Independance Day : Resurgence trailer!!

[Cikomyr]

Oh yhea!! (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=R7a2u8lxWm8&feature=youtu.be)

F-yhea!!

Now i only.want people to argue about two things:

1- that Will Smith isnt in the movie

2- that they visually took a huge page from the book of X-Com, but that its a GODDAM GOOD THING!!

:-D

[Kitten Champion]

It actually looks kind of cool, kind of like Macross in concept.

I hope it has some of that simplistic charm the original had.

[Razade]

I'm actually pretty psyched for it. Didn't think I would be but I'm going to see it for sure.

[Eldan]

1- that Will Smith isnt in the movie

Not a bad thing in my book. I can't remember the last movie I saw Smith in that was any good. He seems to sleepwalk his way through everything, these days.

[BWR]

So, X-com: the movie?

I wasn't too impressed with the first. It was ok. Flashy and boomy but without anything resembling interesting characters or memorable lines from anyone.

It looks like a popcorn movie, but one I probably won't bother seeing in the theatres.

[MLai]

So I'm not the only one who got a heavy X-Com vibe out of it.
They should just make an X-Com movie and be done with it.

[thorgrim29]

Nah screw that, Netflix should make an X-Com series and get Richard Dean Anderson to play the Mysterious Council Guy.

But yeah, the trailer looks cool, looks like it's going to be a more straightforward action movie than the first one, could be fun.

[Cikomyr]

Nah screw that, Netflix should make an X-Com series and get Richard Dean Anderson to play the Mysterious Council Guy.

But yeah, the trailer looks cool, looks like it's going to be a more straightforward action movie than the first one, could be fun.

I always thought you could make a kickass SG-1 mod with the latest XCom.

Fighting the Goauld, replicators and Asgards

[HardcoreD&Dgirl]

somehow I had completely blocked the orginal so far out of my head, that seeing the trailer I couldn't figure out what was going on until someone reminded me of the other movie...

[BannedInSchool]

I wasn't too impressed with the first. It was ok. Flashy and boomy but without anything resembling interesting characters or memorable lines from anyone.

It's almost like someone took a parody of skiffy B-movies but then threw a lot of money at it.

[Cikomyr]

It's almost like someone took a parody of skiffy B-movies but then threw a lot of money at it.

I was simple, fun and exciting.

It didnt try to be some genius Sci Fi story. Just a fun rump in the same vein as Pacific Rim.

[Legato Endless]

Nah screw that, Netflix should make an X-Com series and get Richard Dean Anderson to play the Mysterious Council Guy.


I support this.


I was simple, fun and exciting.

It didnt try to be some genius Sci Fi story. Just a fun rump in the same vein as Pacific Rim.

Yeah, this film isn't exactly ambitious. If it's anything like the original it'll just be another big mix of popular blockbuster cliches, probably updated for this decade. I don't really think it was begging for a sequel, but it's not like the original has some grand legacy to live up to.

[Cikomyr]

The film WAS ambitious in term of effects and scope.

Just not storytelling wise.

[warty goblin]

I love Independence Day, probably more than it deserves. Unusually this looks like a sequel that's doing something...well not smart exactly (ID isn't, and shouldn't, be smart) but at least different. Somewhat. I'm a fan of that. And it's not another bloody stupid superhero movie, so at least there's one thing in theaters next summer that I'm not automatically 100% pre-bored with. In fact I think I'd go so far as to say I'm somewhat mildly enthusiastic about this.


But XCOM would make a terrible, terrible movie. What tiny shreds of story it has are even more derivative than ID, while making even less sense.

[Ceiling_Squid]

I dunno how I feel about this. Independence Day was a big deal when it was new, but most people seem to forget that it was only half a good film. After a certain point, it just collapses and goes rapidly downhill.

I like the slight X-COM vibe I'm getting, but the general consensus among my friends is a resounding "why?" What's the point of making an ID sequel, especially with how the original only barely holds up?

