RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,364
Posts: 5,356,042
Members: 24,625
Currently online: 655
Newest member: 3d gird

TrekToday headlines

Borg Cube Fridge
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29

Free Enterprise Kickstarter
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29

Siddig To Join Game Of Thrones
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29

Sci-Fried To Release New Album
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Star Trek/Planet of the Apes Crossover
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Star Trek into Darkness Soundtrack
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Horse 1, Shatner 0
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Drexler TV Alert
By: T'Bonz on Jul 26

Retro Review: His Way
By: Michelle on Jul 26

MicroWarriors Releases Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25


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 4 2013, 02:29 AM   #31
Hober Mallow
Commodore
 
Location: The planet Terminus, site of the Encyclopedia Foundation on the periphery of the galaxy
Re: When did the perception of Insurrection change?

SchwEnt wrote: View Post
^^^ and the irony is that fans generally clamor to have TNG as it was on television rather than the different entity it became in the movies.

And here INS is likened to an eps of the series... and still not good enough. Tough crowd.
You can be true to the original TV series and still good. "Insurrection" wasn't just like an episode of the series, it was like a bad episode of the series.

It's too bad, too, because at the time I was really looking forward to a film in which time travel played no part.
sonak wrote: View Post
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."
Exactly. I don't think the perception of "Insurrection" has ever changed. It was always seen as a disappointment. Sherry Lansing at Paramount publicly suggested the next Trek film after "Insurrection" might not feature the TNG cast. The whole purpose of the changes we saw for "Nemesis" -- hiring an outside writer and director, waiting longer than normal to release the film -- was to rebound from what the studio viewed as a failure. They did not want another "Insurrection." (Unfortunately for them, they got even worse with "Nemesis.")
__________________
"Beep... beep!" --Captain Pike

Last edited by Hober Mallow; August 4 2013 at 03:05 AM.
Hober Mallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 4 2013, 03:31 AM   #32
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: When did the perception of Insurrection change?

BillJ wrote: View Post
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.

yep, that's basically the problem. Insurrection is basically one giant idiot plot, meaning, a movie that falls apart completely if ANY of the major characters involved show a bit of common sense and don't act like idiots.


Why doesn't Ru'afo just tell Dougherty the truth? It would make the whole deception unnecessary. This is COMPLETELY unexplained.

Why doesn't Picard or Dougherty ask the Baku to relocate voluntarily?


again, the answer to both is "because the premise is poorly thought out."
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 4 2013, 03:37 AM   #33
Dream
Admiral
 
Dream's Avatar
 
Re: When did the perception of Insurrection change?

sonak wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
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.

yep, that's basically the problem. Insurrection is basically one giant idiot plot, meaning, a movie that falls apart completely if ANY of the major characters involved show a bit of common sense and don't act like idiots.


Why doesn't Ru'afo just tell Dougherty the truth? It would make the whole deception unnecessary. This is COMPLETELY unexplained.

Why doesn't Picard or Dougherty ask the Baku to relocate voluntarily?


again, the answer to both is "because the premise is poorly thought out."
I think if Insurrection had just been a bad TNG episode, it would have been more forgivable because it would have been over after 45 minutes. Instead the movie just kept going and going.
__________________
=)
Dream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 4 2013, 03:53 AM   #34
SeerSGB
Admiral
 
SeerSGB's Avatar
 
Location: Tennessee
Re: When did the perception of Insurrection change?

Dream wrote: View Post
sonak wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post

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.

yep, that's basically the problem. Insurrection is basically one giant idiot plot, meaning, a movie that falls apart completely if ANY of the major characters involved show a bit of common sense and don't act like idiots.


Why doesn't Ru'afo just tell Dougherty the truth? It would make the whole deception unnecessary. This is COMPLETELY unexplained.

Why doesn't Picard or Dougherty ask the Baku to relocate voluntarily?


again, the answer to both is "because the premise is poorly thought out."
I think if Insurrection had just been a bad TNG episode, it would have been more forgivable because it would have been over after 45 minutes. Instead the movie just kept going and going.
True. The movie is overly padded and not in the right spots. Did we need the Data going crazy subplot or the welcoming party scene? Why not combine the two: The S'ona are approaching the Federation with a miracle cure and Starfleet sends the Enterprise to check out the claims. Enterprise gets caught in the middle of a Civil War between the Baku and S'ona with Starfleet (Federation) wanting the cure at all costs. You can still have Doughtery, but as an Admiral that shows up after the S'ona roll out the big guns.
__________________
- SeerSGB -
Good men don't need rules, The Doctor (A Good Man Goes To War)
SeerSGB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 4 2013, 04:17 AM   #35
Lance
Fleet Captain
 
Lance's Avatar
 
Location: The Enterprise's Restroom
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.
That's the problem right there. Picard's argument is basically that "just because they didn't come from the planet natively doesn't make removing them right", but I think the character motivations would be much easier to swallow if, as cliched as it seems, the Baku actually were natives of the planet.
Lance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 4 2013, 09:23 AM   #36
Mage
Commodore
 
Mage's Avatar
 
Re: When did the perception of Insurrection change?

