Frankly they're both just mediocre. There are really some people who take the humans' side in Avatar just because they...are humans? Forget that it's one group of people invading and murdering another group of people just to steal their natural resources? Wow. I can't believe there are that many people who would take one side unconditionally no matter how atrocious their crimes are. I suppose that's why we invade so many countries.
Well, as said earlier, Picard is only acting against Dougherty, Picard is absolutely certain that the Federation is on his side. As Ruafo states it, if the Federation got to know about the relocation, they would be in trouble. Which is why Dougherty agrees with the attack on the Enterprise.
The only trouble he was worried about was the risk that Picard might sway political and public opinion against them.
Agree. The weakest point of the movie is that damn scene where the command crew all unequivocally pledge their support for Picard's crusade. It weakens the lot of them that they all seem to enraptured by the planet that they're willing to put aside their professionalism to 'chase the dream'. I understand that the point of it was supposed to be to underline how much of a 'family' the TNG crew are, but to me the problem is that Picard's point of view is so stupidly out of sync with reality that it's fundamentally obvious there should be some kind of debate about whether it's the right thing to do or not. I'd like to think that if it had been a TNG television episode then that debate might have happened. Heck, even First Contact had the chutzpah to give us someone willing to stand up to Picard (both Lily and Worf, actually), so that Picard could verbally justify his position to the audience.
This is one of the problems. The film can't seem to decide if the Federation would be on Picard's side or not. I agree that much of what's onscreen supports the idea that the Federation Council would side with Picard, but unfortunately that's problematic for a whole other reason, namely the fact that the premise of the movie is -as the title suggests- insurrection. Where's the insurrection if the Council is on Picard's side? Is it Dougherty? If you ask me, one guy does not an insurrection make. Why have a scene where he dramatically removes his comm badge -clearly meant to symbolize his break with Starfleet- if all he's really doing is policing the Federation against one rogue admiral? It goes back to my original comment, the film is afraid of it's own premise. There's a big disconnect between what the movie wants to be and what it actually is. It wants to be one of those great, challenging "Big Idea" episodes of Trek. Like "I, Borg", "In The Pale Moonlight" or "Tuvix". It wants to present the audience with a situation where there are no easy answers and you have to settle for the lesser of two evils in the absence of a clear-cut good. But it never stops trying to have it both ways. Ultimately, they were too afraid that the audience might stop liking Picard to ever let hin be anything but the designated hero.
I agree with Picard, so I don't see how it's “stupidly out of sync with reality“. It's the age old moral question would you kill a child if you could save a million? I wouldn't, and I would defend that child against those one million trying to kill it. And see, that's my point exactly. You disagree with Picard, so you think the film lacks a moment where your other heroes disagree with him as well.
Except for the fact that had Picard not interferred, no one would have died. The Baku would have been transplanted and the rings harvested helping billions. Picard stuck his nose into the deal and gave Ruafo an opening to try to speed up the process and burn the planet. Picard actually escalated the situation and put lives in danger.
Also, the Baku have no "legal claim" to the planet*. The story acts like the Baku are an indigenous species that needs protection, despite it actually telling us quite CLEARLY that they're not. There would be a difference if Picard were throwing in his badge in protest of the Federation being willing participants in removing a native population. But the Baku aren't that. They're illegal squatters on a Federation planet. * And even if they DID somehow have some kind of legal claim on the planet, then the Sona would be entitled to the very same legal right.
The Ba'ku came to the planet before the Federation even existed. What if it was a forgotten 300 year old, let's say, Bajoran colony? Twice as old as the Federation itself.
In which case, the point still stands that the Son'a (at least) would have every much a right to it as the Bak'u. Why does Picard discriminate? Because none of the Son'a are attractive to him?
Which, if the Son'a and the Baku have a legal claim on the planet, is an internal matter and the Federation shouldn't be involved either way.
Both Insurrection and Nemesis were made under the direction that whatever Patrick Stewart wanted, he got. insurrection is very problematic because it ignored a quadrant scale war that was going on and Picard thought it was better to allow the Sona to just die off and potentially let the entire Federation fall under Dominion rule rather than "inconvenience" 600 selfish and hypocritcal people. Nemesis was bad because they thought since Patrick Stewart was in an action movie franchise called X-Men, that he was now a stand up action hero who totally warranted a quarter of the film's overall budget. Ironic because not only does his X-Men character Xavier spend the entire time on a wheel chair and not shoot anybody, but he's either knocked out or taken prisoner for most of the films duration. Heck, even post Nemesis X-Men 3, Xavier pretty much lets himself die. Someone was thinking in the wrong direction when they wrote "Picard blasts through the big bulky doors with his phaser and walks in like a boss!" when doing Nemesis.
I would kill Hitler as a child in a second. (Actually I'd probably adopt him out or kidnap him to another country but kill him as a last resort) But neither the Sona and Baku are Hitler. If the Baku/Sona legally 'own' their planet then the Federation don't have a right to take it IMO because of need. People in the Federation will still survive and lead natural lives without the rings. If the planet belongs to the Federation (which I don't believe it does) then after ensuring the Baku are safe they can use the rings how they wish.
But again, we're not talking about KILLING anyone. Put it another way: If the Federation were suffering from widespread famine as a result of the war, and the Baku were sitting on the only planet in the quadrant capable of producing enough food to keep everyone from starving, would you still think the Baku were being reasonable?
That's the point! Dougherty/Starfleet had no business with the Son'a relocating those people. But they worked together with them. They misused a covert surveilance mission for their relocation and exploitation plans. And that's why Picard fought to stop their interference. At the end, they let the Ba'ku and Son'a deal with their problem on their own and left. In the middle of the film, Picard suggests that they should a) stop working with the Son'a and b) let the Son'a set up a colony on the planet to find a better solution. Did nobody see the film from beginning to end? It's all spelled out within the film. Another point is that the Son'a were supporting the Dominion which was opposing the Federation. So a peaceful solution was perfectly within the Federation's interest. And as stated before: the Federation AGREED with Picard.
But there is nothing in the film that suggests that the Baku/Son'a HAVE any legal claim on the planet. That's why the Son'a needed Starfleet to get involved in the first place.
Probably because their ships needed to cross Federation territory to get to the Briar Patch (as said in the film, the Son'a didn't live in the Briar Patch). And probably the Federation/Starfleet/Dougherty asked them "What's your business here, Dominion supporter?" Their "legal claim" is simply that they were there before the Federation even existed. The Enterprise encountered so many civilizations within Federation space that are not part of the Federation. It's a territory that can have holes, not a flood that drowns everything.
There's too many "probablies" in that assertion. Nothing in the movie suggests such a sequence of events. And I'm not sure "we saw it first" is a terribly strong basis for a legal claim. The Baku chose to hide themselves away from quadrant-spanning galactic civilization whose territory grew to include the planet they were living on. Not once in all that time did it occur to them to say "Uh, guys? Just to let you know, we've already claimed this planet. Don't call us, we won't call you." They were too busy being insufferable Luddites. If the ancient aliens who seeded the galaxy with their DNA ever returned, does that mean the Federation is obligated to hand over all it's territory to them regardless of what ocurred in the millennia in between simply because they visited here first?