• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Insurrection is a good film

And?

TMP was between Superman, Alien and Star Wars: ESB.

TWOK was between Raiders of the Lost Ark and Star Wars: ROTJ

TSFS was between ROTJ and Back To The Future.

TVH was between BTTF and The Running Man.

TFF was between The Running Man, BTTF2 & Die Hard.

TUC was between BTTF3 and Terminator 2.

GEN was between Jurassic Park and Apollo 13.

Star Trek films being produced in between bigger films is unavoidable and a sheer certainty.

INS is a victory lap film released during a time of high competition. Berman and Piller both thought that going softer after a red hot, go get'em action film like First Contact would help sustain the brand. They deliberately avoided doing another crowd pleaser like FC. They avoided doing a Dominion War film. Because Piller was over the story and wanted something optimistic. They deliberating avoided doing a Heart of Darkness/Apocalypse Now style film. Because that would've been too dark.

The people at these studios are not dumb. They are constantly paying attention to what the competitors are doing. INS was the wrong film for the wrong time. It's just a bad two-part episode that was released in theaters.

GEN is bad for the same reasons as INS. However, GEN gets a pass because it was released during the height of Trek's popularity in the 90s. Coming off 7 seasons of TNG, 2 seasons of DS9 and a few months before VOY. One of the lessons Berman, Braga and Moore took from GEN was to not take the audience for granted. The pay per view nature of the movies can make or break you. Unlike TV, there's no coming back next week to give it another shot.

INS has the reputation it does because there's nothing in the film that merits revisiting, debating or praising. Franchise fatigue from unexciting stories did Trek in during the 90s.
 
I think INS raises a fair number of debatable points...unfortunately a number of those points are raised due to a plot that fails to bring up points that really should have been brought up, apparently in the interest of creating a somewhat artificial conflict.

So, it sort of depends on whether you're willing to try to ignore the out-of-universe issues and try to reconcile what we see on the screen with past Trek precedent, or whether you prefer to just condemn it as bad writing and move on.
 
INS is a victory lap film released during a time of high competition. Berman and Piller both thought that going softer after a red hot, go get'em action film like First Contact would help sustain the brand. They deliberately avoided doing another crowd pleaser like FC. They avoided doing a Dominion War film. Because Piller was over the story and wanted something optimistic. They deliberating avoided doing a Heart of Darkness/Apocalypse Now style film. Because that would've been too dark.

The people at these studios are not dumb. They are constantly paying attention to what the competitors are doing. INS was the wrong film for the wrong time. It's just a bad two-part episode that was released in theaters.

GEN is bad for the same reasons as INS. However, GEN gets a pass because it was released during the height of Trek's popularity in the 90s. Coming off 7 seasons of TNG, 2 seasons of DS9 and a few months before VOY. One of the lessons Berman, Braga and Moore took from GEN was to not take the audience for granted. The pay per view nature of the movies can make or break you. Unlike TV, there's no coming back next week to give it another shot.

INS has the reputation it does because there's nothing in the film that merits revisiting, debating or praising. Franchise fatigue from unexciting stories did Trek in during the 90s.

This doesn’t sugarcoat it at all, but I have to agree. It’s incredible how different things felt between 1996 and 1998 when First Contact and Insurrection were respectively released.

1996 was probably the peak of Trek’s second golden age. We had the 30th anniversary, a whole lot of goodwill seemingly from all around, DS9 was at its peak creatively and delivered a glorious anniversary episode (and was going from strength to strength as it built up the Dominion arc), we got a second and far superior TNG movie, we had Voyager being…well, Voyager (and which nevertheless had its fans and moments of triumph). First Contact, although I have a couple of issues with it, wasn’t just a good Trek film but also one that widespread appeal and was a flat out decent zombie flick. I had several non-Trek friends who loved it.

When Insurrection came around, they did misjudge the mood. I’m glad they didn’t simply do First Contact 2 but they nevertheless threw out a lot of what gave that movie its blockbuster appeal. We got a well meaning but timid, lacklustre plod mashed with poorly judged comedy that fell flat on its face. It truly did feel like a mediocre extended television episode. It also had the most forgettable non-entity big screen Trek villain at that point and a major, fundamental plot hole (the Baku village was tiny and there was no reason it needed to be relocated in the first place). Even some of the visual effects looked poor. The Picard/Worf shuttle chase of Data is one of the most excruciating scenes in all of Trek. Audiences were far less forgiving (if they were willing to give it a try at all).

I think the Trek fatigue had set in. Insurrection was coasting on past triumphs when it should have been bolder, better and more innovative. DS9 was going through a rocky spell between the surprisingly poor end of its sixth season and the frustrating, Ezri heavy start of the seventh. Voyager was…still Voyager.

Things felt like they were starting to chug all round. It’s no surprise that Nemesis and Enterprise were the last, desperate, faltering gasps for breath at that point in the franchise’s history. Really, the day I went to see Insurrection at the cinema, coupled with my own disappointment and the mediocre to poor reviews the film was getting…was the day I could sense the wind had changed for Trek. I guess everything works in cycles and one great cycle was coming to an end. I don’t blame the film for that, I just think it was symptomatic of that underlying fatigue or lack of new ideas/inspiration/fresh blood. The writing was on the wall, sadly.
 
