Insurrection is a good film

[Lord Garth]

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.

As I've mentioned before, most of my friends IRL who watched Star Trek only watched TNG and the movies. Having DS9 stuff in Insurrection wouldn't have made them suddenly go watch DS9.

I'm not really a Niner, but my brother was/is. Like with me, most of his friends who liked Star Trek were TNG Only fans. He got a few of them to give DS9 a chance by inviting them over to watch it, but not most of them.

So I don't see it happening. This was the late-'90s, not today. DS9 reruns were hard to come by, in shitty time-slots when they even aired reruns, and the DVD Season Sets didn't even exist yet (they didn't show up until 2003). The series was almost over and it wasn't exactly easy to watch the earlier seasons of it.

It wasn't until 2003-2004, when DS9 was on DVD and was airing on Spike TV that more people started giving it more of a chance, or started watching it at all. I was on TrekBBS at the time, and we had an influx of new Niners. To the point where Spoiler Warnings had to be posted for seasons that weren't on DVD yet.

 

[fireproof78]

I think many forget that DS9 was not the darling that it is now.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Plus there no on-screen indication that they claimed the planet.

That's the justification the US used to force Native Americans out of their homeland. "They don't have a 'legal claim', therefore it's not theirs and we can take it from them".

 

[Vger23]

First off, wasn't a fan of how you described my comparisons in an attempt to delegitimize what I wrote. It sounded condescending to me,

.

Stopped reading right here.

I have no need or even thought about “delegitimizing” what you wrote. It was an interesting debate. But I sure as hell don’t care enough to be condescending, nor to engage any further if you’re seriously going to be that sensitive about a friendly, miles-from-contentious discussion.

 

[fireproof78]

however on a much lower budget than The Motion Picture, which is not a glowing sign of confidence.

That is pretty standard Hollywood logic due to the fact that sequels rarely make the same as the initial film. TMP's making money was also hurt by the fact that Phase 2 development costs were rolled in to its budget, making it appear to make less money than it actually did as far as finances go. So, not so much a lack of confidence so much as an expectation of diminishing returns. Which was pretty standard, especially since Gene Roddenberrry was no longer in charge so there was a new head.

The interest for Trek was peeling off in the late 90s, no argument there, but on that agreed upon point about declining interest in Trek, what harm would it have been to put the Dominion in a film as opposed to making up a villainous species from whole cloth? If the general audience already was moving away (I would argue that Insurrection also played a role in draining said support, as it was the disappointing follow up to the widely praised, and profitable for its time, First Contact) then why would they have cared if the Dominion was the villain or not?

I mean if there was diminishing interest, including in DS9, then why would producers throw behind something already showing less audience engagement?

 

[DarKush]

Stopped reading right here.

I have no need or even thought about “delegitimizing” what you wrote. It was an interesting debate. But I sure as hell don’t care enough to be condescending, nor to engage any further if you’re seriously going to be that sensitive about a friendly, miles-from-contentious discussion.

That's fine, but I'll tell you I never considered this a contentious conversation to begin with. You were voicing an opinion as was I. Far as I was and am concerned, there's no right or wrong here. I didn't care for how you characterized my response in a way that felt insulting. Simply chalk it up to me being 'that sensitive'.

 

[fireproof78]

The internet: causing misunderstanding since Al Gore invented it.

 

[DarKush]

That is pretty standard Hollywood logic due to the fact that sequels rarely make the same as the initial film. TMP's making money was also hurt by the fact that Phase 2 development costs were rolled in to its budget, making it appear to make less money than it actually did as far as finances go. So, not so much a lack of confidence so much as an expectation of diminishing returns. Which was pretty standard, especially since Gene Roddenberrry was no longer in charge so there was a new head.



I mean if there was diminishing interest, including in DS9, then why would producers throw behind something already showing less audience engagement?

