How would you improve Insurrection?

[sonak]

I'm not sure the original premise has much promise, anyway, but I'll try modifying it instead of throwing the whole thing out.


-make the Baku more sympathetic and make them a real civilization of thousands or millions rather than a tiny village of squatters. Have them actually be connected to the planet as their home rather than some place they stumbled upon 300 years ago.

-take Dougherty and the other side's arguments more seriously. Make him convincing and have some of the senior officers side AGAINST Picard, as they probably would if we're being realistic.

-darker tone, less "silliness."(pimples, boob jokes, etc.)

-make the dilemma more balanced by not having the stakes be a revolutionary medical resource that HELPS BILLIONS. Have the resource be something like a new fuel source or something that would help the UFP in the war.

[JarodRussell]

sonak wrote:

---

I'm not sure the original premise has much promise, anyway, but I'll try modifying it instead of throwing the whole thing out.


-make the Baku more sympathetic and make them a real civilization of thousands or millions rather than a tiny village of squatters. Have them actually be connected to the planet as their home rather than some place they stumbled upon 300 years ago.

-take Dougherty and the other side's arguments more seriously. Make him convincing and have some of the senior officers side AGAINST Picard, as they probably would if we're being realistic.

-darker tone, less "silliness."(pimples, boob jokes, etc.)

-make the dilemma more balanced by not having the stakes be a revolutionary medical resource that HELPS BILLIONS. Have the resource be something like a new fuel source or something that would help the UFP in the war.

Hey, that's Avatar.

[ssosmcin]

One thing I wouldn't do is tie Insurrection in with the Dominion War, or any of the films in with the continuity of whatever TV series was running at the time (this has been suggested more than a few times over the years). The film has to stand on its own to appeal to a broader audience, not only at the time of release but also in its afterlife. The films are not slotted into the syndication reruns of any series. Insurrection could be played anywhere at any time. A 10 pm showing on HBO would reach more casual viewers who might stop at the movie and check it out. By tying the films into the TV series too closely, one takes a chance of losing that audience, who has to be brought up to speed. It would be like running a random episode without any of the others around it. If it is a standalone episode, no problem. If it's a vital cog in the ongoing arc, then it's not as effective.

Sure, a few lines of dialog could probably do it, but the farther away in time we get from a discontinued TV show, the less relevant it becomes. Tying the film directly to it would make it less important because it's slaved to another show rather than the series the film actually is a sequel of. If you're going to tie a TNG movie to any series, it should be TNG itself. But I always preferred the movies to work on their own, so one wouldn't need to follow the series to get it.

[Tiberius]

Get rid of Starfleet as the bad guys.

Have it so the Sona are there with the permission of Starfleet, who thinks they are conducting scientific research on the magical properties of the rings. Data found out that they are really planning to harness those powers (which will destroy all life on the surface), and that's why he went crazy. The Enterprise goes to get him back after the Sona demand that Starfleet removes him. That way it turns into Starfleet (in the form of the Enterprise) against the Sona, making the central conflict more clear cut. The grey area comes from whether it is right to sacrifice one planet to save billions, not whether the other Starfleet guy is your enemy or not.

[BillJ]

Tiberius wrote:

---

Get rid of Starfleet as the bad guys.

Have it so the Sona are there with the permission of Starfleet, who thinks they are conducting scientific research on the magical properties of the rings. Data found out that they are really planning to harness those powers (which will destroy all life on the surface), and that's why he went crazy. The Enterprise goes to get him back after the Sona demand that Starfleet removes him. That way it turns into Starfleet (in the form of the Enterprise) against the Sona, making the central conflict more clear cut. The grey area comes from whether it is right to sacrifice one planet to save billions, not whether the other Starfleet guy is your enemy or not.

Subtract your first sentence and that's pretty much the movie in a nutshell.

I'd much rather it be Starfleet vs. Starfleet than being exposed to yet another rubber faced alien we will never see again.

[Relayer1]

Not possible - it's just way too weak a story. To improve it would require a completely different plot - they did the best they could with that one...

[sonak]

JarodRussell wrote:

---

Hey, that's Avatar.

yeah. I was hoping no one would notice.


But seriously, that's kind of why "Avatar" works and INS doesn't.

[Galileo7]

BillJ wrote:

---

Go back before they started writing the film and make sure that Stewart and Spiner have absolutely no input. Then go with Piller's idea of serium krellide as the basis for all Federation medical technology.

Make the Ba'ku likable, drop the S'ona and make it a purely Starfleet vs. Starfleet affair.

Agree, you got it.

[T'Girl]

As the Baku are fleeing their village, they are chased by Sona ground troops.

Picard, Data and Worf fight the Sona off, using a dune buggy.

