How would you improve Insurrection?

[Hartzilla2007]

sonak wrote:

---

yeah. I was hoping no one would notice.


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

Wait Avatar had a balanced dilemma?

Funny I remember the film boiling down to Na'vi and the humans on their side = good, every other human = irredeemable douche bag.

22 Stars wrote:

---

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

Wait there was a moral dilemma?

T'Girl wrote:

---

Solely because it will help them, no other reason.

Imperialistic powers don't work that way.

Drago-Kazov wrote:

---

I don't think the Ferengi can carry a movie as villains.

Plus you lose any moral conflict when you remember that as TNG constantly reminds us when the Ferengi are doing something for profit it usually is never something our heroes will see as a good thing.

JarodRussell wrote:

---

- make the Ba'ku less arian in nature and have more than 600 of them
- make clear that the old Ba'ku would die as soon as there is no more metaphasic radiation: the effects are only temporary and then they grow old to their actual age in a matter of hours or even minutes
- have some Dominion in it. Replace the ball dinner opening with a battle against Jem'Hadar cruisers.
- a Federation Council scene would widen the scope a bit.
- make the Ba'ku planet more alien. The rings and the nebula added to the background, especially in night scenes.
- make the Enterprise in the battle against the Son'a ships more active, attacking, firing torpedoes, doing some nice tactical tricks, playing hide and seek
- lose the kid/Data stuff, I was getting tired of "Data learns something about humanity" subplots.
- have some conflict between the Enterprise crew before they realize Picard is right. Like Geordi being euphorical that he's able to see before he realizes that people would have to die for it.
- lose the A British Tar scene

In other words more like the original version.

[sonak]

CoveTom wrote:

---

That's pretty much the solution to the problems of all the TNG films.

What input did those two have in the writing of GEN or FC?

[CoveTom]

sonak wrote:

---

What input did those two have in the writing of GEN or FC?

I don't know about Generations. However, Patrick Stewart's input heavily influenced the story direction for First Contact. The early drafts were very different. In the early drafts, Picard was on the surface throughout the film and actually ended up having to assume Cochrane's place and make the warp flight to set history right. Riker was on board the ship and led the fight against the Borg.

You may disagree, but I like it better that way. Even though Picard has a history with the Borg, he is the thinker. He is the historian. He, to me, is a more logical fit to help restore history. Meanwhile, throughout the series, Riker is the action guy. Leading the fight against the Borg seems a natural fit for him, particularly since he led the fight against the Borg in "Best of Both Worlds".

The biggest problem of the TNG movies is that they became the Picard & Data show, and Stewart and Spiner had a lot to do with that.

[Maurice]

JarodRussell wrote:

---

- have some Dominion in it. Replace the ball dinner opening with a battle against Jem'Hadar cruisers.

How does that help the story? It's a tangent that would have nothing to do with the main plot and would confuse audiences that didn't watch DS9.

[middyseafort]

Maurice wrote:

---

How does that help the story? It's a tangent that would have nothing to do with the main plot and would confuse audiences that didn't watch DS9.

More to the point, more pew pew wasn't what INSURRECTION needed.

Haven't really thought how much I'd improve INSURRECTION, and I know I've said this before somewhere else, but it would've been nice to have an actual insurrection — Picard actually going up against his government. He really doesn't in this film, he just confronts another insane Admiral trope.

And consequences. The movie should've had consequences. It had none. There was nothing really at stake except the Baku's land, but nothing really personal for Picard. Oh sure, he lost is faith in the institution he spent his entire life protecting, but beyond that what else did he face that wasn't just lip service. As we saw in the next movie, there were no consequences. Hell even in the end, it seemed as if Picard would be OK. So again, what was really at stake for Picard? Nothing. Nothing at all.

[T'Girl]

JarodRussell wrote:

---

- make the Ba'ku less arian in nature and have more than 600 of them

Having only 600 people and having them be non-indigenous added nicely to the ambiguity of their position. The Baku did have a claim upon the planet, but their claim wasn't really strong, this made the story better.

- have some Dominion in it. Replace the ball dinner opening with a battle against Jem'Hadar cruisers.
- make the Enterprise in the battle against the Son'a ships more active, attacking, firing torpedoes, doing some nice tactical tricks, playing hide and seek

Have the Enterprise arrive at the Ring Planet with server battle damage, explaining how the two Sona ships could possibly be a threat to it.

- a Federation Council scene would widen the scope a bit.

This would have been a nice addition, show that the Admiral wasn't acting alone, but (as he claimed) was operating under Council orders. Picard wasn't just going against some insane Admiral, but the majority opinion of the Federation Council.

- lose the kid/Data stuff, I was getting tired of "Data learns something about humanity" subplots.

Keep a couple scenes perhaps, some were cute, but they did get old fast, the haystack piece at the end of the movie was lame.

middyseafort wrote:

---

Picard actually going up against his government.

