Trek fan that’s made that he managed to make the most critically acclaimed AND most profitable Trek movie ever. It’s no more shallow than TOS. Actually probably less, somehow I doubt JJ-Trek is ever going to venture to “I am Kirok”.

Why would Khan believe Nero? And why would he care? In this time line Khan could use that information to go find a good place to settle, grow his power base. Maybe he becomes a threat to the Federation eventually, but it would be in basically a Second Eugenics War. Which could be cool, but would be nothing like WOK. Really the smart move for any of Kirk’s first time stream enemies if Nero tells them about it in the second time stream is to avoid Kirk not confront him, they already know they can’t beat him.

Prime Directive wouldn’t play into it, that’s just about not screwing with pre-warp cultures (at least TOS, TNG it became the excuse to not do anything). But logic would tell Spock telling people the future isn’t such a hot idea. It’s a different universe, there’s no Vulcan, things here will play out differently, also you can’t be sure that when people try to avoid problems from his timeline they won’t do worse things. Good stuff comes from hardship, war is a great source of invention.

My sister has seen the 9-minute excerpt of “Into Darkness” that was shown at the beginning of “The Hobbit” in IMAX theaters. From her husband’s Facebook post, he said he and the friend sitting next to my sister “could see the steam coming out of her ears”. My sister emphatically does NOT like the re-booted Trek. She says the old Trek “embodied the idea of what man was going to become”. She says this new version of Trek feels more like “bad boys in space with new toys”.

It could very well be that she’s a bit biased. At one point, she was “Captain” of the local Star Trek fan club chapter in our city. She’s three times the geek I am. I don’t believe she has any plans to see the next installment of the new Trek. I, on the other hand, intend to see it it within a week of its release. I LIKE the new Trek. I also like the old Trek in all its iterations (yes, even some of “Enterprise”).

There was plenty of discussion in TOS that the supply situation of the Federation had been solved. Poverty was a thing of the past. And you can see it any time they’re dealing with civilians, what do most of them do? Nothing really, handful of freeboot traders. It’s even in the plots, any time there’s a shortage of anything they have to point out how this thing is one of those odd things that replicators can’t handle.

As a matter of fact, we're well on the way to solving poverty. China was a dirt-poor cesspool 60 years ago, for example. I don't think you will find replicators in China.

Much human poverty has nothing to do with a lack of resources, but with human corruption and manipulation.

Go back and review the original series. You will discover civilians with productive lives. How peculiar that someone on a conservative website should denigrate 'traders', i.e., entrepreneurs.

Who said anything about drooling. Part of the whole back story of the Federation is that having eliminated poverty people are freed to explore self expression. That “eliminated poverty” phrase appears a lot. How does one eliminate poverty, well replicators are a good start. Of course there is some borderline drooling with some of civilians they encounter, like the space hippies, Mudd.

Real hippies sat around, did drugs, abstained from soap and water and stank. Mudd was no hippie.

Notice how studiously they had to be to make sure we can’t replicate dilithium. The only time there’s ever scarcity it’s because that item is one of the “special” items. Meanwhile we know replicators can provide all the basics of life, all food, clothing, and basic household goods (most of which you don’t actually need anymore because you have a replicator).

I recall nothing in the OS implying everyone had a replication device.

The physics of transporting is actually pretty well understood. The energy requirements are literally astronomical (as in our sun could provide enough energy to transport 2 people, tops, ever), it’s a total magic box.

Societies that learn to use the energies of stars might not find it such a magic box. It's a mistake to think that tomorrow is going to look like an extension of today. In 1900, one of the great problems of cities was disposing of horse manure. Nobody could imagine how horse manure would be dealt with in 1950.

You dislike JJ-Trek because you’re another stuck on whiny Trek fan that’s made that he managed to make the most critically acclaimed AND most profitable Trek movie ever. It’s no more shallow than TOS. Actually probably less, somehow I doubt JJ-Trek is ever going to venture to “I am Kirok”.

