Why was this movie dedicated to post-9/11 veterans? (spoilers)

[ArcherFan501]

Re: Why was this movie dedicated to post-9/11 veterans?

The movie introduces concepts of terrorism, but really doesn't offer any meaningful commentary on the subject matter or really deal with it in an insightful way It's a "destroy the world" type movie. I saw the movie paired with three trailers that showed the world going to hell and getting blown up or overrun by zombies. STID did nothing to differentiate itself from the pack. "Oh look they blew up/took down [Famous Structure]."

Hell, after the ship crashes into SF, not a single person in the crowd is batting an eye. Half the city's gone, but people are still driving around, walking around seemingly unbothered. Look at the reactions to 9/11 or the Boston bombings. Things stopped, people tried to figure out what happened. It seemed disconnected. And like a large part of the film, poorly thought out.

And, not for nothing, knowing Orci is a 9/11 Truther and apparently a Newtown Truther from his twitter account, the dedication just made me feel uncomfortable.

Many movie goers had noticed the non-reaction of some of people walking around right after the ship crashes. That definitely was very poorly directed for sure!

 

[ArcherFan501]

Re: Why was this movie dedicated to post-9/11 veterans?

As I posted on mine, this movie came out near the date of the completion of 1 World Trade Center, so it's a very poignant movie for America.

It's kinda funny to put a 9/11 dedication into a film where a spaceship irons skyscrapers. I can't help but to find this pretty inappropriate.

It's like dedicating an average Schwarzenegger film to gun violence victims.

I wonder if the dedication was partly done as sort of a disclaimer to any similarlities, or a cya move by J.J. I personally thought the dedication was a nice gesture...

 

[JarodRussell]

Re: Why was this movie dedicated to post-9/11 veterans?

As I posted on mine, this movie came out near the date of the completion of 1 World Trade Center, so it's a very poignant movie for America.

It's kinda funny to put a 9/11 dedication into a film where a spaceship irons skyscrapers. I can't help but to find this pretty inappropriate.

It's like dedicating an average Schwarzenegger film to gun violence victims.

I wonder if the dedication was partly done as sort of a disclaimer to any similarlities, or a cya move by J.J. I personally thought the dedication was a nice gesture...

"Sorry you lost friends and relatives in a terrorist attack that smashed big skyscrapers. Here is a film about a terrorists and at the end skyscrapers get smashed because it's cool! ENJOY!"

 

[Erehwonnz24]

Re: Why was this movie dedicated to post-9/11 veterans?

If I may indulge my academic penchant for a minute...

Critical consensus seems to be that a lot of fiction written about terrorism and 9/11, especially in prose, just hasn't done a good job saying something illuminating about the event. Given this, Into Darkness's message struck me as stronger in a few words than most works have managed in a couple hundred pages. We get a clear statement about how we are affected by tragedy and how we should respond: we were hurt and we took immoderate action; we lost ourselves and now we need to return to what we were. Worked for me.

Images like the archive blowing up and the Vengeance obliterating a swath of San Francisco made the message feel earned, which has also plagued folks writing and visualizing 9/11--it's easy for works about terrorism to feel unearned or like bandwagoning.

So I thought the message fit thematically, and that the images backed it up without feeling exploitative. (And yes, it probably was also intended to cover criticisms that the movie was indicting soldiers.)

Sorry to hear that about the truther bit, though...

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Re: Why was this movie dedicated to post-9/11 veterans?

Why does Kirk change his mind? Because of one line from Spock? He never wrestles with it. I thought we were slowly going to see the crew "turn" on Kirk's mad-on for vengeance. Certainly the Scotty scene sets this up. It just feels very hollow otherwise. I didn't "Miss" the speech, I found it be a tack on to the plot to try and tie the terrorism-and-reaction theme in a neat bow that the rest of the film never reaches. Again, hollow. Don't just have Kirk give a speech, show us how Kirk arrives at this. We never see it, it just happens. it's any one of a number of 180 reverses the scripting takes without any real logic behind them.

My take on it, based on Kirk's delivery as depicted on screen, was that there was nothing to wrestle with. Anybody listening should know that it's the right thing to do, and that that's why Kirk did it.

As for Scotty setting up some sort of mutiny, what if Scotty set up the exact opposite, prodding Kirk to follow in his footsteps? It seems that Kirk had no trouble knowing what was right; his personal growth just depended upon making the sacrifice necessary to do it.

 

[Belz...]

Re: Why was this movie dedicated to post-9/11 veterans?

People can come to a decision without having to give a speech. I do it all the time.

