That doesn't make any sense Timo; Dougherty himself notes that the Baku aren't subject to PD protection because they're not native to the planet. I also don't believe we've ever seen Starfleet tasked with relocating people when doing so would cause material harm to their well-being; it tends to be the other way around. If you believe we have seen that, please cite an example.
Dougherty said there's no PD protection when stating this benefited him. The very fact that he had to tell this to Picard established that the official brochure on the project instead said "these are primitives, don't talk to them or the PD police will get you". Otherwise, Picard would already have known. So, two layers of deception there. Although the brochure might not tell an outright lie, but would ride on the expectations and prejudices of the outsiders, if that better benefited the project. Kirk was always dragging happy campers away from their happy camps. "This Side of Paradise" is simply the most blatant example: Kirk doesn't even bother to quote any actual anti-marijuana legislation when blasting the folks with infrasounds and administering kicks and punches so that they would give up their happy ways and cease to be so damned healthy. He just feels like not letting these people live the way they do. Relocating always does material harm, according to those who don't wanna. But in Trek, this sounds particularly hollow. Even if one had to leave behind a particularly beautiful and unique fjord, 23rd century and especially 24th century tech would allow for that to be reproduced at the new home. Which is probably why Kirk feels no need to ask pretty please: the people he manhandles already chose to move across the stars once, so clearly they won't mind having to do that fifty more times. Timo Saloniemi
I openly dislike INS (it's really the only film in the entire franchise I don't like). That said, there are some nice elements to it: 1. The cinematography and look of the film is really nice. Rivals GEN in terms of how visually appealing the live-action stuff is (unfortunately, the VFX don't hold up, though) 2. The design of the So'na ships is impressive and unique 3. Riker and Troi flirting is fun 4. This is probably Riker's best movie, which is ironic considering he shaved his beard 5. The idea of the Ba'ku having developed a superior mental discipline is really interesting (and should have been expanded upon) 6. I like that the So'na are forced to "tag" the inhabitants, rather than just outright blast them into dust 7. The new white "dress uniforms" are really cool and different
I agree, it's good. Certainly not great, but good. It often gets criticised as being like a long episode but that's one of things I like. Sometimes its just what I need. Good moral question at the centre, good Picard speeches, certainly not as flawed as 5, Nemesis or Into Darkness.
I hear ya, but the problem with it being "just a long episode" is that, frankly, it isn't a long episode. It's a $70M major motion picture in a tentpole science-fiction action/adventure franchise. It's a huge mistake to design such a film to be tepid, bland, and mediocre. INS is less interesting than 2/3 of the 1-hour episodes that cost $1.5M each from the series it was based on. That's unforgivable. I mean, just basic run-of-the-mill TNG episodes like "Power Play," "Booby Trap" or "Where Silence Has Lease" are multiples better than INS. INS was a $70M wide theatrical release that played like a "straight to VHS" quality sequel (like Starship Troopers 2 or something). Flaws or not, TFF, NEM and ID are all more entertaining as motion pictures than INS was. They were all ambitious attempts at something grand and exciting, which is far more than INS can claim to be. And when I judge INS, I judge it as a major motion picture...not just as 2 hours of Star Trek entertainment. I'm not saying it's the worst movie ever made...but it's really the bottom-of-the-barrel for Star Trek in the theater because of how luke-warm, unambitious, riskless, unimaginative and boring it was. Yes, I'd watch it over 80% of other movies that are out there (it's still Trek, after all)...and it's better than the bottom 1/3 of TNG episodes...but that's really not the accolades you want to give a Trek movie, which is supposed to be a big, fun "event" film. By the way I measure things, it's just a damp squib of the worst kind.
It was an entertaining mediocre film. It had some great elements but the overarching theme, or plot, was too weak for a 2 hour film. Pretty much my entire criticism of TLJ - some scenes could be shortened, some scenes should be cut, and the entire mid-section of the Gang haring off on an adventure in the middle should have been completely excised. After all that trimming, you have a very decent, 3.5/5 film.
