RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 137,849
Posts: 5,328,078
Members: 24,552
Currently online: 714
Newest member: SpammetySpam

TrekToday headlines

Cubify Star Trek 3DMe Mini Figurines
By: T'Bonz on Jul 11

Latest Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Jul 10

Seven of Nine Bobble Head
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

Pegg The Prankster
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

More Trek Stars Join Unbelievable!!!!!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

Star Trek #35 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

New ThinkGeek Trek Apparel
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Star Trek Movie Prop Auction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Drexler: NX Engineering Room Construction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

New Trek Home Fashions
By: T'Bonz on Jul 4


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Entertainment & Interests > Science Fiction & Fantasy

Science Fiction & Fantasy Farscape, Babylon 5, Star Wars, Firefly, vampires, genre books and film.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 13 2008, 07:52 PM   #16
Spaceman Spiff
Intrepid Explorer
 
Spaceman Spiff's Avatar
 
Re: politics of iron man

Yes, because calling someone names is worse. Don't mention it again here in the thread; there are steps to protesting a warning, and none of them include derailing a topic.

Also, in general, everyone needs to keep the thread out of TNZ territory.
__________________
"Love means never having to say you're ugly."
- Dr. Phibes
Spaceman Spiff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 13 2008, 08:02 PM   #17
stonester1
Rear Admiral
 
stonester1's Avatar
 
Re: politics of iron man

I'd say this thread STARTED in TNZ territory, as has been pointed out elsewhere.
__________________
"New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled, the humiliating question arises, 'Why then are you not taking part in them?' " - H. G. Wells
stonester1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 13 2008, 08:04 PM   #18
Spaceman Spiff
Intrepid Explorer
 
Spaceman Spiff's Avatar
 
Re: politics of iron man

Not really. The politics as they relate to Iron Man is a valid SF&F topic. But when it veers off into only discussing the politics, that's TNZ or Misc territory.
__________________
"Love means never having to say you're ugly."
- Dr. Phibes
Spaceman Spiff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 13 2008, 08:06 PM   #19
stonester1
Rear Admiral
 
stonester1's Avatar
 
Re: politics of iron man

I'd say, considering the agenda laden tone of the OP and subsequent posts, such a veering was a foregone conclusion.
__________________
"New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled, the humiliating question arises, 'Why then are you not taking part in them?' " - H. G. Wells
stonester1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 13 2008, 08:09 PM   #20
Spaceman Spiff
Intrepid Explorer
 
Spaceman Spiff's Avatar
 
Re: politics of iron man

You can keep it out of TNZ territory. I have faith in you.
__________________
"Love means never having to say you're ugly."
- Dr. Phibes
Spaceman Spiff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 13 2008, 08:59 PM   #21
Trent Roman
Rear Admiral
 
Trent Roman's Avatar
 
Location: The Palace of Pernicious Pleasures
Re: politics of iron man

stj wrote: View Post
We actually seem to agree but somehow you think that doesn't support the case that Iron Man the movie is appealing to the desire to see a superhero beat up political enemies of the US.
If Iron Man flew to France and started shoving 'freedom fries' down Chirac's throat, then you could say the film was just an exercise in beating up political foes. But Taliban-esque organizations like the one depicted in the film are not considered enemies merely or even primarily for political reasons, nor are they merely the enemies of the US. Muslim fundamentalists are the declared foes of pretty much anybody who isn't another muslim fundamentalist, and even then that's no guarantee, as the fundy-on-fundy violence in Iraq demonstrated. Remember, just as it's silly to hate everybody the Bush Administration tells you to hate, it's silly to conversely embrace everybody the Bush Administration tells you to hate; the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend, but can be an even more determined antagonist.

