How would you improve Insurrection?

[Relayer1]

Not possible - it's just way too weak a story. To improve it would require a completely different plot - they did the best they could with that one...

 

[sonak]

I'm not sure the original premise has much promise, anyway, but I'll try modifying it instead of throwing the whole thing out.


-make the Baku more sympathetic and make them a real civilization of thousands or millions rather than a tiny village of squatters. Have them actually be connected to the planet as their home rather than some place they stumbled upon 300 years ago.

-take Dougherty and the other side's arguments more seriously. Make him convincing and have some of the senior officers side AGAINST Picard, as they probably would if we're being realistic.

-darker tone, less "silliness."(pimples, boob jokes, etc.)

-make the dilemma more balanced by not having the stakes be a revolutionary medical resource that HELPS BILLIONS. Have the resource be something like a new fuel source or something that would help the UFP in the war.

Hey, that's Avatar.

yeah. I was hoping no one would notice.


But seriously, that's kind of why "Avatar" works and INS doesn't.

 

[Galileo7]

Go back before they started writing the film and make sure that Stewart and Spiner have absolutely no input. Then go with Piller's idea of serium krellide as the basis for all Federation medical technology.

Make the Ba'ku likable, drop the S'ona and make it a purely Starfleet vs. Starfleet affair.

Agree, you got it.

 

[T'Girl]

As the Baku are fleeing their village, they are chased by Sona ground troops.

Picard, Data and Worf fight the Sona off, using a dune buggy.

 

[Tiberius]

Get rid of Starfleet as the bad guys.

Have it so the Sona are there with the permission of Starfleet, who thinks they are conducting scientific research on the magical properties of the rings. Data found out that they are really planning to harness those powers (which will destroy all life on the surface), and that's why he went crazy. The Enterprise goes to get him back after the Sona demand that Starfleet removes him. That way it turns into Starfleet (in the form of the Enterprise) against the Sona, making the central conflict more clear cut. The grey area comes from whether it is right to sacrifice one planet to save billions, not whether the other Starfleet guy is your enemy or not.

Subtract your first sentence and that's pretty much the movie in a nutshell.

I'd much rather it be Starfleet vs. Starfleet than being exposed to yet another rubber faced alien we will never see again.

But in my version, we never have starfleet on the planet working with the Sona. The way it is muddies the waters. Is Starfleet or the Sona the bad guys. If starfleet's the bad guys, why do other starfleet guys act like the good guys. Keep things clear and simple. Sona are bad guys, starfleet good guys.

 

[The Overlord]

Get rid of Starfleet as the bad guys.

Have it so the Sona are there with the permission of Starfleet, who thinks they are conducting scientific research on the magical properties of the rings. Data found out that they are really planning to harness those powers (which will destroy all life on the surface), and that's why he went crazy. The Enterprise goes to get him back after the Sona demand that Starfleet removes him. That way it turns into Starfleet (in the form of the Enterprise) against the Sona, making the central conflict more clear cut. The grey area comes from whether it is right to sacrifice one planet to save billions, not whether the other Starfleet guy is your enemy or not.

Subtract your first sentence and that's pretty much the movie in a nutshell.

I'd much rather it be Starfleet vs. Starfleet than being exposed to yet another rubber faced alien we will never see again.

But in my version, we never have starfleet on the planet working with the Sona. The way it is muddies the waters. Is Starfleet or the Sona the bad guys. If starfleet's the bad guys, why do other starfleet guys act like the good guys. Keep things clear and simple. Sona are bad guys, starfleet good guys.

Well it depends on what type story you want to tell, if you want to tell a light hearted adventure story, then having a clear evil that needs defeating is the way to go. However a clear evil doesn't make for a good moral dilemma, for that you need a story that muddies the water. You need a situation where its not easy to tell which is the right way to deal with the situation. So if the Son'a are villains and they are just evil, it removes the moral dilemma. Having Picard fight against Star Fleet instead of evil aliens makes for a better moral dilemma.

The problem is Insurrection tried to a light hearted adventure with a moral dilemma, those two things are contrary to each other.

 

[22 Stars]

^ Um, ever seen ST IV: The One With The Whales. Light hearted adventure with a moral dilemma.

The TNG movies lost their way with letting Stewart and Spiner run the creative process instead of acting in movies. They never brought in a real thinker, like Nick Meyer to reduce TNG to it's most successful elements (FC comes closest) and elevate it into true motion picture worthy adventure.

ST II III and IV were all made on budgets but with scale. TNG films had more money and less scope, looking like TV movies of the week.

 

[Tiberius]

Subtract your first sentence and that's pretty much the movie in a nutshell.

I'd much rather it be Starfleet vs. Starfleet than being exposed to yet another rubber faced alien we will never see again.

But in my version, we never have starfleet on the planet working with the Sona. The way it is muddies the waters. Is Starfleet or the Sona the bad guys. If starfleet's the bad guys, why do other starfleet guys act like the good guys. Keep things clear and simple. Sona are bad guys, starfleet good guys.