Weird. I give speeches every time I do anything. I'm also accompanied by musical scores appropriate to the situation. My life is awesome.

 

[beamMe]

Re: Why was this movie dedicated to post-9/11 veterans?

Plus, Pike is dead, as is Marcus, Kirk is briefly dead, but don't worry, Bones, we're back for five more years and it'll be FUN!

Never mind the fact that a year passed before they went on that five year mission.

And why should we mourn Marcus' death?

 

[Cinema Geekly]

Re: Why was this movie dedicated to post-9/11 veterans?

Why does Kirk change his mind? Because of one line from Spock? He never wrestles with it. I thought we were slowly going to see the crew "turn" on Kirk's mad-on for vengeance. Certainly the Scotty scene sets this up. It just feels very hollow otherwise. I didn't "Miss" the speech, I found it be a tack on to the plot to try and tie the terrorism-and-reaction theme in a neat bow that the rest of the film never reaches. Again, hollow. Don't just have Kirk give a speech, show us how Kirk arrives at this. We never see it, it just happens. it's any one of a number of 180 reverses the scripting takes without any real logic behind them.

He also has Scotty resigning over even having the torpedoes on board and then he follows it with "For the love of God Jim, don't fire those torpedoes".

Kirk knows the tensions are high with the Klingons and that such an action could be a call to war and is it worth it for one man (the Bin Laden question). Even though Kirk is filled with rage he ultimately decides that it isn't worth it.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Re: Why was this movie dedicated to post-9/11 veterans?

Why does Kirk change his mind? Because of one line from Spock? He never wrestles with it.

I'm sorry - have you ever watched Star Trek? An argument with Spock or McCoy is how Kirk "wrestles with problems."

Critical consensus seems to be that a lot of fiction written about terrorism and 9/11, especially in prose, just hasn't done a good job saying something illuminating about the event. Given this, Into Darkness's message struck me as stronger in a few words than most works have managed in a couple hundred pages. We get a clear statement about how we are affected by tragedy and how we should respond: we were hurt and we took immoderate action; we lost ourselves and now we need to return to what we were. Worked for me.

Absolutely Right(TM).

 

[Cinema Geekly]

Re: Why was this movie dedicated to post-9/11 veterans?

It's kinda funny to put a 9/11 dedication into a film where a spaceship irons skyscrapers. I can't help but to find this pretty inappropriate.

It's like dedicating an average Schwarzenegger film to gun violence victims.

I wonder if the dedication was partly done as sort of a disclaimer to any similarlities, or a cya move by J.J. I personally thought the dedication was a nice gesture...

"Sorry you lost friends and relatives in a terrorist attack that smashed big skyscrapers. Here is a film about a terrorists and at the end skyscrapers get smashed because it's cool! ENJOY!"

I guess STIV can get away with it because nobody died but hey Challenger families here is a movie that features a spaceship full of people crashing down to Earth.

 

[JarodRussell]

Re: Why was this movie dedicated to post-9/11 veterans?

I wonder if the dedication was partly done as sort of a disclaimer to any similarlities, or a cya move by J.J. I personally thought the dedication was a nice gesture...

"Sorry you lost friends and relatives in a terrorist attack that smashed big skyscrapers. Here is a film about a terrorists and at the end skyscrapers get smashed because it's cool! ENJOY!"

I guess STIV can get away with it because nobody died but hey Challenger families here is a movie that features a spaceship full of people crashing down to Earth.

Seriously, there is nothing in STIV that is REMOTELY similar to the Challenger catastrophe. The release date and Star Trek's connection to space travel was the only thing connecting it.

 

[KittyDuran]

This article might explain things a little better...

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertai...rans-star-trek-scene-somber-article-1.1348325

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Since when does there have to be any connection that's tangible to the viewer in order to make a dedication anyway?

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

This dedication isn't in the Australian version/copy. I deliberately looked for it last time.

It's kinda funny to put a 9/11 dedication into a film where a spaceship irons skyscrapers. I can't help but to find this pretty inappropriate.

It's like dedicating an average Schwarzenegger film to gun violence victims.

That was my thought when I first heard about it.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

The dedication was 100% appropriate.

The movie was dedicated to the veterans because it explicitly challenged many of the post-9/11 policies here in the US (drones, drumming up war support, etc.) and the film wanted to draw an explicit distinction between policy and those carrying out that policy. How many of our veterans had (and how many of our service members currently have) the ability to make moral decisions like Kirk did when he chose not to summarily execute Khan and, instead, bring him to justice alive? The dedication reinforces the message that it's the people in charge, not the people putting their lives on the line every day, that are to be questioned.