"Critically acclaimed"? There have always been critics ready to acclaim all manner of refuse. Just because a critic likes something doesn't mean it is any good. Professional critics typically adore movies with left-wing themes that blatantly lie about the past, which does not elevate these works above the level of propaganda.

When did profitability indicate quality? People frequently stampede after the over-hyped. There are a lot of formerly best-selling novels that nobody reads anymore. They once enjoyed fashion and made money, but they are forgotten.

A lot of poverty has to do with a lack of effort and poor decision making. This is where replicators do a good job of solving it, even the habitually lazy can get their needs fulfilled, of course there’s a necessary socialist element in there too. But replicator kind of make that necessary, in a society where all basic needs are provided by a magic box a lot of jobs become unnecessary.

I didn’t denigrate traders. Just pointed out they’re a large chunk of the civilian population we encounter in TOS. It should be noted though that most of the traders we encounter in TOS aren’t entrepreneurs so much as bored people looking for some fun.

There was a comma there, space hippies and Mudd separate people. Both of which were basically lay abouts.

Some things are constant. You mentioned the physics of transporters, well the physics of transporters is that converting mass to energy and back again requires vast quantities energy, all of the energy in the sun. That’s not going to change. Now we might find another source for that energy, the magical dilithium crystals, but the quantity of energy needed doesn’t change, just the availability. Which goes a long way to explain why warp core breaches are so catastrophic. But until we find unobtanium transporters are a magic box.

In the end it’s entertainment. Movies are there to entertain the masses. JJ-ST entertained the masses, and scored a 95% on Rotten Tomatoes. It did the job. And here you are still complaining about it years later, so much for the being forgotten part.

The big problem is there’s that chunk of fen that treat Trek like a religion. They were willing to put up with a lot of bad Trek (which really makes up the majority of the old timeline stuff) because it kept paying lip service to some ideal Roddenberry put forth, always of course carefully ignoring the fact that Roddenberry was kind of an SOB, and that a lot of what made TOS awesome came from a different Gene entirely (Gene L Coon who actually is the guy that wrote a lot of the deep scripts people point to, and gave us Klingons). But they deified Roddenberry, and studiously ignored how painfully boring the Trek he did without Coon was (first 3 season of TNG, the “no conflict” years), and ignored how the best Trek movie was based on a Coon character (yeah he wrote Space Seed and gave us Khan). Which has a lot to do with why I like JJ-ST, there’s a lot more Coon in it, it’s a lot more exciting, the bad guys are bad, and the bridge crew get to argue with each other.

We’re in a country adding 11 thousand foodstamp recipients a day. We’re no where near solving poverty. There’s still plenty of China that is a dirt-poor cesspool, and other parts that are just a cesspool.

"Poverty" in this country includes owning a car, a color tv, having enough to eat to bring on obesity, and generally not suffering.

The last time I looked, China was no longer having famines involving the death of millions, and many millions of Chinese are living lives their grandparents would not recognize. The rural Chinese want their share.

In the end it’s entertainment. Movies are there to entertain the masses. JJ-ST entertained the masses, and scored a 95% on Rotten Tomatoes. It did the job. And here you are still complaining about it years later, so much for the being forgotten part.

Perhaps you are comfortable with allowing other people to tell you what is worthy and admirable.

I have always thought for myself.

I'm not a fraction of the "masses".

But they deified Roddenberry

Anybody who read sf prior to exposure to Star Trek understands that Star Trek is 1930s style space opera, and that Roddenberry's chief innovation was the optimism of the series. He was NOT a sf genius.

Neither Star Trek nor Star Wars are cutting edge sf. They are antique space opera. They were old fashioned when they were new.

Gene L Coon was not a sf guy, either.

And homelessness. Not all the poverty in this country is the talking point kind, quite a bit is people really honestly being poor with lack of housing and food.

And the Chinese in Beijing get no air to breath. And a lot of their “fix” for poverty was making the army the number 1 employer in the nation.

