Insurrection was the best NG movie.

[Hober Mallow]

That Trek fans don't want an intelligent coherent SF story, they just want slam-bang action, with cool cameos like Kirstie Alley and a 1-dimensional original series villain. Apply it to any Star Trek movie you dislike (except TMP or TVH), it's easy.

There's a difference between action that serves the purpose of a character story arc and action that's just thrown in to be gee-whiz cool. The action and villain in STII served the story of Kirk's inner character conflict, his need to always win vs. his inability to face the consequences. The events of the story perfectly illustrate the inner character conflict. The only purpose of the Borg action in FC was Trekker fangasms.

In TWOK, we get a story which over the course of the movie reveals the key to Kirk's character.

In FC, we get Captain Ahab from Moby Dick standing in for Picard. A guy who's willing to sacrifice everything, including his crew, for personal revenge. Given everything we've ever seen about Picard in all of TNG, I found this conflict completely unconvincing and, like every other aspect of the movie, simply tacked on to tell a made-to-order, paint-by-numbers story. Furthermore, whereas every aspect of TWOK hinges on Kirk's story, indeed Kirk's story is the spine of the film upon which everything else hangs, Picard's little Ahab bout is treated like a seperate b-story.

 

[CaptainStoner]

It's been my favorite from time to time. I like the "big episode" feel. I like the Picard romance, the making time stand still. I think I will show this movie to m'Lady, perhaps after "Inner Light" and a few others.

 

[JarodRussell]

...whereas every aspect of TWOK hinges on Kirk's story, indeed Kirk's story is the spine of the film upon which everything else hangs...

Not true. Kirk's conflict is an interesting subplot, but if you throw it out, the movie is still working. So it's just a b-story. Khan would still attack, Spock would still die, the plot and key events wouldn't change. Just the scene at his home, and the bits in the epilogue would be different.


Picard's revenge lust in FC on the other hand... take that one out, and the story collapses. He wouldn't lure Borg into the holodeck to kill them with a machine gun, so he wouldn't get to know their plan about the beacon, without his trauma and pain he wouldn't order his crew to kill assimilated crewmembers (he even kills one himself), he wouldn't wait to sacrifice the ship, and yeah, Starfleet wouldn't hesitate to get him into battle, since Starfleet's hesitation was also part of that plot. And well, yeah, the resolution of facing the Borg Queen, the source of his assimilation, pain and trauma, wouldn't be in it either.

 

[Hober Mallow]

Not true. Kirk's conflict is an interesting subplot, but if you throw it out...

Then you have an entirely different movie.

 

[JarodRussell]

No, you would have roughly the same movie. Apparently, you didn't read the rest of my post.

 

[trevanian]

...whereas every aspect of TWOK hinges on Kirk's story, indeed Kirk's story is the spine of the film upon which everything else hangs...

Not true. Kirk's conflict is an interesting subplot, but if you throw it out, the movie is still working. So it's just a b-story. Khan would still attack, Spock would still die, the plot and key events wouldn't change. Just the scene at his home, and the bits in the epilogue would be different.
.

No, the main plot and Kirk's are entwined, just like Decker's story and the planet-killer in DOOMSDAY. Take Decker out, you weaken the story massively. TWOK's Kirk-centric story is what makes all the other junk work in the context of an involving drama.

Without that engaging personal and CREDIBLE focus for the narrative, you've got ... well, a TNG movie.

 

[trevanian]

Picard's revenge lust in FC on the other hand... take that one out, and the story collapses.

Take out the single most laughable part of the film and it collapses? How can something flaccid collapse?

FC - action movie ... with little action.
FC - epic space adventure ... with very little space battle and a stunning lack of spectacle (I'd rather look at the unfilmed storyboards for the big deflector dish spacewalk battle than watch the theatrical version, which is certainly the 'economy pack' approach to doing it.)
FC - Borg movie ... which lets the core compelling aspect of the Borg unravel in order to have a black-hat for the inevitable mano-a-chicka.
FC - visiting postatomic earth ... and not a nuclear winter cloud in the sky (practically no clouds at all.)

But I'll grant you the sight of the Phoenix coming up away from Earth is really something.

 

[Chrisisall]

I don't agree with a single one of those points, except the good FX part.

About half-way through the movie, I started wondering when I was supposed to be drawn into the story, when I was supposed to care. Piller based the story on "The Magnificent Seven," itself based on the Akira Kurosawa film "Seven Samurai." What made "Seven Samurai" a compelling film was that all the characters had deep character motivations for doing what they do. There was conflict between the Samurai and the villagers they were supposed to protect; they have a rocky history of distrust. The villagers are no saints; they've killed passing Samurai in the past. Likewise the Samurai have a history of mistreating the villagers.

Now take that compelling story, take away all the personal character motivations, all of the conflict between the Villagers and the Samurai, and have the Samurai defend the villagers simply and only because they're supposed to be the heroes of the movie, and strip away all ambiguity so that good is clearly good and evil is clearly evil, and you have Insurrection, the least interesting adaption of Seven Samurai ever filmed.

Actually, I agree with you here, in analysis, yet that does not make me love the final product any less.

BTW, I recommend renting Seven Samurai, one of the greatest films ever made

AGREED!!!

 

[GeorgeKirk]

Insurrection is a poster child for the one of the biggest problems with the TNG films: the inordinate amount of creative influence exerted by Patrick Stewart. It was because of Stewart that the "Heart of Darkness" plot was scrapped in favor of something lighter and funnier. A big reason why Insurrection doesn't work is that Michael Piller's original story had to be cut to pieces to accommodate Stewart's demands. Since Michael Piller was an awesome writer who had been doing right by the characters for years, and Stewart was bound to get top billing and be the film's chief protagonist anyway, Patrick should have kept his mouth shut. He would have thrown a fit if a writer came down to the set and started telling him how to act, after all.