Well it depends on what type story you want to tell, if you want to tell a light hearted adventure story, then having a clear evil that needs defeating is the way to go. However a clear evil doesn't make for a good moral dilemma, for that you need a story that muddies the water. You need a situation where its not easy to tell which is the right way to deal with the situation. So if the Son'a are villains and they are just evil, it removes the moral dilemma. Having Picard fight against Star Fleet instead of evil aliens makes for a better moral dilemma.

The problem is Insurrection tried to a light hearted adventure with a moral dilemma, those two things are contrary to each other.

You don't need to muddy the waters by making Starfleet officers conspire with the Sona to make it a moral grey area. That comes from the fact that the Sona are trying to do something that will benefit millions of people. Is it right to prevent that just to benefit a few hundred Baku? THAT is where the moral dilemma comes from.

 

[BillJ]

You don't need to muddy the waters by making Starfleet officers conspire with the Sona to make it a moral grey area. That comes from the fact that the Sona are trying to do something that will benefit millions of people. Is it right to prevent that just to benefit a few hundred Baku? THAT is where the moral dilemma comes from.

But what motivation do the S'ona then have to give the radiation to millions?

 

[The Overlord]

^ Um, ever seen ST IV: The One With The Whales. Light hearted adventure with a moral dilemma.

The TNG movies lost their way with letting Stewart and Spiner run the creative process instead of acting in movies. They never brought in a real thinker, like Nick Meyer to reduce TNG to it's most successful elements (FC comes closest) and elevate it into true motion picture worthy adventure.

ST II III and IV were all made on budgets but with scale. TNG films had more money and less scope, looking like TV movies of the week.

What the was the dilemma in IV, a dilemma has to be a moral choice that has two view points that are valid and the morality around the situation is unclear, the path out of it is not easy. There was no moral choice or qualms presented in IV in regards to the decision to time travel get the whales. That is not a dilemma.

IV had a moral message, but not a dilemma, you can have a light hearted movie with message, but a true moral dilemma has truly conflicted and little heart wrenching.

But in my version, we never have starfleet on the planet working with the Sona. The way it is muddies the waters. Is Starfleet or the Sona the bad guys. If starfleet's the bad guys, why do other starfleet guys act like the good guys. Keep things clear and simple. Sona are bad guys, starfleet good guys.

Well it depends on what type story you want to tell, if you want to tell a light hearted adventure story, then having a clear evil that needs defeating is the way to go. However a clear evil doesn't make for a good moral dilemma, for that you need a story that muddies the water. You need a situation where its not easy to tell which is the right way to deal with the situation. So if the Son'a are villains and they are just evil, it removes the moral dilemma. Having Picard fight against Star Fleet instead of evil aliens makes for a better moral dilemma.

The problem is Insurrection tried to a light hearted adventure with a moral dilemma, those two things are contrary to each other.

You don't need to muddy the waters by making Starfleet officers conspire with the Sona to make it a moral grey area. That comes from the fact that the Sona are trying to do something that will benefit millions of people. Is it right to prevent that just to benefit a few hundred Baku? THAT is where the moral dilemma comes from.

If Star Fleet is fighting against the Son'a why would they be interested in the Son'a process in the first place? Such trades usually do not happen if parties are at war with each other. Plus if the Son'a are presented as just evil, how is this a gray area?

A moral dilemma needs muddied waters to work, Picard will be far more conflicted fighting against star Fleet, then some random aliens who are given no real redeeming qualities. If the Son'a are just presented as evil, then how do they make valid point and how is this situation gray?

 

[Romulus Prime]

Insurrection took place during the Dominion War. I would have had the Enterprise locate a "lost" Dominion ship that's set up a base in the Briar Patch. Same aspect of the "fountain of youth" thing except I'd have a breakaway faction of Jem'Hadar and Vorta characters trying to break free of their Founder and "its" faction, with ALIEN looking Baku caught in the middle of their scuffle. You can potentially throw in a couple moral dilemmas in this scenario - protect the Baku or protect the enemy rebels who want freedom but use the natives as shields from the Feds + the aspect of the "healing" power that's on the planet being used for either the Dominion or the Feds.


I dunno, I thought that up in 5min, so that's what it's worth.

 

[gottacook]

Would Insurrection - or, let's say, any movie that followed First Contact - have been stronger if the story had derived from an idea or character introduced in a TNG episode? That was the case with First Contact (and of course with TWoK in the case of the first series). Given the results, it seems to have been a good idea.

So was that idea deliberately resisted in this case? Was the impulse to follow FC with a more pastoral movie with lots of location shooting so strong that the attempt to do an independent story a la The Final Frontier was the inevitable result?

Some months ago I read the Piller book online, and I found it more interesting than the movie in many ways - but I don't recall whether he addressed the independent story versus sequel-to-an-episode choice.

 

[sonak]

Would Insurrection - or, let's say, any movie that followed First Contact - have been stronger if the story had derived from an idea or character introduced in a TNG episode? That was the case with First Contact (and of course with TWoK in the case of the first series). Given the results, it seems to have been a good idea.

