Robbers are not afraid, but afraid of robbers have culture

Burke and Kirk are not good pairs of friends but are colleagues. The two are not very different in age, but they have opposite personalities, Burke is calm and cool, while Kirk is outgoing. However, when the two go out on a mission but can end up becoming good friends. Of course, this depends on the outside world to reduce stress.

Star Trek is a classic science fiction movie, and this sci-fi work is a favorite of many fans. As a classic depiction of the "Age of Sail" in outer space, Star Trek's narrative does not depart from the European and American view of maritime history. While many fans are addicted to the grandeur of the Age of Sail, we should perhaps reflect on the so-called Age of Sail, what kind of age is it? It is the golden age in the eyes of Europe and the United States or an ordinary excuse for colonial plunder. The answer to all this is hidden in the setting of "Star Trek".

As an adventure movie, "Star Trek" has a series of classic settings of Western narrative films. Burke belongs to the unhappy, Kirk belongs to the mindless, dual protagonist setup, such two characters in the pairing of the character invincible. Burke can calmly analyze and act as a tool man role, while Kirk can act as a tool to liven up the atmosphere. This is the classic double-lead set, and many European and American films have such characters. The setting of the characters can greatly mobilize the audience's interest in watching the film, this pairing allows the audience to watch the film without the need for in-depth thinking, and therefore, ultimately can ignore the flaws in logic and the ability to discern.

And the story of "Star Trek" we see is still the era of the great voyage escapism, this legacy can not simply say good or bad, can only stand in a different perspective to give a different answer to let the audience do their reference. The sea age is good, I can ask the people of the colonized countries, rather than just the values of this event anchored in the values of the Western civilization system.

In the West's view, the age of colonization by sea was naturally good, because Europe, as a powder keg of the feudal era, the age of navigation could somewhat reduce the main conflicts of the time. When the European resources were not enough to distribute to the aborigines, then the aborigines had to go through wars in exchange for the reshuffling of feudal imperial power. However, sailing to open up new continents could certainly alleviate the conflicts of war and thus prevent Europe from entering the dark ages of the Middle Ages. However, for the colonized countries, it was nothing but a disaster.

The Indians on the American continent are almost extinct to this day, and the local aborigines of Australia are voiceless. Ancient Eastern civilizations have somewhat resisted this pattern of invasion, and as a result, we have been branded as backward and ignorant in the contemporary world structure. No one thinks about the reasons behind all this, but no one wants to think about it. The review of this film on Douban says "Perhaps because they have not experienced the Age of Sail, it may be difficult for the cultures of Asian countries to truly appreciate the excitement and fun of exploring the unknown of the universe in Star Trek." This is an interesting statement, which represents a fixed understanding of the so-called Great Age of Sail, which is dominated by the West. But it also reveals our ignorance of that glorified history.

The so-called excitement and amusement come from the Western perspective, the current situation of the people in the colonized and conquered areas, or all their experiences. But if you were an Indian, if you were an Australian Aborigine, you would still find the Age of Sail interesting. Was it interesting to our countrymen when the British fleet was staged at the mouth of Taku in Humen? Was it exciting? Was there any fun in it? Surely not. Was it like being beaten behind closed doors? If we measure it according to today's economic decision, the Qing Dynasty was ranked first in the world for a long time, we are not backward ah, our economy is very powerful ah. Then why were we beaten?

Here you will be told that your system does not work, but the system is derived, it is a result, not a cause. The West has its civilization, and the East has its civilization. In each civilization, we can see the good parts and the bad parts. But there is not one civilization that can be applied to all countries. If it is the system that determines everything, then is India, the largest democracy in the world, really good? The Philippines in Asia is also a country set up according to the political system of the United States, is it developed?

Back to the film, the reason why "Star Trek" is accepted by fans is simply that it follows the culture of Europe and America, which was once the optimal culture that was also recognized and accepted by the majority of people who envy Western countries. Based on such a dual system, Star Trek has gained more popularity and is portrayed as a kind of excellent seafaring film. Yet few people have reflected on whether the voyage was the way to spread the gospel portrayed as a civilizational march. Not.

It is true that "Star Trek" is a very good and mature Hollywood film, we can see the mature story setup, reasonable physical knowledge is applied and the characters and plot promote the structure of the very mature film industry system, we can say that this is an excellent industrial film, but if it rises to a certain height, it seems unnecessary. The kernel of "Star Trek" is still the glorification of Western colonialism, and such a kernel is not worthy of praise.