They do indirectly when saying no one would want to live in the Briar Patch.
Any Love for Insurrection?
- Thread starter Gojira
- Start date
They do indirectly when saying no one would want to live in the Briar Patch.
They weren't the Son'a when they were expelled. That came later. It was just one band of hippies kicking out a smaller set of angry hippies.
It's another reason the movie is ridiculous, quite honestly...
"Oh...I know I can be eternally youthful and disease-free...but I'm too much of a selfish a$$hole to be bothered with the inconvenience of living in a troublesome region of space"
Ugh...piss off!
So what is the Federation's authority here.
If the Baku were primitives would the Federation move them? Or would they have backed off?
Since the Baku were not, then did the Federation have the right to move the Baku.
I mean legally not morally.
Also why didn't the Sona just skulk back to the other side of the planet when they started ageing too much or even to the next continent. Was the Briar Patch too dangerous to make it back without Federation help? Why did the Sona involve the Federation at all ?
If the Baku were primitives would the Federation move them? Or would they have backed off?
Since the Baku were not, then did the Federation have the right to move the Baku.
I mean legally not morally.
Also why didn't the Sona just skulk back to the other side of the planet when they started ageing too much or even to the next continent. Was the Briar Patch too dangerous to make it back without Federation help? Why did the Sona involve the Federation at all ?
Totally agree.
Too many of the Trek films (and this was the worst offender) ended up with "too many cooks in the kitchen" with regard to development. The studio, stars, etc all had to have a say in the story and different elements that needed to be included.
Insurrection had a shot at being a good story until the studio and actors started placing their demands. No doubt about it.
Six-hundred people just weren't enough for me to give a shit about. I would have scooped them up and moved them without a second thought. The math simply doesn't favor the Ba'ku. If six-hundred people are sitting on a cure for cancer, I move them without a second thought.
That doesn't even factor in that the Ba'ku come across as extremely unlikable, and were using Picard to protect their paradise from their own children. Once Picard found out, he should've recused the Federation from the whole mess and allowed them to figure it out on their own (per the Prime Directive).
I saw it once, and I think that it's a better (and original) film than Insurrection.
These are the new 'dress white' formal dress uniforms, similar to the kind worn by most navies here on Earth in the present day. Here are a few examples:
Do you get it, now? Basically, the dress uniform seen in Insurrection is a 24th century version of this current-day one.
Last edited:
That would depend on who the Federation Council saw as the legal holders of the rings, the planet and ultimately the entire star system.
If the Federation didnt recognize the 600 Baku as a sovereign power with the ability to claim the planet, and did recognize their own, that would kind of be it.
Loads of interesting points and views being expressed here, really enjoying this thread!
Just for my 2-cents, do I think this is a great film - no, is it an awful film - no, is it my favourite TNG film - no, is it a film that I enjoy and will enjoy again on rewatching in the future - yes.
Regarding some of the stuff that's been said, I agree that the cinematography is pretty decent in this film, but in all honestly it's not something that would sway me in an argument over the overall quality of the film. Heard some love and hate for the score, I think it's nice, missing the bombast of earlier Goldsmith scores but it works for the film and fits well. ILM is missed from the visual effects side of things, but I wouldn't say they were awful and certainly not bad enough for me to stand back and say "this is actively affecting my enjoyment of this film". I can see why people feel this is more like an episode than a film, in some ways for me it's the smaller scale story, which seems bizarre with the Dominion war going on, but I agree with what I've read about it trying to be different than First Contact, there are certainly worse ways to be different!
Where I get annoyed with this film is how the moral dillema is just paid lip service. Star Trek is full of moral stories and alegories, sometimes they work, sometimes they fall flat. Insurrection isn't really worthy of the name in that we don't see any struggle or soul searching or real arguments over the issue.
Matthew Dougherty is supposed to embody one side of the argument but just gets destroyed by Picard. It feels like their argument was toned down or there is a scene missing because it's over before it begins. Phrases like "when you've written 300 eulogies..." or "sometimes following orders you have to do distasteful things..." could have been given by Dougherty and turned into an actual debate. You get the impression that though the Federation Council have sanctioned the mission they aren't in full possession of the facts, hence Riker going off to play whistleblower. How good would it have been if Dougherty had had a little more depth, perhaps wrestling with the decision and admitting that he is selling his soul for the greater good, or that he has a personal connection to the war. Also how good would it have been if he had been a likeable character, rather than a rather snotty tool who you automatically dislike, he's just the standard Badmiral, which to me was very lazy.
There's also no exploraiton of the consequences of Picard's decision. A few people have commented that other members of the crew might have something to say about it, especially Worf and I'd agree. Also it's later said in DS9 that the Son'a fight for the Dominion, I've always been of the view that this is at least in part in response to Picard's actions here. I'm not saying that Picard was right or wrong in what he chose to do, but it never really felt like an "Insurrection" and I feel the movie was cheapened because of it.
So an enjoyable, watchable film, but a frustrating one that didn't meet its potential.
Just for my 2-cents, do I think this is a great film - no, is it an awful film - no, is it my favourite TNG film - no, is it a film that I enjoy and will enjoy again on rewatching in the future - yes.