Fair points Vger23, I don’t agree that 5, Nem and ID are better as motion pictures but that’s okay. I suppose as I watch the films at home on the same TV I watch the series on I do judge it more as 2 hours of trek, reguardless of budget/cinematic release.
I do think the concept and themes of the film were pretty ambitious, big themes of the good guys/organization going against its supposed principles and taking a stand against that, the problem was mostly that (aside from too much out-of-place goofy comic relief) it felt like it was more just one bad Admiral than the whole Federation, or even a big faction of it, gone wrong.
...nevermind that there's legitimate questions as to whether the admiral in this case really is "bad", or just has a different perspective on the situation than Our Heroes do. Though the fact that apparently nobody properly did their research on the Baku-Son'a relations or even got them together in the same room to try to work out the situation diplomatically doesn't help anything either. There are aspects of the film I enjoy; the execution of the story just isn't among them.
I suppose this just boils down to different preferences, but I would MUCH prefer a boring, bland and insipid film with annoying and cringe-worthy jokes (which Insurrection, to me, is not) to one that actively pisses me off with it's blatant disrespect of the characters (which Nemesis, to me, most certainly is). A little harmless dullness is nothing compared to walking out of the theater fuming that you dragged your poor parents out to see a train wreck of a movie that more or less desecrated your childhood heroes and had them waste money and both yours and their time on it. I actively refuse to watch Nemesis to this day, as no other aspect of Star Trek upsets me as much as this one, to the point where I sometimes contemplate the possibility that for me, Data died under different circumstances and the film is just non-canon. There is literally only one thing about Nemesis I enjoy: the music. Unfortunately I feel poor Jerry Goldsmith's beautiful score was wasted on such a garbage film. I would say the deleted scenes MIGHT elevate it to Final Frontier/Insurrection level entertainment (i.e. still lower rated) but they were deleted, so they aren't part of the film as is.
So true about different tastes. I consider NEM to be a tight second just behind FC for the most entertaining of TNG films. Nothing turns me off more in Trek than boring mediocrity, and I am always forgiving of a story that at least TRIES to be something exciting and epic.
Good observations. TFF in particular had one of the best scenes of the main characters just being themselves and discussing the time they've spent around each other / the "pain" sequence. There's no TNG film that comes close to so personal a scene. TFF also had a strong message about not following false prophets no one needs to find God--and as we all know, on TOS, Kirk--a man of faith--always challenged false "gods, " whether it was Gary Mitchell, Apollo, et al.
I have often thought of merging this Pandora type world, Sha Ka Re and the Voyage Home plots all together. A restoration of life deal…with the Insurrection world as a seed world.
I don't really like Insurrection or Nemesis. I feel like a lot of the stuff Nemesis does with androids and Romulans Insurrection would have done much better back when it was Stardust. And I'm on the side of the Baku. That planet is a miracle and these people want to siphon all it's special radiation or whatever for a product that we see (hehe) at the end of the film with Geordi's eyes, won't last. These Star Trek guys already have all kinds of fancy medical bullshit with McCoy's Star Trek IV regrowing liver pills or curing Pulaski's aging with transporter in some episode or Khan's death curing blood. For fucks sake, send some science team in to study the planet, duplicate that in a lab, turn it into a pill and send it to the replicator. Or just, I don't know, put up a hospital or a couple of thousand on the other side of the planet and send all the otherwise incurable people to come live there or something. The joystick driving the ship is something moronic that I would come up with.
I never had a single complaint about Insurrection. Following the fierce and frightening First Contact, it was a proper change of pace. Data was a tad too dorky, and perhaps the lack of truly "galactic" stakes was an issue, but I've seen it probably as much as First Contact, loved both movies. I see Nemesis mentioned a lot in this thread, and I don't know how that film would have turned out with a better director? It wasn't a TNG film, I don't know what that was? It was a foreign to me as Generations, which remains the absolute strangest Trek movie to date. At least Insurrection could have been a TNG episode arc.
GUL DUKAT: Settlement? I see no settlement on the planet. Just the ruins of a long-abandoned village.