Well, with the previous two Next Generation movies seriously disappointing me, I wasn't really all that keen on seeing this one. Even so, when a Star Trek movie comes to the screen, I do drag myself out simply to see what it is like. My brother also wanted to see it so I decided that I would, and I am glad that I did because it was far better than the other two.
Insurrection is a plot that twists and invites the viewer to work out what is going on. As well as being science fiction, it takes a far better approach that simply flashing Borg in front of us hoping to impress us. Instead it opens up with a problem and everything slowly unravels as the movie goes on.
The movie begins on a planet among a peaceful society and the Federation, using personal cloaking devices, are monitoring these people. Suddenly Data malfunctions and reveals these spies to the village. The Enterprise is asked for the schematics and instead of simply giving it to Star Fleet, they travel to the planet to see what the problem is. The planet happens to be located in the middle of a large nebula and as such no communication out is possible, thus what is going on on the planet is hidden from the Federation, even though one of the admirals is involved.
The thing about the planet is that the rings produce rejuvenating rays which restores body tissue. This is the secret of eternal youth which everybody is looking for. Such a benefit always comes with a disadvantage – and this seems to be a common plot in Star Trek – all other problems have been solved but people still die, so what can we do about it.
This mimics humanities fear of death. They take everything away but there is still death so they decide to create a way in which to eliminate that as well. What Star Trek really is is humanities desire to live in a better world without having to submit to a supreme authority – God. I have had arguments regarding the morality of Star Trek with numerous trekkie friends and will always remain firm that the reason that I hate Star Trek is that they are openly against religion and claim that humanity can solve all of the world's problems itself. This I just cannot believe because in 6000 years of recorded human history we may have advanced technologically and culturally, but the same problems that faced our ancient ancestors face us today, so what makes us think we can solve them in a few hundred years. Maybe we argue that we have been evolving, but all we have to do is look at the social decay within America as everybody becomes hyper-individualistic to realise that this is not the case.
I did like this movie and was suitably impressed, even with one that Jonathon Frakes directed. I was not suitably impressed with some of Frakes' directions as they generally seem nice and idealistic and generally sickening, but this was good. If they can keep up the quality of such films then I will be returning to see them.
Insurrection is a plot that twists and invites the viewer to work out what is going on. As well as being science fiction, it takes a far better approach that simply flashing Borg in front of us hoping to impress us. Instead it opens up with a problem and everything slowly unravels as the movie goes on.
The movie begins on a planet among a peaceful society and the Federation, using personal cloaking devices, are monitoring these people. Suddenly Data malfunctions and reveals these spies to the village. The Enterprise is asked for the schematics and instead of simply giving it to Star Fleet, they travel to the planet to see what the problem is. The planet happens to be located in the middle of a large nebula and as such no communication out is possible, thus what is going on on the planet is hidden from the Federation, even though one of the admirals is involved.
The thing about the planet is that the rings produce rejuvenating rays which restores body tissue. This is the secret of eternal youth which everybody is looking for. Such a benefit always comes with a disadvantage – and this seems to be a common plot in Star Trek – all other problems have been solved but people still die, so what can we do about it.
This mimics humanities fear of death. They take everything away but there is still death so they decide to create a way in which to eliminate that as well. What Star Trek really is is humanities desire to live in a better world without having to submit to a supreme authority – God. I have had arguments regarding the morality of Star Trek with numerous trekkie friends and will always remain firm that the reason that I hate Star Trek is that they are openly against religion and claim that humanity can solve all of the world's problems itself. This I just cannot believe because in 6000 years of recorded human history we may have advanced technologically and culturally, but the same problems that faced our ancient ancestors face us today, so what makes us think we can solve them in a few hundred years. Maybe we argue that we have been evolving, but all we have to do is look at the social decay within America as everybody becomes hyper-individualistic to realise that this is not the case.
I did like this movie and was suitably impressed, even with one that Jonathon Frakes directed. I was not suitably impressed with some of Frakes' directions as they generally seem nice and idealistic and generally sickening, but this was good. If they can keep up the quality of such films then I will be returning to see them.