[Mando Knight]

I like the slight X-COM vibe I'm getting, but the general consensus among my friends is a resounding "why?" What's the point of making an ID sequel, especially with how the original only barely holds up?

Because 20th Century Fox wants a piece of that sweet "continue a popular Sci-Fi film/franchise" pie that Disney's been baking (with some help from Paramount).

[Yora]

I think it's desperately being out of ideas. Or not having any confidence that a movie with a new idea would make any money.

[Killer Angel]

1- that Will Smith isnt in the movie


Not a bad thing in my book.

+1. I think I can bear the loss... even if I aknowledge that he was one of the main reasons Indipendence Day was a fun film.

[Cikomyr]

+1. I think I can bear the loss... even if I aknowledge that he was one of the main reasons Indipendence Day was a fun film.

Will Smith's earliest supersuccesses were because he had a straightforward character archetype: the skilled everyday man who feels he is in over his head but try to deal with it nevertheless, while remaining in touch with the human element. MiB and Id4 were the prime example of Smith's archetype.

Just look at some of the bad Smith performances we have had: MiB2, After Earty and Wild Wild West, where he is cast as an overly assured agent who more often than not disregarded the human elements in order to complete the mission. The sort of character that feels he knows everything. While not a bad character archetype, it just doesnt play to Will Smith's acting strenghts.

An aged, experienced version of the Will Smith character of ID4 would have to be.. Basically an expy of Pentecost from Pacific Rim. Exactly Pentecost from Pacific Rim, in fact, and that is not even considering skin color.

But that would probably not play to Will Smith's acting strenghts, sadly.

[Traab]

It could be interesting, but im wondering how they justify it. Are they new aliens? Because iirc, the original set were basically a world ship of their entire species spreading out to take the resources of new worlds for themselves or some such thing. So basically they were wiped out entirely. I was actually hoping for a story like this.

"In the aftermath of the Independence Day battle, the world forces tried to track down and finish off every ship to make sure the aliens were dead. Unfortunately, they couldnt be everywhere and survivors of one of the ships that fell managed to rebuild."

Basically, its still 20 years later, but the forces of earth were utterly decimated. Most of their major population centers were wiped out, and they have spent all this time rebuilding, consolidating, and working on incorporating this new tech into their own. Large portions of the planet are all but uninhabited, there is world peace, but mainly because noone has much of an army left. Its at this point that el jeffe, now a well known and respected adviser, detects signs of the aliens still present on earth. The first half of the film is him gathering evidence that its a threat big enough to deal with instead of stragglers that can be ignored for now till the world has time money and troops to spare to wipe them out. The second half is organizing a big futuristic fight with the alien troops. You could even end the film with an "Oh no" moment, as jeff realizes they built a transmitter, and were able to send a message off world before they were finished off. Boom, instant trilogy opening.

[warty goblin]

If they pillage entire worlds, odds seem good they've got enough resources around to build multiple worldships. In fact I'd say that if one giant interstellar armada shows up on your doorstep, the smart money is that there's a couple other giant interstellar armadas on tap, and the species that builds them is gonna come down like a ton of bricks on anybody who takes out armada #1. Only so much room in the universe for interstellar stripminers after all.

[Mando Knight]

An aged, experienced version of the Will Smith character of ID4 would have to be.. Basically an expy of Pentecost from Pacific Rim. Exactly Pentecost from Pacific Rim, in fact, and that is not even considering skin color.

But that would probably not play to Will Smith's acting strenghts, sadly.

Yeah, I don't think The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air could pull off a Stacker Pentecost. It's not Will's style.

[Yora]

It could be interesting, but im wondering how they justify it.

One could write pages about it, but I think it's ultimately futile. They probably just won't justify it at all.
Because, Duuuuude! Explosions' man! Whoooaaa!

[Aotrs Commander]

So it takes them twenty years to make a sequel which looks... basically like it's the same plot.