 

[Chrisisall]

Insurrection is a poster child for the one of the biggest problems with the TNG films: the inordinate amount of creative influence exerted by Patrick Stewart.

So without knowing any of this before now, why is it my favourite NG movie? 'Cause Stewart is evil? I'm in his posession?

 

[I am not Spock]

Insurrection is OK. It wasn't as bad as Nemesis, IMO. At least INS didn't do too much damage to the characters. And of all the NG movies, it is the most like the show on which it is based.

 

[BillJ]

Generations was a dud.
First Contact was certainly exciting enough, but what did it really have to say? That a major World War is coming? That Zephram was an idiot drunk, as WELL as a genius?
And Nemesis...well, nuff said...

Insurrection had a good story with believable character motivations, good FX, and a meaningful & subtle semi-love interest for Picard.
I've heard much negativity about it, but rarely much beyond "Meh, it's like a long episode!"
LOL, like that's a bad thing???

I challenge anyone to say anything substantive concerning their dislike of this movie.
Beyong the admittedly goofy "gortch" gag. And that was a small thing, really.

Saving yuppies from 'Eminent Domain'... thrilling.

 

[MeanJoePhaser]

Funny, especially the comment about the costumes.

That guy's voicing is irritating, but I admit I laughed when he called Donna Murphy "Celine Dion".

The dock thing...I never noticed.

 

[Chrisisall]

Saving yuppies from 'Eminent Domain'... thrilling.

Ya got me there, that was hilarious.

 

[Grant]

Picard's revenge lust in FC on the other hand... take that one out, and the story collapses.

Take out the single most laughable part of the film and it collapses? How can something flaccid collapse?

FC - action movie ... with little action.
FC - epic space adventure ... with very little space battle and a stunning lack of spectacle (I'd rather look at the unfilmed storyboards for the big deflector dish spacewalk battle than watch the theatrical version, which is certainly the 'economy pack' approach to doing it.)
FC - Borg movie ... which lets the core compelling aspect of the Borg unravel in order to have a black-hat for the inevitable mano-a-chicka.
FC - visiting postatomic earth ... and not a nuclear winter cloud in the sky (practically no clouds at all.)

But I'll grant you the sight of the Phoenix coming up away from Earth is really something.

Agree about the lack of action for a 'action movie'

It was 1996 and action movies had a lot more action than this did. I like the movie but there should have been balls to the wall action adding about 10 minutes to the movie.
This was clearly going to be their last best shot at the Borg in a movie and it comes off as just too unbalenced between talk and action.

 

[Hober Mallow]

No, you would have roughly the same movie. Apparently, you didn't read the rest of my post.

That's like saying Hamlet would be the same story if you took out the "b-story" of Hamlet's internal struggle, his need for revenge vs. his own indecisiveness, and left only the "main story" of the revenge plot. It wouldn't be the same story at all. It would be a pretty mundane revenge story as, in fact, it was before Shakespeare did his version.

Actually, I agree with you here, in analysis, yet that does not make me love the final product any less.

Fair enough.

BTW, I recommend renting Seven Samurai, one of the greatest films ever made

AGREED!!!

I think I may need to watch it now.

 

[trevanian]

Insurrection is a poster child for the one of the biggest problems with the TNG films: the inordinate amount of creative influence exerted by Patrick Stewart.

So without knowing any of this before now, why is it my favourite NG movie? 'Cause Stewart is evil? I'm in his posession?

I thought this thread proved why: process of elimination, if A, B & D are really really bad, then (in this case) C is best.

 

[Hober Mallow]

I thought this thread proved why: process of elimination, if A, B & D are really really bad, then (in this case) C is best.

I still feel that Generations, as bad as it was, held the most promise. At the heart of the movie was what could have been an interesting character story for Picard. I thought the part where Picard wakes up with his faux-family on Christmas was the best part of the movie. It should have been the driving focus. Instead, they had to cram everything else in just because they wanted to -- Kirk, Big E destruction, Klingon sisters, Data's emotions, pointless opening on the holodeck.

Sadly, the subsequent films reduced Picard to either an action hero or a bad carcicature of Captain Ahab. Generations, IMO, was the best of the worst.

 

[trevanian]

Depends on WHICH movie out of all those elements in GEN got the treatment. I think the idea of exploring the Picard aspect most is of interest, just don't know that I would want to watch him play that at length, because his work in TREK is much less interesting to me than most of what he did before TREK.

If GEN had settled for the E-a vs E-d notion and done even a mediocre job, it could have been a decent flick. Aim low and hit the mark, y'know.

 

[DevilEyes]

If you want to read a world class rant, try comment #3 on Jammer's Insurrection Review. That guy pretty much says what you need to know about Insurrection.

That person really summed it up perfectly. And having had the misfortune to spend some time in a small town, I am especially fond of this part of the rant:

First off, there's the stupid Ba'ku, Space Amish Wholesome Small Towners. This is a Hollywood cliche that needs to die horribly, especially in SciFi. Small town people are not wholesome. At all. Ever. That is an invented romanticism by morons who have never set foot in a real small town.

I found Insurrection to be the worst TNG film. Nemesis was at least mildly entertaining in its stupidity; Insurrection was preachy while based on a flawed moral premise, and so boring that I needed to force myself to watch it all the way through. It wasn't just like an episode of TNG - it was like an very bad episode of TNG, one that tells you from the start who the good guys and bad guys are and expects you to support that stance, without any subtlety or moral ambiguity or attention to arguments of the other side, which always rubs me the wrong way - but it does even more so when I feel the whole 'message' to be as flawed as this one was.