Terrorism/Bombings
- Thread starter tippy
- Start date
Maybe to some? But not to me. I'm not going to see the movie, until after it comes on DVD.
I've been thinking about this, but do the two really compare? What happened in Boston was at a public event with innocent civilians present while Harrison seems to be targetting Starfleet facilities and Starfleet officers. While I'm sure parallells will be drawn, but if there were any serious similarity the movie's release would already be pulled/postponed.
Probably, for the people who were directly affected by the Boston bombings.
As for the rest, the movie is 3-4 weeks away. For better or worse, I think most people will have moved on, their attention focused on other things.
As for the rest, the movie is 3-4 weeks away. For better or worse, I think most people will have moved on, their attention focused on other things.
No.
Perhaps.
Cumby has said something about John Harrison - he's trying to make a case that Harrison is sympathetic, that he has reasons for doing what he did, that he is not "really" a terrorist. I hope he's not actually trying to tell us that we should take Harrison's side, but there we are.
These Russian dudes would no doubt claim that they had reasons for doing what they did. So by presenting a fictional character - John Harrison - in a sympathetic light, the film might be seen as downplaying the obvious evil and violence of the real life Boston bombings. (I'm just going to assume that Harrison causes more deaths and injuries in this film than the Russian guys did in Boston.)
To some, but this is a very touchy subject for many Americans, 9-11 was only twelve years ago and it still hurts many of us.
This Trek and it's effects on the national conversation will be fascinating.
This Trek and it's effects on the national conversation will be fascinating.
Are movies featuring terrorist bombings actually so uncommon nowadays? And I mean movies where terrorist bombing is an amusing, entertaining plot element unrelated to the 21st century United States.
It seems to me that all sorts of "non-contemporary" entertainment pieces from the past five years, from Watchmen to Sherlock Holmes, still revel in the concept of a bomb going off and killing hundreds or thousands and thus establishing the evil nature of the adversary for good. It may even turn out the bombing was actually a "good" thing in the end (as in Watchmen). It doesn't seem to be a big deal at all.
Timo Saloniemi
It seems to me that all sorts of "non-contemporary" entertainment pieces from the past five years, from Watchmen to Sherlock Holmes, still revel in the concept of a bomb going off and killing hundreds or thousands and thus establishing the evil nature of the adversary for good. It may even turn out the bombing was actually a "good" thing in the end (as in Watchmen). It doesn't seem to be a big deal at all.
Timo Saloniemi
Last edited:
I just watched "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" again. Should they have pulled that episode in the 60s because racism and race riots and such hit too close to home--and might disturb some viewers?
People always say that Trek needs to be topical. Sadly, what's more topical these days than terrorism?
People always say that Trek needs to be topical. Sadly, what's more topical these days than terrorism?
1. They're not Russians.
Perhaps.
Cumby has said something about John Harrison - he's trying to make a case that Harrison is sympathetic, that he has reasons for doing what he did, that he is not "really" a terrorist. I hope he's not actually trying to tell us that we should take Harrison's side, but there we are.
These Russian dudes would no doubt claim that they had reasons for doing what they did. So by presenting a fictional character - John Harrison - in a sympathetic light, the film might be seen as downplaying the obvious evil and violence of the real life Boston bombings. (I'm just going to assume that Harrison causes more deaths and injuries in this film than the Russian guys did in Boston.)
2. Why would you equate "Harrison is a sympathetic character" with "he's trying to tell us that we should take Harrison's side"? One needn't agree with a character to be able to sympathize. If the actor and writers are able to make him a sympathetic character in spite of some of the things he's shown to do, say or express, then that's just good drama.
Everyone has reasons for what they do. The most "successful" terrorists in history killed thousands, something usually accomplished only by garden-variety nation-states in the pursuit of some policy goal
Heck, Khan has his reasons for wanting revenge. His wife died with an eel in her ear and he spent fifteen years in hell because Kirk ditched him on that planet years ago--and never bothered to check on them.
Doesn't mean we were supposed to root for Khan, but he had his own motivations. He wasn't out for revenge just for the hell of it.
Doesn't mean we were supposed to root for Khan, but he had his own motivations. He wasn't out for revenge just for the hell of it.
Wouldn't be the first time art paralleled life (or vice versa). Remember when Star Wars - The New Jedi Order: Star By Star came out? Only one month after 9/11, and the book ended with the Yuuzhan Vong (which themselves seemed eerily reminiscent of Islamic extremists) conquering Coruscant (and overthrowing the New Republic) by dropping hundreds of giant refugee ships (filled to the brim with civilian prisoners from earlier battles, which they'd used to shield their own fleet) directly on top of the city-planet. Basically 9/11 x 10,000. *shudder* Of course the book was written months before the event. But coming as it did right on the heels of that horrific tragedy, it played as nothing less than the SW version of the Apocalypse.
I do not believe so. It may even be an emotional release (assuming the onscreen villian(s) are dispatched in a grand and satisfying fashion). It t kind of reminds me (loosely) of Star Trek VI's release wherein the plot was very topical in dealing with real world changes.
Btw, my heartfelt prayers go out to the victims, their families and friends of the Boston Bombings. Even though I am rather mature in age and sadly, we, as nation, have been through this before I could not help but shed tears.
Also, at the risk of sounding goofy, I would like to gently caution folks not to allow this terrible, horrific incident to be viewed as a justification for hate.
I disagree with "commonplace." I would even say it feels as if it has decreased since the high of the late-60s/1970s. I seem to recall that period as always having a hijacking or bombing going on somewhere. I do believe that slowly but surely humanity is making progress and getting better. No despair.
Good point.
Bearing in mind that Kahn was a despot at heart, he would have sought to avenge himself on Kirk no matter what (in my opinion).
Last edited by a moderator:
From the beginning, I felt the bombers were Americans. I felt they had to know the meaning of Patriots Day and the Boston Marathon to the people of Boston. I was dubious that international terrorists would have such an intimate knowledge of the city and its people. I was proven right. (Yes, they were born in another country; however, they became Americans after living here. We don't call Saint Paul a Jew, we call him a Christian. Why? He converted to that faith. Same thing here.)
As for its impact on Star Trek, although I would like to see a memorial to the victims of the bombing at the beginning of the film, i.e. STIV's tribute to Challenger, I am not sure if one will be made.
As for its impact on Star Trek, although I would like to see a memorial to the victims of the bombing at the beginning of the film, i.e. STIV's tribute to Challenger, I am not sure if one will be made.
