RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,918
Posts: 5,389,141
Members: 24,717
Currently online: 696
Newest member: fanshere

TrekToday headlines

New Trek-themed Bobble Heads
By: T'Bonz on Aug 21

IDW Publishing November Trek Comic
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Pegg/Wright Trilogy In The Works
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Star Trek: The Compendium Rebate Details
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Gold Key Archives Volume 2
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Takei Documentary Wins Award
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Cumberbatch To Voice Khan
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Shaun And Ed On Phineas and Ferb
By: T'Bonz on Aug 18

New Ships Coming From Official Starships Collection
By: T'Bonz on Aug 18

Trek Stars Take On Ice Bucket Challenge
By: T'Bonz on Aug 18


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 November 21 2013, 11:50 PM   #46
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: LAY OFF Insurrection/Nemesis

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
DonIago wrote: View Post
^I think some people don't want to believe the Federation would have gotten desperate enough that they would have signed off on the Baku relocation. Even though they've done the same thing to their own colonists in the past. It's easier to believe Dougherty was yet another lying scheming Evil!Admiral.

I suppose a flaw of the movie is that it purportedly gives us a "happy ending", but in reality there's no indication as to how the Council will rule with regards to the Baku or what consequences there might be for Our Heroes. The ending is essentially no such thing.
If the Federation actually signed off on all aspects of Dougherty's plan, then that should have been part of what the film was about. In that case, Picard and crew fighting for the Ba'ku against the Federation itself would have been worthy of being called an insurrection.

But no, since all the Enterprise had to do was pull the fire alarm by contacting the Federation, we were told that Dougherty had kept the full extent of his plan from the Federation Council. They would not and did not openly support it. In the film we got, Dougherty was acting without full authority, and the word insurrection, as a description of Picard's actions, was therefore a misnomer.

Among the film's failings was not exploring how deep the rabbit hole went, with respect to who else in the Federation and on the Council knew what Dougherty was really up to.

Again, where are you getting this from? Where is your onscreen evidence that Dougherty was hiding stuff from them? Now sure, AFTER Picard began thwarting the relocation, Dougherty did stuff without their approval, but what of the initial plan did he hide from them?


Cite evidence from the movie, not non-canon sources.
__________________
"why oh why didn't I take the blue pill?"
sonak is online now   Reply With Quote
Old November 22 2013, 12:25 AM   #47
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: LAY OFF Insurrection/Nemesis

sonak wrote: View Post
CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
DonIago wrote: View Post
^I think some people don't want to believe the Federation would have gotten desperate enough that they would have signed off on the Baku relocation. Even though they've done the same thing to their own colonists in the past. It's easier to believe Dougherty was yet another lying scheming Evil!Admiral.

I suppose a flaw of the movie is that it purportedly gives us a "happy ending", but in reality there's no indication as to how the Council will rule with regards to the Baku or what consequences there might be for Our Heroes. The ending is essentially no such thing.
If the Federation actually signed off on all aspects of Dougherty's plan, then that should have been part of what the film was about. In that case, Picard and crew fighting for the Ba'ku against the Federation itself would have been worthy of being called an insurrection.

But no, since all the Enterprise had to do was pull the fire alarm by contacting the Federation, we were told that Dougherty had kept the full extent of his plan from the Federation Council. They would not and did not openly support it. In the film we got, Dougherty was acting without full authority, and the word insurrection, as a description of Picard's actions, was therefore a misnomer.

Among the film's failings was not exploring how deep the rabbit hole went, with respect to who else in the Federation and on the Council knew what Dougherty was really up to.

Again, where are you getting this from? Where is your onscreen evidence that Dougherty was hiding stuff from them? Now sure, AFTER Picard began thwarting the relocation, Dougherty did stuff without their approval, but what of the initial plan did he hide from them?


