When did the perception of Insurrection change?

Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies I-X' started by Lance, Jul 31, 2013.

  1. SeerSGB

    SeerSGB Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2003
    Location:
    RIP Leonard Nimoy
    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.
     
  2. M.A.C.O.

    M.A.C.O. Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2011
    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.
     
  3. CaptainBearclaw

    CaptainBearclaw Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2013
    Location:
    not valid
    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!
     
  4. SeerSGB

    SeerSGB Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2003
    Location:
    RIP Leonard Nimoy
    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.
     
  5. Mage

    Mage Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    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.
     
  6. JarodRussell

    JarodRussell Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2009
    Didn't they relocate them in the TNG episode to prevent a war? That's an entirely different situation.
     
  7. Hartzilla2007

    Hartzilla2007 Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2006
    Location:
    Star Trekkin Across the universe.
    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.
     
  8. BillJ

    BillJ Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
    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.
     
  9. Hartzilla2007

    Hartzilla2007 Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2006
    Location:
    Star Trekkin Across the universe.
    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.

    A claim that they were not exercising under their little ruse.
     
  10. BillJ

    BillJ Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
    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.
     
  11. Hober Mallow

    Hober Mallow Commodore Commodore

    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.
    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.")
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2013
  12. sonak

    sonak Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    Location:
    in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination

    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."
     
  13. Dream

    Dream Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2001
    Location:
    Hotel Transylvania
    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. :lol:
     
  14. SeerSGB

    SeerSGB Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2003
    Location:
    RIP Leonard Nimoy
    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.
     
  15. Lance

    Lance Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Location:
    The Enterprise's Restroom
    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.
     
  16. Mage

    Mage Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007

    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....
     
  17. BillJ

    BillJ Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
    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"
     
  18. Mage

    Mage Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007

    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.
     
  19. JarodRussell

    JarodRussell Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2009
    Would you also kill them if they resisted? When would you stop and give up?


    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.
     
  20. trevanian

    trevanian Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    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.
     

Share This Page