[Tiberius]

BillJ wrote:

---

Subtract your first sentence and that's pretty much the movie in a nutshell.

I'd much rather it be Starfleet vs. Starfleet than being exposed to yet another rubber faced alien we will never see again.

But in my version, we never have starfleet on the planet working with the Sona. The way it is muddies the waters. Is Starfleet or the Sona the bad guys. If starfleet's the bad guys, why do other starfleet guys act like the good guys. Keep things clear and simple. Sona are bad guys, starfleet good guys.

[The Overlord]

Tiberius wrote:

---

But in my version, we never have starfleet on the planet working with the Sona. The way it is muddies the waters. Is Starfleet or the Sona the bad guys. If starfleet's the bad guys, why do other starfleet guys act like the good guys. Keep things clear and simple. Sona are bad guys, starfleet good guys.

Well it depends on what type story you want to tell, if you want to tell a light hearted adventure story, then having a clear evil that needs defeating is the way to go. However a clear evil doesn't make for a good moral dilemma, for that you need a story that muddies the water. You need a situation where its not easy to tell which is the right way to deal with the situation. So if the Son'a are villains and they are just evil, it removes the moral dilemma. Having Picard fight against Star Fleet instead of evil aliens makes for a better moral dilemma.

The problem is Insurrection tried to a light hearted adventure with a moral dilemma, those two things are contrary to each other.

[22 Stars]

^ Um, ever seen ST IV: The One With The Whales. Light hearted adventure with a moral dilemma.

The TNG movies lost their way with letting Stewart and Spiner run the creative process instead of acting in movies. They never brought in a real thinker, like Nick Meyer to reduce TNG to it's most successful elements (FC comes closest) and elevate it into true motion picture worthy adventure.

ST II III and IV were all made on budgets but with scale. TNG films had more money and less scope, looking like TV movies of the week.

[Tiberius]

The Overlord wrote:

---

Well it depends on what type story you want to tell, if you want to tell a light hearted adventure story, then having a clear evil that needs defeating is the way to go. However a clear evil doesn't make for a good moral dilemma, for that you need a story that muddies the water. You need a situation where its not easy to tell which is the right way to deal with the situation. So if the Son'a are villains and they are just evil, it removes the moral dilemma. Having Picard fight against Star Fleet instead of evil aliens makes for a better moral dilemma.

The problem is Insurrection tried to a light hearted adventure with a moral dilemma, those two things are contrary to each other.

You don't need to muddy the waters by making Starfleet officers conspire with the Sona to make it a moral grey area. That comes from the fact that the Sona are trying to do something that will benefit millions of people. Is it right to prevent that just to benefit a few hundred Baku? THAT is where the moral dilemma comes from.

[BillJ]

Tiberius wrote:

---

You don't need to muddy the waters by making Starfleet officers conspire with the Sona to make it a moral grey area. That comes from the fact that the Sona are trying to do something that will benefit millions of people. Is it right to prevent that just to benefit a few hundred Baku? THAT is where the moral dilemma comes from.

But what motivation do the S'ona then have to give the radiation to millions?

[The Overlord]

22 Stars wrote:

---

^ Um, ever seen ST IV: The One With The Whales. Light hearted adventure with a moral dilemma.

The TNG movies lost their way with letting Stewart and Spiner run the creative process instead of acting in movies. They never brought in a real thinker, like Nick Meyer to reduce TNG to it's most successful elements (FC comes closest) and elevate it into true motion picture worthy adventure.

ST II III and IV were all made on budgets but with scale. TNG films had more money and less scope, looking like TV movies of the week.

What the was the dilemma in IV, a dilemma has to be a moral choice that has two view points that are valid and the morality around the situation is unclear, the path out of it is not easy. There was no moral choice or qualms presented in IV in regards to the decision to time travel get the whales. That is not a dilemma.

IV had a moral message, but not a dilemma, you can have a light hearted movie with message, but a true moral dilemma has truly conflicted and little heart wrenching.

Tiberius wrote:

---

You don't need to muddy the waters by making Starfleet officers conspire with the Sona to make it a moral grey area. That comes from the fact that the Sona are trying to do something that will benefit millions of people. Is it right to prevent that just to benefit a few hundred Baku? THAT is where the moral dilemma comes from.

If Star Fleet is fighting against the Son'a why would they be interested in the Son'a process in the first place? Such trades usually do not happen if parties are at war with each other. Plus if the Son'a are presented as just evil, how is this a gray area?

A moral dilemma needs muddied waters to work, Picard will be far more conflicted fighting against star Fleet, then some random aliens who are given no real redeeming qualities. If the Son'a are just presented as evil, then how do they make valid point and how is this situation gray?