Meanwhile if you want something to larf at, here's John Boot at PJ Lifestyle:
Into Nonsense: 4 Ways The New Star Trek Shills for Surrender in the War on TerrorWait'll Jim Lileks hears about this!
Let’s get to the issue none of the liberal writers will touch: What does this movie tell us about Hollywood and the War on Terror?It looks like the wingnut equivalent of @slatepitches -- but Boot's not kidding:
On a mission to hunt down the murderous Harrison (Cumberbatch), Spock (Zachary Quinto) tells the hotheaded Kirk (Chris Pine) that assassinating the terrorist — whose lethal acts Kirk and others have eyewitnessed — would be obviously wrong. Director J.J. Abrams and his team of hack screenwriters (Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, Damon Lindelof) are striking a stance on the demise of Osama Bin Laden so extreme that no one to the right of Michael Moore would dare utter it. But because the message is concealed in a noisy blockbuster, the filmmakers are hoping they can get away with it.That's how Hollyweird always Shills for Surrender -- like in The Searchers, where half-breed Jeffrey Hunter brainwashes John Wayne into sparing Comanche bitch Natalie Wood. And they thought Vistavision would hide their treason!
Have a good Memorial Day, and spare a thought for the fallen -- FDR approved.
Um, I'm not sure how much "getting away with" will be done by anyone, given that OBL has been dead for two years. By assassination, no less! Just like a year from now, the Avengers 2 will be the thin end of the wedge that keeps Mitt Romney out of the Whtie House. Man, they just don't make sinister mind-control cabals like they used to, do they?
ReplyDeleteThese days, to the collective CEO hive mind, being more American and being better-rested are in diametrical opposition. To our overlords (who will be golfing and yachting this weekend), better-rested is subversion.
ReplyDeleteSLACKER!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ndJNXCkNxg
~
going blandly where no listicle writer has gone before.
ReplyDeletenot to mention he's about 23 years late: trek has been betraying the war on terror for decades now.
ReplyDeleteAlso, haven't seen this one, so maybe someone can fill me in: Is the scene some deep political statement about the rule of law and military restraint, or is it the obligatory 'Dammit, rookie! You're a loose cannon!' scene, where shooting the guy would be tactically unwise? I'm gonna guess the latter, given that it's shown up in, oh, 90% of catch-the-bad-guy movies, especially those about a young hothead joining an elite team.
ReplyDeletePop culture watchers with troglodytic opinions, I can handle. Pop culture writers who seem to have never watched a movie or read a book, well that's a different story.
Pop culture writers who seem to have never watched a movie
ReplyDeleteWell, I have to admit that I was completely dumbstruck when Spock coolly used reason and logic in a difficult situation. I never saw it coming!
It's not shocking at all that Boot's reading (well, misreading) of the film is highly selective. (SPOILER) He completely glosses over – actually, ignores outright – the whole "manufactured war" element and how that's taken directly from reality – a war I'm guessing "John Boot" backed and still defends, based on his arguments in this piece. He's got a funny notion of "far left," too, which seems to include, um, anyone who questions the whole zealous GWOT approach.
ReplyDeleteComments over there are a joy, too, as they argue you can't "hate the war but love the troops" and that liberal expressions of grief or respect to the fallen are lies. (Oh, and apparently liberals like stereotypical frat boys and the female characters are sluts.)
I guess it wouldn't be Memorial Day or 11/11 without idiots angrily proving once again that they are obstinately insensate to any deeper reflection or profounder meaning to the holidays.
(Also, bless you, Roy, for those closing paragraphs.)
Dammit, Roy, he's a dipshit, not a film critic!
ReplyDeleteHe's givin' her all she's got!
ReplyDeleteHe is right about something - those screenwriters really are hacks.
ReplyDelete"or that a fratboy actor as lightweight as Chris Pine would have had a hard time nabbing a role as a private first class in a 1940s war movie"
ReplyDeleteLike Audie Murphy, another lightweight.
"It’s an article of faith on the Left that the U.S. is ultimately to blame for Osama Bin Laden because we backed the Afghanistan Mujahideen in their 1980s fight against the Soviet Union, and some of our weapons fell into the hands of their successors in the Taliban."
Cheney and Rumsfeld were really Tony Stark.