Just pointing out simple reality. You’re on the outside. I know JJ-ST is good without the reviewers, but it’s interesting to note that in spite of all the whining by the cultists it’s only the 3rd Trek movie to score better than 90 at rotten. Then there’s the more money than any 2 other Trek movies. It impressed everybody except a handful of people who take great pride in how unimpressed they are. That’s not actually thinking for yourself, that’s pretending that contrarianism has meaning.

The problem with Roddenberry’s optimism is that left unchecked it’s boring. That “no conflict” problem in TNG came straight from him, and drove the writers room insane, because without conflict there’s no drama. Optimism is nice, but to turn it into drama it has to be tempered. JJ-ST is strong in the tempering, yeah things are good, but not perfect, because perfect is boring. Unchecked Roddenberry optimism gives you Encounter at Far Point, leaving the conflict give you WOK.

And homelessness. Not all the poverty in this country is the talking point kind, quite a bit is people really honestly being poor with lack of housing and food.

If you are crazy and wander the streets unmedicated, poverty is not your problem. If you are addicted to drugs, and you wander the streets looking for more, poverty is not your problem. Have you spent any time in "poor" areas? Try it. You won't find many skinny people.

And the Chinese in Beijing get no air to breath. And a lot of their “fix” for poverty was making the army the number 1 employer in the nation.

Check out the history of killer fogs in London in the 20th century. Air pollution is a management problem, not an inevitable result of prosperity.

Just pointing out simple reality. You’re on the outside.

Outside of what? Your secret club? Your secret cabal charged with deciding what is good and what is foul?

I know JJ-ST is good without the reviewers,

Sounds like a religion to me.

but it’s interesting to note that in spite of all the whining by the cultists it’s only the 3rd Trek movie to score better than 90 at rotten.

L Ron Hubbard's books have amazing sales, too. He told his followers to go out and buy them.

Then there’s the more money than any 2 other Trek movies. It impressed everybody except a handful of people who take great pride in how unimpressed they are.

People magazine has a readership, too, but that doesn't make it more than a sales success. Somebody is out there buying Chia Pets, too, but again, sales only indicate sales. Or as Barnum said, there's a sucker born every minute.

That’s not actually thinking for yourself, that’s pretending that contrarianism has meaning.

I watched it, I didn't like it, and I decided why. I did not approach it with an attitude.

The problem with Roddenberry’s optimism is that left unchecked it’s boring.

To people who grew up watching other citizens set upon by dogs and fire hoses because they wanted to register to vote or eat at a public lunch counter, Roddenberry's optimism resonated.

That “no conflict” problem in TNG came straight from him, and drove the writers room insane, because without conflict there’s no drama. Optimism is nice, but to turn it into drama it has to be tempered.

Twice now I have described Roddenberry as NOT a sf genius. I won't do it again. I loathed TNG. The characters were bland and unconvincing. We were not discussing TNG.

JJ-ST is strong in the tempering, yeah things are good,

"Tempering"??? "Good" is an opinion. Making that statement is an assertion.

but not perfect, because perfect is boring.

No, perfect is a goal.

Unchecked Roddenberry optimism gives you Encounter at Far Point, leaving the conflict give you WOK.

None of which has anything to do with OS, which is what was under discussion.

(I recommend a fifth of Jack and a bottle of Prozac)

I can believe that.

I didn’t say the pollution in China was a result of prosperity, quite the opposite I was pointing it out as proof that the country hasn’t progressed as far as you’re claiming.

Outside the norm. Most folks liked it.

Knowing the movie was good regardless of the reviews sounds like a religion to you? Try that one again.

Actually Hubbard’s books sold well before he invented Scientology. He was one of the big dogs of SF. It’s kind of sad really, ruined his own history by winning a bet.

Actually my bet is you decided you wouldn’t like it, watched it, and felt proud about how “right” you were. And now years later you’re still pissing and moaning about it.

Roddenberry’s optimism WHEN tempered by Coon’s story telling resonated. Roddenberry’s optimism unchecked was boring. First 3 season of TNG, that was Roddenberry’s optimism set free, “no conflict”, no drama. And by loathing TNG you agree.