BillJ wrote: View Post
Insurrection is easily the poorest of the twelve Trek films.

In YOUR opinion.

The Ba'Ku have been on the planet for centuries, right? Now look at the US. Founded in 1776. Meaning less then 300 years old. Most families haven't even been there that long, having migrated during the 1800's. So, if all the native Americans would now say 'leave our land, because you took it from us and it is ours', what do you honoustly think would happen?

Perhaps they are only 600 of them, perhaps they weren't born on that planet. But ultimatly, they are now as native to that planet as US citizens are to the US. And forcing them to leave because the UFP thinks they need some form of radiation....
__________________
Niner. Lurker. Browncoat.
Mage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 4 2013, 01:08 PM   #37
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: When did the perception of Insurrection change?

Mage wrote: View Post


In YOUR opinion.
Pretty much a given. People enjoy different things and look for different things in entertainment and shouldn't have to tag every post with "in my opinion".


But ultimatly, they are now as native to that planet as US citizens are to the US. And forcing them to leave because the UFP thinks they need some form of radiation....
Sorry. One, it is an apples and oranges comparison as there are currently 360 million Americans. So it wouldn't be practical to move that many people. Two, if six hundred Americans were sitting on a cure for cancer and the only way to get at it was to move them, I'd do it in a heartbeat. I don't care how much they cried "FREEDOM111!1"
__________________
"I had no idea you were so... formidable. " - Anan 7 to James T. Kirk, A Taste of Armageddon
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 4 2013, 01:47 PM   #38
Mage
Commodore
 
Mage's Avatar
 
Re: When did the perception of Insurrection change?

BillJ wrote: View Post
Mage wrote: View Post


In YOUR opinion.
Pretty much a given. People enjoy different things and look for different things in entertainment and shouldn't have to tag every post with "in my opinion".


But ultimatly, they are now as native to that planet as US citizens are to the US. And forcing them to leave because the UFP thinks they need some form of radiation....
Sorry. One, it is an apples and oranges comparison as there are currently 360 million Americans. So it wouldn't be practical to move that many people. Two, if six hundred Americans were sitting on a cure for cancer and the only way to get at it was to move them, I'd do it in a heartbeat. I don't care how much they cried "FREEDOM111!1"

Point of view then I suppose. I personally can not believe it's just to remove people by force to serve others. To much 'good' has been accomplished in the world by making others suffer. In all honousty, I can't help but wonder of the people of the Federation would even want a cure for all diseases, if they knew how 600 people were treated in order to get that cure. Assuming that the UFP is indeed such an enlightened society, you'd figure they'd be opposed.
__________________
Niner. Lurker. Browncoat.
Mage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 4 2013, 02:35 PM   #39
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: When did the perception of Insurrection change?

If six hundred Americans were sitting on a cure for cancer and the only way to get at it was to move them, I'd do it in a heartbeat. I don't care how much they cried "FREEDOM111!1"
Would you also kill them if they resisted? When would you stop and give up?


Mage wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
Mage wrote: View Post


In YOUR opinion.
Pretty much a given. People enjoy different things and look for different things in entertainment and shouldn't have to tag every post with "in my opinion".


But ultimatly, they are now as native to that planet as US citizens are to the US. And forcing them to leave because the UFP thinks they need some form of radiation....
Sorry. One, it is an apples and oranges comparison as there are currently 360 million Americans. So it wouldn't be practical to move that many people. Two, if six hundred Americans were sitting on a cure for cancer and the only way to get at it was to move them, I'd do it in a heartbeat. I don't care how much they cried "FREEDOM111!1"

Point of view then I suppose. I personally can not believe it's just to remove people by force to serve others. To much 'good' has been accomplished in the world by making others suffer. In all honousty, I can't help but wonder of the people of the Federation would even want a cure for all diseases, if they knew how 600 people were treated in order to get that cure. Assuming that the UFP is indeed such an enlightened society, you'd figure they'd be opposed.
Heck, the whole of the United States has been built on the blood of the native inhabitants of North America. It was wrong, it would still be wrong, and it will always be wrong.

If we were witnessing such a thing today, colonization, forced relocation and mass slaughter, we'd at least condemn it. Perhaps even act against it.
__________________
lol
l
/\
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 4 2013, 03:24 PM   #40
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
trevanian's Avatar
 
Re: When did the perception of Insurrection change?

Maybe INS failed by not being graphic and extreme.

If you'd done the immortality thing the way Spinrad does in BUG JACK BARRON - that you can have immortality if you're rich & elite, you just have to harvest an organ from an african-american child before puberty, killing him/her in the process -- THAT pretty much puts it on the viewer in a way you can't rationalize or justify.

