Time To Come Out...

[cultcross]

At any rate, I think the 'I, Borg' choice is a fascinating moral conundrum, perfectly presented and played out, although I still disagree with Picard's decision. I do like that he has to answer for it later to Admiral Nechayev in 'Descent'.

I, Borg is the recurrent Star Trek story which began with The Corbomite Manoeuvre - we treat our enemies in line with our morality, even though they have/would attack us given the chance. It's the concept of being who we say we are, even when it's hard, or disadvantages us. To me, those episode types are the essence of Trek. Insurrection was a rubbish movie, but it was a similar story - we don't cast aside our morality when it becomes inconvenient.

----

- I entirely agree with @Spot261 on Voyager's wasted potential. It made me so annoyed that it wasn't what it could have been - this is why I find I dislike Voyager more than ENT even though ENT was just as bland and boring - Voyager felt like it was constantly squandering a really interesting premise to be TNG Mk II.

My other big thing to get out there - I thought Crusher and Troi were both rubbish characters and largely unneeded. They were never well written and Gates wasn't a strong actor. I would have preferred some females in other roles in the cast and ditch all three of the initial female roles. Marina Sirtis would have been a good first officer, or engineer maybe. Ensign Ro was a breath of fresh air in that department, a female character who was interesting, well written and could act. It's a shame she didn't pop up more often.

 

[Nyotarules]

At any rate, I think the 'I, Borg' choice is a fascinating moral conundrum, perfectly presented and played out, although I still disagree with Picard's decision

'I Borg' was Picard's real Kobayashi Maru test and I think he failed it.

 

[DamarsKanar]

I, Borg is the recurrent Star Trek story which began with The Corbomite Manoeuvre - we treat our enemies in line with our morality, even though they have/would attack us given the chance. It's the concept of being who we say we are, even when it's hard, or disadvantages us. To me, those episode types are the essence of Trek. Insurrection was a rubbish movie, but it was a similar story - we don't cast aside our morality when it becomes inconvenient.

----

- I entirely agree with @Spot261 on Voyager's wasted potential. It made me so annoyed that it wasn't what it could have been - this is why I find I dislike Voyager more than ENT even though ENT was just as bland and boring - Voyager felt like it was constantly squandering a really interesting premise to be TNG Mk II.

My other big thing to get out there - I thought Crusher and Troi were both rubbish characters and largely unneeded. They were never well written and Gates wasn't a strong actor. I would have preferred some females in other roles in the cast and ditch all three of the initial female roles. Marina Sirtis would have been a good first officer, or engineer maybe. Ensign Ro was a breath of fresh air in that department, a female character who was interesting, well written and could act. It's a shame she didn't pop up more often.

I will agree that the I, Borg issue is a recurrent Trek one (and therefore an episode I love and one in line with Picard's character in large part). Insurrection...yeah not so beloved. But I stand by the fact that there are times when morality is 'inconvenient', and times when making a moral decision produces an immoral result. as in I, Borg (or, I might add, times when acting immorally produces a morally good result - i.e. Tuvix, where I agree with Janeway's actions - but that's another can of worms!).

All in all, great Star Trek is making one ponder these kinds of questions!

On another note, I am completely with you on Voyager's wasted potential (though I still enjoy many, many aspects of it) and on the general lacklustre female representation on TNG. Though I don't rate Sirtis's acting at all and think McFadden was at least a bit better.

If only they had replaced McFadden and Sirtis earlier on in the show and never tried to pretend they were of the calibre of some other cast members (and then simultaneously failed to write for them as if they could act as well...leading to...well just bad acting and writing and general disappointment).
But Ro Laren - the best!

 

[Phil123]

I, Borg is the recurrent Star Trek story which began with The Corbomite Manoeuvre - we treat our enemies in line with our morality, even though they have/would attack us given the chance. It's the concept of being who we say we are, even when it's hard, or disadvantages us. To me, those episode types are the essence of Trek. Insurrection was a rubbish movie, but it was a similar story - we don't cast aside our morality when it becomes inconvenient.

Well put, this is basically how I fell about it.

 

[jaime]

I feel like the Baku were just incredibly selfish in Insurrection. To my memory (as I said I do need to rewatch the film), they would be inconvenienced, but not exactly annihilated or anything. It made it difficult for me to really have sympathy for them.

