If this has been discussed before please just lock this thread. I couldn't fine this topic.
I watched STiD this weekend again and when the USS Vengeance crashes it taked down several buildings. Considering that they did not have time to evacuate them I am sure there were massive casualties.
The Man of Steel movie was critisized for Superman/Zod causing mass casualties and destruction and not addressing that in the film.
Do you think such mass destruction needs to be acknowleged and adressed within the movie?
There was another thread about this, and I think the following post, taken from it, sums up an answer to your question pretty neatly:
Locutus of Bored wrote:
some poster wrote:
It was one of the more egregiously absurd parts of the movie. At least 100,000 dead and no mention is made of it whatsoever. The icing on the cake was the 'one year later' scene where they have that ceremony to rechristen the Enterprise. Yeah we slapped some new impulse engines on the ship, that's awesome... no need to mention that horrific act of terror that wiped out several city blocks.
Kirk mentioned that the ceremony was a rechristening of the Enterprise and to honor the dead - presumably both Starfleet and civilian - from the attack one year earlier. He also talked about how they shouldn't compromise their principles in the face of such an attack, so that was acknowledging it too. The audience was a mix of Starfleet and civilians. It is a year later, so I'm sure there have been several more elaborate and dedicated memorials for the victims in the past 12 months.
The movie was supposed to end on a hopeful note about going on a five-year mission of exploration and reclaiming their guiding principles. I don't see how it would have been improved with a more extensive memorial sequence than what was shown. But it certainly didn't gloss over the incident entirely as you suggest.