Obligatory SPOILER ALERT.
Now here’s a guy I wouldn’t mind debating with, not because he’s obnoxious, but because he’s polite in expressing his opinion. He doesn’t much like the new Trek movie, because in his view it’s a throwback to what he regards as the ethical incoherence of Roddenberry and Star Trek’s preterition, generally. He objects to my stating that the message might be that there’s a time to stop parlaying and blow shit up, and states, quite rightly, that most of the time that’s not necessary.
But, dude, the Romulan baddie, Nero, had just destroyed an entire planet and almost all of its 6 billion inhabitants. Kirk offers him assistance, Nero says screw you, Kirk blows him up. That’s what you do to genocidal monsters who want to make their problems your problems: you blow them up. What’s so hard to understand about that?
As far as the Prime Directive goes, I suppose that rules out NGOs interfering with aboriginal cultures, but what do I know? I wish the Persians would stop hanging gays and pursuing nuclear weapons, since their theocrats seem to like living in the 7th century. Those who take pity on political cultures such as that, or the Norks, for that matter, since this gentleman lives in South Korea, appear to me extremely foolish. That’s me, though, and apparently that means that I’m a hyper-agressive neo-con.
The argument really comes down to a matter of being offended by the premise. We really oughtn’t encourage such hypotheticals, because they might lead to conclusions that we don’t care for. If the market rewards such representations, then the market is wrong. And that is because people are still blind to the implications of their tastes. It would have been much better propaganda if it were consonant with Progressive principles. QED. In other words, it’s not utopian enough.
Dan: You are so two weeks ago. Time to move on to the next summer movie. Up looks like it will be good. Who doesn’t like Pixar…well except for Wall-e. Get ahead of the curve and do an analogy about that film.
I’m guessing here Dan, but did you maybe want this page from Laft Flank? Whichever, it’s here now, so:
Just spitballing here but when he (are we to know him as Baltimoron?) writes “It’s the few times when extremists hijack the debate that we welcome an Alexander [my emphasis – sdferr].” I wonder whether he ought not to be thinking instead of someone rather more like George Patton or Dave Petraeus, than Alexander. If not, why Alexander, of all the possible people “we would welcome”?
Sdferr, thanks for the correction on the link, and yeah, it’s a strange choice of comparisons, but rhetorically useful. The topicality shouldn’t be so immediate; it might give people ideas.
Sdferr: I was about to fix the link, but you beat me to it.
There was only one Alexander…well two if you are really into Jim Morrison.
I bet Baltimoron’s wife (sorry but Sdferr’s tag works) can cook a mean Korean BBQ. I had a good friend who married a Korean and she could could fabulous BBQ. I am convinced Huntsman is becoming US Ambassador to China solely to avoid crappy food in Utah.
It’s just — we welcome? — I suppose I can take to mean, what?, anybody who was ever oppressed by some [“]extremist debate hijacking oppressive oppressor[“]. No, that’s not what I mean, what I mean is, almost nobody welcomed Alexander, he just moved in and made himself comfortable with whatever he could take, wherever he could take it. Talk about extremists, he’s your huckleberry.
I patiently wait for this sci-fi film to be made. Please do not fuck it up!
Let me try again. B’moron is in want of a happy place (or so he says), and to get there, away from his posited *debate hijacking extremist*, he would turn to Alexander? That is fucked up beyond belief — from my point of view (for B’moron’s sake, since it’s his aspiration to a happy place that guides me here) — only because Alexanders (as a type) don’t lead to anybody’s happy place, save perhaps Alexander’s own happy place, which unfortunately for everyone else is rife with death and destruction, though really well done death and destruction.
I’m so behind, movie-wise. I really want to see Star Trek, but we don’t go to the movies much (with 5 kids, we practically have to take out a loan.)
I just watched “Taken” though, and that rawked.
I WILL find you. And I will kill you.
Sdferr, Alexander was a amazing general who died young. He did essentially just keep fighting, taking over country by country till he died. Still, I do not equate him and his Macedonians to Hitler or even Ghengis Khan. Alexander managed to spread Greek culture and ultimately that turned out to be a good thing.
But I agree with you it is a poor analogy.
Carin, with decent large screen tvs now, video rentals and on demand tend to be a big part of movie watching. I will go to the theater occasionally, but it better be good.
Therea re a number of definitions he seems to have problems with.
Alexander was a monarch, not a dictator and there’s a difference. He also reads “liberal” within the meaning of modern US politices, when it appears to me from the usage that it means classical liberal–adherance to our original republican tendencies.
Also, by mentioning a desire to mothball NASA, he shows himself to never have been a Star Trek fan. Ever. Thus I can discount almost all of his argument simply becasue he clearly never got it to begin with.