As for the Borg, I too like the analogy of them being in forced labour. But plenty of peasant soldiers over the centuries have been forced into military service. If they were coming to annihilate your homelands and force your people into slavery, would you not do anything to protect your own people and all of those other people? The fact that they are in forced labour themselves makes it absolutely abhorrent to punish them - but barring any other feasible solution, it might just make it necessary.

At any rate, I think the 'I, Borg' choice is a fascinating moral conundrum, perfectly presented and played out, although I still disagree with Picard's decision. I do like that he has to answer for it later to Admiral Nechayev in 'Descent'.

If by inconevienced you mean 'losing their home and way of life and physical appearance for three centuries, and having your children grow up on a different world in totally different circumstances....or stay where they are a die possibly horribly' then yes, that would be a bit of a bugger. To help a bigger powerful group whose technology already runs to genetronic replicators, new eyes, and totally cybernetic replacements for brain damage, who needed to...to...what exactly? Live longer than the nearly two centuries that is pretty much the norm in the federation? Grow new limbs for the few people should couldn't get replacements and would have to make do with functionally perfect replacements that aren't even aesthetically displeasing or cause pain like Nog?
All the toing and froing on the script (thanks to Stewart) meant the federations motives got lost way down in the mix, but as shown...it was a nonsense. They had been better off making Doughty and the whole thing turn out to be section 31, and the particles to be weaponised.

 

[DamarsKanar]

If by inconevienced you mean 'losing their home and way of life and physical appearance for three centuries, and having your children grow up on a different world in totally different circumstances....or stay where they are a die possibly horribly' then yes, that would be a bit of a bugger. To help a bigger powerful group whose technology already runs to genetronic replicators, new eyes, and totally cybernetic replacements for brain damage, who needed to...to...what exactly? Live longer than the nearly two centuries that is pretty much the norm in the federation? Grow new limbs for the few people should couldn't get replacements and would have to make do with functionally perfect replacements that aren't even aesthetically displeasing or cause pain like Nog?
All the toing and froing on the script (thanks to Stewart) meant the federations motives got lost way down in the mix, but as shown...it was a nonsense. They had been better off making Doughty and the whole thing turn out to be section 31, and the particles to be weaponised.

I've only seen Insurrection once and then it was not under the best/most focused circumstances, so some of these details came off somewhat confusing and unclear to me. If it was as you put it, then it's a little less clear cut, absolutely. I'm not sure you could justify destroying even a small people's way of life to have..slightly better technology. No, that would be morally wrong.

 

[Tenacity]

If the philosophy of "the needs of the many - out weigh the needs of the few" is common to the majority of the Vulcan people (and not just Spock), how would the Vulcans in the Federation Council vote on the review mentioned at the end of the movie?

Would the schism within the Baku people (the Baku and the Sona) be seen as sufficient reason to not continue?

Would the majority of the Council see continuing with the collection of the orbiting particles as immoral objectionable?

 

[jaime]

If the philosophy of "the needs of the many - out weigh the needs of the few" is common to the majority of the Vulcan people (and not just Spock), how would the Vulcans in the Federation Council vote on the review mentioned at the end of the movie?

Would the schism within the Baku people (the Baku and the Sona) be seen as sufficient reason to not continue?

Would the majority of the Council see continuing with the collection of the orbiting particles as immoral objectionable?

Because sometimes, the needs of the one, outweigh the needs of the few.

If Spock was here, he would say I was an irrational, illogical, human being...

 

[Phil123]

Because sometimes, the needs of the one, outweigh the needs of the few.

If Spock was here, he would say I was an irrational, illogical, human being...

Also needs and wants are very different things.

 

[UnknownSample]

Vast numbers of people shouldn't necessarily BE immortal. It matters what the new immortal society will be like. If it's founded on using less powerful people, that society will go off in a twisted direction, having to go into a sort of denial about how they got that way.

 

[Paradise City]

I quite enjoyed all the TOS movies and the TNG movies. Insurrection comes across as a TV movie and having taken it at that level, I'm content with it. I appreciate that Nemesis is derivative but barring those flaws I was happy enough with it.

Shatner is at his acting peak in the TOS movies in my view.

I was done with the borg after I, Borg.

All Good Things had good scenes and was a worthy enough finale I suppose but I do think it's overrated.

I don't like the JJ films. But leaving that aside I don't think they should've bothered with Nimoy . I have similar reservations with Shatner in Generations.

