Chicago 103 wrote:
In most political discussion, there are good and bad points on both sides of the argument. But in "STID," the bad guys are for increased military action to protect the Federation. The good guys are for just being explorers. This is too simplistic for a thorough discussion of how to keep civilization safe in the face of unimaginable threats. The story shouldn't try to answer the question. There is no easy answer. All of the points should be presented. Let the viewer decide where and why they stand on a particular side, and consider the issue from a new perspective. My favorite movies of last year, "Life of Pi," "Sound of My Voice," and "Cabin in the Woods," held up a mirror to the audience, so we could ask why do we believe what we want to believe, or why do we enjoy the things we do? It's good that this movie tried to be about something more than just blowing stuff up real good. Next time, take another step toward a more complete, less preachy look at real world issues. Yeah, I know, Trek has been traditionally preachy. But this is a new world.
Admittedly, one reason I like the Section 31 concept is the challenge it provides to the main idealist and rather utopian tendencies of Star Trek.
DS9 was very good at that kind of thing. Here the idea is introduced and dismissed a bit lightly, it's another one of those aspects of the movie that has more impact if you already get the reference. Otherwise it's just the Evil Admiral trying to start a war.
Ultimately the movie doesn't come down on the side of inaction, but on what it perceives to be the more humane and ethical action.