You know what really irks me about "Insurrection"?

Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies I-X' started by Lance, Nov 8, 2013.

  1. T'Girl

    T'Girl Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Location:
    T'Girl
    Although to be fair when the Federation Council had the cure to the sickness that Section 31 imposed upon the Founder, the Council decided not to simply give it to them, but instead to employ the cure as a bargaining tool to end the war.

    Good for them.

    I would imagine that the vast majority of the people in the Federation don't answer to the President, why would it be different for folks in S31?

    :)
     
  2. Khan444

    Khan444 Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2013
    Here's my biggest problem with Insurrection. You know that a filmmaker has failed if I'm actually rooting for the people who are supposed to be the villains, and it's not INTENTIONAL on the part of the film crew. I was on the "bad guys" side this entire movie, they at least weren't hypocritical self-righteous assholes who were so annoying that I wanted to see them all die horribly. No, that would be our "heroes" in this movie.
     
  3. Mr. Laser Beam

    Mr. Laser Beam Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Location:
    The visitor's bullpen
    Don't be fatuous. You know what I mean. Citizens don't work for the President, they *vote* for same.

    If Section 31 claims to be a branch of the government, they must be accountable to it - and they aren't. Hell, Section 31 had a spy inside Jaresh-Inyo's Cabinet!

    Section 31 can, quite literally, do whatever they want, whenever they want. That doesn't sound dangerous to you?
     
  4. T'Girl

    T'Girl Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Location:
    T'Girl
    It depends entirely on what they are doing doesn't it. If what they are actually accomplishing is the protection and preservation of the federation, why would you consider this to be dangerous?

    Is it because they were willing to kill in large numbers, starfleet was routinely killing vast numbers during the course of the war.

    Is it because they didn't wait for the council to pull it's head out of it's ass and realize that the founders were a future threat to the federation.

    Is it because what they did worked, and the war was indeed shorten through their efforts.

    Certainly S31 was dangerous to those who would harm the federation.

    :)
     
  5. Mr. Laser Beam

    Mr. Laser Beam Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Location:
    The visitor's bullpen
    No, actually, it doesn't.
     
  6. Armored Saint

    Armored Saint Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2012
    Location:
    Quebec City
    In a democratic regime, an intelligence service is supposed to be both in a balanced situation between independence and accountability to avoid abuses from both sides. Claiming to protect the security interests of the Federation is not a sufficient guarantee.
     
  7. sonak

    sonak Vice Admiral Admiral

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

    I think his point was that unaccountable power in a society is dangerous no matter who is wielding it and for what purpose.
     
  8. T'Girl

    T'Girl Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Location:
    T'Girl
    Batman had a camera and listening device in the Mayor of Gotham City's office.

    If the person in the president's office found out that the founders were going to be taken seriously as a threat (years before they were), S31 might have simply turned their attentions elsewhere.

    And I contend that it is what is done with that "power" that is the most important consideration.

    Being unauthorized doesn't mean you'll alway get things wrong, anymore that being legally fully empowered means you know what you're doing.

    :)
     
  9. Hober Mallow

    Hober Mallow Commodore Commodore

    I'm struggling to come up with any possible scenario in which this view would be compatible with a democratic society. I got nothin'.
     
  10. T'Girl

    T'Girl Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Location:
    T'Girl
    It's a case of members of a society stepping forward and taking action when faced with a governing body that was not acting quickly enough to protect the society itself. The federation council's early polly anna attitude towards the dominion almost resulted in the federation's destruction.

    Simply saying that over there are the people in authority and the rest of us in the society should just sit on our hands is unreasonable. The federation council and starfleet were not the only people in the federation capable of making decision.

    Like it or not, S31's independent actions certainly shorten the war and reduce federation casualties, and may have been the deciding factor in the war not concluding in a dominion victory.

    Protecting democracy, but not practicing it.

    :)
     
  11. AgentCoop

    AgentCoop Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    If only the writers of the movie had put half as much thought into these issues as the people posting in this thread.
     
  12. sonak

    sonak Vice Admiral Admiral

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

    As long as unauthorized, unaccountable and amoral power is being wielded by flawed Humans, that power will be abused and lead to disastrous effects eventually.
     
  13. trevanian

    trevanian Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    You can say that about every trek movie, probably most trek episodes too.

    If you read Piller's unpublished book on INS, you can see that an awful lot of stuff WAS considered, but discarded because Berman didn't like it, or Berman thought Stewart wouldn't like it, or because Steward didn't like what they did instead, or ... (and so it goes)

    It might have been a better movie if you'd actually had Picard's crew divided on the issue ... so they were facing off with one another (sort of what they should have done in GENERATIONS with the E-A somehow in conflict with the E-D.) Would have made for an interesting PicardvsRiker battle of starships, maybe ... but that is clearly a whole other movie.
     