Cite evidence from the movie, not non-canon sources.
First of all, if Dougherty had assurances that the Federation Council would openly support his actions, then calling the Federation would not have made any difference. Ergo, the Federation Council couldn't have promised him open support. This dialog backs that deduction:

RU'AFO: Federation support, Federation procedures, Federation rules. ...Look in the mirror, Admiral. The Federation is old. In the past twenty-four months, they've been challenged by every major power in the Quadrant. The Borg, the Cardassians, the Dominion. They all smell the scent of death on the Federation. That's why you've embraced our offer, because it will give your dear Federation new life. Well, how badly do you want it, Admiral? Because there are hard choices to be made. Now! If the Enterprise gets through with news about their brave Captain's valiant struggle on behalf of the defenceless Ba'ku, your Federation politicians will waver, your Federation opinion polls will open a public debate, your Federation allies will want their say. ...Need I go on?
Moreover, the last declaration there is the key to the whole argument.
"your Federation allies will want their say"
That means that other Federation members haven't had their say. Dougherty's plan depended upon a fait accompli. At best, he had only some support on the Council.

Beyond the fact that this dialog establishes it as such, assuming that the Federation is still a functioning democracy at this time, it is the only conclusion that makes sense. If the Federation Council is democratic, then it is absurd to suppose that they would give Dougherty any support, knowing full well all the details of his plan, if they were unwilling to give him open support.

Supposing that the Federation Council gave Dougherty full support knowing everything not only contradicts dialog whose purpose is expository, it would imply that the Federation was no longer a democracy, and failing to follow up on that dramatic revelation would have been inexcusable. Not making it clearer regarding exactly how much support Dougherty actually had was pretty weak storytelling, as it was.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 22 2013, 02:03 AM   #48
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: LAY OFF Insurrection/Nemesis

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
sonak wrote: View Post
CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post

If the Federation actually signed off on all aspects of Dougherty's plan, then that should have been part of what the film was about. In that case, Picard and crew fighting for the Ba'ku against the Federation itself would have been worthy of being called an insurrection.

But no, since all the Enterprise had to do was pull the fire alarm by contacting the Federation, we were told that Dougherty had kept the full extent of his plan from the Federation Council. They would not and did not openly support it. In the film we got, Dougherty was acting without full authority, and the word insurrection, as a description of Picard's actions, was therefore a misnomer.

Among the film's failings was not exploring how deep the rabbit hole went, with respect to who else in the Federation and on the Council knew what Dougherty was really up to.

Again, where are you getting this from? Where is your onscreen evidence that Dougherty was hiding stuff from them? Now sure, AFTER Picard began thwarting the relocation, Dougherty did stuff without their approval, but what of the initial plan did he hide from them?


Cite evidence from the movie, not non-canon sources.
First of all, if Dougherty had assurances that the Federation Council would openly support his actions, then calling the Federation would not have made any difference. Ergo, the Federation Council couldn't have promised him open support. This dialog backs that deduction:

RU'AFO: Federation support, Federation procedures, Federation rules. ...Look in the mirror, Admiral. The Federation is old. In the past twenty-four months, they've been challenged by every major power in the Quadrant. The Borg, the Cardassians, the Dominion. They all smell the scent of death on the Federation. That's why you've embraced our offer, because it will give your dear Federation new life. Well, how badly do you want it, Admiral? Because there are hard choices to be made. Now! If the Enterprise gets through with news about their brave Captain's valiant struggle on behalf of the defenceless Ba'ku, your Federation politicians will waver, your Federation opinion polls will open a public debate, your Federation allies will want their say. ...Need I go on?
Moreover, the last declaration there is the key to the whole argument.
"your Federation allies will want their say"
That means that other Federation members haven't had their say. Dougherty's plan depended upon a fait accompli. At best, he had only some support on the Council.

Beyond the fact that this dialog establishes it as such, assuming that the Federation is still a functioning democracy at this time, it is the only conclusion that makes sense. If the Federation Council is democratic, then it is absurd to suppose that they would give Dougherty any support, knowing full well all the details of his plan, if they were unwilling to give him open support.

