Hadn't the emotion chip fused itself into Data's neural net by the end of Generations?
How did Geordi remove it, hammer and chisel?![]()
I'm not sure how that would have been much safer - the chip fused (ie became part of) Data's neural net (his brain). So to remove it would be to remove a part of his brain, no matter how carefully done.probably, it's not like they have laser scalpels or anything
Exactly. At this point, I think they were just running out of stories to tell with the TNG crew.It would be hard to have a Dominion War film starring the TNG cast. First because the Dominion wasn't TNG's enemy and second, they couldn't win the war, so it would be Just Another Battle in a war that TNG viewers who didn't watch DS9 wouldn't see the beginning or end of. If you have two back-to-back war films, TNG fans would've complained "TNG wasn't about war!" and they'd be right. They didn't need to make it about a war, but the story didn't have a large enough scope.
The story should've been -- the story should always be -- high stakes, major turning points in the character's lives, and a sense of real jeopardy. GEN, FC, and NEM had all of those. INS had none of them.
...Because the creators liked inserting the number "47" into scripts at random?I would imagine there are 47 sub-sections of the Prime Directive for a reason.
Exactly. Insurrection is like one of those utterly forgettable episodes that TNG did in their last couple of seasons.Insurrection had a story nobody cared about, action scenes nobody remembered, and a climax nobody stayed awake to.
Now THAT is an interesting concept for a movie. Picard and Riker being on opposite sides of a conflict is instantly intriguing.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 saving Earth from a Borg invasion, but there is emotional stakes in a fight between Riker and Picard.
...Because the creators liked inserting the number "47" into scripts at random?
Prior to watching any of the TNG films I made sure to take all of the criticism with a grain of salt because there seems to be a vast spectrum of differing opinions regarding the films because everyone watches the show/series for so many different reasons. I think there really is something to offer everyone.
This movie is my favorite so far. As others have mentioned, I absolutely agree that it holds true to a good episode of the series. That was one of my first thoughts after it was over. Like on of those epsidoes that after watching i'd say to myself "Yep, that was a good episode". The kind that made me fall in love with TNG and hooked me in. I definitely enjoyed First Contact because I love all the episodes that they face the Borg, but I think I preferred the lightness of this one. I enjoyed the corny jokes and the pace, Troi and Riker FINALLY getting together again, Data exploring another part of humanity, etc. I could go on and on.
Great movie![]()
Indeed, yes. But Piller had gone full in with Gene's rule of no conflict among the crew.Now THAT is an interesting concept for a movie. Picard and Riker being on opposite sides of a conflict is instantly intriguing.
I don't think that having the Dominion in Insurrection would've been hard to do. Long before the MCU you had the X-Files doing a movie and keeping their series going so I'm assuming that 20th Century Fox assumed that not all the people who would go see Fight the Future were already X-Files fans despite the widespread popularity that series enjoyed at the time.
A good story that could appeal to casual viewers and Trekkies, laden with the Easter Eggs and little connective tissues tying it to DS9, could've worked, and maybe made Insurrection a more memorable and consequential film, as well as viewing experience. The Insurrection that we got was basically a two part episode, designed almost in the episodic storytelling style, with only the Riker-Troi rekindled romance carrying over to Nemesis and beyond. Though to me, the out of character way Picard was acting in Nemesis and in ST: Picard could've been a lingering effect of his time in the Briar Patch.
I didn't hate Insurrection when I saw it in the theater, and I still don't. There's a lot that I like about it. I liked F. Murray Abraham a lot. (Abraham would've made just as good a Romulan, Vorta, or Cardassian if Insurrection had used the Romulans or Dominion over the Son'a). I thought the Son'a weren't bad villains and I loved their starships. Though never seeing them again in live-action made them seem even more inconsequential and unnecessary. Dougherty was a good crooked admiral. Picard and crew making a stand, and tying it to some real world tragedies also was an attempt to give the film more weight, but it didn't quite work. I didn't really care about the Ba'ku to be honest, and looking back now, the idea to go with this story of the Federation flagship rebelling against Starfleet during a time of war was very ill advised and in a way diminished the importance of the Dominion War.
If Insurrection had used the Dominion, they could've done a story that was tied up, but maybe they would've created new fans who went to DS9 to see how the contest would ultimately be decided. The desire to stay mostly separate in order to get new fans for the films perhaps undercut the whole franchise at the time. When I think about Star Wars Episode IV, fans were pretty satisfied with that one story, which could've ended just there without knowing the fate of the whole rebellion against the Empire. When it comes to the Dominion in Insurrection, fans eager to see more could've been encouraged to get their fix by looking at DS9.
Around that time they had the TNG Dominion books by John Vorholt, if I recall. I wish they had adapted that storyline for Insurrection.
It may not have been hard to do...but I think they were very wise to stay away from it. I'm a heavier Trek fan than 99% of the movie going population, and a "Dominion War" movie would have done even less for me than what we got at that time, primarily because I didn't follow DS9 too much at the time, and it honestly wouldn't have appealed to me to have a film that had even a minor focus on a plot element that came from a show I wasn't following.
So, if I felt that way at the time....I'm sure people who were even less-inclined to see a Trek movie would have been even more turned off.
It's like I've said...the "Dominion War" movie may have been some fan's wet dreams...but the producers were wise to stay away from it. I think if Insurrection had been even 1/2 of a good movie (and DS9 had been far more popular in first run), as opposed to the tepid, uninspired, soggy muffin that we got, there wouldn't be as much debate about it.
