Quote:
Originally Posted by RAnthonyMahan
Yeah, they did a good job making Sorkin relatable. The way she argues her points, it's clear that even though she's not right, she's also not really wrong either.
|
See, here's the thing: it seems to me that the *game* wanted me to oppose Sorkin (when
she decides to try to stop the bombing, my only dialogue options were variations of "You're crazy!"), but...wow, I really don't. I actually was surprised to find myself nodding in fervent agreement with her -- as someone whose politics are fairly right-of-center, a self-righteous animal-rights activist seems tailor-made to just drive me up the proverbial wall. I agree that the various species should never have been brought into existence, but now that we have a number of living, breathing creatures, I don't know that it's ethical for us to simply
carpet-bomb them back into extinction. (In fact, I would argue that the fact that we brought them about makes us even *more* responsible for them.)
I'm not saying that I would do anything differently in Gerry's place -- I imagine my position would be "I want to get my daughter the hell out of here, and screw the consequences" -- but I wouldn't be trumpeting that position as some kind of moral triumph.
Even her dastardly plan of
releasing the mosasaur isn't all that dastardly -- despite Gerry's shrill warnings, I believe he is, as Sorkin observed, simply being dramatic. A single dangerous predator can cause some serious damage in a limited area (God knows I wouldn't want to be in proximity with one), but its ability to wreak global catastrophe is pretty freaking dubious.
What surprises me isn't her ruthlessness, but her naivete in believing that she really has an ace in the hole here. I would think that an experienced protestor would make the same assumption I would -- that they would
proceed with the bombing, and wipe out what are now clearly hostile witnesses.