Supposing that the Federation Council gave Dougherty full support knowing everything not only contradicts dialog whose purpose is expository, it would imply that the Federation was no longer a democracy, and failing to follow up on that dramatic revelation would have been inexcusable. Not making it clearer regarding exactly how much support Dougherty actually had was pretty weak storytelling, as it was.

er, that's an odd interpretation of that scene. The plain meaning is that Ru'afo is telling Dougherty that the image of the brave captain fighting a lonely battle on behalf of the Baku will be good PR and get the Federation Council to CHANGE ITS MIND once the media gets a hold of it. There is nothing in what you quoted to indicate that Dougherty was either acting on his own or misleading the council.
__________________
"why oh why didn't I take the blue pill?"
sonak is online now   Reply With Quote
Old November 22 2013, 02:09 AM   #49
CommishSleer
Fleet Captain
 
CommishSleer's Avatar
 
Location: Way back of nowhere
View CommishSleer's Twitter Profile
Re: LAY OFF Insurrection/Nemesis

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
Moreover, the last declaration there is the key to the whole argument.
"your Federation allies will want their say"
That means that other Federation members haven't had their say. Dougherty's plan depended upon a fait accompli. At best, he had only some support on the Council.
I thought the Federation allies were say the Klingons while Federation members were for example Vulcan and Andoria.

Actually I can't see the Federation's justification if the Baku were either a primitive race or an advanced one. I didn't think the Federation just displaced people unless they were in disputed territory.
CommishSleer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 22 2013, 02:28 AM   #50
DonIago
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Burlington, VT, USA
View DonIago's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to DonIago Send a message via AIM to DonIago Send a message via Yahoo to DonIago
Re: LAY OFF Insurrection/Nemesis

...or they're desperate. Which, arguably, they are at this point, being in the middle of the bloodiest war they've ever faced and all.

It could be that the decision regarding the Baku planet was indeed decided by the council, but something other than a full and/or public session. Articles of the Federation, while not canon, not only provides several examples of non-full and non-open sessions but also makes note of the fact that the UFP President at the time of the war had really pushed the limits of his executive authority as well.
__________________
--DonIago
It was the best of Trek, it was the worst of Trek...
"If I lean over, I leave myself open to wedgies, wet willies, or even the dreaded Rear Admiral!"
DonIago is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 22 2013, 03:16 AM   #51
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: LAY OFF Insurrection/Nemesis

CommishSleer wrote: View Post
CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
Moreover, the last declaration there is the key to the whole argument.
"your Federation allies will want their say"
That means that other Federation members haven't had their say. Dougherty's plan depended upon a fait accompli. At best, he had only some support on the Council.
I thought the Federation allies were say the Klingons while Federation members were for example Vulcan and Andoria.

Actually I can't see the Federation's justification if the Baku were either a primitive race or an advanced one. I didn't think the Federation just displaced people unless they were in disputed territory.
Good catch, I thought of that while I was posting before. This is what I came up with then. I probably should have mentioned all this in the first place:

What say would non-Federation members have in Federation politics? Ru'afo makes it sound like the people he's speaking of would all have a vote in the outcome.

Additionally, from a grammatical perspective, the possessive your suggests that the people in question belong to the Federation, especially since the grammatical construction parallels the usage as it was twice previously, in quite clear references to things within the Federation (your Federation politicians, your Federation opinion polls). Moreover, if the possessive in the third instance isn't meant to suggest Federation members, then the possessive in the third instance is entirely redundant. If Ru'afo's thinking of the Klingons, then they're just Federation allies period, not Dougherty's Federation allies or your Federation allies. Better still, they're allied powers, without any qualification that they are of the Federation.

It's not completely satisfactory, but I think the best way to read the line is in reference to nonhuman members of the Federation.

But, since the line is, I suppose, open to other interpretations, we're probably not going to agree on much, unless we happen simply to agree that it is a piece of dialog with no completely satisfactory interpretation.

That said, if Ru'afo really was talking about the Klingons, then he must not think much of them, to only speak of them as something associated with the Federation. A Klingon really would be insulted!
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 22 2013, 05:21 AM   #52
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: LAY OFF Insurrection/Nemesis

CommishSleer wrote: View Post
CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
Moreover, the last declaration there is the key to the whole argument.
"your Federation allies will want their say"
That means that other Federation members haven't had their say. Dougherty's plan depended upon a fait accompli. At best, he had only some support on the Council.
I thought the Federation allies were say the Klingons while Federation members were for example Vulcan and Andoria.