When it comes to budgets, Insurrection got almost double the budget First Contact did (Paramount went from $45 to $70 million). I didn't look at all the movie budgets, but I had heard before that they spent more money on Into Darkness than Trek 2009, so I looked that one up and Trek 09 had a $150 million budget whereas Into Darkness got $185-190 million. So, sometimes studios will spend more after a profitable or successful entry.

While I do believe there was diminishing interest in Trek starting sometime in the late 90s, I also said that I thought the reaction to Insurrection might have played a role in that decline. First Contact was very well received, so the general status of the franchise was considered healthy between First Contact and Insurrection, whatever DS9's ratings woes. What many Trek fans speculated about "Trek fatigue" manifested more during ENT's run, after DS9 and Insurrection so it's hard for me to peg exactly when the erosion began.

 

[fireproof78]

When it comes to budgets, Insurrection got almost double the budget First Contact did (Paramount went from $45 to $70 million). I didn't look at all the movie budgets, but I had heard before that they spent more money on Into Darkness than Trek 2009, so I looked that one up and Trek 09 had a $150 million budget whereas Into Darkness got $185-190 million. So, sometimes studios will spend more after a profitable or successful entry.

90s vs. 80s points of view. Also, completely different production heads. Sorry, should have been far more clear.

While I do believe there was diminishing interest in Trek starting sometime in the late 90s, I also said that I thought the reaction to Insurrection might have played a role in that decline. First Contact was very well received, so the general status of the franchise was considered healthy between First Contact and Insurrection, whatever DS9's ratings woes. What many Trek fans speculated about "Trek fatigue" manifested more during ENT's run, after DS9 and Insurrection so it's hard for me to peg exactly when the erosion began.

The overall decline was definitely something on going, felt by DS9 and VOY if one looks at the ratings. So, while I cannot pinpoint for certain, I cannot see them pursuing storylines in declining rating shows. Again, multiple factors are at play but I struggle to see that being helpful as we would like to think now. Now, I would certainly love for the Dominion War to get the big screen treatment, but that wasn't the sense I had at the time with Trek.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

I decided to rewatch the movie this evening, as I hadn't actually seen since my countdown to ST09 back in 2009. To be blunt, I think INSURRECTION is fine. Not a very memorable installment, but not as terrible as fans make it out to be. A movie that had a lot more potential than its execution brought. In fact, I found myself liking it more than I ever have. When I saw it in theaters I thought it was okay but it was one of those Trek films I never felt an urge to revisit. I felt the same way about NEMESIS (though in that case I was pretty sour over its glumness).

I think it was the right move to leave the Dominion War out, as that was DS9's turf. I also think Michael Piller had the right instinct to aim for a lighter toned film after the heavily dramatic GENERATIONS and FIRST CONTACT. Similar to how THE VOYAGE HOME came after three consecutive heavy films. It's no where near as good as TVH, but one of the things I really like about the film is that we get to see the cast lighten up for once on a film. Of the four films, it feels the closest in spirit to TNG where there's a moral dilemma that Picard is confronting and stands for what is right. Could a Dominion War story have been good? Sure, if it was done right like any other decent film. But it doesn't matter to me that they didn't go that route, so I'm not holding that against the filmmakers.

There's certain details people seem to be bringing up in this thread that I didn't pick up on the movie. For example, the conceit that the Ba'qu are selfish because they refuse to cooperate with the Federation. Maybe my attention went astray, but when exactly was THAT established? As far as I can tell, even BEFORE the Federation learned that they were warp capable refugees not indigenous to the planet, they were already planning on abducting them via the holoship, all while they assumed they were a primitive culture. And even after it's revealed what their true nature is, there's never actually negotiations between them and the Federation on the subject of relocating so to conduct research on the metaphasic properties of the rings. It's just the Admiral saying "well, since they're not indigenous, we're just gonna remove them anyway!".

 

[Timo]

I doubt anybody ever really believed they were primitives. Iron age doesn't work like that: the planet can't consist of a single village of people who can build the things we see out of thin air. Iron age is infrastructure, and populations in the tens of thousands, and most importantly slavery. These folks were always obvious back-to-nature hippies slumming it out on another planet. Or at best castaways from a starship crash, but the evidence didn't really fit that one.