You yourself pointed out that the rather blinkered review (Iron Man should have shot down the fighter jets that intercepted him--WTF?) missed some of the nuances in the film; the character of Tony Stark, either in the comic books or this movie, has always been an ambiguous hero haunted by his obsessive need for control, his manipulative ways, his single-minded view on conflict resolution, throwing all that money into weapons when it could go to great lengths to resolving the root causes underlying many conflicts. The Civil War event illustrated very well, I think, that where somebody like Captain America is meant to embody American idealism, Iron Man embodies American pragmatism, which can sometimes be an ugly thing.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
__________________
Obdurants and Amusings - Behind the Shampoo Curtain
Trent Roman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 13 2008, 09:47 PM   #22
Temis the Vorta
Fleet Admiral
 
Temis the Vorta's Avatar
 
Location: Tatoinne
Re: politics of iron man

The Civil War event illustrated very well, I think, that where somebody like Captain America is meant to embody American idealism, Iron Man embodies American pragmatism, which can sometimes be an ugly thing.
And that is definitely a plotline I want to see pursued in the subsequent movies (either Iron Man, or Avengers, or whatever) - pursued in an even handed and intelligent way, which no doubt will set off some people who can't grasp what this plotline is about. By then Obama will be President, but they'll probably be bitching that he's a warmonger because he's putting the screws to Pakistan like a good President should.

Can't hardly wait! For the movies or the Presidency.
Temis the Vorta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 13 2008, 10:12 PM   #23
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: politics of iron man

Spaceman Spiff wrote: View Post
Yes, because calling someone names is worse. Don't mention it again here in the thread; there are steps to protesting a warning, and none of them include derailing a topic.

Also, in general, everyone needs to keep the thread out of TNZ territory.
The entire POINT OF THE ORIGINAL POST was to take it INTO THAT TERRORITY.

There's been a recent rash of "political-flame-war-starters" on the BBS. I'm not sure why, exactly, but it's getting really really tiresome.

You think that the OP's posting was "OK?" I disagree, because (as has been stated previously) this topic has nothing to do with the purpose of this forum... it is simply doing an end-run around it by pretending to tie it to the forum topic.

When someone posts a "political-ideology attack" they're engaging in an attack on any one who may happen to be part of the group they're attacking, aren't they?

So... if calling someone a "nutbag" is flaming... calling something like half of the country worse things (and realize that many posters on this board are part of that "half" in question) is ALSO FLAMING.

You can say "John is an asshole." That's flaming. Now, suppose that John is 6'2" and has red hair and you say "anyone who is 6'2" and has red hair is an asshole" ... and saying it to John's face no less (though that shouldn't matter)... that is ALSO FLAMING.

(This example in this post is entirely a work of fiction. The characters herein are unrelated to any 6'2" tall red-headed guy named John, living or dead.)
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 13 2008, 10:51 PM   #24
T'Bonz
Romulan Curmudgeon
 
T'Bonz's Avatar
 
Location: Across the Neutral Zone
Re: politics of iron man

Two things here.

First, it was asked by the local mods that discussion on this stops. It stops here. This is SFF, not MA/QSF. Further off-topic discussion in SFF will garner a warning.

Secondly, I chimed in on it in the thread located in here.

That is sufficient for the matter.

Finally, if anyone feels like arguing it via PM with me, that is fine. Keep it short though. I don't do novels.

Thank you.
__________________
Live long and suffer! - Ancient Romulan greeting.

Romulans aren't paranoid. We're merely proactively cautious.
T'Bonz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 14 2008, 02:33 AM   #25
stj
Rear Admiral
 
stj's Avatar
 
Location: the real world
Re: politics of iron man

Trent Roman---I read a few Iron Man Comics when he was still in golden armor. So the recent stuff (later than 1970 or thereabouts) is lost on me, I'm afraid.

The majority of my original post was devoted largely to rebutting the review linked. While watching the movie I really thought that turning the bad guys into Ten Rings instead of Taleban, and even more, making Stark hellbent on getting out of the arms business signified the plain intention to move away from the jingo/racist aspects of the origin. But this thread is a poll of the audience. And the audience is seriously pissed at the idea that beating up on Afghans is a bad thing. The question really is pretty much answered.
__________________
The people of this country need regime change here, not abroad.
stj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 14 2008, 07:28 AM   #26
Harvey
Admiral
 
Harvey's Avatar
 
Re: politics of iron man

stj wrote: View Post
While watching the movie I really thought that turning the bad guys into Ten Rings instead of Taleban
I don't think I buy your premise. The Ten Rings are mentioned in the film, but it's never made out to be a notable moment. It might be explored in a sequel, but as it stands, making the Afghani villains part of a SPECTRE-like crime league (I could be way off-base here, but I've never read the comics and am only going on the evidence presented in the film) is a poor move.

