Star Trek into Darkness

[The Man]

But it does make realistic sense, because of what Vivi and I pointed out. The Federation does not have the resources to stop a spaceship careening towards Earth, and given their history there is no reason they would think such a thing would be necessary. Certainly if you disregard the backstory of the Federation it seems ridiculous, but Earth is in the middle of Federation space and apart from Nero's attack in the last film, which they are likely to have thought was an isolated incident due to their complacency that is clearly established elsewhere in the film as well, hasn't been attacked for a hundred years. It also makes sense on a meta level since they were pretty obviously trying to evoke 9/11 (indeed they dedicated the film to 9/11 first responders iirc) and the U.S. was similarly complacent at that point.

[Del Murder]

Oh shoot, totally forgot about Eric Bana almost destroying Earth a few years prior. How could they not boost up their defenses because of that? We put in huge ass x-ray screeners every time someone tries to blow up their underwear.

[The Man]

That's because we're (the U.S. and U.K.) paranoid. Contrast how Norway responded to Anders Breivik's attack on Utøya; their Prime Minister basically said they have to implement more democracy rather than responding by curbing civil liberties. They have basically no war or poverty so they're not paranoid. The Federation is a lot more like modern Norway than they are like the modern U.S. or U.K.

[Del Murder]

Even though the two Earth cities featured in the movie were in the US and UK?

[The Man]

This is 23rd century earth (specifically, the year 2259), where there hasn't been poverty, hunger, war, etc. for probably at least a hundred years. So, yeah.

[Miriel]

Does it cause you physical pain to acknowledge that a movie, a MOVIE, placed theatrics above perfect sound reasoning or something? My god. Just grasping at convoluted explanations.

I can enjoy something and still acknowledge the silliness of certain aspects of it without having to rationalize everything so that it makes perfect sense. I actually HATE it when people do that. Which is pretty much the only reason I'm still posting here. Because it's this weird convergence of two prominent pet peeves of mine. People who read too much into things that happen in books/movies/tv (Lost drove me nuts with this. There was no plan, people! It was all made up along the way!!) and excessive collateral damage in movies.

They trashed San Francisco, it made me pout. That's it. Jesus. I fully understand it was to create lights and bangs and action. There doesn't have to be some sort of entire back history as to why this is like the most reasonable thing to happen ever (which it wasn't, I mean c'mon).

[theundeadhero]

They're both right though. You're the one who refuses to acknowledge that your lack of information about Star Trek lead you to believe something was Hollywood instead of realistic to the movie's reality.

[Miriel]

They're both right though. You're the one who refuses to acknowledge that your lack of information about Star Trek lead you to believe something was Hollywood instead of realistic to the movie's reality.

So the reality is complete incompetence on the part of earth's people?

As The Man said:

There seems to be a presiding attitude of either arrogance or complacency causing Starfleet not to prepare for attacks and accidents.

Ok. Yeah. That is really so much of a better way to look at the movie. These people are super advanced but they do not prepare for:

1) Accidents
2) Attacks

Ok. Y'all win. I guess I should accept the idea that Earth, it's people, everyone involved are just so complacent that they can only stare in befuddlement as a battle rages above their atmosphere and can only watch as a big hulking thing comes down to destroy them. With no air support or warning system or even a call from Enterprise down to the folks at home to prepare for some bad trout about to go down, or any of that handy shield technology (which I'm presuming y'all would say has no business being ever implanted on earth or over its major cities, because peace, so much peace). That all makes so much sense and makes me think less of the Star Trek universe. Is that the point? To make me realize just how incompetent they all are? As opposed to just assuming that the finale of the movie was just that, a big finale to add an exclamation point to the climax.

How exactly does this excessive explaining away make things better? I would rather not think of the inhabitants of this reality as being utter dumbsmurfs.

[Del Murder]

Well, they did put Kirk in charge of their best starship. Twice. So they aren't the sharpest knives.

[Aulayna]

So I read this whole argument and at the end I'm still left thinking:

How exactly does one stop a damaged giant starship crashing into Earth?

[Slothy]

How exactly does one stop a damaged giant starship crashing into Earth?

Tractor beam.

But since that would require a working ship to be in orbit and there were none that doesn't seem like it was an option.

[Shorty]

You bounce a graviton particle beam off the main deflector dish.

[Slothy]

You bounce a graviton particle beam off the main deflector dish.

That too.

[Shorty]

I'll just leave this here.

[Miriel]

So I went in search of answers. I found this: 5 Horrifying Implications of the 'Star Trek' Universe | Cracked.com

I guess point #2 basically sums up everything. So I concede. Apparently, the lack of any kind of human response to the climatic finale of the movie is totally in line with the Star Trek universe. My bad.