And That Kirk-Spock Bromance Has Got To Go

By Miss Kubelik

This is not a movie blog, but having snuck in to see "Star Trek: Into Darkness" with human viewers whilst in Canada last week, we cats were, naturally, curious.

The film, dedicated to post-9/11 veterans, comments on terrorism, militarism and — we think — the entire neocon Bush-Cheney foreign policy, which was a pack of lies foisted by chickenhawks who could never be bothered to fight wars themselves. So we were interested to see what the right-wing nutjobs over at Free Republic thought about it.

(We've also observed over the years that Freepers are "Star Trek" fans. This has not kept us cats from enjoying "Star Trek" ourselves, mind you.)

Well, ooooh! It didn't take us long to discover that the Freepers don't like this movie at all. Here are the reasons, in a nutshell:

• The franchise has become a "paean to socialism."
• Zachary Quinto is gay.
• Zoe Saldana said she "might end up with a woman" as a life partner.
• "Most of the characters in this latest series look gay. That makes the movie less believable." (Are we detecting a pattern here?)
• Movies are NEVER just “movies," and Hollywood is immoral.
• You libs would have gone military mad if Vulcan had been destroyed, too!
• They're all really angry at Benedict Cumberbatch, although the rest of the world seems to adore him.
• Zachary Quinto is gay. (Did we mention that already?)

Yep, amid the backing-and-forthing about plot points, it's clear to us that the Freeps' revulsion over this latest installment in the storied Gene Roddenberry franchise is based on nothing but sex, sex, sex. As one Freeper succinctly put it: "Did you notice that they placed a transgender character at the helm on the bridge?"

Actually, we cats didn't notice that. Guess we'll have to see the film again. Which, by the way, we're happy to do.