RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,670
Posts: 5,429,450
Members: 24,822
Currently online: 465
Newest member: The Great Duck


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies I-X

Star Trek Movies I-X Discuss the first ten big screen outings in this forum!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 2 2013, 04:48 PM   #16
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: When did the perception of Insurrection change?

INS's heart was in the right place, but the pacing was sluggish and I found the resolution out of character. (The original resolution was much more Trek-like, but I believe was felt to lack the oomph.)

That said, I remember at the time it was perceived as a mild letdown, but still regarded as a decent Trek flick. I believe time has not been kind to it.
__________________
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross; but it's not for the timid." - Q
Praetor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 3 2013, 12:50 AM   #17
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: When did the perception of Insurrection change?

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
Insurrection was fine. I also remember good reviews, stressing the aspect that it was brighter than First Contact. Nobody cried doom when it came out. It wasn't as good as First Contact, but it was solid and good fun. The bashing started when Nemesis sucked as well. And now, 15 years later, everyone is like "Oh I hated it from the start" when most of them thought it was okay back then

the box office performance was way down from FC, it made $20 million less. It had a solid opening weekend, then fell flat after that, disappearing from theaters in about a month.(which was fast for those days) This indicates that it WASN'T particularly well-received, and its reputation is not solely a "Nemesis thing."


I'm not sure how many here are fans of internet review site "SF Debris," but he covers exactly this topic in his review of this movie.


He speculates that it's a "fridge logic" kind of movie, where the more you think about the movie and its premise, the more it falls apart. The more you think about the humor, the lamer it seems.


the real issue with INS is that its premise is just irretrievably flawed. It's a movie with the "heroes" on the wrong side, and if you can even ignore that, it's boring and the humor is lame.
__________________
"why oh why didn't I take the blue pill?"
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 3 2013, 01:13 AM   #18
SeerSGB
Admiral
 
SeerSGB's Avatar
 
Location: Out There...That Away
View SeerSGB's Twitter Profile
Re: When did the perception of Insurrection change?

My issues with the conflict in INS was the fact that Picard isn't thinking it through: The Baku aren't native to the planet, there's a few hundred so, and the tech could save millions. Pack 'em up, move 'em out. I get his point about "when does it get to be wrong", but sorry Picard needs of the many and all that.

Now, had it been a massively populated planet, no way to evac the natives, and millions or billions would die to harvest the rings, that'd make sense to me.
__________________
- SeerSGB -
"I've made many mistakes, and it's about time that I did something about that." The Doctor (Deep Breath)
| Zombie Bots From Mars! |
SeerSGB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 3 2013, 01:22 AM   #19
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: When did the perception of Insurrection change?

Insurrection was simply a poorly thought out movie.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 3 2013, 02:42 AM   #20
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: When did the perception of Insurrection change?

SeerSGB wrote: View Post
My issues with the conflict in INS was the fact that Picard isn't thinking it through: The Baku aren't native to the planet, there's a few hundred so, and the tech could save millions. Pack 'em up, move 'em out. I get his point about "when does it get to be wrong", but sorry Picard needs of the many and all that.

Now, had it been a massively populated planet, no way to evac the natives, and millions or billions would die to harvest the rings, that'd make sense to me.

you'll notice that the ENTIRE debate over the issue lasts for about a minute, and they don't give Dougherty effective response time. It's a pretty clear indication that the premise couldn't withstand much scrutiny.

And then when we learn that the Son'a and Baku are actually the same group, it makes the Baku case even WEAKER, as it gives the Son'a equal claim to the planet.
__________________
"why oh why didn't I take the blue pill?"
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 3 2013, 04:20 AM   #21
SeerSGB
Admiral
 
SeerSGB's Avatar
 
Location: Out There...That Away
View SeerSGB's Twitter Profile
Re: When did the perception of Insurrection change?

sonak wrote: View Post
SeerSGB wrote: View Post
My issues with the conflict in INS was the fact that Picard isn't thinking it through: The Baku aren't native to the planet, there's a few hundred so, and the tech could save millions. Pack 'em up, move 'em out. I get his point about "when does it get to be wrong", but sorry Picard needs of the many and all that.

