Total Pageviews

Showing posts with label Star Trek Into Darkness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Star Trek Into Darkness. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 21, 2013

Medical Ethics in the 23rd Century

WARNING! This post contains SPOILERS for Star Trek Into Darkness
If you haven't seen the film, don't read this post! 

In my review of Star Trek Into Darkness, I alluded to problems with the film's story logic. My friend Steve emailed me to discuss the issue further, and in the course of that discussion I realized the film had two more glaring problems.

Near the end of the film, Kirk dies in the exact same way Spock died in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. In a truly cringe-worthy moment, Spock screams "KHHHAANNNN!" and runs off to have his vengeance, beaming down to chase Khan across San Fransisco. But Doctor McCoy realizes that Khan's genetically engineered blood could be used to revive Kirk. In a bit of hit-you-over-the-head foreshadowing, earlier in the film McCoy injected Khan's blood into a dead tribble. Why? That's never clearly explained. Just as Kirk's cold corpse reaches sickbay, the formerly dead tribble, sensing a dramatic moment, begins to coo, miraculously revived. McCoy calls Spock and says "We need Khan alive! He's Kirk's only chance!"

So instead of killing Khan, Spock and Uhura knock out the bad guy, bring him back to the Enterprise and Kirk is saved.

Earlier in the film, Spock serves as Kirk's conscience, reminding the captain that it is immoral to assassinate suspects, that they must be brought to justice to stand trial. Spock's morals suddenly fly out the window when his best friend is killed, and only when he learns that Khan's blood is useful does he quell his thirst for blood...well, sort of, because he brings Khan back to the ship for a transfusion.

We don't see the medical procedure that saves Kirk. But given that Khan was unconscious when he was beamed to the Enterprise, we're left wondering if McCoy just took the blood right then and there and performed the transfusion without asking. Time was of the essence, after all, and having just tried to kill everyone on the Enterprise it seems unlikely Khan was in a giving mood. This may be why the filmmakers glossed over the actual procedure.

But consider this. Minutes ago, Spock had saved all of Khan's followers. Khan admitted earlier that Kirk seems to have a conscience, so the stage had already been set for what might have been a pretty cool scene: McCoy refuses to perform the procedure without Khan's permission. Spock orders McCoy to wake up Khan. McCoy asks for permission, Khan refuses, Spock notes that he saved all of Khan's friends and further notes that Khan must have had at least some respect for Starfleet and the Federation at some point, having worked for them for months. Khan begrudgingly agrees, saving Kirk. He's still a mass murderer, but at least this way his character gets a tiny bit more nuance and the audience isn't left wondering if their heroes only have ethics and morals when it's convenient.

Would this have messed up the film's pacing? Maybe, but the last third was such a mess that I hardly think yet another scene would have made it significantly worse. At the very least the tradeoff helps cement the point that the filmmakers tried and failed to make with this film - that good people are supposed to do the right thing even when it's hard.







Sunday, May 19, 2013

Star Trek Into Darkness Review

WARNING: This review is loaded with SPOILERS. If you have not seen Star Trek Into Darkness, see the film before reading!

Like many modern Hollywood movies, Star Trek Into Darkness is almost impossible to judge on its own merits. It is the product of a society obsessed with fear of the other in a time when popular culture is folding back in upon itself. This combination of circumstances results in a film nearly crippled by its thematic contradictions. As originally conceived, Star Trek (the television series) was meant to show that human beings had reason to be optimistic about their future. But despite this film's attempts to claim otherwise, Star Trek's original utopian vision has been subverted by a culture that no longer believes in the show's core message. In other words, Captain sir, we're all doomed...

Star Trek Into Darkness opens strongly, with the Enterprise on a mission of mercy. Captain Kirk breaks some rules to save the indigenous peoples of the planet Nibiru, only to have Spock tattle on him and get him in trouble with their mutual mentor, Admiral Pike, former Captain of the Enterprise and now a Starfleet bigwig. Kirk is busted down a step in rank, relieved of command of the Enterprise, and Spock is transferred to another ship (the USS Bradbury, in a nice nod to one of SF's greatest writers). And while Kirk is clearly deeply wounded by the demotion, he knows that he made the moral choice.

The early part of the film does a good job of answering some of the open questions of Star Trek (2009). Kirk's rapid promotion from cadet to captain is seen by some as perhaps not a good thing, a realistic reaction to the events of the first film. Kirk is shown as something of a womanizer, a reputation somewhat undeserved in William Shatner's iteration of the character, but one that's taken literally here. However, given this new Kirk's tragic upbringing, it's understandable that Chris Pine's version of the iconic hero would find comfort in the arms of (several) women. This Kirk is still brash and arrogant, not at all the cool professional fans remember from the 1960s. 

It's clear that in this film Kirk will be put through the crucible to find some maturity. But because this is 2013, Kirk's journey will occur through the lens of global terrorism. A suicide attack on future London, followed by an assault that kills one of Kirk's loved ones, sets the scene for Kirk's character arc. Will he be consumed by the need for vengeance, or will he grow into the captain that we remember?

At first it seems as though Kirk will indeed succumb to the need for revenge. He makes a personal request to a top-ranking admiral to get his command back so that he can go after the terrorist, revealed to be John Harrison, a Starfleet agent gone rogue. Surprisingly, the admiral agrees.