Only without blowing up any trailer-worthy iconic buildings.

Mm.

Indepedance Day worked because it was basically a movie with a tongue firmly implanted in cheek; a B movie on a A movie budget (though apparently me and my Dad were the only one in the theatre that got that, because we were the only ones laughing and the jokes...) And it worked quite well in that regard.

This... looks more like it's trying to take itself deadly seriously, which is definitely not working in its favour. I mean, trailers are often deceptive1, but this just looks all "humans are doomed" and it just sort of fails.

I mean, this is apparently the first one of two movies, so even if the humans don't win this one, they'll win the next one (if they do not, I will automatically upgrade the movie for the stones to actually do that); so the fun is all about the ride to get there and the whole "one side gets beaten into the ground until deus ex machina makes them win everything" is WELL past tired at this point (even Avengers did it and that was a really good movie).
I mean, frackin' EVERYONE uses that these days. A bit more of an even fight would nice for a change.

So, I am guarded. I mean its not quite DC comic movie "nope, not ever" levels, but it's certainly looking dubious.



Maybe I'm just getting old, but it seems of late movie trailers have lost their ability to awe me; probably because they all keep doing the same thing.




Yeah, I don't think The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air could pull off a Stacker Pentecost. It's not Will's style.

From the sounds of it from wiki, it was more they couldn't afford him. (You'd have thought that after After Earth...)

(Killing his character off-screen seems a bit... churlish, though.)



1Well, the one for the recent F4 movie was broadly accurate, since it was obvious that it was going to be crap; just perhaps not the true scale of crap...

[Cikomyr]

So it takes them twenty years to make a sequel which looks... basically like it's the same plot.

Only without blowing up any trailer-worthy iconic buildings.

.

No offense but.. What else was there to blow up?!?

All major landmarks were destroyed in, literally, the first volley.

[Wardog]

Independence Day 2: This Time They Have Firewalls

[Adaon Nightwind]

Damit, Wardog, you beat me to it ^^

[Kitten Champion]

It is good know that the rest of the universe has finally stopped using Windows. I suppose they were as unimpressed with 8 as I was.

[DigoDragon]

I dunno about this trailer... Are the aliens just falling for the sunk-cost fallacy? Are they that petty for revenge? The X-Com vibe is pretty cool, but the plot does feel like more of the same.

[Legato Endless]

Are the aliens just falling for the sunk-cost fallacy? Are they that petty for revenge?

Threat elimination. Hegemony maintenance. See Warty's comment. A species that utterly obliterates one of their assets is a problem in the making, better to strike that down now before they develop further.

[Aotrs Commander]

Threat elimination. Hegemony maintenance. See Warty's comment. A species that utterly obliterates one of their assets is a problem in the making, better to strike that down now before they develop further.

Then why not just level the planet from orbit?

[Cikomyr]

Then why not just level the planet from orbit?

We dont know what their attack plan actually is.

[Legato Endless]

Then why not just level the planet from orbit?

They probably don't have the capability. Glassing the planet or anything similar would be counter productive to resource gathering, so they probably haven't maintained any such tech. All of their weapons, including their city destroying wave motion gun operate at absurdly close ange. Probably to keep the planet as intact as possible while eliminating any dangerous species. Unlike their ability to be infected by human computer viruses, there's some justification for this beyond giving the humans a weakness to exploit.

[Aotrs Commander]

They probably don't have the capability. Glassing the planet or anything similar would be counter productive to resource gathering, so they probably haven't maintained any such tech. All of their weapons, including their city destroying wave motion gun operate at absurdly close ange. Probably to keep the planet as intact as possible while eliminating any dangerous species. Unlike their ability to be infected by human computer viruses, there's some justification for this beyond giving the humans a weakness to exploit.

