Allegory of Holocaust?
- Thread starter drmick
- Start date
It was about mixing things up again in the story, and not pushing the same old reset button shit that happens all the time in Trek.
The Colonial holocaust? Yeah, pretty damn close.
it disappoints me when people who don't know anything about history try to draw connections that aren't there
1. There have been a WHOLE lot of genocides in human history, and abrahms didn't demonstrate enough effort in making this film to be drawing connections to any of them, he was making a boom boom pew pew movie.
2. There have been diaspora other than the Jews. and by trying to pretend every diaspora in art is an allegory for the Jewish diaspora people have not only made themselves look less able to appropriately understand history, but have produced more anti-semitism, by making it seem as though Jews believe themselves to be a victim group (though some sects of any group do believe themselves to be victims)
3. The vulcan Diaspora is just a storytelling mechanism, it is nothing more, the destruction of vulcan was to cut ties with the old continuity, and say "this is not old trek" for any of those of us who hoped there would still be a picard, or whatever, it was a solid kick that said "this is abrahmsverse, if you've got complaints about it, line forms at mount selaia on vulcan... oh, sorry, you can't"
1. There have been a WHOLE lot of genocides in human history, and abrahms didn't demonstrate enough effort in making this film to be drawing connections to any of them, he was making a boom boom pew pew movie.
2. There have been diaspora other than the Jews. and by trying to pretend every diaspora in art is an allegory for the Jewish diaspora people have not only made themselves look less able to appropriately understand history, but have produced more anti-semitism, by making it seem as though Jews believe themselves to be a victim group (though some sects of any group do believe themselves to be victims)
3. The vulcan Diaspora is just a storytelling mechanism, it is nothing more, the destruction of vulcan was to cut ties with the old continuity, and say "this is not old trek" for any of those of us who hoped there would still be a picard, or whatever, it was a solid kick that said "this is abrahmsverse, if you've got complaints about it, line forms at mount selaia on vulcan... oh, sorry, you can't"
I didn't mind that they decided to destroy Vulcan I just didn't care for the way it was treated so cavalierly. It was nothing more than a grand spectacle without any further attention given to it. That is what I thought was its failing.
Rii
Rear Admiral
I'm "with it" because I don't care, it's not a real planet. It served its purpose in the film. I'm interested only in how it'll affect the future characterisation of Spock. I suspect the answer is "not much", with the Vulcan issue to be largely glossed over in future productions.
My main criticisms of the film stem from the fact that Abrams wasn't serious about rebooting the franchise. We're stuck with this nonsensical "alternate universe" fanwank (complete with Nimoy) designed to placate the existing fanbase at the expense of what could've been a more coherent story, further elevating an already impressive film.
Not an intellectual fault of Abrams or the movie since this was meant to be a Summer blockbuster (long needed for Trek's own continued existence in a live action form) not a treatise on the wrongness of mass murder or genocide. Lets put it another way if the film was something other then what it was it would have likely tanked.
And yes this is a valid reboot of the Franchise no inbetween I like that its a true branch off of what came before yet is also its own thing.
Sharr
Last edited by a moderator:
Rii
Rear Admiral
I hear the next film is to be called Spock's List and will be filmed entirely in black-and-white with the exception of one redshirt who will, in a poignant twist, inexplicably survive the film; a testament to the indomitable human spirit.
I also made this correlation.
For those of us who lost family in the Holocaust, it was a poignant parallel to our own diaspora. Those of us who are left understand more than those who loudly proclaim they know more history than us.
Rii
Rear Admiral
Star Wars was even more blatant in its incorporation of imagery associated with the Nazis, to say nothing of the destruction of Alderaan:
No, it was an allegory for 9/11. A pissed-off lunatic committing an act of horrific violence for reasons that are utterly absurd in all but the most generalized analysis. Nero is not connected with the Romulan Empire, he's just a remarkably well-armed terrorist who blames the Federation in general and Spock in particular for the downfall of his world. He is not exactly wrong in his finger-pointing, but his reaction to the situation--like any fanatic--is utterly destructive and thoroughly illogical.
What's more, Nero is under the impression that everything will go just peachy for Romulus if only he can go and destroy the Federation and he's made it his perosnal mission to do this himself. He doesn't bother to, say, fly to Romulus and teach them how to build his super-missiles, nor does he give the Red Matter to the Empire and let THEM wipe out the Federation, in fact he doesn't seem particularly interested in doing anything even remotely creative. Nero's entire personality precludes any creative endeavor of any kind, the most he can aspire to is to destroy things he hates and keep on destroying in the hope that sooner or later he'll destroy all the things that are in his way. Even his big spiel to Pike rings like the self-serving justification of a terrorist: "I was off minding my own business, trying to earn an honest living, when you and your Federation failed to save my world! Damn you all to hell!"
