Is Picard a hypocrite?

[horatio83]

You can bash Picard and defend Dougherty until you are blue in the face, theft remains theft and abduction remains abduction. The Federation is not an imperial power that takes what it wants without asking. What's next, a defense of rapists?

[sonak]

horatio83 wrote:

---

You can bash Picard and defend Dougherty until you are blue in the face, theft remains theft and abduction remains abduction. The Federation is not an imperial power that takes what it wants without asking. What's next, a defense of rapists?

your willingness to try to see various sides of an issue really is very inspiring.

[BillJ]

sonak wrote:

---

your willingness to try to see various sides of an issue really is very inspiring.

[horatio83]

sonak wrote:

---

your willingness to try to see various sides of an issue really is very inspiring.

I am eager to see you talking about "various sides of an issue" after somebody abducts you and takes your property.
If you side with criminals you gotta expect that people will point out that they are criminals. You can rationalize it all you want with inexistent moral dilemmas, at the end of the day Dougherty and Ru'afo are still criminals. That's why they die by the way in the movie, poetic justice, the bad guys always die. Like in all Trek movies it is crystal clear who the good and bad guys are.

[BillJ]

horatio83 wrote:

---

I am eager to see you talking about "various sides of an issue" after somebody abducts you and takes your property.
If you side with criminals you gotta expect that people will point out that they are criminals. You can rationalize it all you want with inexistent moral dilemmas, at the end of the day Dougherty and Ru'afo are still criminals. That's why they die by the way in the movie, poetic justice, the bad guys always die. Like in all Trek movies it is crystal clear who the good and bad guys are.

Unfortunately, I live in the big boy world where things are never that simplistic. I envy that you don't seem to know that world even exists.

[horatio83]

In Trek movies they are simplistic. Why do you dislike INS if it is really such a wonderful movie that features such a complex moral dilemma? So make up your mind, either you are right and there is indeed a complex dilemma which would make INS the most kick-ass Trek movie or it is a mediocre movie in which good guys fight against bad guys like in every Trek movie.

[sonak]

horatio83 wrote:

---

I am eager to see you talking about "various sides of an issue" after somebody abducts you and takes your property.
If you side with criminals you gotta expect that people will point out that they are criminals. You can rationalize it all you want with inexistent moral dilemmas, at the end of the day Dougherty and Ru'afo are still criminals. That's why they die by the way in the movie, poetic justice, the bad guys always die. Like in all Trek movies it is crystal clear who the good and bad guys are.

I suspect that if Dougherty and Ru'afo took the matter to court, they'd have the law on their side.

And just because the movie's writers want us to see somebody as a villain doesn't mean I have to uncritically accept that.

[BillJ]

horatio83 wrote:

---

In Trek movies they are simplistic. Why do you dislike INS if it is really such a wonderful movie that features such a complex moral dilemma? So make up your mind, either you are right and there is indeed a complex dilemma which would make INS the most kick-ass Trek movie or it is a mediocre movie in which good guys fight against bad guys like in every Trek movie.

I guess I just see where Michael Piller was trying to go with the film before he was sabotaged by Berman, Stewart and Spiner. You should really hunt down and read The Making of Star Trek: Insurrection. I see that Piller was trying to present a complex dilemma not trying to treat the audience like abject idiots.

[horatio83]

I totally agree that the 'Heart of Darkness'-like version of INS would most likely have been far better. Some of it remains in INS like the moral dilemma talk between Picard and Dougherty but it is overwritten, Dougherty is simply the bad guy.
That's why the movie is unsatisfying, even if you don't know the background stuff about the first story draft you feel that there was a change of directions during writing, that they couldn't decide whether they wanna make a dark or bright movie.
I certainly would not argue so one-sided if the movie had gone down this more radical road. But it hasn't and has actually become a simple morality tale.