It's just that since all the action was inside the Briar Patch, Starfleet could use the cover story that they were studying a village of primitives on a plausible iron age planet. I mean, that's what Picard read in the brochure before coming in, implicitly. Dougherty just set the record straight when he was forced to.

I enjoy the movie both because it's The One With A Plot, and because it actually dares ask the questions. How many does it take for wrong to flip to right or vice versa? What does it mean to have the right to decide - either by strength of arms, like Picard, or by strength of democratic vote, like Dougherty?

A lot is implicit there. Pretending that the Ba'ku were primitives would allow the Feds to skip negotiations, because PD. Knowing that they were not would alter little, because Good of the Many. But underneath lies the grim truth: because the Ba'ku were what they were, and weren't what they weren't, they all would have to die during the deportation, no two ways about it. They wouldn't fall for the "Homeward" trick, and that was never the intent. Rua'fo would have planned it that way, wanting revenge more than longevity. But Dougherty would have known it was that way, too. There may have been a barrier of lies between him and the Council that had voted for the Good of the Many. Or then not, and the vote had been in favor of killing the handful of squatters. Or perhaps memory-wiping, assuming Dr. Pulaski still worked for S31. Either way, Riker might not have gotten quite what he wanted if actually getting an audience with the Council... Not until Picard at the other end managed to embarrass everybody and force the government's hand.

What excuses a lot of the silliness is that it's right there in the premise. The heroes and villains alike are young again - Picard is driven by his hormones to go Rambo and abandon all reason, just as much as the girls are to comparing boobs or Worf to worrying about zits more than about victory. We could hardly expect mature humor out of this bunch!

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Smellmet]

When it comes to budgets, Insurrection got almost double the budget First Contact did (Paramount went from $45 to $70 million). I didn't look at all the movie budgets, but I had heard before that they spent more money on Into Darkness than Trek 2009, so I looked that one up and Trek 09 had a $150 million budget whereas Into Darkness got $185-190 million. So, sometimes studios will spend more after a profitable or successful entry.

While I do believe there was diminishing interest in Trek starting sometime in the late 90s, I also said that I thought the reaction to Insurrection might have played a role in that decline. First Contact was very well received, so the general status of the franchise was considered healthy between First Contact and Insurrection, whatever DS9's ratings woes. What many Trek fans speculated about "Trek fatigue" manifested more during ENT's run, after DS9 and Insurrection so it's hard for me to peg exactly when the erosion began.

70m might not sound a great deal now but in 1998 wasn't exactly chump change, consider this - the SW prequels all cost in the region of 113-115m from 1999 to 2005 (ROTS was the cheapest strangely enough), so more obviously, but not that much more when you take inflation into account, and (despite looking their age) the money was definitely all up there on screen compared to Insurrection.

I still to this day cannot get my head around how they managed to make this film look so cheap, dull and small scale looking with such mediocre visual effects too.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

A lot is implicit there. Pretending that the Ba'ku were primitives would allow the Feds to skip negotiations, because PD. Knowing that they were not would alter little, because Good of the Many. But underneath lies the grim truth: because the Ba'ku were what they were, and weren't what they weren't, they all would have to die during the deportation, no two ways about it. They wouldn't fall for the "Homeward" trick, and that was never the intent. Rua'fo would have planned it that way, wanting revenge more than longevity. But Dougherty would have known it was that way, too. There may have been a barrier of lies between him and the Council that had voted for the Good of the Many. Or then not, and the vote had been in favor of killing the handful of squatters. Or perhaps memory-wiping, assuming Dr. Pulaski still worked for S31. Either way, Riker might not have gotten quite what he wanted if actually getting an audience with the Council... Not until Picard at the other end managed to embarrass everybody and force the government's hand.