Now, had it been a massively populated planet, no way to evac the natives, and millions or billions would die to harvest the rings, that'd make sense to me.

you'll notice that the ENTIRE debate over the issue lasts for about a minute, and they don't give Dougherty effective response time. It's a pretty clear indication that the premise couldn't withstand much scrutiny.

And then when we learn that the Son'a and Baku are actually the same group, it makes the Baku case even WEAKER, as it gives the Son'a equal claim to the planet.
Picard looks even worse when you count in the fact that he was ready to do exactly what he was arguing against Dougherty doing in TNG's Journey's End.

Granted you could argue that Picard learned and changed. But it wasn't even given a glancing blow. Doughtery should have called Picard on it.
__________________
- SeerSGB -
"I've made many mistakes, and it's about time that I did something about that." The Doctor (Deep Breath)
| Zombie Bots From Mars! |
SeerSGB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 3 2013, 05:26 AM   #22
AllStarEntprise
Fleet Captain
 
AllStarEntprise's Avatar
 
Re: When did the perception of Insurrection change?

The original script of INS changed considerably to what the final product turned out to be. Rick Berman said Piller submitted it and it was one of the darkest things he ever read. I believe the original title was to be Star Trek Stardust back then. Piller and Berman set out to make it a softer story. Stewart and Spiner also had input into INS.

I believe INS was changed too much. Piller originally wanted to do a Heart Of Darkness story with Picard.
AllStarEntprise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 3 2013, 05:31 AM   #23
CaptainBearclaw
Lieutenant Commander
 
CaptainBearclaw's Avatar
 
Location: not valid
Re: When did the perception of Insurrection change?

It's that stupid environmental message and that REALLY poorly thought out conflict. The Ba'ku really should have been the more antagonistic, and the story should've been Picard attempting to relocate them. Like that one TNG episode.

Come to think of it, this movie has no reason to exist. They already did it in a much superior TNG episode!
CaptainBearclaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 3 2013, 05:44 AM   #24
SeerSGB
Admiral
 
SeerSGB's Avatar
 
Location: Out There...That Away
View SeerSGB's Twitter Profile
Re: When did the perception of Insurrection change?

CaptainBearclaw wrote: View Post
It's that stupid environmental message and that REALLY poorly thought out conflict. The Ba'ku really should have been the more antagonistic, and the story should've been Picard attempting to relocate them. Like that one TNG episode.

Come to think of it, this movie has no reason to exist. They already did it in a much superior TNG episode!
Twice: Homeward Bound, Journey's End, (DS9) Progress. Even (DS9) Children of Time is a riff on a similar theme.

I like Insurrection, it's a TNG movie--as in a TNG episode on the big screen. But, yeah it does fall apart if you start analyzing things in it.
__________________
- SeerSGB -
"I've made many mistakes, and it's about time that I did something about that." The Doctor (Deep Breath)
| Zombie Bots From Mars! |
SeerSGB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 3 2013, 08:14 AM   #25
Mage
Commodore
 
Mage's Avatar
 
Re: When did the perception of Insurrection change?

SeerSGB wrote: View Post
But, yeah it does fall apart if you start analyzing things in it.
So many of our favorite movies do, but we still love them. I mean, there are so many little issues with Star Wars ANH, but that doesn't mean I still greatly enjoy it.
__________________
Niner. Lurker. Browncoat.
Mage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 3 2013, 04:21 PM   #26
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: When did the perception of Insurrection change?

SeerSGB wrote: View Post
sonak wrote: View Post
SeerSGB wrote: View Post
My issues with the conflict in INS was the fact that Picard isn't thinking it through: The Baku aren't native to the planet, there's a few hundred so, and the tech could save millions. Pack 'em up, move 'em out. I get his point about "when does it get to be wrong", but sorry Picard needs of the many and all that.