Alexander ought to be the bete noir of lefties, as he conflated an ancient grudge to a world-encompassing war and stomped all over Greek liberty to do it (burning of Thebes, anyone?). But lefties don’t know history, so they get all caught up in the romance.
Now me, I like Alexander, for a slew of reasons, but his geopolitical conceptions are not among them.
Jeff, there’s nothing ethically inconsistent about the Star Trek worldview. Jim Kirk is the rebellious, acting out son of a genuinely accomplished father, who plays with three-hundred year old Corvettes and trick hi-performance motorcycles.
Why not become a limpwristed socialist when you’ve already GOT your own toys?
The prime directive is pretty much out of the picture in this new Star Trek universe, as near as I can figure. There was no mention of it in the movie, from anyone. Also without the powerful guiding influence of the Vulcans, I suspect it will be a much less placid universe.
Star Trek is no longer a franchise; it has trancended that and become a cultural touchstone. Some lament that we are still making Star Trek themed movies, but they are missing the metamorphosis that Star Trek has undergone, it is today just a cultural canvas on which you paint you ideas.
Bemoaning the series is like railing against Hollywood for still making love stories or action films.
Relax: Star Trek is a genre now.
I just want to thank Dan for the previous Star Trek thread. Without it and the comments I and my wife would not have considered going. I thought the whole franchise pretty dead.
This new movie gives me hope that they can continue. By going to an alternate reality they have shaken off the hold of the old continuity. By going back to the beginning they now can retell the story of TOS.
By having new young actors in the old familiar roles the now have the financial resources to spend on the writing, effects, and especially the villains which is where a major name actor can shine. Think James Earl Jones in the first Conan.
Thanks again Dan. We look forward to the (hopefully directors edition) DVD.
oh lord
That works perfectly for those beliefs since, in contrast with conservatism, progressivism always sees the ideal of society as lying somewhere in the future, rather than in the past.
this is so full of WMD grade stupidity, not the least of which is trying to build a dream house without blueprints or a known, solid foundation.
#15 — Good. Never liked those pious, holier-than-thou, passive-aggressive hypocrites anyway (except for Spock’s slutty fiancee).
Gimme a stand-up, in your face Andorran anyway.
My pleasure, geoff, but your praise really ought to go to the proggtards who made it so easy to write about.
Comment by Christopher Taylor on 5/16 @ 9:41 am
In Star Trek OS all the time travel episodes had to do with keeping the future on track, from “City on the Edge of Forever” to “Assignment: Earth”. What I so enjoyed about this new movie is the use of Heinlein’s take on time travel … that any break of continuity creates a new, parallel universe that continues on its merry way.
Oh… SPOILER ALERT…………
.
.
.
.
.
One of the closing scenes of Old Spock (original universe) talking with Young Spock (new universe) is so very reminiscent of Lazarus Long meeting his younger, bratty self (Woodrow Wilson Smith) just prior to WWI, without the universe collapsing.
The Butterfly Effect ruins any attempt to not change the future. The smallest change in a complex system over time results in profound changes. Hence the analogy that a butterfly flapping its wings in Africa and set into motion the conditions that result in a hurricane in the Caribbean.
Lost has been playing with this issue over this last season. Life on Mars did it too, but in the end very hamfistedly. Are we bound by fate to not change anything (if you go back in time you were really always part of the past anyway) or does the Heinlien* multiverse universe theory of time take place (like the Nantucket and Change series by Stirling)?
*not the first to come up with it.
Fringe has been working on this line too. I don’t care for their blanket explanation of deja vu as an awareness of a multiverse, and they haven’t even begun to consider the intricacies that would be involved in travel between such realities (it’s fiction so they just do).
The paradoxes of time travel are all over in many different stories, ones that are not thought of exactly as science fiction. Take this Simpsons Time travel episode, and the series that originally drew me into watching and appreciating Japanese anime Urusei Yatsura Movie 2 “Beautiful Dreamer” and Movie 3 “Remember my Love” all of which deal in time travel and/or alternate realities.
A movie that’s not utopian enough? At last, thank God.
Heinlein took all the paradoxes and shoved them into World As Myth, where even “fictional” places were real once something “created them” by thinking them up. In Number of the Beast the main characters even got to visit Oz.
Last episode of St. Elsewhere.
It’s been done.
The Multiverse is a wonderful place for writers. Somewhere in the multiverse is a world which is a disc carried on the back of four giant elephants who are stood on the back of a massive turtle swimming through space.
Talking of the ‘kill your grannie’ paradox, is Sarah Connor Chronicles starting to realise the problems of keep sending people back and forward through time?