They are an FTL-capable civilisation, and in the absence of actual proper weapons, they should be perfectly capable of lobbing a large rock, given how bloody massive their ships are (Ceres, for example, which might even be overkill) accelerated to high enough speed - a few fractions of light-speed would be enough, I think - from the safety of the middle distance and laugh, while slipping their jynnan tonnyx, knowing that even if the humans do spot it coming, there's bugger all or a bit less they can do about it.

(And that still leaves plenty of mineral resources, you only need to kill the surface creature to cleanse the planet, you don't need to Death Star it.)



If they ARE going to conquer the planet, then it isn't really threat elimination as you proposed and/or they ARE just, as Digo said, following the sunk-cost fallacy or out for revenge.

[Sean Mirrsen]

They probably don't have the capability. Glassing the planet or anything similar would be counter productive to resource gathering, so they probably haven't maintained any such tech. All of their weapons, including their city destroying wave motion gun operate at absurdly close ange. Probably to keep the planet as intact as possible while eliminating any dangerous species. Unlike their ability to be infected by human computer viruses, there's some justification for this beyond giving the humans a weakness to exploit.

And let's not forget the science part of the whole thing. Even if they've mastered antigravity and have forcefields and "plasma cannons", maintaining the shape and coherence of a city-levelling beam of a few hundred meters' length is one thing - a few hundred kilometers may incur energy costs beyond practical levels, if it's even /possible/ via whichever technology they are using to maintain it in the first place.

[DigoDragon]

Threat elimination. Hegemony maintenance. See Warty's comment. A species that utterly obliterates one of their assets is a problem in the making, better to strike that down now before they develop further.

Then why not just level the planet from orbit?

I'm with the Commander here. If the aliens want to eliminate Earth as a threat, then just pick up a few large rocks from space and apply them liberally against the planet. They have 'tractor beam' technology in the first movie. Rain whatever choice of planetary bombardment they like from long range. There's plenty of mass to throw around.

Do they want our biological resources? (Trees, plants, animals?) Its the only thing I can think of as a legit reason not to destroy Earth from orbit.

[nightwyrm]

The real reason is that having Earth destroyed by several dozen asteroids makes for a crappy movie....

[The Glyphstone]

Their first fleet had little to no evidence of robots/drones/AI of any kind - even their fighters were hand-piloted, despite that being an incredibly bad idea for space-capable fighters. So it's reasonable to conclude that the Locusts (do they have a canon name?) don't possess effective AI technology, and that makes their decision to conquer rather than genocide pretty simple. If they kill everyone on Earth, they have to mine/harvest its resources themselves. If they conquer it, they get a planet full of slaves to harvest it for them.

This also applies, to a lesser degree, to the question of why they don't just go steal our asteroid field or something. With no robots, they'd have to do all that space mining personally, in a much more hostile environment. With a captive planetary population, their return-on-investment is far less efficient, but far more safe and effortless for them personally.

For the actual movie, I suspect either revenge or sunk-cost fallacy as well, though honestly the planet should also be in the middle of nuclear winter/ice age, with all the debris and dust knocked into the air by those gigantic ships crashing down over urban population centers. So hyper-realism is not a factor here, nor should it be.

[DigoDragon]

Their first fleet had little to no evidence of robots/drones/AI of any kind - even their fighters were hand-piloted, despite that being an incredibly bad idea for space-capable fighters. So it's reasonable to conclude that the Locusts (do they have a canon name?) don't possess effective AI technology, and that makes their decision to conquer rather than genocide pretty simple. If they kill everyone on Earth, they have to mine/harvest its resources themselves. If they conquer it, they get a planet full of slaves to harvest it for them.

So... hmm, maybe the plan is to make this a trilogy; this is movie two where we get conquered, and then in a couple years Independence Day 3: Independence Day gets released in theaters.

[The Glyphstone]

Independance Day 3: Independance Dayer


Unlikely though. I can't see any modern studio having the guts to push a modern blockbuster that ends with humanity (the protagonists) outright losing.

