Quote:
Originally Posted by Obelisk ze Tormentor
And there's a lot of people within that category in UC timeline. Desperate people, poor people & various shades of grey morality everywhere. So by your own standard, the movie did a good job.
The novel was actually written from 1989 to 1990.
|
I know, we've all read the wiki article. I'm being approximate, and you're ignoring the serious issues I posted about; the gender roles in this film are as toxic as its politics, and tedious as its characters.
Political assassination and terrorist bombings are not grey morality, which is a contradiction in terms; there certainly isn't as much of it as people prepared to romanticise terrorism think, in a franchise about fighting space Nazis. Hathaway's puerile ideas are presented seriously, and his supporters are presented as reasonable, thoughtful persons who never leave a man behind and (hypocritically) pray for their victims' rest before they blow them up - when these are people whose cause and methods are as morally bankrupt as Al-Qaeda's. Plenty of poor and desperate people in the real world think of Al-Qaeda as the good guys, sticking it to those horribly rich and corrupt Westerners; that does not justify Al-Qaeda's existence. The film fails because it fails to absolutely condemn this kind of terrorism, give any voice to victims of terrorism, or show the support of such terrorism for any reason as insupportable. I explicitly said in my last post that the problem was not that the Maftists were supported, but that their support and supporters aren't condemned as blinded by poverty and insensibility into following an evil cause, or as evil followers of an evil cause.
Although the Earth government are deporting persons to the colonies, that isn't worth mentioning next to Carol and Tuesday's anti-Trump satire. You'll remember that it's Trump supporters who are violently threatening the 'corrupt Washington elite' in the same way as the Maftists, with as much morality. By even suggesting that assassination is a justifiable response to political corruption, the film condemns itself. This is not a debatable case where media can present an open question, but where it has a social responsibility not to romanticise terrorists or repeat their lies.