The Line Must Be Drawn Here!
- Thread starter Mountie1988
- Start date
It's also worth noting that Peter Weller's characterization of Marcus draws to a significant degree on another historical American military figure: Air Force General Curtis LeMay.
Unlike Admiral Marcus (and unlike the fictional Gen. Ripper of Dr. Strangelove, who was also patterned after LeMay,) LeMay never put his secret plan into action, though Weller cites a documentary source in which it's told that the plan was very close to being executed at one point. In both the real-world case of LeMay and the two fictional ones, a recent shift in events upset the balance of things as perceived by a military leader. In each case, there was a belief that acting to strike first might serve to even that balance.
Could a parallel also be drawn between 9/11 and STID? Perhaps it could, but I think it's a mistake to assume that that's either the best or the only explanation possible.
It can be all of those things, too, and on this or that occasion it was, but—first and foremost—Star Trek was intended as entertainment.
A
Amaris
Guest
I could have watched a whole movie of Scotty at the bar with Keenser. I'm not kidding, that duo is very entertaining.
Nope. While the show has inspired people to pursue careers in science or become astronauts ( and that's a good thing) it was not designed to do so. Roddenberry, Desilu and NBC didn't sit down thinking the show they just green-lighted would influence the ideas and aspirations of a generation of viewers. At it's heart it was a TV show trying to entertain. Yeah, Roddenberry wanted to tackle the problems of the day through the allegorical veil of Science Fiction. But a lot of shows before and after Star Trek did the same in historical and modern settings. Star Trek was not unique or a trail blazer in that. No doubt those shows inspired people to pursue careers in law, medicine, law enforcement, the arts and science but they don't fetishize it. Me, I probably wouldn't be the liberal hippy weirdo I am without Star Trek. It was just a step on the path though. Roddenbery was not the Messiah and Star Trek is not the way to enlightenment.
Come on now JW, judging by your posts,you love cynical flippant remarks. Let's not call the kettle black.
+1 to this.
And no offense intended but why are these comments so concentrated in the movies XI+ forum as if it's some prime vs. abrams lines in the sand? I have no doubt in my mind that those working on abrams nuTrek also found something inspirational about Trek in addition to making an entertaining movie. Sure everyone's concerned with money but I'm sure JJ Abrams and the people behind it believed in what they were making.
Again its the claim that TOS was create to "inspire" not that it has inspired.
I'm not a fan of the "Church of Roddenberry" segment of fandom and will take the wind out of their sails in any forum.
One can believe deeply in one's creative expression and art without confusing it with a cure for cancer.
The eternal over-emphasis by trekkies on the supposed social uplift and utility of Star Trek is an expression of insecurity and a bulwark against mockery - it parallels and springs from the same source as the brave pronouncements of sf fans of the 1940s and 50s about how science fiction was somehow superior to so-called "mainstream literature" because of it's visionary and didactic content. Really, most people who liked sf liked it because the fantasy blew their minds. Same with Star Trek. "Follow your weird," as Bruce Sterling said.
The eternal over-emphasis by trekkies on the supposed social uplift and utility of Star Trek is an expression of insecurity and a bulwark against mockery - it parallels and springs from the same source as the brave pronouncements of sf fans of the 1940s and 50s about how science fiction was somehow superior to so-called "mainstream literature" because of it's visionary and didactic content. Really, most people who liked sf liked it because the fantasy blew their minds. Same with Star Trek. "Follow your weird," as Bruce Sterling said.
I found nothing of the sort with any of the new Star Trek films. I never read too deep into a movie meant simply to entertain.
Honestly this just sounds like another thread to beat the "I hate what JJ Abrams has done to my Star Trek" dead horse, no matter how cleverly one tries to veil it with supposed "I've given this a lot of thought" pretenses.
Honestly this just sounds like another thread to beat the "I hate what JJ Abrams has done to my Star Trek" dead horse, no matter how cleverly one tries to veil it with supposed "I've given this a lot of thought" pretenses.
Speaking of evil government conspiracies . . . didn't they do that same plot in Season Four of Enterprise? With the corrupt Vulcan prime minister faking a terrorist attack in order to justify a preemptive war against Andoria?
So why was that okay on one of the TV shows and is, of course, beyond the pale when NuTrek does it?
Pretty sure Orci had nothing to do with Enterprise.
So why was that okay on one of the TV shows and is, of course, beyond the pale when NuTrek does it?
Pretty sure Orci had nothing to do with Enterprise.
The crux of 9/11 conspiracy theories is two things: the claim that elements of the U.S. government knew in advance of the attacks and/or was complicit, and the destruction was not mainly caused by the hijacked aircraft.
Neither of these elements is present in the nuTrek movies. Despite speculation by fans, there's no indication in STID that Marcus was behind Harrison's attack on the Kelvin Archive, and the closest (probably deliberate) parallel to the World Trade Center attacks in nuTrek is Nero's destruction of Vulcan.