“Good” in that sentence wasn’t an opinion, it was describing the world in the movie, as in “having a lot of that optimism of Roddenberry’s”. People aren’t poor (because they have replicators) people are free to explore themselves. That good.

Actually that ALL has to do with TOS. You really seem to be having trouble following logical threads all of a sudden. In TOS Roddenberry’s optimism was checked by Coon’s storytelling, thus it had drama, that’s the combination that gave us Khan, and therefore WOK, the best ST movie (even though rotten likes JJ-ST more it’s no WOK). Roddenberry’s optimism unchecked gave us Encounter at Farpoint, boring, no conflict, no drama. That all is part of a TOS discussion because even space TV shows don’t exist in a vacuum.

Most homeless aren’t crazy, or drug addicted, and yeah I have spent time in poor areas, REALLY poor areas, not “poor”. The actually poor areas where everybody “donates” plasma, and those people are skinny. There’s the big dividing line between the kind of poor we complain about getting welfare checks and REAL poor, actually poor people bleed for money, and the centers of America aren’t hurting for “donors”.

I believe statistics refute your assertions about the homeless.

I didn’t say the pollution in China was a result of prosperity, quite the opposite I was pointing it out as proof that the country hasn’t progressed as far as you’re claiming.

They have pollution in Beijing because enough Chinese can afford to buy CARS. How many privately owned cars were rolling around Beijing in 1963?

Outside the norm. Most folks liked it.

Most "folks" can be convinced to buy anything! They buy tap water in small plastic bottles! (I save fruit juice bottles, fill them half with tap water, freeze, and add water as needed. Cheap.)

Knowing the movie was good regardless of the reviews sounds like a religion to you? Try that one again.

It's akin to the way people worship Barack Obama. He's been a miserable failure, he's incompetent, he's anti-American, but the proles love him--as in a religion.

Actually Hubbard’s books sold well before he invented Scientology. He was one of the big dogs of SF.

Uh, no. I read sf in the 1960s and attended a lot of sf cons in the 1970s. I never ever heard anyone referring to Hubbard in the same breath as Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein, Lovecraft, or any number of others.

Actually my bet is you decided you wouldn’t like it, watched it, and felt proud about how “right” you were. And now years later you’re still pissing and moaning about it.

I've already stated that I approached the movie with an open mind, and:

"I watched it, I didn't like it, and I decided why. I did not approach it with an attitude."

I assume you can read.

because even space TV shows don’t exist in a vacuum.

Star Trek existed only in reruns (and a weird animated version) from 1969 to 1977. You don't need to drag in things done 15, 20, 25 years later to awkwardly (and unconvincingly) make your point.

The stats http://www.huduser.org/Publications/pdf/ahar.pdf say there’s 643 thousand homeless people in America. That’s a lot. Then there’s the have a home poor, there’s plenty of extremely bad neighborhoods in this country that if you look at the housing the first thing you’ll think is they’d probably be better off homeless. Really poverty really still exists in thing country, and it always will. Life just doesn’t work out for some people, they don’t catch the breaks, they don’t know how to construct a good life from scratch, they’ve been in that situation so long the paper trail keeps them there (employers care a lot about your past, a long string of really bad jobs tends to make you only qualified for other really bad jobs). That’s the world I grew up in, and I still know people on that life track. Without a magic box there will always be the poor.

No they have pollution in Beijing because the government doesn’t give a crap. We have more cars than them and cleaner air. Remember the Chinese government has a doctrinal belief that there are too many Chinese, it’s why they instituted the one child policy. When your government thinks there are too many of you, they tend to not be into things like clean air and water.

No it’s not akin to anything Obama. I liked the movie. I like many movies the reviewers hate, and many they love. My opinion is not dependent on theirs. I just pointed out a simple fact that it was popular with the reviewers AND I liked it. No religion, no Obama, simple two facts.

Uh no, L Ron was a successful Golden Age pulp fiction writer, and was a fairly successful Hollywood script writer. You might not have heard of him back then, but that’s on you. I don’t like his stuff, but it was well regarded and popular. Which of course means nothing to you because you don’t care about popularity and reviews, but the facts are the facts and the facts are L Ron would still be known today without scientology, better known probably because we’d only know him for the writing not the cult.

