Star Trek into Darkness - 9/11 Truther movie [vanity/spoilers]

I saw “Star Trek: Into Darkness” yesterday, and after thinking about it for two days I realized that I hate what JJ Abrams is doing to the Star Trek universe.

They made one of the great villians of Star Trek and made him into a random bad guy. He is not significantly any different from the villian in Iron Man 3.

McCoy is a parody of McCoy, not a real character.

They never did explain why the ship was where it was at the start, except for Scotty to correctly point out that it was a dumb place for a starship.

The villians suddenly have technology that Picard and his crew regarded as new and inherently very risky over a century later in the original universe.

This version of Kirk didn’t rise through the ranks and learn how to lead. In the original universe, Lt. Commander Kirk was a by the books sort of leader until an event forced him to reassess strict adherence to policy. A Kirk that never experienced any of that to explain why he failed to follow policy and regulation from day one.

Chekov is another throw away parody of a character. The original Chekov was a competent young officer who could be understood despite an accent. You could replace this Chekov with Elmer Fudd and you would not notice any difference.

The entire plot is a truthers wet dream. An Earth that had witnessed Vulcan attacked would have security concerns, so would the Andorians and a dozen other species. The Admiral is displayed as both a warmonger and the leader of the Federation that doesn’t seem to have a President or general Assembly anymore.

Yeah yeah... it’s “just me” From some user comments around the internet
“I liked that the movie had something to say to us in our time, like trek had always done, making statements about the times in the past. The deceptive trickery to start up a war with the klingons was obviously a metaphor for America’s pre-emptive strike against Iraq. Scotty’s concerns about things going overly militarized is something that most of us have been feeling since 2001. The Kirk speech at the end was clearly speaking to us, in our time, about the response to terrorism and our need to get back to the character that made us what we are, as opposed to this monster driven by vengeance. “

“I think a lot of people missed the film’s message about militarization in response to acts of terror. This is especially relevant after the attack in Boston, where we shut down an entire city and marched police down the streets to search for one man (and of course, America’s post 9-11 policies/wars).”

“I love that they put this theme in the movie. Over militarization needs to get more mainstream awareness. “

“In a time where we have the PATRIOT ACT and drone strikes, I appreciate the message Spock was trying to say.”

“The banter between Spock and Uhura was fantastic, and the underlying post-9/11 commentary came across as philosophical as any of the original 6 Trek movies (pardon my ignorance as they are the only ones I’ve seen up to now). “

“This is a film, set i an alternative Universe, wherein the pre “5 Year Mission” crew are involved in a tale about how much of the enemy’s tactics you shoulld be willing to use if you are “the good guys.” Due Process? Terrorism?preemptive strikes, drones etc. Does use of all of this make you as bad, or worse, than “the enemy”?”

I just saw a TV show on the SCI channel about what the military has plans for in case of a hostile alien attack upon earth, basically we lose against superior technology as usual.

But a prolonged asymmetrical war scenario over time can be fought, and won.

in the end basically soldiers floated up to the underbelly of the massive city sized ships on nothing more than latex balloons, low tech and supposedly stealthy to radar, they gain access and plant munitions, kaboom go ships.

An all out guerrilla war against a superior force in quality and quantity. But by using asymmetrical warfare they lose through time and attrition, swarm attacks.

Swarm attacks just like an invasive fire ant, carp or bird species. That documentary which it was kinda opened my eyes about just what me the lone human has against odds, odds that normally means my death, but through asymmetrical warfare over time we can overcome a superior force be it human, national, global or interstellar.

I have no clue what movie you watched, and I have to wonder if your understand what “Trutherism” is. Trutherism suggests that Bin Laden had NO involvement in the events of 9-11 and the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon were all inside jobs perpetrated by George Bush and the “military industrial complex.” This movie makes ZERO comparisons to the events.

Khan blows up the Section 31 facility to exact revenge for Admiral Marcus’ capture of Khan’s compatriots. He then attacks Federation HQs to eliminate all of the senior staff whom he knows are gathering to discuss Starfleet’s response. Marcus uses the events to further his own plan to draw the Klingon’s into a conflict. Sure the movie asks the question whether an organization meant for exploration should be actively trying to begin a war, and whether or not you agree with that premise it’s asking a political question here, not unlike the old show.

You basically fell into the trap the writers laid for you when Khan gives his speech in the brig trying to sway Kirk to his position by pointing out that he, like Kirk, are simply pawns in a larger game perpetrated by Marcus. He tries to come off as a figure to be pitied, not feared, and he’s banking on Kirk’s compassion... heck he even tells Kirk that his compassion is his weakness. It’s abundantly clear by the final act that in no way was Khan ever really a pawn, and he was simply using Marcus and the resources of Starfleet to build his superweapons then he would revive his crew and eventually rule Earth again. Both men were using each other to further their own agendas.

The reality is JJ Abrams has never, ever made any comments regarding 9-11 to suggest the national tragedy was Bush’s fault, what an inside job, or that Osama Bin Laden was a patsy. In fact, Abrams has been a very vocal and active supporter of military vets and their families. One organization he’s actively involved in is “The Mission Continues.” Four vets (including a Navy SEAL) appear at the end of the film folding the Federation flag during the Enterprise re-christening ceremony.

Sure JJ may be a lib, but he’s one of the better guys in this industry.

There are many theories of trutherism.
One involved Osama Bin Laden attacking the US in revenge for his being driven by the CIA to attack the Russians during the Afghanistan battles and then abandoned when it no longer suited US interests.

Both theories and STID are the same - Khan/Osama wouldn’t have done anything if not for the initial actions of the CIA/Starfleet trying to get us into a war.

it wasn’t a trap the writers laid because the writers lay the ultimate responsibility of Khan’s creation at Marcus’ feet. He found Khan, tried to use Khan to further his own ends and then tried to destroy Khan when he became a rogue agent. Sure, Khan is meant to be the ultimate bad guy... it was never “The Wrath of Marcus” (although there’s some irony in that...) But Khan wouldn’t have come back at all or gained power if not for Marcus’ war-monkey antics to get us into Iraq.

JJ Abrams doesn’t blame the soldiers, yeah, get that... They’ve learned the lessons of Vietnam...But he certainly does blame Bush and Cheney and certainly not Obama.

Wonder why that is?
Oh yeah...
http://www.thewrap.com/media/slideshow/president-obamas-hollywood-backers-george-clooney-jeffrey-katzenberg-and-more-39056

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.