"But the purpose of the line in the script is to confuse Western tactics with those of Islamism — to effectively state (as John Le Carré made a career of arguing in his Cold War spy novels) that we’re no better than they are."
Our remote control bombs are greatly superior to their jerry-rigged bombs.
"and that this is just the beginning of the age of disguised cinematic attacks on The One from the left"
What happened to our leftist Obama worship? Was it captured by Klingons and killed in the battle arena?
Wingers who deify Manly Men are oddly knowledgeable about sci-fi, prog rock and other hobbies that probably got them pantsed in high school. (Lileks for example).
ReplyDeleteHe's brain-dead, Jim.
ReplyDeleteIt's not that obligatory scene you described, nor necessarily a deep statement; Kirk's general sentiment is somewhat vindicated, but on balance I would say Spock is shown to be right. But both of them are operating on some false assumptions about what's been going on up to that point.
ReplyDeleteBoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooootttt!!!!!
ReplyDeleteI Gul Dukat would certainly stand a good shot in a Republican primary.
ReplyDeleteMy sources tell me that Boot owns two hundred copies of "Battlefield Los Angeles", so if "Star Trek ID" doesn't get him hot, he can run that one and beat himself into a coma. Oh, and since this is a holiday commemorating the service , hardship, and sacrifice of our soldiers, let us never forget this timeless gem from one of our brave Vice Presidents which will help put things in perspective: "Noting the burden placed on military families, the vice president said the biggest burden is carried by President George W. Bush,
ReplyDeletewho made the decision to commit US troops to war, and reminded the
public that U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan volunteered for duty."
No good can come from a piece that opens with "What does this movie tell us about Hollywood..." It never occurs to these clowns that, by invoking "Hollywood," they are by definition talking about the movie industry at its most general commercial level, where the Prime Directive (and the only Directive) is: Make money. If "Hollywood" could make money by producing a movie praising the killing of Osama Bin Laden, they would. And they did.
ReplyDeleteBut then, these nudniks are, before anything else, professional victims. Their every movie critique is meant to prove, yet again, that the cool kids (ie, liberals) are *undeservedly* popular, that they're "really" traitors, socialists, "the real racists," etc., etc. Like the barrel of herring that's not for eating, but just for selling, their cultural writings aren't for persuading, or even for sparking abstract discussion. They're for validating their writers' and readers' self-pity.
Another reasonable description of the conflict in the film is that the choice is between launching a remote attack on the villain, using a highly-classified unmanned vehicle (sound familiar?), into territory that, if not actively engaged in war with Americathe Federation is at least not too kindly disposed toward it and would consider such an act a provocation at the very least, and sending a covert mission into said territory that would at least result in far less collateral damage, albeit at much higher risk to those involved. I'm guessing that Boot doesn't want to come down against drone strikes because he's a little breathless about the mischief that will be gotten up to once one of his guys gets in office. (Boot doesn't mention drones once, in fact.) He also deflects the really obvious point that the movie makes--that trying to use bad people against other bad people can really, really backfire on you really badly--as mixed up with some "loopy John Lennon pacifist fantasy".
ReplyDeleteBut, to be just a smidgen fair (which is at least .67 smidgens more than he deserves), he warns us of just the sort of argument, or shabby substitute thereof, he's going to be making, by taking the movie to task for showing Alice Even in her underwear, while plastering said screen shot at the top of his post, and claiming that Carol Marcus is a new character. Here or in any version of the 23rd century, the most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity.
We're talking about a dude who fathered not one but two secret interspecies babies. They wouldn't bother with a primary they'd just go ahead and give him the nomination.
ReplyDeleteWell, least the Star Trek Fleet didn't do some corny liberal thing like saving the wha--- wait.
ReplyDeleteMight also see Star Wars Episode VII as well. As long as they don't do any take thats against America and Christianity, or try to promote our enemies like Episode VI did via the whole Ewoks = Viet Cong thing, I'll handle it. I'm not trusting of agendas, especially seeing how several of my classes did push agendas that I disagreed with.
ReplyDeleteI've never heard this particular theory before but I love it so so much.
Is it just me, or is anyone feeling the onset of pon farr due to this comment?
ReplyDeleteNot mention the fact that without the tension between Spock and Kirk about this, there wouldn't be much of a story arc - if they both believed in assassinating the bad guy without hesitation, the story would be over.