Actually I can't see the Federation's justification if the Baku were either a primitive race or an advanced one. I didn't think the Federation just displaced people unless they were in disputed territory.

well in this case the Baku were in Federation territory. And if they weren't, then it wouldn't help them, because then the Son'a would be free to remove them without Federation interference.
__________________
"why oh why didn't I take the blue pill?"
sonak is online now   Reply With Quote
Old November 22 2013, 06:15 AM   #53
CommishSleer
Fleet Captain
 
CommishSleer's Avatar
 
Location: Way back of nowhere
View CommishSleer's Twitter Profile
Re: LAY OFF Insurrection/Nemesis

Whether allies refers to non-human members of the Federation or non-Federation allies such as the Klingons is debatable. I'm not familiar with DS9/TNG politics to know if there is a divide in the Federation between non-human and human members.
I could see maybe Vulcan putting up some objection to Dougherty's plan.

I would think that if allies meant the Klingons that the Federation would have to satisfy the Klingons that its displacing settlers is OK with them or otherwise the Klingons would question whether to ally themselves with the Federation. Frankly I think the Klingons couldn't have cared less.

We come back to the question whether the Federation has the right to displace settlers in their own territory (a territory created after the Baku and Sona settled there). They may have the right but is that what the Federation is? Do they move people because of convenience? I thought that was a Cardassian thing.
CommishSleer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 22 2013, 07:02 AM   #54
DonIago
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Burlington, VT, USA
View DonIago's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to DonIago Send a message via AIM to DonIago Send a message via Yahoo to DonIago
Re: LAY OFF Insurrection/Nemesis

If anything I'd think Vulcan would tend to -support- Dougherty's plan. 600 non-indigenous settlers versus even thousands of people isn't even a contest when it comes to the "Needs of the many..." argument.

Regarding the Klingons I'd think a larger issue would be whether the Federation would share the radiation with the Klingons.

As brought up previously, the Federation we're seeing at the time of INS is probably the most desperate Federation we've ever seen, quite possibly prone to doing things they wouldn't do if it was "business as usual".

Additionally, while the Federation may not have "owned" the Briar Patch when the Baku moved in, it -was- owned and later given to the Federation, IIRC. In that sense, the Baku were claiming a planet that was already claimed.
__________________
--DonIago
It was the best of Trek, it was the worst of Trek...
"If I lean over, I leave myself open to wedgies, wet willies, or even the dreaded Rear Admiral!"
DonIago is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 22 2013, 04:07 PM   #55
Lance
Fleet Captain
 
Lance's Avatar
 
Location: The Enterprise's Restroom
Re: LAY OFF Insurrection/Nemesis

DonIago wrote: View Post
As brought up previously, the Federation we're seeing at the time of INS is probably the most desperate Federation we've ever seen, quite possibly prone to doing things they wouldn't do if it was "business as usual".
While I agree the Dominion War going badly is certainly a meaningful justification for the Federation perhaps selling out on some of their core ideals for the benefit of the Greater Good, I also don't think the movie does nearly enough to actually underline this sense of "desperation". Apart from one or two lines at the beginning of the movie (in regards to the diplomatic function aboard the Enterprise)...

TROI: Remember, they have a significantly less advanced technology than ours. They only achieved warp drive last year.
CRUSHER: And the Federation Council decided to make them a protectorate so quickly?
PICARD: In view of our losses to the Borg and the Dominion, the Council feels we need all the allies we can get these days.
... IMO not enough is actually shown on screen to indicate just how desperate the Federation is. It's easy to fill in the gaps if you've been watching DS9 consistently, but in terms of this movie alone I've always felt Dougherty's motivations to be regretably under-sketched.

While Insurrection needn't have been a 'Dominion War' movie, a little bit more of the consequences of the War could have been shown on screen. Instead, what we got just makes the Enterprise crew look like they're all emotionally distant from the effects of the war, which is really weird for the alleged "flagship".
Lance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 22 2013, 04:24 PM   #56
suarezguy
Commodore
 
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA
Re: LAY OFF Insurrection/Nemesis

SeerSGB wrote: View Post
600? Not even from the planet? Fuck 'em, beam 'em up Scotty.
T'Girl wrote: View Post
... the film didn't give enough weight to the ideas that the Federation was in the wrong and that the heroes were taking risks in opposing it.
Except the Federation Council wasn't in the wrong, they were providing their own people with an important medical advance, gathered from around one of their own planets.
With attitudes like that there would be little or nothing wrong with disassembling Data or infecting Hugh given the benefits that could result. Picard not doing the latter yet forcing relocation in "Journey's End" both felt, in different directions, pretty but not wholly out of character. However,

DonIago wrote: View Post
The film also didn't give enough weight to the idea that the heroes might themselves be in the wrong.
Picard and certainly some others in his crew should have been more openly conflicted about their actions.