Ptolemy I, for all the people who believe Cleo was black.
I curse the multiverse for the hell Marvel Comics played with it.
Marverl? How about DC? They built one, then destroyed it, and now it’s back. And includes Marvel (Earth 616).
Darleen #27, I suspect that Heinlein’s thinking was heavily influenced by J.R.R. Tolkien’s essay, “On Faerie Stories”. You can find it published as part of the volume “Smith of Wooton Major and Farmer Giles of Ham.” Basically, coming at it from a Christian perspective, he theorized that Man, even though his Fallen state prevented him from working with God’s Creation, still retained the desire to emulate his Creator by creating on his own. “Sub-creation” allowed Man to do that in his story-telling, and what he created there became in some sense Real, and more real the more other people believed it, if God’s grace allowed it.
Incidentally, the essay is based, according to Humphrey Carpenter’s biography of Tolkien, on the arguments Tolkien used to convince and convert C.S. Lewis back to Christianity.
Ok, RTO, “Crisis on Infinite Earths” was great. But, you say, all those infinite earths are back??
No wonder I don’t read comix any more.
#33 — I’m just reading Green Lantern Corps for all the hot space babes from super-advanced societies who nevertheless can’t quite figure out how to do up their tunic zippers all the way…
what he created there became in some sense Real
For me, books are many times much more enjoyable than movies … I “live” the story in mind – sight, smells, fear, happiness …
Indeed, those worlds are real for me.
(and it is the mark of good-to-great fiction, like a good film, that I ‘lose’ myself – suspension of disbelief – in the story and characters)
ushie: Here a reasonably condensed summary of the mess.
Okay, to circle back to a core argument: I don’t recall the Prime Directive being an original series gimmick; I think that was purely TNG, which was more liberal (and much more humorless) than TOS.
you’re not a star trek fan until u
dress up in star trek uniforms and visit
one of those middle age king james faires
thats hardcore baby!
Ella, the Prime Directive (Starfleet General Order 1) was first referred to in the TOS (second season) episode Bread and Circuses. By the time of TNG, the Prime Directive had been amended and expanded. Originally it applied only to “pre-warp” cultures. By the time of Voyager, the Prime Directive carried 47 corollaries.
RTO, that’s more convoluted than Nancy’s explanations.
Sigh. I useta love Wonder Woman.
Hey, Wonder Woman was the second strongest person in the DC universe for a while.
But, DC has always been willing to subordinate characterization to plot–They “Hal Jordaned” her and turned her into a killer.
I’d always considered the Prime Directive blatantly immoral.
Oh, sure, there ought to be some sort of rules about interfering but TNG did have Star Fleet simply watching planets, and all of their inhabitants, die. At first I thought that was what Spock was accused of.
The movie was great. The fact that Kirk was always looking at the ladies (and for opportunities) was great.
What was really *really* great was that they didn’t manage to make the bad things that happened right again. They stayed broken. Kirk’s mother struggled and (apparently) really couldn’t do it alone, and she wasn’t redeemed. Vulcan stayed destroyed. Spock’s mother stayed dead. Star Fleet’s fleet of ships stayed blown up. The theme, over-all, seemed to be that it was necessary to go forward. It started with Kirk being prompted to stop *moping* over having a crappy life and do something. It ended with the remnant Vulcans building on a new planet rather than wallowing in regret for the past.
There is a post over at Belmont Club about a news article. This quote reminded me of Dan’s description of the Kirk-Nero interaction at the end.
India reelected India National Congress today geoffb, and a new Ghandi star, son of the Tamil assassinated Rajiv, is born, so to speak.
I take it this is good news.
I guess, if you don’t mind seeing political dynasties perpetuated. What is unreservedly good about it, I think, is that 60% of the eligible voters cast ballots, something on the order of 423 millon souls.
I don’t mind that they have a dynasty on Ghandi, who at least accomplished something good unlike our own home grown dynasties, as long as they don’t go back to the socialist pond. I want them to do well for a number of reasons, some personal.
give me dr who#4[the dude who looked like dylan)
with the scarf
and romana…
mmmm/ the first romana/ su–weet!
three reasons this is my favorite site
one;comfy chair
two;science fiction
three;sarcastic funny comments
four;
four reasons this is my fav site/comfy chair/sci-fi/funny peoples
hockey fans!
who you taking in the final four to be the final two pd? detroit v pitts? oder, chitown v caroline? (given my druthers, I’d druther hawks/pens, really)
i’m praying for a bobby orr end of the world
moment…
but..eh/ that’s just me
eric holder tweets
two minutes penalty box
for head cutting off
Wings of course, I’m Michigan.