I was pleasantly surprised by a couple of plot points here. A society-altering piece of technology invented by Scotty in the first film turns up again, much to the surprise of jaded viewers who are used to such plot devices being used once and forgotten. And the admiral gives Kirk a blatantly illegal order - essentially telling Kirk to perform a drone strike against their target, who's holed up in a neutral location. Not only would this violate another planet's sovereignty, it could start a war - and besides, as Spock and other Enterprise crew members point out, assassinating a suspect goes completely against Federation principles. Scotty even resigns his commission in protest.

Here is where the film comes closest to capturing the spirit of the original show. As in the original series, the writers have placed a science-fiction gloss over modern issues to highlight the importance of making morally correct choices, even when it would be easier and more satisfying to give in to our darker impulses. The moment Kirk decides to disobey orders and arrest Harrison instead of simply killing him from afar shows vividly that Kirk is starting to become a true hero.

Once Harrison is in custody, however, the film begins to fall apart, degenerating into a never-ending series of action set pieces and unnecessary callbacks to earlier Trek lore. As in Star Trek (2009), the creators get so caught up in keeping the pace fast and furious that they make elementary mistakes in story logic and basic science, inconsistencies that take viewers right out of the picture. One of the film's multiple false climaxes is a reverse homage of an earlier (better) film, an incomprehensible choice on the part of the filmmakers because the scene isn't powerful enough to stand on its own, and its presence can only remind viewers of the superior film. There is also a cringe-inducing moment that rivals Darth Vader's infamous "NOOOO" in Revenge of the Sith.

By film's end hundreds of people have died and Starfleet's reputation must lie in ruins. And yet the movie ends with an optimistic coda that tries - and, unfortunately, fails - to reaffirm the original show's utopian vision. Yes, Kirk and company are boldly going on a five year mission to seek out new life and new civilizations, but those words ring hollow when the film's subtext reinforces our modern era, one seemingly utterly devoid of the hope Star Trek is supposed to offer. Just as our leaders and media try to tell us that we live under constant threat from malevolent outsides, this film's version of Starfleet is identically paranoid. Not without cause, of course; the filmmakers have built a world in which the threats are real and the paranoia justified, which says something about how they view the real world here and now.

There's much to like in this film. The performances are outstanding, with a great deal of character-driven humour. Production design and visual effects show great imagination and audacity. Small nods to the larger Star Trek universe, including references to Enterprise (the show) and Deep Space Nine are very welcome. The first half of the movie sets up an interesting problem and treats the audience with respect.

Unfortunately, the film crumbles under the weight of its chosen theme and that theme's dissonance with Star Trek's core values. This movie wears Star Trek's face, and it even makes a fair attempt at emulating its structure and philosophy. But it doesn't believe in Star Trek, and it shows. Perhaps the world really has moved into darkness, and dreams of a better tomorrow are behind us.




Thursday, May 16, 2013

USS Bonaventure Patch

Since Star Trek Into Darkness gets its wide release today, this seems like an opportune time to mention my brief membership in the Edmonton Star Trek Society. In October 1987, a month into my first year at the University of Alberta, I stumbled across a meeting of the Society in one of the large lecture theatres in the Humanities building. Just as I arrived a young man sitting at the very top of the lecture hall carelessly tossed a soda can down to the first row, where it bounced painfully off the innocent skull of a Star Trek fan and model builder I'd later come to know as Barry Yoner. This seemed like my kind of place, so I joined the club and a couple of years later later became the second or third President of the spinoff University of Alberta Star Trek Club.

Before that happened, though, there were some fun times on the Bonaventure, the Society's imaginary starship. We once constructed a bridge and shot a short film based on the then-new Star Trek: The Next Generation. Ron Briscoe played Captain Picard by wearing a flesh-toned bowl on his head, and I think Tony Longworth played Commander Riker. I played myself, Ensign Woods, at the navigation station, drinking Coke while on duty as an in-joke reference to...oh boy, here's where it gets complicated. Let's just say that Star Trek fandom and a nascent Internet sometimes combined in very absurd ways.

I don't remember who designed this very handsome USS Bonaventure patch, but I think the design and execution still hold up very nicely. 

Thursday, December 06, 2012

Star Trek Into Darkness...But Then Back to TV, Please


I enjoyed Star Trek (2009) immensely, and I'm hoping that Star Trek Into Darkness will be even better. But as exciting as this trailer looks, it also further convinces me that Star Trek's best destiny remains on the small screen. Huge, action-packed adventures are fine for feature films, but whatever happened to boldly going where none have gone before? Whatever happened to exploring strange new worlds?

Star Trek has always been at its best when it addressed questions of philosophical, moral or scientific importance. We haven't seen a true science fiction issues-based film Trek since The Voyage Home, and even that was in the context of saving Earth (again). You can do the big stories on weekly television too (if not on as grand a scale), but you can also craft more thoughtful stories. And you don't have to wait four years between adventures...

Nonetheless, I've enjoyed most of J. J. Abrams' work thus far and I'm sure that Star Trek Into Darkness will be a rollicking adventure. But I'd like to see more science fiction in my science fiction, please.