[Dienekes]

I dunno about this trailer... Are the aliens just falling for the sunk-cost fallacy? Are they that petty for revenge? The X-Com vibe is pretty cool, but the plot does feel like more of the same.

During the high points of the Roman Empire, when barbarians at the borders started getting too powerful the Romans would send a smallish force to go raid them, destroy their farmland, kill the women and children, that sort of thing. To make sure that the barbarians could not get too powerful. And this worked for a couple hundred years. Until we see groups like the Alimanni actually beat these raiding forces. Then the Romans sent full armies out to destroy them.

I think that's what they're doing here. Can't have a growing power that now has access to their tech on the borders of their territory. For their safety and the glory of their alien race the humans must be destroyed.

[Traab]

Independance Day 3: Independance Dayer


Unlikely though. I can't see any modern studio having the guts to push a modern blockbuster that ends with humanity (the protagonists) outright losing.

Independence Day III: Independence With A Vengeance. Admit it, that has a ring to it. :smallbiggrin:

[Aotrs Commander]

Independance Day 3: Independance Dayer


Unlikely though. I can't see any modern studio having the guts to push a modern blockbuster that ends with humanity (the protagonists) outright losing.

Well, this preportedly is the first of two movies (or at least was only a very short time ago, according to wiki, which were supposed to be shot back-to-back), so seems it may well be possible, actually. Empire Strikes Back did it, for one, so that could be used as the justification for the "must be a simile of something" execs.

[DigoDragon]

I think that's what they're doing here. Can't have a growing power that now has access to their tech on the borders of their territory. For their safety and the glory of their alien race the humans must be destroyed.

It was established in the first movie that the aliens were akin to locusts; they reach a planet, strip it of resources, then move on. I don't know that they'd have "borders of territory" unless they're planning to swing back around to Earth. Though they'd have to wait a long time for resources to replenish (assuming they don't strip-mine the entire planet), so I dunno why they'd come back... But, going back to the "petty revenge /sunk cost" idea, they could be pretty angry that at Type 0 civilization wiped out their first wave utterly. Like having your favorite undefeated sports team suddenly lose a match against one of the lowest ranking opponents.

[Sean Mirrsen]

So... hmm, maybe the plan is to make this a trilogy; this is movie two where we get conquered, and then in a couple years Independence Day 3: Independence Day gets released in theaters.

It sounds a lot like Independence Day 3: Battlefield Earth. :P

[DigoDragon]

It sounds a lot like Independence Day 3: Battlefield Earth. :P

I wouldn't be surprised if it were a subtle remake of that. :smallbiggrin:

[Killer Angel]

Then why not just level the planet from orbit?


They probably don't have the capability.

C'mon. They need a starship just a little bigger, and then they can simply ram the Earth... :smalltongue:

[Akisa]

C'mon. They need a starship just a little bigger, and then they can simply ram the Earth... :smalltongue:

The starship they showed in the trailer is big enough for the job already. Hell the mothership in the first movie is big enough for the job.

[Legato Endless]

I'm with the Commander here. If the aliens want to eliminate Earth as a threat, then just pick up a few large rocks from space and apply them liberally against the planet. They have 'tractor beam' technology in the first movie. Rain whatever choice of planetary bombardment they like from long range. There's plenty of mass to throw around.

I'm not sure that would work. The Earth's atmosphere was entirely capable of stopping the fragmented dissolution of an object 1/4th the size of the moon in the first film. (Novelization BS to the contrary) All that nuclear debris reigning down just seemed to harmlessly incinerate in the atmosphere judging by the protagonist's reactions. The Earth is just that tough evidently. If something that massive was deflected so effortlessly, would a bunch of asteroids fare any better? That's not even considering the fact the nuclear device (which appears to not create any kind of chain reaction) has the force to obliterate an object of that size.