At least the Nazis had an agenda to build SOMETHING, even if it was at the expense of everyone they hated. And build they did--new machines, new weapons, new technology, new science, new infrastructure for their country--at the same time they destroyed. Nero doesn't build anything, he just destroys things and hopes his life will improve by default.
I'd understand if it was a TV show, but it isn't. There is only so much they can fit in, the reason most of the TNG films flopped was because they were about nothing at all.
Remember when Spock sacrificed himself to save his friends, Kirk blew up the Enteprise, and the Klingons murdered Kirk's son? They were huge and unforgettable moments. Movies are made for big things to happen. Yeah... I know the first two things were undone but you have to admit seeing those events were shocking.
Well, Insurrection was basically an allegory about Indian Reservations... a kind of insulting one since 1) none of us--the audience--really give a shit about the Baku and 2) history books aside, the Indian Wars actually consumed a fantastic amount of military and economic energy in America's past, so comparing them with a pidly little backdoor relocation like moving 200 Amish colonists half a light year down the street is simply RETARDED. Had Insurrection prominently featured relocation issues of, say, the Maquis (who are pissed off about being forcibly relocated and therefore are mounting an "Insurrection" against Starfleet) it might have been a different matter.
And Nemesis... I think the allegory there disappeared up its own ass once Stewart and Spiner got a hold of the script. It was supposed to be some kind of evil twin/are we the sum of our experiences? tale and instead turned into a hackneyed shootemup with a creepy antagonist and his technoweapon.
Now, it's not that those movies weren't about anything. It's that stories were anchored on situations/characters/events whose significance was not properly sold to the audience. It's not enough that Picard explains his motivation for rebelling against Starfleet if that motive is some kind of ivory tower abstraction like "moving people against their will is immoral, therefore I must risk my life to save these soon-to-be-relocated people I just met but know next to nothing about."
In STXI, the motives of the characters are given as strictly personal: Spock looking for a place to belong, only to have his home--and his mother--blown to smithereens. Kirk looking to follow in his father's footsteps, yet frustrated at every turn by a wall of rules he keeps refusing to follow. And McCoy... as usual, just trying to not have his ass shot out from under him when Kirk decides to do something completely insane. The story is about the characters, what they want, what they fear, what they fear, and most importantly, how they grow and learn from their experiences. Insurrection and Nemesis saw two or three major characters attempting to re-trace the last seven seasons of TNG character development in about fifteen minutes.
Yes, they are.
But big moments just for the sake of the spectacle with no thoughtful or emotional context are shallow stunts or gimmicks. Here Amanda's death and Vulcan's destruction were just glossed over in the most unsatisfying and most superficial way. They were treated like plot points that had just been checked off the list of things to do. All they received was a little bit of lip service.
Now compare those big moments in those earlier films where the writers weren't interested in throwing too much into the film. They actually gave them the appropriate attention they rightfully deserved given the gravity of what just occurred allowing for it resonate in the audience and generate a genuine emotional reaction. That is what was missing in XI amid all the whirlwind of action and explosions and planets going boom. Big moments lacking emotional context don't interest me.
I wouldn't have minded cutting a couple of battles or fights for some thoughtful moment of reflection.
I have never associated Vulcans with Jews either. I actually see them as more Buddhist because of their ideology and lifestyle. Tibetan Buddhists were forced out of their homeland by Chinese communists during the 1950's and have never been allowed to return. The survivers have brought their culture with them and spread it throughout the world as a result. If anything, I think Vulcans in the movie have more in common with this.
However, I also don't believe there was intended to be any allegory at all. I just think it's a stretch to limit the "allegory" claims to Jews.
Theres no direct parallel. Beside if they decide to resettle on their original land...Romulus.
That's a pretty fair summation. The writers/producers really nailed the essence of the characters (or in the case of Scotty, Sulu and Chekov what they wanted that essence to be).
It's just that the plot, the whole series of events that was built on top of these great characterisations, was pretty average/poor.
Theres no direct parallel. Beside if they decide to resettle on their original land...Romulus.
It's the other way around. Vulcan is the ancestral homeland of the Romulans. This would be an important point to consider in the 24th Century, whether Romulans have a "right of return" to the planet on which they originated, Vulcan.
Similar threads