The attempt to find a "Truther" narrative in the movies falls down completely - utter fail, crash and burn.
What STID does address is the use of the Vulcan catastrophe by war-mongering elements in Starfleet/the Federation government to justify war against a chosen adversary that was not involved in the destruction, and the violation of civil liberties and due process by those in government. This is not "9/11 Conspiracy" nonsense, nor are these wild-eyed "Truther" claims - they are justified criticism of the conduct of the U.S. government over the last decade or so in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
I mean, did the people repeating this "STID is a Truther story" stuff watch the goddamned movie? They seem to have simply grafted Orci's self-acknowledged personal fascination with conspiracy theories onto their desire to find/manufacture a grievous moral fault in STID at its very base.
Neither of these elements is present in the nuTrek movies. Despite speculation by fans, there's no indication in STID that Marcus was behind Harrison's attack on the Kelvin Archive, and the closest (probably deliberate) parallel to the World Trade Center attacks in nuTrek is Nero's destruction of Vulcan.
The attempt to find a "Truther" narrative in the movies falls down completely - utter fail, crash and burn.
What STID does address is the use of the Vulcan catastrophe by war-mongering elements in Starfleet/the Federation government to justify war against a chosen adversary that was not involved in the destruction, and the violation of civil liberties and due process by those in government. This is not "9/11 Conspiracy" nonsense, nor are these wild-eyed "Truther" claims - they are justified criticism of the conduct of the U.S. government over the last decade or so in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
I mean, did the people repeating this "STID is a Truther story" stuff watch the goddamned movie? They seem to have simply grafted Orci's self-acknowledged personal fascination with conspiracy theories onto their desire to find/manufacture a grievous moral fault in STID at its very base.
Perhaps, but then why does Thomas Harewood send that message to Marcus right before detonating the explosive?
Possibly because he regrets what he's done at the last moment. Here's a question: what that we've seen of his interaction with Harrison suggests for a moment that Harrison would have confided the involvement of Marcus to Harewood? What, in the putative conspiracy, would require or be gained by Harewood communicating with Marcus just prior to the explosion? Further, there's no indication whatever that Marcus attempts to hide the communication later - if it were all part of some conspiracy, you'd think they'd be a bit furtive about it.
I mean, you can make up any explanation you like for things that you think are ambiguous in the movie (this doesn't strike me as one) - but they're still not part of the movie, not put into it by the writers and not actually implied. The characters in the movie provide explanations and narrative for the events, and nothing in the film contradicts them.
I mean, you can make up any explanation you like for things that you think are ambiguous in the movie (this doesn't strike me as one) - but they're still not part of the movie, not put into it by the writers and not actually implied. The characters in the movie provide explanations and narrative for the events, and nothing in the film contradicts them.
Last edited:
That's reasonable but it's definitely not the vibe I get. What I see here is anytime someone remarks that Star Trek is inspirational they get ripped apart. Including people saying things like "people shouldn't be inspired by fictional stories." I'll just have to disagree and I'm sure the writers and actors who worked on the shows would disagree with that. Including the people behind nuTrek, probably. I can't imagine they could operate so cynically.
I always thought it was part of his directions from Harrison to inform who caused the attack, either because Harrison lacked the access (unlikely but possible) or wanted to demonstrate to Marcus how he destroyed the Archive. Or, another thought that I had had, was that Harewood had done so as a means of warning Marcus, hoping that Harrison wouldn't find out due to the destruction of the Archive.
Also, what Dennis said.
Speaking of evil government conspiracies . . . didn't they do that same plot in Season Four of Enterprise? With the corrupt Vulcan prime minister faking a terrorist attack in order to justify a preemptive war against Andoria?
So why was that okay on one of the TV shows and is, of course, beyond the pale when NuTrek does it?
Pretty sure Orci had nothing to do with Enterprise.
This is one aspect of criticism of Abrams Trek that I always have found odd. Other versions of Trek have done various aspects of what Abrams did (action, adventure, Starfleet officers behaving badly, etc.) just never on the grand scale. Whether that worked for someone, well, it depended on the individual.
I get that people are inspired by Star Trek-I am too. I'm inspired by Abrams Trek as much as anything else I have seen on screen. But, I always treated Star Trek as an action adventure first, with some social commentary underlying it (such as Balance of Terror, or Let that be your last Battlefield), much in the way I read many SF books at the time. Doesn't make it more or less important to me, just gives it perspective.
As far as the truther stuff (such that it is) so what? I don't agree with every political view of everyone who ever worked on Star Trek, and that doesn't diminish my enjoyment of the final work.
In fact he doesn't, Marcus tells everybody about the message during the briefing. In fact the message seems to fall into Khan's plan to get Marcus out into the relative open and kill him.
So are we also not supposed to assume that Marcus was behind the attack on Starfleet Headquarters?
Similar threads