 

[2takesfrakes]

I hated the revamped Romulans in TNG - the look of them and their environments. The makeups looked like shit -- not Michael Westmore's finest hour, that's for sure. I hate most of Robert Blackman's costuming, to begin with, but the Romulan costumes were laughable. I hated the cheap-ass looking interiors of the Romulan ships, as well ... The TOS Romulans looks a hell of a whole lot better, I hate to say.

 

[Vger23]

I hated the revamped Romulans in TNG - the look of them and their environments. The makeups looked like shit -- not Michael Westmore's finest hour, that's for sure. I hate most of Robert Blackman's costuming, to begin with, but the Romulan costumes were laughable. I hated the cheap-ass looking interiors of the Romulan ships, as well ... The TOS Romulans looks a hell of a whole lot better, I hate to say.

I couldn't agree with you more.

The production design for Romulans ships and environments was terrible. You look at what TNG did with the Klingon environments (hot, dark, smokey, worn, etc) and then look at the lame neon boxy-looking Romulan interiors and it really stands out.

 

[Herbert]

Riker should have gotten a his first command after the second season and Frakes would have left the show. Every other year there would be a new first officer.

What makes sense in real life often doesn't in a TV series. Yes, someone as driven and ambitious as Riker was portrayed early on, should have and would have taken his own command at the first choice. If the writers wanted that level of authenticity, then they should have written Riker off the show after he left the Enterprise to command his own ship. However, TV doesn't always work that way.

 

[Herbert]

An interesting and convincing description of the Borg, I like it a lot. However it doesn't make killing them all any more justifiable - worse if anything as they were operating against what would have been their will.

The Borg were not your typical enemy though. There are no Borg "civilians" as exist in every culture. One hundred percent of the Borg population is the enemy, an enemy that can't be reasoned with and can't be intimidated by a show of force. (unless you have the means to destroy them as did species 8472) Diplomacy is wasted on them. We aren't talking about races like the Romulans or Klingons that the Federation could, and did, deal with in conventional ways. This is the Borg. The only way to deal with them is to eliminate them completely.

Obviously, a Star Trek script would never follow through with the idea of introducing a "virus" to destroy the Borg but if Picard was truly interested in saving humanity from what was the ultimate threat, then he should have done it.

 

[2takesfrakes]

I couldn't agree with you more.

The production design for Romulans ships and environments was terrible. You look at what TNG did with the Klingon environments (hot, dark, smokey, worn, etc) and then look at the lame neon boxy-looking Romulan interiors and it really stands out.

Yes, the STAR TREK movies not only set the tone for the revamped Klingons, they also had movie sets that could be repurposed for TNG's needs. The Romulans, on the other hand, had to be made from scratch and TNG just saw them as cheap aliens not unlike how Spock was first proposed in TOS, for his cost-effectiveness, in make-up design ... but it didn't work. Actors were made to wear atrocious wigs and ready-made, off-the shelf ears, foreheads and black wigs that came across as kind of crass, actually, especially when their environments were little more than cubical dividers with blinking lights embedded in them. Just a bad decision, all around ...

 

[Nyotarules]

^Lazy world building by the producers. TOS had more diverse looking Vulcans and Romulans, TNG introduced a race where everyone has the same haircut and wears the same clothes;robes for Vulcans and those ultra padded shoulder duvet looking clothes for Romulans.
Lazy world building, and to have ENT follow their stupid mistake...I smdh

 

[2takesfrakes]

... Agreed!
Indeed, agreed ...!!!

 

[cultcross]

I hated the revamped Romulans in TNG - the look of them and their environments. The makeups looked like shit -- not Michael Westmore's finest hour, that's for sure. I hate most of Robert Blackman's costuming, to begin with, but the Romulan costumes were laughable. I hated the cheap-ass looking interiors of the Romulan ships, as well ... The TOS Romulans looks a hell of a whole lot better, I hate to say.

Plus, the Romulans in TNG had this ridiculous habit of showing up, and making threats to kill us all... next time. They were the ultimate tease.
"Know this - we're back" *cloaks and warps away*
Next time: "Next time we meet, we won't be so forgiving!" *cloaks and warps away*
Next time: "If we meet again, Captain, know that we won't overlook incursions into our territory so lightly!" *cloaks and warps away*

 

[2takesfrakes]

That's what's up! The Romulans were not well-served, by TNG ...
and that's for certain!