If, on the other hand, your rich guy gets immortality by forcibly transplanting a kid from Jersey to Missoula, it sounds like something you could smooth over with some payola.
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 4 2013, 03:28 PM   #41
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: When did the perception of Insurrection change?

trevanian wrote: View Post
Maybe INS failed by not being graphic and extreme.
If it were graphic and extreme, it wouldn't polarize, and hence wouldn't be as good. I like that about Insurrection. The very question "Are 600 people enough for it to be wrong" is an extremely good one.

Taking a clear position with extreme examples, that's easy.
__________________
lol
l
/\
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 4 2013, 04:01 PM   #42
Mage
Commodore
 
Mage's Avatar
 
Re: When did the perception of Insurrection change?

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
trevanian wrote: View Post
Maybe INS failed by not being graphic and extreme.
If it were graphic and extreme, it wouldn't polarize, and hence wouldn't be as good. I like that about Insurrection. The very question "Are 600 people enough for it to be wrong" is an extremely good one.

Taking a clear position with extreme examples, that's easy.

Exactly. It's so easy to get a point across by being extreme. Subtlety requires more. And let's face it, this question asked in INS has been one going around the forums since the movie was released all those years ago, and it's still being debated. I'd say that's only a good thing.
__________________
Niner. Lurker. Browncoat.
Mage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 4 2013, 05:51 PM   #43
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
If six hundred Americans were sitting on a cure for cancer and the only way to get at it was to move them, I'd do it in a heartbeat. I don't care how much they cried "FREEDOM111!1"
Would you also kill them if they resisted? When would you stop and give up?


Mage wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post

Pretty much a given. People enjoy different things and look for different things in entertainment and shouldn't have to tag every post with "in my opinion".

Sorry. One, it is an apples and oranges comparison as there are currently 360 million Americans. So it wouldn't be practical to move that many people. Two, if six hundred Americans were sitting on a cure for cancer and the only way to get at it was to move them, I'd do it in a heartbeat. I don't care how much they cried "FREEDOM111!1"

Point of view then I suppose. I personally can not believe it's just to remove people by force to serve others. To much 'good' has been accomplished in the world by making others suffer. In all honousty, I can't help but wonder of the people of the Federation would even want a cure for all diseases, if they knew how 600 people were treated in order to get that cure. Assuming that the UFP is indeed such an enlightened society, you'd figure they'd be opposed.
Heck, the whole of the United States has been built on the blood of the native inhabitants of North America. It was wrong, it would still be wrong, and it will always be wrong.

If we were witnessing such a thing today, colonization, forced relocation and mass slaughter, we'd at least condemn it. Perhaps even act against it.

I think it's a sign of a weak argument when you have to resort to inaccurate hyperbole. "mass slaughter?" There was none, only beaming inhabitants away.

"colonization?" There was no intention of colonizing the planet, the process was going to make it uninhabitable for a long period. And again, the process was going to benefit billions.
__________________
"why oh why didn't I take the blue pill?"
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 4 2013, 06:23 PM   #44
SeerSGB
Admiral
 
SeerSGB's Avatar
 
Location: Tennessee
Re: When did the perception of Insurrection change?

- Why not build a medical colony on the far side of the planet. Put jammers around the Baku's section of the planet, make it hands off and no need to strip the rings of the planet.

- How do they even know they can port the rings magical healing properties elsewhere? They make a big deal about the radiation, but they seem damn certain that the healing affect will work outside the native environment.

- It seems that the rings affect people inside starships. Just build a station in orbit and let people heal soak up the radiation without stepping on the planet.

- The cat's out of the bag now, what's to keep someone (Ferengi, Romulans, Dominion, Klingons) for rolling up and say "fuck you" to the Baku. Federation space or not, if I heard my enemy had a magical healing world and I couldn't conquer it, I'd send in a warship to scorch the planet.
__________________
- SeerSGB -
Good men don't need rules, The Doctor (A Good Man Goes To War)
SeerSGB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 4 2013, 07:21 PM   #45
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: When did the perception of Insurrection change?

SeerSGB wrote: View Post
- The cat's out of the bag now, what's to keep someone (Ferengi, Romulans, Dominion, Klingons) for rolling up and say "fuck you" to the Baku. Federation space or not, if I heard my enemy had a magical healing world and I couldn't conquer it, I'd send in a warship to scorch the planet.
This has always been my biggest point for moving the Ba'ku. I don't want them getting slaughtered when another power inevitably hears about the fountain of youth. And I don't want to waste resources and potentially the lives of Starfleet personnel defending six-hundred people.
__________________
"I had no idea you were so... formidable. " - Anan 7 to James T. Kirk, A Taste of Armageddon
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 04:54 PM.

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