• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Why do so many people hate 'Insurrection' so much?

Just because you see an apparently abandoned house doesn't mean you can move into it.
Say you did though, and then say you managed to live there for hundreds of years without causing any damage, bothering anyone or anybody trying to evict you. You'd have a pretty good case to say that's your house now.

Insurrection has beloved characters but they show themselves to be shallow. Shouldn't they be worried about their futures, Riker about ever being a captain, Beverley about seeing her son again.
Wouldn't being worried about their careers actually show them to be shallow? What they instead do is put everything at risk to stick with their captain and do what they believe to be right, which is exactly what we as the audience would expect them to do. Imagine the threads on here if Riker had gone "Gee, Jean-Luc, I really would like to help you stand up to corruption in the ranks and protect all those people, but I really really want to be a captain someday and this wouldn't look good on my résumé".

I know it wasn't just the Baku it was the principle for Picard but even that was muddied. Let 500 live forever and deny the benefits for millions..
But it's not the Federation's right to make that decision. Nor Admiral Dougherty's, nor Ru'afo's. Imagine going into a foreign country, finding a valuable natural resource and then forcibly removing the local population in order to mine said resource. That's the kind of shit that went on in British Colonial times.

On another note, I'm curious how exactly the Federation can claim the planet as their own ("we have the planet") when there is already a non-federation population living on it. There must be dozens of unaligned peoples within Federation space (some pre-warp, others definitely warp capable) and such a claim isn't presumably made about those planets.
I actually don't take the "we have the planet" line to mean it's expressly a Federation-owned/claimed planet, more to mean that it's located within Federation-controlled space, and the Son'a can't physically access the planet without the Federation's consent.

There was a missed opportunity in this film to make the pretty aliens, who look more like humans, the villains. Nothing would be more exciting if Picard went all out of his way to defend these villagers to later discover they including his new girlfriend were sinister.
That would actually have been quite cool. Kind of like when the Voyager crew helped the Vaadwaur (not necessarily pretty, but apparently sympathetic), only to find out they were epic bad guys of old.
 
There was a missed opportunity in this film to make the pretty aliens, who look more like humans, the villains. Nothing would be more exciting if Picard went all out of his way to defend these villagers to later discover they including his new girlfriend were sinister.

Hrm...I get what you're going for, though at the same time, "the good guys aren't who you think they are" is sort of a trope too. Given the writing issues I already had with this film, I'm not sure I would have trusted them to pull off that twist effectively.
 
Say you did though, and then say you managed to live there for hundreds of years without causing any damage, bothering anyone or anybody trying to evict you. You'd have a pretty good case to say that's your house now.

Possibly. But if said home was also sitting on top of the Cure for Cancer, I'd understand people taking issue with my refusal to vacate.
 
Possibly. But if said home was also sitting on top of the Cure for Cancer, I'd understand people taking issue with my refusal to vacate.
If it was sitting on the cure for cancer, your refusal to vacate wouldn't be germane.

It might be seen as cute though.
 
But if said home was also sitting on top of the Cure for Cancer, I'd understand people taking issue with my refusal to vacate.
For that to be a better comparison, the cure for cancer would also need to be under every house on the planet but all those houses are empty and they still force you out of yours because rather than just moving into one of those empty houses, they decide to burn all the houses down and take the cure with them.
 
But it's not the Federation's right to make that decision. Nor Admiral Dougherty's, nor Ru'afo's. Imagine going into a foreign country, finding a valuable natural resource and then forcibly removing the local population in order to mine said resource. That's the kind of shit that went on in British Colonial times..


Not just British, but Roman, USA etc.. it's been going on for tens if not hundreds of thousands of years. Likely since we came out of the trees.
 
For that to be a better comparison, the cure for cancer would also need to be under every house on the planet but all those houses are empty and they still force you out of yours because rather than just moving into one of those empty houses, they decide to burn all the houses down and take the cure with them.

Do the Baku own the planet or don't they? If they do, then the Son'a are still screwed. If they don't, then why did anyone make a big deal about it to begin with?
 
Do the Baku own the planet or don't they? If they do, then the Son'a are still screwed. If they don't, then why did anyone make a big deal about it to begin with?

If the Ba'ku own the planet, the Son'a may have a legitimate claim to co-ownership-- they are Ba'ku themselves, after all. Just not for the total destruction thing they want to do.
 
Last edited:
I don't hate it, but it's kinda meh. Certainly the Federation doesn't come out of this one smelling of roses. I think a two-parter such as Yesterday's Enterprise would have made a much more interesting movie...
 
Certainly the Federation doesn't come out of this one smelling of roses.
The federation wants to provide a new medical treatment for billions of people, that's pretty much the definition of "smelling of roses."

Even the S'ona, with their own motivations, are engaged in actions that in the end will help billions of people.

The Ba'ku, not so much.
 
Why are the Ba'ku considered the "good guys"?

Presumably they refused to move when it was explained to them why the Federation wanted to harvest the rings to turn into medicine for billions of people?
They are not Federation citizens, the Feds had no legal jurisdiction over them at all. Consider the state cannot force you to donate blood to save a life.....yet.
 
If the Ba'ku own the planet, the Son'a may have a legitimate claim to co-ownership-- they are Ba'ku themselves, after all. Just not for the total destruction thing they want to do.

The Baku don't appear to recognize that the Son'a may have a legitimate claim. Of course, matters escalate before any sort of legal ruling on the matter can occur.

Then again, the Baku exiled them from the planet, so you can't exactly blame the Son'a for assuming they wouldn't be welcomed back with open arms. Of course, the Son'a don't appear to have simply asked to be let back in either.

Then again, Dougherty indicated that even if the Son'a were allowed to settle on the planet, it would take a decade for their biological damage to be repaired, and some of them wouldn't live that long.
 
On another note, I'm curious how exactly the Federation can claim the planet as their own ("we have the planet") when there is already a non-federation population living on it. There must be dozens of unaligned peoples within Federation space (some pre-warp, others definitely warp capable) and such a claim isn't presumably made about those planets.
Exactly imagine Vulcan claiming Earth before First Contact.
Captain Solkar - 'All that water is just right for our desert world. Its logical, humans are only illogical primitives anyway'.
 
The movie where Picard heroically saves the middle-class white people from their rebellious children who they exiled from their gated community. And puts the wants of those people ahead of the entire Federation.

That sums up my issues with this movie.
So if they were ugly, poor white people would that be better for you?
 
Last edited:
They are not Federation citizens, the Feds had no legal jurisdiction over them at all. Consider the state cannot force you to donate blood to save a life.....yet.

It shouldn't be about legality, it should be about morality.

If my death would save a million lives, I'd certainly think about it long and hard.

And the Baku wouldn't have died if they were moved, at least not for over a century. They might have ended up in the same boat as the Son'a, but it's unclear how long the Son'a were away from the planet before things started to get significantly bad for them, or the conditions that led to their deterioration.
 
So if they were ugly poor white people would that be better for you?

It doesn't matter who they are. They're essentially sitting on the proverbial cure for cancer and all indications from the film are that they refuse to share it.

Exactly imagine Vulcan claiming Earth before First Contact.
Captain Solkar - 'All that water is just right for our desert world. Its logical, humans are only illogical primitives anyway'.

The Baku weren't native to the planet. Humans are native to Earth (as far as we know).
 
Possibly. But if said home was also sitting on top of the Cure for Cancer, I'd understand people taking issue with my refusal to vacate.
If you lived on an island with the cure for cancer you would have every right to refuse to have it harvested and you forcibly moved to the Shetland islands as compensation.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top