It still comes down to the fact that the people weren't even ASKED if they were okay to leave. At least the Native Americans in "Journey's End" were approached about the situation before forceful relocation was considered a serious option. But at the same time, we do know the Federation is also desperate and willing to take short cuts because of hard times. Both Picard and Waffle mentioning that the Federation took heavy losses from both the Borg and the Dominion. It's still wrong, but I totally get where they're coming from! Heck, the Federation turned a blind eye to the SANCTIONED GENOCIDE of the Founders. I have to imagine that would have given Picard an even bigger mechanical heart attack than what was going down on the Ba'qu planet.

 

[fireproof78]

It still comes down to the fact that the people weren't even ASKED if they were okay to leave. At least the Native Americans in "Journey's End" were approached about the situation before forceful relocation was considered a serious option. But at the same time, we do know the Federation is also desperate and willing to take short cuts because of hard times. Both Picard and Waffle mentioning that the Federation took heavy losses from both the Borg and the Dominion. It's still wrong, but I totally get where they're coming from! Heck, the Federation turned a blind eye to the SANCTIONED GENOCIDE of the Founders. I have to imagine that would have given Picard an even bigger mechanical heart attack than what was going down on the Ba'qu planet.

The Federation Council probably only had broad strokes of these plans and the devil was in the details of Starfleet Admiralty working it all out.

 

[Timo]

It still comes down to the fact that the people weren't even ASKED if they were okay to leave.

ITRW, people seldom get a say on such matters: the law is made sufficiently clear on squatting, or on eminent domain, or whatever, to facilitate immediate deportation for immediate needs. Complaints ex post facto are their own thing.

"Journey's End" and this one both involve deportation of folks who are subject to UFP law - colonists and squatters, respectively. "Homeward" is different. Using "Homeward" tactics for INS is what confuses the issue, as apparently there's this need for the PD smokescreen for whatever reason...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[DonIago]

That the Baku weren't asked and that a diplomatic option apparently wasn't even attempted I just consider one of the reasons why I can't take this film very seriously. It's such a gaping flaw in the proceedings, perhaps due to poor writing, that anything else just makes me shrug.

 

[Timo]

Since when would the police try diplomacy with criminal squatters? They may try diplomacy with the media, and that may incidentally involve being nice to the criminals, but really - a couple of hundred LARPers standing in the way of progress? Bring in the water cannon.

Which is not what the movie was about, though. It was about an intricate web of lies, with something like six or so factions who kept secrets from each other for assorted gain, and with revelations along the way so the audience were the last to know. "Gathering to talk" never was going to happen, since not doing that was the plot.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Jetboogieman]

I think insurrection is a perfectly fine film overall.

It's not... Great, but I still happily watch it and enjoy it for what it is, but it has a myriad of problems.

 

[DonIago]

Since when would the police try diplomacy with criminal squatters? They may try diplomacy with the media, and that may incidentally involve being nice to the criminals, but really - a couple of hundred LARPers standing in the way of progress? Bring in the water cannon.

Which is not what the movie was about, though. It was about an intricate web of lies, with something like six or so factions who kept secrets from each other for assorted gain, and with revelations along the way so the audience were the last to know. "Gathering to talk" never was going to happen, since not doing that was the plot.

Timo Saloniemi

I'm not sure comparing Starfleet to police is a great analogy, especially in this day and age.

Gathering to talk is exactly what should have been happening in this case, and it makes no sense and is pretty inconsistent with everything we've seen in Trek to this point that it doesn't occur. Among other things it would have exposed some of the lies at a point where it could have made a difference.

 

[Timo]

Which is the point again: the plot works because the talks are preempted by the PD pretense that the villains maintain as long as it is convenient for them. Its delightfully Roddenberrian, everything that's evil here transpiring just because talking is not allowed.

Why is Starfleet not the police? It always is, and always is deporting UFP citizens or assorted other Earthling subjects or people Kirk feels ought to bend their knees in front of his authority. And this film proceeds with establishing that the law is on the UFP side, for whatever reason.

Kirk just seldom saw anything wrong with his (standing?) orders to deport people at risk or in the way of progress. Picard has a different history there.

Timo Saloniemi