View Single Post
Old April 20 2013, 10:51 PM   #160
The Overlord
Re: Did Picard make the right decision with the Son'a/Baku

sonak wrote: View Post
The Overlord wrote: View Post
OneBuckFilms wrote: View Post
Then again, maybe they didn't have good reason. Baybe does not establish anything. Define Good Reason by their society and rules.

Truth is, we don't know enough about that conflict.
There are tons of reasons of to oppose a Luddite philosophy: less needless labor, better standard of living with technology, etc. If I was living in a Ba'ku village and I had to live in some medieval village while other people got travel around the universe in star ships, I might be upset too. I would begin to think Ba'ku society was reactionary and flawed. Why should everyone accept that such a philosophy is good for everyone and not try to oppose it if they think its flawed?

The fact that we know nothing about the rift between the Son'a and the Ba'ku hurts the story. The Ba'ku having the right eject the Son'a from their planet and the Son'a not having that same right looks hypocritical.

How this story supposed to be an effective moral dilemma when the Ba'ku are supposedly perfect and the Son'a are one dimensional cartoonish villains?

OneBuckFilms wrote: View Post
What we DO know is that the Baku were being forced out of their homes, that they had lived in peacefully, bothering nobody, for hundreds of years.

It was a society, in and of itself. A colony from elsewhere on inception? Irrelevant morally, if interesting.

Until the Son'a and Federation situations, it was very productive to live there without depending on their technological knowledge.

Being where they are, and hard to reach, unnoticed, made more sense given their origins.
If the Ba'ku were peaceful, how did they force the Son'a off their planet in the first place? It seems like there a lot of holes in this story.

precisely. In adding the Son'a-Baku connection as a "twist" to the story, it made the whole thing make a lot LESS sense. Think about all the plot holes it clears up:

1. we don't have to wonder how a bunch of pacifists kicked a group of fighters off the planet

2. the Son'a would have an actual REASON not to tell Dougherty about the true nature of the Baku, because they genuinely wouldn't know. In the movie, not being straight with Dougherty ultimately SABOTAGES the entire project

3. The Son'a don't automatically get an equal claim on the planet since they're from that world too, making the legality a lot murkier for the Baku

4. We don't have to wonder WHY the Son'a never previously returned, once they had a decent fleet, and conquered the Baku themselves

5. Finally, the Baku remain a little more sympathetic since they didn't exile their family members to die slowly

all in all, the "twist" severely weakens an already weak story
Frankly the story would have been a bit better if the Son'a had been generic evil invaders who simply wanted to be immortal and had no legitimate claim to that planet. Sure it would ruin the supposed the moral dilemma that the movie was trying to present, but frankly they ruined that already by presenting the Son'a as cartoon bad guys. You may as well ditch the whole moral dilemma and make the Son'a just some evil that needs defeating.

It seemed like the movie was trying to present the son'a as Hitler or some mafia boss and the Ba'ku as Gandhi and Hitler vs. Gandhi is not an interesting moral debate. A moral dilemma needs to be gray, not black and white like this film.
The Overlord is offline   Reply With Quote