Yes, and as mention before members of his own crew too. Have various people keep hammering Picard on the health benefits of the rings particles, and how many hundreds of billions of people they will help.

Emphasize there were negative consequences to helping the Baku, that there was more than one side.

OK. So again, what was really at stake for Picard? Nothing. Nothing at all.

Obviously Picard keeps his command, but the movie might have ended with a certain doubt if that was going to be the case. Have Picard speak on doing what you think is right, even if there are personal costs.

I also would have added a line in the script of a possibility that the Federation Council might still have gone ahead with the collection of the particles, despite the events of the movie.

[JarodRussell]

Maurice wrote:

---

... and would confuse audiences that didn't watch DS9.

Ah come on. Audiences are not stupid. There's a space battle, and then they drop a line how they are at war for 3 years with the Dominion. It's not that hard. And it's not confusing.

How does that help the story?

Showing the battle and injuries and losses helps the story by showing the importance of a fountain of youth. Show, don't tell.

[CoveTom]

JarodRussell;6833621Ah come on. Audiences are not stupid. There's a space battle, and then they drop a line how they are at war for 3 years with the Dominion. It's not that hard. And it's not [I wrote:

---

confusing[/I].

Agree. Feature films have to play to an audience that is not necessarily familiar with even TNG, let alone DS9. That doesn't mean that we have to assume the audience is stupid or that they can't handle a little exposition to establish the backstory. I mean, let's face it. Star Trek has been around a long time. You're never going to make a Trek film that doesn't have some connection to what's come before. Even Abrams didn't do that.

My standard is pretty much this: If you can sum up what backstory is needed and why we should care in a couple of lines of dialog, then it should be okay. That's why I said upthread that, for example, Lore's backstory could be conveyed. He's an evil twin. A prototype that went bad. On the other hand, Sela would take too long and be complex to explain.

[sonak]

CoveTom wrote:

---

I don't know about Generations. However, Patrick Stewart's input heavily influenced the story direction for First Contact. The early drafts were very different. In the early drafts, Picard was on the surface throughout the film and actually ended up having to assume Cochrane's place and make the warp flight to set history right. Riker was on board the ship and led the fight against the Borg.

You may disagree, but I like it better that way. Even though Picard has a history with the Borg, he is the thinker. He is the historian. He, to me, is a more logical fit to help restore history. Meanwhile, throughout the series, Riker is the action guy. Leading the fight against the Borg seems a natural fit for him, particularly since he led the fight against the Borg in "Best of Both Worlds".

The biggest problem of the TNG movies is that they became the Picard & Data show, and Stewart and Spiner had a lot to do with that.

Hmmm, didn't know that, but I don't think that change is widely regarded as having created a "problem" in FC.

And it is more consistent with the TNG formula. Riker is Away Team guy doing stuff off-ship while Picard generally remains on ship.

But yes, the TNG movies did unfortunately become the Picard/Data show.

[ColeMercury]

I have three ideas:
-- Make it so that when people leave the planet they revert back to their natural state. Meaning that if the Baku are taken off the planet most of them will rapidly age and die.
-- Reverse the origins of the Baku and the Sona: make it so that the Baku are actually an offshoot of the Sona rather than the other way around. And also make it explicit that the Sona have been infected with a genetic disease which makes them sterile (this is only implied in the actual film).
-- Release the movie in 1999. After the end of the Dominion War. So no one will be complaining about it having nothing to do with the Dominion War.

[sonak]

ColeMercury wrote:

---

I have three ideas:
-- Make it so that when people leave the planet they revert back to their natural state. Meaning that if the Baku are taken off the planet most of them will rapidly age and die.
-- Reverse the origins of the Baku and the Sona: make it so that the Baku are actually an offshoot of the Sona rather than the other way around. And also make it explicit that the Sona have been infected with a genetic disease which makes them sterile (this is only implied in the actual film).
-- Release the movie in 1999. After the end of the Dominion War. So no one will be complaining about it having nothing to do with the Dominion War.

I think the idea was that the Baku WOULD revert back to their natural state if taken off planet. If not, the "dilemma" is even LESS balanced than it already was, because it would just be about location.

How would the Baku as offshoot of the Son'a work? If you change the origin story how does that affect the Son'a motive of revenge?

[RoJoHen]

I always wanted to replace the Ba'ku and Son'a with Vulcans and Romulans and somehow re-work it into a Reunification story. Replace Admiral Whats-His-Face with Spock and replace Ruafo with Tomolok, and basically dump the whole Fountain of Youth thing.

And then it could lead into a re-written version of Nemesis, which continues with the Romulans and Vulcans and leads to a more formalized Federation/Romulan Alliance.

[Green Lantern]

The Overlord wrote:

---

We already had a thread discussing how to improve Nemesis, so I thought it be fun to to discuss ways to improve Insurrection.