BTW, LOL at Ru'afo describing the Borg as being "in the Quadrant."
__________________
"Barack Obama is the supremely qualified person whose opinion matters."-Joan Walsh
suarezguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 22 2013, 04:41 PM   #57
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: LAY OFF Insurrection/Nemesis

suarezguy wrote: View Post
DonIago wrote: View Post
The film also didn't give enough weight to the idea that the heroes might themselves be in the wrong.
Picard and certainly some others in his crew should have been more openly conflicted about their actions.
Why? Just because you don't happen to agree with them?


That's the thing I like about Insurrection. The situation is not just black and white. But Picard makes his decision. And some fans don't like that because their hero disagrees with them.
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 22 2013, 04:46 PM   #58
suarezguy
Commodore
 
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA
Re: LAY OFF Insurrection/Nemesis

^No but because the situation was ambiguous and the crew had had different experiences they shouldn't all have sided with Picard with so little hesitation.
__________________
"Barack Obama is the supremely qualified person whose opinion matters."-Joan Walsh
suarezguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 22 2013, 04:58 PM   #59
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: LAY OFF Insurrection/Nemesis

Lance wrote: View Post
DonIago wrote: View Post
As brought up previously, the Federation we're seeing at the time of INS is probably the most desperate Federation we've ever seen, quite possibly prone to doing things they wouldn't do if it was "business as usual".
While I agree the Dominion War going badly is certainly a meaningful justification for the Federation perhaps selling out on some of their core ideals for the benefit of the Greater Good, I also don't think the movie does nearly enough to actually underline this sense of "desperation". Apart from one or two lines at the beginning of the movie (in regards to the diplomatic function aboard the Enterprise)...

TROI: Remember, they have a significantly less advanced technology than ours. They only achieved warp drive last year.
CRUSHER: And the Federation Council decided to make them a protectorate so quickly?
PICARD: In view of our losses to the Borg and the Dominion, the Council feels we need all the allies we can get these days.
... IMO not enough is actually shown on screen to indicate just how desperate the Federation is. It's easy to fill in the gaps if you've been watching DS9 consistently, but in terms of this movie alone I've always felt Dougherty's motivations to be regretably under-sketched.

While Insurrection needn't have been a 'Dominion War' movie, a little bit more of the consequences of the War could have been shown on screen. Instead, what we got just makes the Enterprise crew look like they're all emotionally distant from the effects of the war, which is really weird for the alleged "flagship".
All these weak systems that the Federation is lining up as protectorates, in the wake of the Dominion War and the Borg attack in the last film, I could see them referred to as "your Federation allies".
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 22 2013, 05:00 PM   #60
DonIago
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Burlington, VT, USA
View DonIago's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to DonIago Send a message via AIM to DonIago Send a message via Yahoo to DonIago
Re: LAY OFF Insurrection/Nemesis

It occurs to me that if the film had opened with the E in the middle of a (hopefully massive) Dominion battle and the crew and ship obviously exhausted afterward leading into the communication from Dougherty that gets the ball rolling, not only would the film be more exciting but the audience would be given hard evidence of the stresses the Federation was facing. Show the E rescuring people from damaged ships afterward (possibly even a guest star who could oppose Picard's actions later on) and make it clear that this has been going on for weeks/months. The only downsides I can immediately come up with are that it might be a bit reminiscent of the battle at the beginning of FC, and in similar vein might essentially place the most exciting scene of the film at the beginning.

In fact, put said sequence immediately after the existing opening of the film showing the peaceful Baku village, as an explicit contrast. Or, if you wanted to be especially daring, cross-cut the two sequences, though I don't know if that would work in execution.
__________________
--DonIago
It was the best of Trek, it was the worst of Trek...
"If I lean over, I leave myself open to wedgies, wet willies, or even the dreaded Rear Admiral!"
DonIago is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

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 08:53 PM.

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