Will "Into Darkness" be a 911 parable?

[Borgminister]

I'm thinking more like a bell curve.

[Set Harth]

I would attack Qo'noS just for being spelled Qo'noS.

[Phily B]

please no im bored of them, especially when they end up being one sided.

[intrinsical]

Borgminister wrote:

---

Yes and no.

It is a quantum state of superposition until the movie is observed in the cinema.

[Kruezerman]

Why not? It'll make Star Trek relevant again.

Although I'm thinking more along the lines of a PATRIOT Act parable/criticism here.

[bdb]

Could be that in response to the destruction of Vulcan (which Lindelof said had a 9-11 effect on the Federation) some group within Star Fleet starts experiments to create soldiers that they think will now be needed.

So, they crack open the Eugenics War cook book, and begin secret experiments on unwitting (and unknowing) Star Fleet personnel. One of them (John Harrison) finds out about it, and gets a little upset.

[Romulan_spy]

Kruezerman wrote:

---

Why not? It'll make Star Trek relevant again.

Although I'm thinking more along the lines of a PATRIOT Act parable/criticism here.

That would make sense. After the destruction of Vulcan, Starfleet implements its own version of the PATRIOT Act. John Harrison is a Starfleet captain who disagrees strongly, believing it curbs personal liberties too much and undermines the values of the Federation. To prove that it is useless (destroys liberty while not increasing security), John Harrison launches his attack on Starfleet, hence the line in the trailer about "you think your world is safe, it is an illusion to protect you". This would also explain why Cumberbatch said that the villain's motives are sympathetic. After all, he genuinely believes that Starfleet is curbing personal liberty and betraying its core values.

[JarodRussell]

9/11 has been more than 10 years ago. It's time for Hollywood to move on.

[Robert Maxwell]

JarodRussell wrote:

---

9/11 has been more than 10 years ago. It's time for Hollywood to move on.

Hollywood still makes movies about World War II. "Moving on" is not their thing.

[JarodRussell]

Robert Maxwell wrote:

---

Hollywood still makes movies about World War II. "Moving on" is not their thing.

True, but there's a slight difference. With 9/11, writers, directors et al. are still trying to overcome their trauma.

Season 3 of Enterprise was already more than enough commentary on 9/11 and its aftermath. No need to rehash it again.

[SalvorHardin]

Robert Maxwell wrote:

---

Hollywood still makes movies about World War II. "Moving on" is not their thing.

The world itself though isn't over 9/11 yet.
We still feel its effects in various ways...laws, security measures, war etc etc

[Crazy Eddie]

SalvorHardin wrote:

---

The world itself though isn't over 9/11 yet.
We still feel its effects in various ways...

Particularly in the form of American bullets, and increasingly in the form of Missiles-Out-Of-Fucking-Nowhere drone attacks.

Picture the Federation conducting a series of random and indiscriminate drone attacks against Romulan colonies, ostensibly to suppress rogue Nero-like elements that might threaten the Federation. Kirk -- who knows better than anyone that Nero didn't come from any of those colonies and was an isolated case -- may have to chose between the brazen illegality of the attacks and the creeping evil of Gary Mitchel's divine-yet-much-deserved vengeance. The moral question being "Which of these evils is the lesser one? The evil that WE do, or the evil that is about to be done to us?"

Of course if Abrams pulls this off he would probably be charged with a war crime for the half a billion heads that would explode trying to parse this story, and I doubt it will end up anywhere near that deep.

[Kruezerman]

A political Trek like The Undiscovered Country?

That'd be brilliant.