May 15, 2013

New Star Trek apparently bashes Bush, Cheney

*Sigh* Via Big Hollywood:

In the film there’s a debate among Starfleet personnel over how best to extract an enemy in a distant part of the galaxy — and whether that enemy should be subjected to due process.

The British actor (the film's villain, Benedict Cumberbatch) says: “It’s no spoiler I think to say that there’s a huge backbone in this film that’s a comment on recent U.S. interventionist overseas policy from the Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld era.”

Hmm. Given that I recall reading somewhere that the Federation's own "secret police," Section 31*, is mentioned in this sequel, you can probably bet there will be connections made to the CIA, Gitmo, and anything else from 2001-2008. Which is fine, of course; however, you can bet virtually none of that will be displayed positively.

This comment nails it regarding such "brave" commentary:

How does it take a backbone to criticize Bush and Cheney? Hollywood's been doing that for ten years. If everyone around you is doing that, it requires no backbone to join in, especially ten years after the fact.

Standing up for Bush and Cheney's interventionist policies would show actual backbone.

Not that I agree that Bush's foreign policy was right-headed, but this guy's point is spot-on. Hollywood ain't brave in regurgitating this stuff; it'd have a lot more cojones if it did something like make a direct connection between the Klingons and radical Muslims.

Who knows -- maybe we'll be lucky and Into Darkness WILL explore the notion that a constitution is not a suicide pact. Ultimate survival will always take precedence over playing by the rules, whether we like it or not. And let no one fool you -- anyone who says differently is blowing smoke.

*Section 31 debuted in the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode "Inquisition." According to its Wikipedia entry, it "exists outside Starfleet Intelligence's influence," and its "authority stems from a provision of the Starfleet charter—Article 14, Section 31, from which its name is derived—that makes allowances for 'bending the rules' during times of extraordinary threats."

Posted by Hube at May 15, 2013 04:15 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

I still plan on seeing the film this weekend and I'll have a review up shortly after. That, and the Doctor Who reviews I still need to work on...

Posted by: Carl at May 15, 2013 04:43 PM

“It’s no spoiler I think to say that there’s a huge backbone in this film...

Don't hold your breath for a sequel in which an African American sends in drones to assassinate people without trial to keep the drug trade of his financiers flowing, misses and kills some kids instead sometimes... which winds up terrorizing entire villages that live underneath the hum of drones, etc.

Posted by: mynym at May 16, 2013 03:13 PM

Post a comment

Remember personal info?