So was that idea deliberately resisted in this case? Was the impulse to follow FC with a more pastoral movie with lots of location shooting so strong that the attempt to do an independent story a la The Final Frontier was the inevitable result?

Some months ago I read the Piller book online, and I found it more interesting than the movie in many ways - but I don't recall whether he addressed the independent story versus sequel-to-an-episode choice.

I don't know about the whole "sequel vs. stand-alone" issue, but INS was a conscious decision to make a quieter, less epic action movie than FC. Their attitude was was why try to top FC in that category, because they'd just fail.

 

[T'Girl]

But what motivation do the S'ona then have to give the radiation to millions?

Solely because it will help them, no other reason.

 

[DarKush]

I thought INS was decent and I liked the Son'a, especially their ships. Though I felt that they were under developed, and wished they had showed up on DS9. But if I had my druthers I liked the original idea of the Romulans being involved. A potential situation that could drive a wedge between the Federation and Romulans in the midst of the Dominion War would've had much bigger stakes than even those involved in INS (though those stakes were very important too). Seeing the Jem'Hadar on the big screen would've been awesome too.

Also, I wouldn't have made the Ba'ku lily white. And I would've had a rejuvenated Picard romance Crusher instead of bringing in a one-movie romance. Lastly, the effects of the Ba'ku planet would permanently restore Geordi's sight. If for no other reason to give LeVar Burton a break from having to put in contacts after years of wearing that visor.

 

[Tiberius]

You don't need to muddy the waters by making Starfleet officers conspire with the Sona to make it a moral grey area. That comes from the fact that the Sona are trying to do something that will benefit millions of people. Is it right to prevent that just to benefit a few hundred Baku? THAT is where the moral dilemma comes from.

But what motivation do the S'ona then have to give the radiation to millions?

Profit, pure and simple. Hell, the story could have worked with a group of Ferengi.

The Ferengi are studying the planet. They've told Starfleet they are there for a scientific mission, but they're really after the profit from the fountain of youth. Starfleet gets a bit suspicious of the Ferengi after a while, and they send the Enterprise in to check things out. The rest of the movie can go very close to the way it is with only minor changes.

 

[Tiberius]

If Star Fleet is fighting against the Son'a why would they be interested in the Son'a process in the first place? Such trades usually do not happen if parties are at war with each other.

So? That's another change. The Sona aren't working with the Dominion. I mean, Deanna raised a good point in the movie - why was the Federation working with them?

Plus if the Son'a are presented as just evil, how is this a gray area?

A moral dilemma needs muddied waters to work, Picard will be far more conflicted fighting against star Fleet, then some random aliens who are given no real redeeming qualities. If the Son'a are just presented as evil, then how do they make valid point and how is this situation gray?

The grey area is not "Who's the bad guy? Starfleet admiral or the Son'a?"

The grey area is, "Is it right to kick these people out of their home to gain what they have?"

 

[Drago-Kazov]

You don't need to muddy the waters by making Starfleet officers conspire with the Sona to make it a moral grey area. That comes from the fact that the Sona are trying to do something that will benefit millions of people. Is it right to prevent that just to benefit a few hundred Baku? THAT is where the moral dilemma comes from.

But what motivation do the S'ona then have to give the radiation to millions?

Profit, pure and simple. Hell, the story could have worked with a group of Ferengi.

The Ferengi are studying the planet. They've told Starfleet they are there for a scientific mission, but they're really after the profit from the fountain of youth. Starfleet gets a bit suspicious of the Ferengi after a while, and they send the Enterprise in to check things out. The rest of the movie can go very close to the way it is with only minor changes.

I don't think the Ferengi can carry a movie as villains.

 

[Tiberius]

Regardless of that, my point about the moral grey area works. It works better as whether it is moral to force those people to move so that millions can benefit than the tired old cliche of "Oh no! The good cop has turned bad! Who can I trust anymore! is the sarge in on it too?"

 

[The Overlord]

Regardless of that, my point about the moral grey area works. It works better as whether it is moral to force those people to move so that millions can benefit than the tired old cliche of "Oh no! The good cop has turned bad! Who can I trust anymore! is the sarge in on it too?"

But why would anyone trust the Son'a to use benefit anyone besides themselves if they are just presented as pure evil? Why would Picard or any of crew have any problem fighting against a bunch of evil drug dealing slavers? If the Son'a are just one dimensional bad guys, I don't see how this is effective moral dilemma, when one side is represented by the best officers in Star Fleet and the other side is represented by.

Also the Son'a as just one dimensional greedy bad guys doesn't make them compelling enough to carry a movie, that's why you need Star Fleet to get involved in removing the Ba'ku, you can imagine that Star Fleet has noble intentions, but perhaps is doing the wrong thing to achieve these noble intentions, which makes more developed dilemma then the prefect Star Fleet officers vs. the mustache twirling Son'a.