ReplyDeleteI always wonder why immediate killing of the bad guy is supposed to be a conservative virtue. Due process aside, don't you want to keep the guy alive long enough to find out information? I see this all the time in comments threads - bloodthirsty hordes calling for the immediate execution of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, for example. Don't you want to find out what happened, why and who else was involved?
ReplyDeleteThe bloodlust seems to be all about punishment - take this guy out and shoot him in punishment for his evil deed - yet these are the same guys who say terrorism shouldn't be a criminal matter but a matter of war. Isn't it wiser warfare if you find out what your enemy's strength and weaknesses are, his motivation, etc rather than just taking every monster out and shooting him?
Why would you find out what actually happened when paranoid fantasies about how it might have happened are both easier and more profitable?
ReplyDeleteWhy bother? It (whatever It is) happened because
ReplyDeleteTHEY HATE OUR FREEDOM.
I'm fairly certain this is a thiing that is known.
Also, too -- let's be honest: we *know* who the bad guys are. Just look at them, for pete's sake!
ReplyDeleteMaybe the writers & directors are just real dumb? I mean, plugging a volcano? What could possibly go wrong?
ReplyDeleteOnly liberals are fact-based people. Conservatives ar Faith-Based.
ReplyDeleteToo late! My guess is that he's preparing one of his typical Bleats on STID: two sentences about the movie itself, and 1000 words on the less-than-deferential attitude of the teenager staffing the snack counter at the theater and how Michelle Obama is somehow to blame for their not using real butter on the popcorn. And a brief mention of how his daughter insisted on sitting three rows away from him.
ReplyDeleteRunning mate: Weyoun, widely known to be (but pretended by the party faithful not to be) the real brains of the operation.
ReplyDeleteThat Wikipedia page was worth the trip just to rad this at the top:
ReplyDelete"This article is about a fictional species. For the real-world Armenian surname, see Kardashian."
Denny Crane.
ReplyDeleteThat faith is spiced with a liberal dosage of hate and fear.
ReplyDeletePerhaps he had a big blond 'fro...
ReplyDelete"I always wonder why immediate killing of the bad guy is supposed to be a conservative virtue."
ReplyDeleteThere's a simple answer to that* and the simple answer is: the Balance is restored when the Enemy is dead. C'est tout. Practicalities are of the Earth and they must give place to Symbolism, which is the language of Heaven.
In other words, what KatWillow said.
*I'm making this sound more complicated than it is. Simple answers come from simple people and are intended for the same.
My favorite comment over there is by the reader who can "handle it" if there's a subtle liberal message in a movie, but not if they go as blatant as "try[ing] to promote our enemies like Episode VI did via the whole Ewoks = Viet Cong thing."
ReplyDeleteThat's why liberals win the real wars, and conservatives win the imaginary wars. This would all be harmless, if pathetic, fun, if only the imaginary wars didn't require the sending of real troops into real danger, as in Iraq. Cf. MoDo's piece yesterday about the elisions and omissions at the Geo. W. Bush "Library." It's imaginary history for the Party of Faith and Let's Pretend.
ReplyDeleteThere's another answer--- this is how authoritarian personalities think:
ReplyDeleteBlind allegiance to conventional beliefs about right and wrong
Respect for submission to acknowledged authority
Belief in aggression toward those who do not subscribe to conventional thinking, or who are different
A negative view of people in general - i.e. the belief that people would all lie, cheat or steal if given the opportunity
A need for strong leadership which displays uncompromising power
A belief in simple answers and polemics - i.e. The media controls us all or The source of all our problems is the loss of morals these days.
Resistance to creative, dangerous ideas. A black and white worldview.
A tendency to project one's own feelings of inadequacy, rage and fear onto a scapegoated group
A preoccupation with violence and sex
WOW
ReplyDeleteoh found---ah, this comment is wise.
ReplyDelete"The whole Ewoks = Viet Cong thing." Really. BRB.
ReplyDeleteMark 'Bez' Berry via the Happy A monday appeared on their Channel 4 Television shows show Big Older
ReplyDeletebrother. And regardless of whether you miss outside
on it, doing it is still okay.
My blog; pobierowo
At least he got the hack screenwriters part right
ReplyDeleteSo I'm guessing Jar Jar Binks is Che Guevara?