How would Improve Insurrection? By tossing away the script, then getting someone to re-write the entire film, including the title, everything. Why did they even bother with Insurrection, it was pointless. Generations was great, first contact was great too, Nemises was okish, maybe good, but insurrection was bad, did not enjoy it much. They should have kept TNG on for one more series, and not make insurrection instead!

[Plain Simple]

ssosmcin wrote:

---

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.

I never understand this argument. There will hardly be anyone out there who doesn't know that Star Trek is a major franchise (and had been for some 30 years at that point), with many tv series and films already out there. So you would expect there to be a larger universe out there in which this movie takes place (on a side note, that's one of the reasons watching First Contact was a catalyst for me to start watching the tv shows). I agree that the movie shouldn't just be another installment in a larger arc, but why couldn't the general backdrop of the Trekverse at that point be used? Why not make the Dominion war an extra factor in the necessity to get whatever medical mcguffin they were looking for? After all, they do already mention it, iirc. Surely audiences can handle a bit of background.

Tiberius wrote:

---

Keep things clear and simple. Sona are bad guys, starfleet good guys.

For some movies that might be a good idea, but why for Insurrection? The title itself implies there is some Starfleet vs. Starfleet about to happen. If the moral dilemma at the heart of the story would've been presented as a real dilemma, where there are valid pros and cons on both sides of the story, without one side turning into a comic book villain, then there would have been enough justification to have different Starfleet officers on different sides of the question. And if the argument is that audiences can't handle this kind of 'complexity', that is very denigrating. Similar story lines, in which friends are pitted against friends for ideological reasons, pop up in other genres as well, why would scifi audiences not be up for it?


It's been a long long time since I saw INS, but I'll try to put out a few points of potential improvement:

-Do more with the backdrop of the Dominion war. It doesn't need to be on the foreground, but it needs to play a role. Just like any movie set during WW2 doesn't necessarily need to deal with battles and whatnot, but at least the war needs to be acknowledged as playing a major role in everyday life. For example, show wounded coming into a Federation hospital, showing the need for special whatchamacallit they were looking for on the planet. Perhaps even have one of the main characters be related to one of the wounded, to up the ante, and make his or her choice against the Baku even more believable. (Edited to add: Or possibly, explicitly, situate the movie before or after the war. But I don't see why you would throw away such a great ingredient to add drama and necessity, if you get it handed to you for free.)

-Speaking of main characters: I want to see the TNG characters in a TNG film, not a whole slew of guest stars. Son'a, Baku, I don't know who... More crew interaction please. Having them, at least initially, at odds about which course of action to take, is the perfect excuse for this.

-Make the universe bigger. Related to the first point, but show us more of the consequences of the actions on the Baku planet. Show the Federation council deliberating about what to do about it. Anything like this. If you want, you can even get partners-in-the-war Klingons and Romulans chiming in, because they will be affected to.

-Lose the Son'a, or do something better with them than making them comic book villains. There is an interesting moral dilemma at the heart of the story, which could lead to interesting conflicts, without the obligatory villain in there. Perhaps that doesn't jive with the Star Trek philosophy (Starfleet vs. Starfleet), but in that case, why try to make a movie about an Insurrection in the first place? And if the argument is that the movie going audience expects a villain in their movies, I'm tempted to say again: give it (us!) a bit more credit.

-Consequences! Have Picard (and eventually possibly the rest of the crew) really take a stand against Starfleet, if he feels their actions go against his morality. Have him take a stand. Have him lose his command. End the movie with Picard leaving Starfleet. What a wonderful set up for Nemesis: Picard, disillusioned about Starfleet to which he has given his whole life up until now. And there is Shinzon, tempting him away even further. Praying upon his uncertainties. Give us the feeling that something important (not forgettable aliens of the week) is in the balance: Picard, this man we've followed through 7 years of tv series and 3 or 4 movies. Is he going to fall to despair, or will he find something new to fight for? Something to restore our confidence in the Federation, before the TNG crew takes a bow and leaves us behind.

[BillJ]

Plain Simple wrote:

---

-Consequences! Have Picard (and eventually possibly the rest of the crew) really take a stand against Starfleet, if he feels their actions go against his morality. Have him take a stand. Have him lose his command. End the movie with Picard leaving Starfleet. What a wonderful set up for Nemesis: Picard, disillusioned about Starfleet to which he has given his whole life up until now. And there is Shinzon, tempting him away even further. Praying upon his uncertainties. Give us the feeling that something important (not forgettable aliens of the week) is in the balance: Picard, this man we've followed through 7 years of tv series and 3 or 4 movies. Is he going to fall to despair, or will he find something new to fight for? Something to restore our confidence in the Federation, before the TNG crew takes a bow and leaves us behind.

This.