Avatar wasn't that ambitious when it had strong or even original special effects but the story was ripping off Pocahontas.
Avatar wasn't that ambitious when it had strong or even original special effects but the story was ripping off Pocahontas.
Agreed, the second half becomes a lot worse for feeling way too good-vs.-evil (as well as being that but not really in an entertaining way).
Except that Generations and FC are more two-on-one fightsBut yes, still too repetitive, still too much four times in a row.
I was talking from a technical point of view, not a story one.
I think that is a great point is that the emotional stakes are not that high. We have generic aliens of the week, and an evil admiral. There is no conflict between the crew over the rightness or the wrongness of the actions, which is something that I think Trek can suffer from is deliberate moralizing and making it clear what the right decision is. Some times, a lot of times, things are not black and white and this movie missed that opportunity to have such a conflict in the crew.There was an sfdebris review of this film (its down now, so I cannot link to it), where sfdebris says the best route they could have gone, is to have Riker side with the Federation and Picard side with the Ba'ku and have them fight each other, that would have bigger stakes than what we got in the film. Yeah, they are not saying Earth from a Borg invasion, but there is emotional stakes in a fight between Riker and Picard.
IIRC, he was injured and the surgery he required was too expensive.
Should blind people feel unhappy cause Geordi can see?
It's a dialectic. Be happy what you have and always strive for better.Thinking on that though, I wonder whether there's an uncomfortable subtextual suggestion that all physically disabled people inherently shouldn't be happy with the lives they have...and if so, is that problematic?
How does that connect to your argument?That sounds right to me...
Geordi was offered alternatives to his VISOR at least twice during the series and turned them down.
I liked Avatar even less than Insurrection. Avatar gets by on the novelty of its visuals for the most part.
With great humility, I submit that there wasn't much that could have saved the film, barring a massive re-write.
I've noticed there are quite a lot of similarity in the themes and ideas between Insurrection and the French comic book Valerian: Return to Alflolol.
Both feature a group of long-living aliens native to a planet, whose natural resources the heroes' own community wants to exploit. The aliens have no interest to technology, but choose to live close to nature and also possess strange psychic powers. Their presence is a problem that the community, led by a hard nosed governor, tries to resolve by moving them to a reservation. The ethical dilemma drives the heroes to go renegade .
Of course Star Trek had to add the evil Son'a in the mix, because the utopian Federation can't turn into a villain.
Well they had been living there for 300 years, certainly long enough to establish their presence. That's longer than it's been since building the first colony in Australia.Also the Baku aren't native to the planet, which for me at least changes the dynamics of the situation.
A few years back, (to quote Jim Kirk, "12 years? Incredible!") I went through a phase where every weekend after everyone else went to sleep, I would bake a frozen pizza, pour some mountain dew, and while dipping the slices of pizza in ranch sauce I would watch Insurrection all the way through. I did it every weekend for two or three months. I discovered that, while First Contact was the superior effort of the TNG films, Insurrection was theraputic for me, like a brain massage almost, similar to how The Motion Picture was for me a few years earlier. Both films have great ambiance, and yet neither film is referenced that much or even remembered as being that good in modern Trek. I love the warm colors, the soft music and the spectacular visuals of Insurrection. Like a youtube commenter posted once, "Star Trek is like coming home". Insurrection is a perfect example of that sentiment.![]()
More than 600 aliens with no ethnic diversity who are not native to the planet that is sovereign territory of an interstellar power, that is for sure. There is a big difference between removing a native indigenous population dependent on the radiation to survive (which the ba'ku aren't) and removing a bunch of settlers who have basically taken a planet that didn't belong to them (which the Ba'ku are). The Federation would actually have the right to remove the Ba'ku as the planet fell in federation space. Picard carries on like the federation were sending the Ba'ku to a gulag when it was planned from the beginning that the Ba'ku were being sent to a near identical paradise planet to continue their lives.
Insurrections biggest failure is it's lazy and superficial moralising. It treats the viewer like an idiot and asks that we look at the morality of the issue in black and white terms. But it's not that easy. The radiation would benefit trillions of beings. What if there was a planet with a population on the verge of extinction because of a disease the federation couldn't cure. What if the planetary radiation could cure the disease and save an entire species from extinction? Wouldn't that be worth moving 600 people to another warm and sunny planet? The story would have a million times more compelling and challenging if it had asked bigger questions like that.
Data's fused emotion chip is now readily removable whenever needed, did Geordi call up Argyle or Maddox to bring in the blowtorch and desoldering gun? Wasn't turning it on and off at will in the previous movie not good enough? Or are they hoping he misplaces it, thus interfering with a society that finds the chip and manages to figure out 1/6,000,000,000,000,000th of it despite having no manual or 9V battery to power it up with (without frying it too), and then the real fun begins...
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.