ReplyDeleteSadly, this is not farce. This is exactly how the "thinking" goes in these days of fluid reality.
ReplyDeleteWow--seriously!?
ReplyDeleteThese yokels are now openly sympathizing with the Empire in the Star Wars franchise? Cause that's whom the Ewoks were fighting against, if I recall correctly.
I guess it is no longer hyperbole to suggest that a wingnut defines its identity by gain-saying anything perceived as "liberal."
There is no reasoning with the frightened, hateful group self-identified as Conservative Americans, and the sooner we come to that understanding as a society, the sooner we can begin to move on (if it's not too late).
"...this is how authoritarian personalities think."
ReplyDeleteYes. Terrorist acts are supposed to elicit reactions of fear and lust for revenge... that's why terrorists employ them. The problem is that when Kirk is consumed with rage over the death of Pike, his father figure, he becomes easy to manipulate, and Admiral Markus just winds Kirk up and sends him out on his mission without telling him any of the background details on Khan that would have made the mission so much clearer. Markus is the quintessential Cheneyian authority figure... "Just do what I tell you, and don't worry your pretty head about anything else"... and Kirk was like the rest of us after September 11, wound up and itching for a fight with someone, anyone. Sorry for the spoilers, but you can't discuss a movie without having seen it, a premise that conservative culture commentators seem to ignore.
Well, that settles it: Obama is a Muslim Kenyan VULCAN socialist.
ReplyDeleteFascinating.
ReplyDeleteThis is not the first time Star Trek enraged the wingnuts. When Kirk (in Star Trek V) said (and I paraphrase) "Perhaps God isn't out there, but in here -- the human heart" they went ballistic, especially a couple of the televangelists. Michael Medved, too.
ReplyDeleteAs much as I complain about the guy, the goes a long way toward redeeming him.
ReplyDeleteJust reading some of the wingnut comments also goes a long way toward redeeming him:
ReplyDeleteYou have to appreciate the irony. Nicoles character has come to reprpesent an advancement for black women in TV roles, and her role was an advocation for exploring space, the two were connected. Obama, cancelled NASA,, his advocation of Sharia states has set millions of womens seeking more rights back to the 7th century. One has to wonder if Obama is falshing the Vulcan sign from Star Trek or enterprise; in the preseries, Enterprise Vulcans tried to stop the progress of humans and prevent their space travel. Obama flashing the Vulcan sign is true cynicism.
I think I'm for just about anything that makes the guy who wrote that feel worse.
As the kids undergo their training, they learn ways to be disciplined as you traveled.
ReplyDeleteIn order to aren't, step it up and join a treatment program.
Feel free to visit my weblog; tanie wczasy nad morzem
Groundwater running into the water can create worries. In some regions anyone that has a put
ReplyDeletetruck and a nice backhoe can thrive on a septic set-up.
My homepage; tanie wczasy nad morzem
Fine way of describing, and fastidious paragraph to
ReplyDeleteobtain information concerning my presentation topic, which i am going to present in university.
Also visit my page: travel
Hey there, You've done a fantastic job. I'll certainly digg it and personally suggest to
ReplyDeletemy friends. I'm confident they will be benefited from this website.
Here is my web site - http://mykharis.com/profile/AidanColl
"It doesn't matter what people call you unless they call you pigeon pie and eat you up."
ReplyDelete— Evelyn Waugh as Charles Ryder,
Brideshead Revisited
"John Boot is the pen name of a conservative writer operating under deep cover in the liberal media." God! That is so exciting! And I thought he was just Max Boot's big brother.
ReplyDeleteAn interesting discussion is definitely worth comment.
ReplyDeleteI believe that you should publish more about this topic, it might not
be a taboo matter but typically people don't talk about such issues. To the next! All the best!!
my blog: http://www.sbwire.com/press-releases/alteril-review-sleeping-system-effective-natural-sleep-inducers-latest-information-200298.htm
That all those Kirk/Spock writers were on to something?
ReplyDeleteHe shortened it at Ellis Island from John Bootstampingahumanfaceforever.
ReplyDeleteTo be fair, the photo showing Alice Eve in her underwear is an Amazon affiliate link, so it's not titillation, it's commerce.
ReplyDelete