The film goes to all the effort to set the action against the real-life backdrop of the war in Afghanistan, but then makes that back drop so divorced from reality that it seems pointless. Perhaps this is in line with the way the comics portrayed the "Red Menace." I don't know. As I stated, I haven't read the comics.

making Stark hellbent on getting out of the arms business
He says he is. But all he really does is spend his time and fortune building a super weapon with the Iron Man suit. The end message being that weapons this powerful are not bad, as long as they're in the hands of the "good guys." And, luckily, the good guys and bad guys in this movie are so unambiguously defined that this doesn't seem as troubling as I think it should.

And the audience is seriously pissed at the idea that beating up on Afghans is a bad thing.
You've lost me.
__________________
"This begs explanation." - de Forest Research on Star Trek

My blog: Star Trek Fact Check.
Harvey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 14 2008, 01:26 PM   #27
Trent Roman
Rear Admiral
 
Trent Roman's Avatar
 
Location: The Palace of Pernicious Pleasures
Re: politics of iron man

Hirogen Alpha wrote: View Post
I don't think I buy your premise. The Ten Rings are mentioned in the film, but it's never made out to be a notable moment.
Quite. The film might gesture might gesture towards making Raza a mercenary warlord in the employ of a foreign power, either to tie into the sequel or as a technical disclaimer (or both), but it's a very brief, off-hand reference, and I don't think there's much doubt who the Afghani terrorists hiding out in caves were meant to stand-in for.

And the audience is seriously pissed at the idea that beating up on Afghans is a bad thing.
You've lost me.
He was referring to some of the responses on this thread, but I would hope that such blind jingoism is not representative of a broader audience.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
__________________
Obdurants and Amusings - Behind the Shampoo Curtain
Trent Roman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 14 2008, 01:46 PM   #28
stonester1
Rear Admiral
 
stonester1's Avatar
 
Re: politics of iron man

He was referring to some of the responses on this thread, but I would hope that such blind jingoism is not representative of a broader audience.
I see very little "blind jingoism" in this thread. I do see some broad generalizations of brave, honorable people who really don't deserve it, and others, because of probable idealogical leanings, are willing to give it a pass because of stances on the contentious issues in question.

Blind, reflexive, ugly, unthinking idealogy on any issue, from any side, is useless at the very least, dangerous at worse, if it's not spotted for what it is.
__________________
"New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled, the humiliating question arises, 'Why then are you not taking part in them?' " - H. G. Wells
stonester1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 14 2008, 02:49 PM   #29
stj
Rear Admiral
 
stj's Avatar
 
Location: the real world
Re: politics of iron man

Trent Roman wrote: View Post
Hirogen Alpha wrote: View Post
I don't think I buy your premise. The Ten Rings are mentioned in the film, but it's never made out to be a notable moment.
Quite. The film might gesture might gesture towards making Raza a mercenary warlord in the employ of a foreign power, either to tie into the sequel or as a technical disclaimer (or both), but it's a very brief, off-hand reference, and I don't think there's much doubt who the Afghani terrorists hiding out in caves were meant to stand-in for.

And the audience is seriously pissed at the idea that beating up on Afghans is a bad thing.
You've lost me.
He was referring to some of the responses on this thread, but I would hope that such blind jingoism is not representative of a broader audience.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
Sitting in the theater, since it was emphasized that Stark's captors were armed by his own company, I put a lot of meaning on the Ten Rings name. (Of course, I knew what it meant, which not everyone does.) Nor were there easy visual codes like turbans, Osama-like beards, prayer rugs, Qu'rans, etc. I had even convinced myself there was a coy reference to the US creation of the Taleban (via Pakistan.) The discussion has made it painfully obvious that was stupid of me. Iron Man was about the thrill of beating up on Afghans. My bad for enjoying it. Unfortunately given the perfect isolation of people with views remotely resembling mine, there is no reason at all to think this thread is untypical.
__________________
The people of this country need regime change here, not abroad.
stj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 14 2008, 02:53 PM   #30
stonester1
Rear Admiral
 
stonester1's Avatar
 
Re: politics of iron man

Iron Man was about the thrill of beating up on Afghans.
Maybe for you. Perhaps you need to check yourself. It had nothing to do with my enjoyment of the movie.
__________________
"New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled, the humiliating question arises, 'Why then are you not taking part in them?' " - H. G. Wells
stonester1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
iron man, superheroes

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:24 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.