For all we know, with their new Raven technology, there's nothing stopping humanity from boosting around in their Arwings and blowing the asteroids up with their hyper lasers. I mean, did you see that city destroying wave of fire that didn't bother expanding in the first film? The one Smith's wife just kind of outran for a half minute? The atmosphere of ID4 Earth is weird.


C'mon. They need a starship just a little bigger, and then they can simply ram the Earth... :smalltongue:

Honestly, the sudden appearance of an object 1/4th the size of the moon should have already caused a lot of problems for life on earth just suddenly appearing there by the planet. That much mass that close really should have had some pretty noticeable effects frankly.

[BannedInSchool]

ID4 4: What?

[Scowling Dragon]

Hell Im sad to see that Independence Day Resurgence will have more follow up and a more expanded universe then SWTFA does.

Im still shellshocked.

[Yora]

Indepedance Day worked because it was basically a movie with a tongue firmly implanted in cheek; a B movie on a A movie budget (though apparently me and my Dad were the only one in the theatre that got that, because we were the only ones laughing and the jokes...) And it worked quite well in that regard.

That thought had never occured to me before. But they did make Lone Star the president of Earth, so that seems all much more plausible.

[GloatingSwine]

So it takes them twenty years to make a sequel which looks... basically like it's the same plot.

Only without blowing up any trailer-worthy iconic buildings.

Mm.

They blew them all up in the first one.

The ones Americans would recognise anyway.

Other buildings don't count.

[DigoDragon]

They blew them all up in the first one.

I'm sure 20 years is enough time to build new ones. Or rebuild old ones. Either way they probably still haven't finished Mount Rushmore. :smallbiggrin:

[HardcoreD&Dgirl]

I'm sure 20 years is enough time to build new ones. Or rebuild old ones. Either way they probably still haven't finished Mount Rushmore. :smallbiggrin:

the new white house most likely looks new... so we the audience wont recognize it...

[The Glyphstone]

It sounds a lot like Independence Day 3: Battlefield Earth. :P


I wouldn't be surprised if it were a subtle remake of that. :smallbiggrin:

That wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. Battlefield Earth has a core of very solid, if cliche, story potential at its core, it's just a seed used to grow a tree of utter dreck. A well-done 'plucky humans overthrow alien oppressors' could be pretty good.

[Yora]

I'm sure 20 years is enough time to build new ones. Or rebuild old ones. Either way they probably still haven't finished Mount Rushmore. :smallbiggrin:

Isn't the movie all about how 'murica is the greatest and invincible? Rebuilding it seems completely plausible. Not rebuilding it seems like much more of a stretch.

[HandofShadows]

The starship they showed in the trailer is big enough for the job already. Hell the mothership in the first movie is big enough for the job.

Size does not equal density. The mothership from the first movie was mostly hollow IIRC.

[DigoDragon]

Isn't the movie all about how 'murica is the greatest and invincible? Rebuilding it seems completely plausible. Not rebuilding it seems like much more of a stretch.

It'll get rebuilt. The question is, do they rebuild it as it was, or do they update the design?

As for the cities, hopefully they have the foresight to build into the ground, where they can take cover from walls of fire.

[Akisa]

Isn't the movie all about how 'murica is the greatest and invincible? Rebuilding it seems completely plausible. Not rebuilding it seems like much more of a stretch.

No the orignal movie was about the world coming together, whenever America does something by itself, they get their rear handed to them.

[GloatingSwine]

No the orignal movie was about the world coming together, whenever America does something by itself, they get their rear handed to them.

It really isn't.

The original movie is amazingly yankocentric and is basically about how no other nation on earth can do anything at all until the big hero 'Muricans come up with a super amazing plan.

[Kitten Champion]

It really isn't.

The original movie is amazingly yankocentric and is basically about how no other nation on earth can do anything at all until the big hero 'Muricans come up with a super amazing plan.

I think it tried to suggest an international angle, as opposed to Michael Bay's flag-wrapping. The whole "Independence Day is no longer an American holiday" and whatnot. It just got stuck in Emmerich and Devlin's overly simplistic approach to everything and 90's action movie cliches.