Regarding some of the stuff that's been said, I agree that the cinematography is pretty decent in this film, but in all honestly it's not something that would sway me in an argument over the overall quality of the film. Heard some love and hate for the score, I think it's nice, missing the bombast of earlier Goldsmith scores but it works for the film and fits well. ILM is missed from the visual effects side of things, but I wouldn't say they were awful and certainly not bad enough for me to stand back and say "this is actively affecting my enjoyment of this film". I can see why people feel this is more like an episode than a film, in some ways for me it's the smaller scale story, which seems bizarre with the Dominion war going on, but I agree with what I've read about it trying to be different than First Contact, there are certainly worse ways to be different!
Where I get annoyed with this film is how the moral dillema is just paid lip service. Star Trek is full of moral stories and alegories, sometimes they work, sometimes they fall flat. Insurrection isn't really worthy of the name in that we don't see any struggle or soul searching or real arguments over the issue.
Matthew Dougherty is supposed to embody one side of the argument but just gets destroyed by Picard. It feels like their argument was toned down or there is a scene missing because it's over before it begins. Phrases like "when you've written 300 eulogies..." or "sometimes following orders you have to do distasteful things..." could have been given by Dougherty and turned into an actual debate. You get the impression that though the Federation Council have sanctioned the mission they aren't in full possession of the facts, hence Riker going off to play whistleblower. How good would it have been if Dougherty had had a little more depth, perhaps wrestling with the decision and admitting that he is selling his soul for the greater good, or that he has a personal connection to the war. Also how good would it have been if he had been a likeable character, rather than a rather snotty tool who you automatically dislike, he's just the standard Badmiral, which to me was very lazy.
There's also no exploraiton of the consequences of Picard's decision. A few people have commented that other members of the crew might have something to say about it, especially Worf and I'd agree. Also it's later said in DS9 that the Son'a fight for the Dominion, I've always been of the view that this is at least in part in response to Picard's actions here. I'm not saying that Picard was right or wrong in what he chose to do, but it never really felt like an "Insurrection" and I feel the movie was cheapened because of it.
So an enjoyable, watchable film, but a frustrating one that didn't meet its potential.
Yeah, I don't think Insurrection is a good movie, but Nemesis still takes the cake in the badness department. Aside from the plot generally not making sense, the existence of B4 totally undercuts the dramatic impact of Data's sacrifice, because you know that B4 is going to become Data. Also, I could do without Troi getting mindraped yet again!
Why do so many people hate on Ant Man? Sure, it might have been a better movie if Edgar Wright had stayed on to direct, but it's hardly the worst superhero movie I've ever seen (e.g. Green Lantern, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, Supergirl, Catwoman, Batman and Robin, Amazing Spiderman 2, Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice, et cetera).
But the cigarettes! Where the heck did they get all the cigarettes?!!I saw Waterworld several times myself. Two people in the "we saw Waterworld more than once!" category! We're waterbuddies! Yay!
Actually, I find Beyond to be the best of the JJ-Verse movies. The first movie makes no sense, because the Romulans could have just gone to the star that had the supernova in the past and used the red matter on it before it could go nova. The second movie has interstellar transporters that make ships pointless and blood that brings people back from the dead, not to mention that it's recycling lots of stuff from Wrath of Khan. Beyond wasn't perfect, but it felt way more like Star Trek to me than the first two.
What I loved about Beyond is that it wasn't yet another Rookie Red Ranger story, to borrow a phrase from Power Rangers. This was Kirk the closest he's been his TOS self than any other movie. I also felt that all of the other movies past TMP shoved Bones to the side and said that the Kirk and Spock relationship was the only one that mattered, so it was nice to see him get greater interaction with Spock without Kirk around. Plus Kirk and Spock don't hog the spotlight this time letting the rest of the crew to each get a chance to shine. In particular I like the Franklin launch sequence for showing just how much Sulu and Chekov have to work in tandem during a most delicate situation. The only thing I wanted from a first viewing was an explanation for what happened to Carol Marcus since it looked like she would be a main character moving forward.
I have mixed feelings about her. I don't think they made effective use of her character, so to be honest I was a little relieved that they didn't revisit her in Beyond.
I thought Beyond was a very good Star Trek movie. It was, to Tenacity's point...a little "light"...but it was enjoyable, whereas Insurrection was not.
I actually found both Beyond and Insurrection enjoyable.
It's not mentioned in the final script, but Carol Marcus left the Enterprise (and Starfleet) to pursue scientific work. I would have loved for her to stay around; she's pretty, perky,smart, and has a beautiful smile, plus she stood up to her dad well and can defend herself.
I watched Insurrection for the first in ages a couple of months back and I was surprised at how much I enjoyed it. It is by no means a perfect film and it is one of the weaker TNG outings, but it holds up better than I remember. I think part of the reason is the movie's lighter tone played right into the nostalgia I was experiencing watching the movie again. I released I missed these characters and this cast.
Kirk or somebody could have said that, but I doubt that she went there so soon. I wonder if part of the melancholy he felt in Beyond is because of her leaving after they'd gotten together, made love, then she told him she was pregnant, wanted to do more scientific work, but didn't want her child raised around anybody in Starfleet, as per what happend in the prime continuity?
Last edited:
Similar threads
