I don't really want to go through the plot because the movie is only two days old. I imagine there's a decent summary on wikipedia, or the Trek-wiki (I'm sure there is one, but I don't know its name).
There were a lot of TOS episodes that didn't have any kind of greater "message" to them. I don't really see the problem.
First, who said it was a problem? I liked the movie, but I don't think it rates as particularly good science fiction.
Second, all of TOS - even the really bad bits - was at least trying to be decent science fiction. It had as one of its lead characters an alien who doesn't just -look- different, but whose philosophy, character and society were radically at odds with the rest of the crew. And the Spock-Kirk-McCoy interplay was central to the show.
My point was to get Androsphinx to actually justify his position that SF somehow needs to be about more than advanced technology being the key to a plot-point
There are lots of movies which have the background of sci-fi but with dialogue, plot and characters straight out of the late 20th century. They can be very good action movies, or comedies, or romances or mysteries or whatever - but if they don't actually use their setting to any effect then they're space opera, or space fantasy, or whatever other label you want to give them. I consider sci-fi to be something where the sci- is more than just window-dressing.
It's nice for an SF movie to demonstrate why this technology is relevant to humanity somehow, but frankly I don't think that has to be a requirement; otherwise a lot of movies would come off as ham-fisted.
I think you're slightly misreading what I wrote. It's not that the technology needs to say something relevant to humanity, it's that some aspect of the setting should say or do or mean
something. For example, take the last Star Trek movie that was both a good movie and good sci-fi:
The Undiscovered Country was a great re-working of the classic storyline of cop-is-framed-and-must-escape-and-stop-an-evil-plot, with a contemporary detente backdrop, but which was also quality sci-fi because setting the Cold War (and especially the end of the Cold War) in space with aliens instead of communists is interesting. Having any number of recognisable actions and phrases put in space with aliens is thought-provoking. Seeing aliens claim Shakespeare as one of their own gives a new perspective on the way that Art was used in the Cold War. Having the phrase "inalienable human rights" be taken as an insult was a stroke of genius (I used to use it on occasion to explain Orientalism to students, but none of them have seen the movie anymore).
Insurrection, OTOH, was exactly what you described - a straightforward action-adventure which tried for about ten minutes to shoe horn in some actual sci-fi and was none the better for it. Or maybe it was originally a sci-fi movie about eternal life but which was turned into an action-adventure movie instead - who knows?
I think your concern is just a definitional one - that you and I mean different things when we say sci-fi. I see that my earlier use was a bit ambiguous, but I though that the contrast of "Good Action Movie" and "poor sci-fi movie" would make it clear.
And did Spock say that the star threatened the galaxy
I think so. I assume there's a technobabble explanation somewhere.
(I suffer from mild hearing loss, so I might have misheard that part).
(seriously, what is it about sci-fi villains and their distain for the idea of not getting killed walking to your workstation by the giant pit?). The enterprise engineering deck was also a revelation - what, real actual pipes and valving, vessels and machinery? On a ship engine deck, never! Although they did overdo the industrialness a little bit imo.