You stated it, but I don’t believe you. You parrot all the usual stuff from the Trek heads who made up their mind before the movie came out.

No we DO need to drag in stuff that happened later because it informs the past. Because Coon died in 1973 we can look to TNG to see what TOS might have been like without him. We can look to things like the popularity of of stories with Klingons and Khan and see just how important Coon’s often overlooked contributions really were to the cultural phenomenon that is Trek. What happened later helps to illuminate what happened before. If my argument was that unconvincing you’d actually ADDRESS it instead of trying to poison its well.

The stats http://www.huduser.org/Publications/pdf/ahar.pdf say there’s 643 thousand homeless people in America. That’s a lot.

There are services for such people. Nobody needs to starve in this country.

Then there’s the have a home poor, there’s plenty of extremely bad neighborhoods in this country that if you look at the housing the first thing you’ll think is they’d probably be better off homeless.

You might, but there are a lot of people in 3rd world countries living under sheets of metal who would gladly trade "homes" with these people.

Really poverty really still exists in thing country, and it always will. Life just doesn’t work out for some people, they don’t catch the breaks, they don’t know how to construct a good life from scratch, they’ve been in that situation so long the paper trail keeps them there (employers care a lot about your past, a long string of really bad jobs tends to make you only qualified for other really bad jobs). That’s the world I grew up in, and I still know people on that life track. Without a magic box there will always be the poor.

Once upon a time in most of the world, you were born into hunger, disease,and no prospects of anything better. It hasn't been that way in Europe for awhile. It's changing dramatically in a lot of the world right now. The curious thing about prosperity is that people stop having huge families, and they tend to maintain prosperity for those fewer children.

No they have pollution in Beijing because the government doesn’t give a crap. We have more cars than them and cleaner air. Remember the Chinese government has a doctrinal belief that there are too many Chinese, it’s why they instituted the one child policy. When your government thinks there are too many of you, they tend to not be into things like clean air and water.

China is corrupt. But China is not dirt poor any longer.

No it’s not akin to anything Obama. I liked the movie. I like many movies the reviewers hate, and many they love. My opinion is not dependent on theirs. I just pointed out a simple fact that it was popular with the reviewers AND I liked it. No religion, no Obama, simple two facts.

But somehow, you select the adoration of the (witless) masses as proof of wonderfulness.

Uh no, L Ron was a successful Golden Age pulp fiction writer, and was a fairly successful Hollywood script writer. You might not have heard of him back then, but that’s on you. I don’t like his stuff, but it was well regarded and popular. Which of course means nothing to you because you don’t care about popularity and reviews, but the facts are the facts and the facts are L Ron would still be known today without scientology, better known probably because we’d only know him for the writing not the cult.

I was there. You were not. I spent my kid-summers reading sf, and I tried lots of writers. I never came across Hubbard.

You stated it, but I don’t believe you. You parrot all the usual stuff from the Trek heads who made up their mind before the movie came out.

Just bizarre. Your ratio of ethanol to Prozac needs fine tuning. You JUST KNOW what was in the mind of a person you don't know at all--you know I schemed it all in advance. There are words describing people who entertain such fantasies about strangers.

No we DO need to drag in stuff that happened later because it informs the past. Because Coon died in 1973 we can look to TNG to see what TOS might have been like without him. We can look to things like the popularity of of stories with Klingons and Khan and see just how important Coon’s often overlooked contributions really were to the cultural phenomenon that is Trek. What happened later helps to illuminate what happened before. If my argument was that unconvincing you’d actually ADDRESS it instead of trying to poison its well.

You know what I scheme in advance and you cannot stick to the topic at hand, so you assert you can bring in anything. Lame, weak, flimsy, juvenile.

I'm done with you. You are a lazy thinker, and an emotional, irrational one. Go take some more ethanol and Prozac, and go see a plotless, character-free action movie. All will be good in your world.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.