  14. T'Girl

    T'Girl Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Location:
    T'Girl
    But power, whether authorized or unauthorized, alway has at least some potential of being misused. Their plan to infect the founders did work, their plan to position a Romulan favorable to the Federation in the Romulan government worked, the 22nd century plan to cure the Klingons of the augment virus was well thought out and to the benefit of Earth (yes the Klingons were being duplicitous).

    There's no indication in any episode that S31 ever tried to take control of the federation or assassinate federation leaders, that would be a move against what the federation is, which is what S31 is protecting.

    In their own way.

    Some level of disagreement between Picard and Riker would have improved the movie (not to the point of weapons fire thought), especially in the early seasons Riker was shown to hold different opinions from Picard's, and wasn't afraid to voice them.

    I feel that the person who really should have strenuously opposed Picard's position should have been Beverly Crusher, the end result of Picard path was going to be to deign an important medical discovery to a large number of people of the federation and beyond. Beverly (like early Riker) occasional openly disagreed with Picard.

    Her sitting down opposite Picard and systematically knocking down his position points would have made for a great scene. Picard then ignoring the advice of two of his primary advisers and doing basically what we saw in the movie would have increased the movie IMHO.

    :)
     
  15. AgentCoop

    AgentCoop Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    ^I made the argument in another thread that I feel the reason we never got such an arguably necessary scene is because the filmmakers were afraid the audience might turn on Picard. If Crusher or Riker made a compelling enough argument then large portions of the audience might have gone "Hey, that's a pretty good point, what the hell, Jean-Luc?".

    I maintain that the basic problem with this movie is that it tries to have it both ways. They make a (very superficial) pretense that the story is about murky, morally grey events, yet they're never willing to let us disagree with Decisive Action Hero Picard.
     
  16. sonak

    sonak Vice Admiral Admiral

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

    This makes sense as a reason not to go that route. Because you're right, if you put a good argument into Beverly or Will's mouth, then you've got the audience scratching their heads going "yeah, why are we supposed to be rooting for Picard here?"

    What they REALLY wanted was a "fun," "silly" action movie, not a movie with an ethical dilemma at its core. So instead of debate, we get a weak, half-hearted minute or two from Dougherty, and then it's sit back and enjoy the show!:rolleyes:

    If they wanted to go the route of fun little action movie, one wonders why they used such a flawed premise for it. It makes you either think that they're not very observant for missing the flaws, or that they thought THE AUDIENCE would be unobservant or lazy enough to overlook the other side of the debate.
     
  17. JarodRussell

    JarodRussell Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2009
    I don't see a flaw in the premise. I agree with Picard, I disagree with Dougherty.

    You, as many others here as well, just don't like that none of the heroes in this film share your personal opinion on the issue. And that is exactly what makes this film interesting. It's not a clear black and white problem, but the characters make a clear decision and stand by it.

    Yeah, if it was about 6 billion people getting killed, everything would be nice and fine again, because everybody can agree on that. But no, it's just about a couple of folks not wanting to get relocated.
     
  18. sonak

    sonak Vice Admiral Admiral

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

    :lol: they don't "share my personal opinion" because they're not actual people forming their own views on it. They're characters who are all mouthing the views of ONE PERSON, Michael Piller. There is no other side presented by ANY of the crew and that's a huge problem, because REALISTICALLY there would be.


    Look at threads on INS on this board alone. There's always significant disagreement, with the PRO-removal crowd often having more support. Yet in the film, NONE of the crew of the Enterprise, senior officers or not, disagrees with Picard.


    It's phony and absurd.
     
  19. DonIago

    DonIago Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2001
    Location:
    Burlington, VT, USA
    I would say the same issue was raised to a lesser extent in FC. Crusher and Worf, at least, know that Picard's behaving irrationally, but ultimately they're both cowed by him and it takes a civilian to make Picard see reason. INS was in a sense the next logical step along that path of blind obedience.
     
  20. trevanian

    trevanian Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    I have lots and LOTS of problems with FC, and that is definitely one of the bigger ones. Even if you still wound up with the same result, you could have had a tense exchange between Bevery, Baldy & TurnoverHead as they were on the line to repulse an attack, so they're snapping at each other while something else is going on, like a real movie does. Instead it is 'stand and pontificate' which don't exactly put the motion in motion picture.

    I've posted about this before, but a number of years back I read an interview in a screenwriting mag with the writer of RUSH HOUR, in which he claims he was brought in to punch up FC (presumably movie-ize it.) I've often figured 'the line must be snorted here!' was his, but maybe they looked at a real movie script and thought, 'no, this is NextGen,' and just went back to what they had. I've never seen Moore or AntiChristo comment on any other writer being involved, so I guess that's just another dangling modifier in trek history.
     

Share This Page