Now, had it been a massively populated planet, no way to evac the natives, and millions or billions would die to harvest the rings, that'd make sense to me.

you'll notice that the ENTIRE debate over the issue lasts for about a minute, and they don't give Dougherty effective response time. It's a pretty clear indication that the premise couldn't withstand much scrutiny.

And then when we learn that the Son'a and Baku are actually the same group, it makes the Baku case even WEAKER, as it gives the Son'a equal claim to the planet.
Picard looks even worse when you count in the fact that he was ready to do exactly what he was arguing against Dougherty doing in TNG's Journey's End.

Granted you could argue that Picard learned and changed. But it wasn't even given a glancing blow. Doughtery should have called Picard on it.
Didn't they relocate them in the TNG episode to prevent a war? That's an entirely different situation.
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 3 2013, 06:20 PM   #27
Hartzilla2007
Vice Admiral
 
Hartzilla2007's Avatar
 
Location: Star Trekkin Across the universe.
Re: When did the perception of Insurrection change?

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
SeerSGB wrote: View Post
sonak wrote: View Post


you'll notice that the ENTIRE debate over the issue lasts for about a minute, and they don't give Dougherty effective response time. It's a pretty clear indication that the premise couldn't withstand much scrutiny.

And then when we learn that the Son'a and Baku are actually the same group, it makes the Baku case even WEAKER, as it gives the Son'a equal claim to the planet.
Picard looks even worse when you count in the fact that he was ready to do exactly what he was arguing against Dougherty doing in TNG's Journey's End.

Granted you could argue that Picard learned and changed. But it wasn't even given a glancing blow. Doughtery should have called Picard on it.
Didn't they relocate them in the TNG episode to prevent a war? That's an entirely different situation.
And seeing as the Ba'ku claim to the planet predates the existence of the federation by a few DECADES its kind of hard to say its a federation planet. Especially since the Ba'ku were unaware of the federation's existence until they were trying to kidnap them.
Hartzilla2007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 3 2013, 06:45 PM   #28
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: When did the perception of Insurrection change?

Hartzilla2007 wrote: View Post

And seeing as the Ba'ku claim to the planet predates the existence of the federation by a few DECADES its kind of hard to say its a federation planet. Especially since the Ba'ku were unaware of the federation's existence until they were trying to kidnap them.
That depends. If the area was controlled by another power prior to the Ba'ku landing there and then was ceded to the Federation via treaty or war. Then the Federation would have a viable claim of ownership.

Even then, the S'ona would have a claim of ownership just as strong as the Ba'ku. Just because they were forced to leave, doesn't mean that their ownership claim would be invalid.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 3 2013, 08:33 PM   #29
Hartzilla2007
Vice Admiral
 
Hartzilla2007's Avatar
 
Location: Star Trekkin Across the universe.
Re: When did the perception of Insurrection change?

BillJ wrote: View Post
Hartzilla2007 wrote: View Post

And seeing as the Ba'ku claim to the planet predates the existence of the federation by a few DECADES its kind of hard to say its a federation planet. Especially since the Ba'ku were unaware of the federation's existence until they were trying to kidnap them.
That depends. If the area was controlled by another power prior to the Ba'ku landing there and then was ceded to the Federation via treaty or war. Then the Federation would have a viable claim of ownership.
Assuming anyone actually claimed or controlled it during the 21st century. And even IF (and I stress if) the federation had a claim to the planet eminent domain does not work the way this movie and TV in general seems to think it does so what the federation was doing was still pretty illegal.

Even then, the S'ona would have a claim of ownership just as strong as the Ba'ku. Just because they were forced to leave, doesn't mean that their ownership claim would be invalid.
A claim that they were not exercising under their little ruse.
Hartzilla2007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 3 2013, 09:08 PM   #30
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: When did the perception of Insurrection change?

Hartzilla2007 wrote: View Post

A claim that they were not exercising under their little ruse.
Which is the major flaw with this film. No one acts normally. The S'ona are secretive when they don't need to be and no one simply asks the Ba'ku if they're willing to move.

Insurrection is easily the poorest of the twelve Trek films.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
ins, insurrection

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:47 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.