True geoffb, you’ve still a dog in the hunt. D’ja ever see a goalie sprint for the bench as fast as T.T. did the other night geoffb, pd? I ain’t.
at the end of his career/ on one knee
the valiant bobby orr played for the blac…um
chicago
[…] gobsmacked by the amount of traffic erupting from Protein Wisdom’s Dan Collins – an alumnus of another Maryland university to boot. Some of the comments also […]
Joe: my wife serves up spicier fare than that, and my mother-in-law makes her own kimchi and conduments,
sdferr, et al: Alexander cut the Gordian Knot which legitimated his rule in Asia Minor. But, the story has also had another meaning for me. Instead of untying the knot, Alexander cut it with his sword. Or, instead of taking the time or using his brains to solve the problem, Alexander resorted to force. The “ticking time bomb” meme is a contrivance. There is never a time when brains are worse than brawn. Alexander himself was plagued by local problems when he finally did stop to rule. Emphasizing the enemy’s role always obscures America’s role in exacerbating its own problems.
Darleen: I do agree teleology is suspect. But, WMD stupidity is reserved for an American “conservatism” that’s nothing more than a stop sign in the middle of the road. At least, champion Burke.
Synova: As both the product of Confederates and Seminoles, I find interfering with the locals pernicious. I was taught to take the long view: the white man will kill himself and leave fallow what he stole! All conquest is hubristic and presumptuous. What did that Democrat Brzezinski get for his love affair with the ISI and Taliban?
the locals…ha/
brawn works…
y we supapowder?
take the long view/please/
or/ pretty pretty please…
we mite argue/ but i find ur comments
hateful and i’m feeling oppressed
You conflate history and myth and still get it wrong. True enough that the common understanding is that Alexander cut the Gordian Knot that’s not the original story (and story is all that it is), and actually he removed the “pole pin”, a bolt through the pole to which ropes would be tied to secure livestock or property, to which the knot was bound. Far from the later story of Alexander’s fit of pique and impatience, as the cutting story is usually portrayed, this is a demonstration of lateral reasoning, which was the intent of the legend and a demonstration of a quality that might make a proper ruler.
This guy is at once uninteresting & dull [so true to his name, I guess], evasive and self-refuting. Meh.
“There is never a time when brains are worse than brawn.”
We always welcome new faces at poker night here in Utah.
You’ld be MORE than welcome.
LOL.
sdferr: What’s so interesting about ur dressed-up authoritarianism?
Whatever are you talking about Mr Baltimoron? “ur” means what? “dressed-up authoritatianism”? What does that refer to? (By the way, I wouldn’t claim to be interesting myself, for I am not. Just so you know going forward.)
Could this be dressed up authoritarianism?
Ur of the Chaldees?
Ur, the proto-continent formed 3 billion years ago?
Ur, the hypothesized progenitor of all human languages?
University of Rochester?
The ISO code for the Urdu language?
The Ur rune?
Uruk-Hai?
Oh, right: he’s just an illiterate.
It’s only four letters, dude. Make an effort to speak fucking English, m’kay?
All conquest is hubristic and presumptuous.
Tell it to the Carthaginians, dude.
Oh, right: there aren’t any Carthaginians any more, are there?
BTW, if we’re going to be dressed-up authoritarians, I want one of those bitchin’ Hugo Boss uniforms.
like Kirk and the Kobayashi Maru thinger?
Nice segue back to the nominal topic, maggie.
The wife and I saw it yesterday and both of us were very happy with it (she’s more of a Trek geek than I am — while I can recognize any of the old episodes within a few seconds, she knows them all by title).
IMO, they did a great job of keeping the classic characters recognizably themselves, while still allowing the new actors some space to bring their own interpretations to the roles.
Wow. I cannot imagine a better encapsulation of the foolish conceit of the left. That just says it all.
thanks alot b’moron. I just got a lecture about the myth of Alexander and the Gordian knot. One of those where the cat (the real maggie) comes in and starts yelling and rolling over so you’ll rub her belly. SHUT UP AND PET ME!!!
A socialist/communist/progressive society will never explore space. The capital required will be squandered on the nonproductive, and they concept of exploiting the resources you discover to pay for the voyages would be considered immoral. The idea of a leftist Star Trek is absurd.
a finger say hi
or u thinky it’s bye bye?
ask pd buttons
http://www.radicalcontrapositions.com/left_flank/?s=nasa
RTO Trainer: Speaking of dull lectures….
frank church had one testicle..
what gobbley-gook
america don’t have issues wit torture/
or hackey-sack/or whatever you want to brand it
left-tards do
thanks church commission…and peanut farmers
it brought the ron on..
history repeats
bring on the Palin