It didn't have to be a or 'the' Dominion War movie so much as a movie/story set during the Dominion War. There's lot of war films that don't cover an entire war but might focus on one aspect of it.
You might not like the idea, then and now, but I caution that you then assume that others, even less into Trek, or not into Trek, would've felt the same way. I'm also a Trek fan (loved TNG and also was into DS9) who did want to see it. Granted, it might have turned off people who weren't into the Dominion War or DS9 or who might have felt confused but some of that could be ameliorated by the story, writing, casting, action, and production values. I don't see why people would be as thrown off by using an existing enemy. I didn't see Space Seed before I saw TWOK and I got it; I doubt I even knew Space Seed existed before I saw Khan. How many people who saw Generations looked at the Lursa and Ba'tor episodes, or saw the Borg episodes before seeing First Contact? I think moviegoers were able to buy the Klingons or even the Romulans as villains in Trek movies without having to have seen some or all of their prior appearances.
IMO, the Dominion would've raised the stakes of Insurrection much more, and generated buzz among some in Trek fandom due to them being on DS9. I'm sure you are aware of the long lament by some-and I'm in that number-that wondered why they weren't in the film, and it's been almost 20 years and people are still raising that question.
I can accept the idea that if Insurrection had been better then there might not be even the clamoring for the Dominion's involvement that still exists now. But the reality is that for many, it wasn't, and that leads people to wonder why and speculate on what could've made the film better. Ergo, bringing in the Dominion to raise the stakes and make the film feel more consequential. The film already put a tie between the Son'a and Dominion in the film anyway. The mention of ketracel white didn't seem to throw any non-DS9 or causal Trek fan off to me.
I didn't even notice the mention of ketracel white the first run. That's how unimportant it was.
So, while I can appreciate wanting the interconnectiveness, especially with such a large even happening in DS9, I don't know if throwing all in to the Dominion would have helped matter. Generations was frustrating for me (my least favorite Trek film for the longest time) because I knew jackabout Lursa and them. It can be handled well, like in First Contact, and TWOK, but Generations is not a good example.
Hadn't the emotion chip fused itself into Data's neural net by the end of Generations?
How did Geordi remove it, hammer and chisel?![]()
We'll have to respectfully disagree on this. Like I said, most people in that time frame (late 90's) were already starting to gravitate away from Star Trek for various reasons. INS was a pile of llama poop, but a Dominion War movie was FAR from the answer they needed. The comparisons you're making are not even close to apples-to-apples.
- When TWOK was made, the film franchise was still new and the demand for Star Trek productions was infinitely higher than it was in the winter of 1998. They could have made a sequel to "Requiem for Methusela" and it wouldn't have mattered.
- Generations didn't have the Duras sisters used in a way that was meaningful. It could have been any random villain, and it would have made no difference. They were no different in the context of that film than Klaa was in TFF. No backstory required.
Again, I'm not saying that there wouldn't have been Trek fans from a certain limited demographic who would have squeeeeed endlessly about a DW based movie. I do know I wouldn't have been one of them. But, the bets at that time were NOT in favor of trying to play to a limited percentage of a dwindling fanbase. The bets were on creating a universally accessible sci-fi adventure movie that general audiences would not be scared off from seeing. That wasn't going to be a movie that relied heavily on a concept from the later seasons of an admittedly (and undeservedly) less popular series in the franchise. And, you seem to forget that "positive buzz around the fanbase" almost certainly has the opposite intended affect on general audiences: "Oh crap, if the Trek nerds all think this is going to be good...I probably need to spend 2 weeks reading Trek Encyclopedias to understand it."
- Comparing TNG and the Borg to DS9 and the Dominion War is totally apples to cheeseburgers. TNG was vastly more popular than DS9 was, particularly to the general public, and "The Borg" were probably the most widely recognized and mainstream concept to come out of that series (certainly based on the pop culture buzz of TBOBW cliffhanger). It's not even close to "The Dominion War" which a % of Star Trek fans who followed and liked DS9 would know and care about at that particular time.
And, at the end of the day, I think they made the 100% correct decision there. That has nothing to do with my personal preferences or emotional reaction to what I personally would have wanted. But I firmly think that placing a bet on a DW movie would have been a shit decision for all those reasons, and more (not the least of which was they had just produced a "Borg War" movie 2 years earlier).
Unfortunately, the debate only rages on because
1. INS was a completely unremarkable and soggy movie that would have struggled / failed even as a straight-to-Netflix release if there had been such a thing back then (straight to VHS perhaps?)
2. DS9 is considerably more popular and appreciated now than it was in the late 1990's....(although I'd argue that even that is not sufficient for a DS9-focused motion picture of any sort...still not viable enough)
And, I'm saying this all as a person who actively dislikes INS as a film, loves DS9 and the DW arc, and is a "Trek Movie Franchise" fan above all else.
So yeah...I think there's a good reason they went the other way. They just slipped up and made a dreadful movie anyway...so sure, we're all able to second guess the decision now. But, being as objective as possible and getting back into the time period the film was produced...I support the decision to not go the DW route 100%.
Agreed. The paltry few lines in INS that acknowledged the continuity of the DW were just Easter eggs for fans, and had nothing to do with the primary story.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.