[Cikomyr]

I think it tried to suggest an international angle, as opposed to Michael Bay's flag-wrapping. The whole "Independence Day is no longer an American holiday" and whatnot. It just got stuck in Emmerich and Devlin's overly simplistic approach to everything and 90's action movie cliches.

The only international angle it takes is that nations rally around the USA's example and leadership to take on the Aliens..

..sorry, thats about it. Its not Eagleland obnoxious, sure, but its nevertheless extremely americo-centric.

[Mr.Moron]

Then why not just level the planet from orbit?

Because that would be boring and not involve laser-beam dog fights?

[Akisa]

It really isn't.

The original movie is amazingly yankocentric and is basically about how no other nation on earth can do anything at all until the big hero 'Muricans come up with a super amazing plan.

It wasn't so much they came up with the plan but needed the help of other nations.
Here is a better explanation of ID4 theme (https://youtu.be/wcma0bKjJlY)

[DigoDragon]

The only international angle it takes is that nations rally around the USA's example and leadership to take on the Aliens..

..sorry, thats about it. Its not Eagleland obnoxious, sure, but its nevertheless extremely americo-centric.

I recall when the Area 51 Base was preparing for their attack, they messaged other nations about it to coordinate, and one soldier at a foreign camp said something akin to "Hey, we got word from the Americans. They have a plan." and the other soldier replied "Well it's about time!"

Though to be fair, America has some of the most advanced military tech on the planet, so allies wouldn't be wrong to think we'd be most likely to find the weakness in the alien ships.

[Cikomyr]

It wasn't so much they came up with the plan but needed the help of other nations.
Here is a better explanation of ID4 theme (https://youtu.be/wcma0bKjJlY)

What a great and fun video. Its says a lot that i still shiver with excitement at President Withmore's speech, despite hearing it so often already.

Nevertheless, lets go back to the topic at hand. I will happily concede the point about the intended themes of Human Universalism as presented in the movie. Like the video said, it was a pure ideal of the future of America, but it was still inherently flawed because it was purely from an American perspectice.

Its the dream of the American Hegemonic Unification, and even Star Trek is guilty of it. The message being: we will all come together, but the American Way, believing that the American values/ideals/ways are universal. Sure, Star Trek tries to bury it by describing modern US as "incredibly petty", etc, but the base cultural frame is still there.

Its a cute dream, and i can see, from an American point of view, how it can see very optimistic and bright (compared to the harsh Jingoist Americanism we have seen), but its still essentially americo-centric.

Now, you can try to justify it many ways. Say its meant for an american audience, and therefore is meant for american sensibilities. But that would only rationalise the Americo-centrism, not deny it.

[Aotrs Commander]

Speaking as a British person, I always found the background to the starship wargame Full Thrust to be a hilarious inversion of this trope, in which the major super power the New Anglican Confederation was America and Canada united once again under the British crown1...


(And the furor kicked up by a few gentleman over the RPG version of the Terran Trade Authority universe which had the temerity have the USA of the mid 21st century as the bad guys was quite uttely astounding. We all have to take our turn being the bad guys, after all, and we've done probably more than our fair share2...!)



1Except for notabily California and Texes, which seceded to do their own thing as the Free Cal Tex, presumably with, if you will forgive the shameless excuse to quote a wise mechanoid scholar, blackjack and hookers.

2Though we ARE so wonderfully GOOD at being Evil...

[Ardamellon]

Dam gone in-depth and analyzed the crap out of it.......... im geeking out bout it so shoot me cheer me eh all the same. independence day was a big part of my teen years even did a 3.5 dnd game on it at one point..... looking back that game sorta did a dive bomb into the 7 lvls of hell but was fun. On the subject of making a x-com based movie or this new one having that feel..... no only way to get that feel would be to do a series. Thats my two cents now rip me a new one internet muahahahah!!!!