INS is a victory lap film released during a time of high competition. Berman and Piller both thought that going softer after a red hot, go get'em action film like First Contact would help sustain the brand. They deliberately avoided doing another crowd pleaser like FC. They avoided doing a Dominion War film. Because Piller was over the story and wanted something optimistic. They deliberating avoided doing a Heart of Darkness/Apocalypse Now style film. Because that would've been too dark.

The people at these studios are not dumb. They are constantly paying attention to what the competitors are doing. INS was the wrong film for the wrong time. It's just a bad two-part episode that was released in theaters.

GEN is bad for the same reasons as INS. However, GEN gets a pass because it was released during the height of Trek's popularity in the 90s. Coming off 7 seasons of TNG, 2 seasons of DS9 and a few months before VOY. One of the lessons Berman, Braga and Moore took from GEN was to not take the audience for granted. The pay per view nature of the movies can make or break you. Unlike TV, there's no coming back next week to give it another shot.

INS has the reputation it does because there's nothing in the film that merits revisiting, debating or praising. Franchise fatigue from unexciting stories did Trek in during the 90s.

It was shrewd to not keep the record needle stuck in the groove with endless action shtick.

INS was definitely an unexciting mess*. It had a couple solid set pieces and a bunch of ideas, but none of them gelled and some led to more questions the more you think about it. The idea of a species whose kiddies all rebelled against pops and ended up with their own set of arrogance and other problems really isn't told well, nor is the revelation exciting - or worthwhile. The movie goes so far to prop up the Baku by not only Picard doing as serious in this movie what he joked about in the previous one, but even tells and shows Starfleet doing the "needs of the many over needs of the few" as if it's always a bad thing to do. It made Picard damning Sarjenka and her planet to death seem tame by comparison. No Trek flick up to this point was so brazen or deliberate in missing the mark, and no later movie or tv show was anything approaching apocryphal either. (Even V and VI, for all their misfires, don't come close.) For every idea that could have been interesting, something else is quick to show it really isn't.

Even the Sona ship sets came from DS9 episodes; usually the newest shiniest movie will create sets to be reused down the food chain, and not the other way around.

Definitely franchise burnout and rot while throwing everything into the pot and without any meat to it, Complete with self-destruct mechanism, which makes less than zero sense... I've no clue how anyone could think that singalong would be the next big fad as well... at least it had the virtue of never being tried...



* I like the dogfight and the Ru'afo speech about "If Picard or his crew meddle, eliminate them" but in all fairness, that's F Murray Abraham turning something cliche into something halfway decent thanks to good acting. The cast is solid in this, but F Murray wasn't able to save the movie on his own and he's not in it as long as he'd have to be either. Never mind that dumb*** ending. Even Kirk extended his hand to save Kruge - you know, the Klingon who brutally murdered his kid and was going to use Genesis as a tool to extort, blackmail, reverse engineer, destroy, and other nice things and due to** paranoia and not believing that his empire's rulers were genuine in working toward peace with the Federation. Sheesh. Ru'Afo, who wants the radiation in belief that he and his buddies can be healed while not having to be tethered to that planet (and with the Federation getting to help all its 10 zillion people as well), is given that Picard look and only serves to remind how Picard is often overrated and quite nasty as a character, elevated by an actor of also great-caliber (Patrick Stewart, who made a lot of season 1's (lesser material) better than it deserved to be as well. Hmmm, there's another subplot - how sincere was the relationship, but the movie couldn't make up its mind if it's a handful of naughty admirals or all of the Federation as originally claimed or so on... definitely franchise rot... )

** if memory serves. Thankfully, III (despite its imperfections and no movie is ever going to be 100% perfect so I try not to lose sleep over most of them) is a far more solid movie and has far less to nitpick in terms of plot logistics and holes.
 
Out of the four TNG films, the only really worthy one IMO is First Contact and even that one has some pacing problems and almost feels like a made-for-TV movie at times. While I appreciate the attempt at 'passing the baton' in Generations, it fell flat for me and Insurrection and Nemesis were just unworthy additions altogether.
 
I haven’t read the entire thread yet, so I don’t know if this has been brought up. But I’ve seen mentioned that the planet falls in federation space so therefore the Baku don’t really have a claim to it. But the Baku have been living there for around 300 years. The federation hasn’t been around that long.

Borders have always been kind of fuzzy to me in Trek, because they’re constantly finding new civilizations within their own space. Doesn’t seem right that if a civilization becomes space faring they can’t leave their planet and colonize other uninhabited worlds.

I took the statement that the planet falls in federation space as the space around it. Like a nation claiming territorial waters, but a sovereign nation island falling within those waters.

Just looked up online and it states the Baku left their world and settled in the briar patch in 2066. Way before the Federation of planets could lay claim to the planet or space around it. So I would argue they had a right to be there and to stay there.
 
Do they have a right to keep the planet to themselves even if they know that the radiation they were lucky enough to stumble across could help millions of other people? Sure.

Is it moral of them to do so? Ehhhh...
 
Do they have a right to keep the planet to themselves even if they know that the radiation they were lucky enough to stumble across could help millions of other people? Sure.

Is it moral of them to do so? Ehhhh...

It’s their planet. Their sovereign world. Their rules.
The Federation could easily set up research facilities in the briar patch to study and possibly replicate the effects. Forced relocation wasn’t the only option. A treaty could have been made where the entire other half of the planet could be used for shore leave, hospitals, and research in exchange for the federation preventing someone like the Son’A doing what they tried.
 
The fact that forced relocation isn't the only option and yet it's all anyone talks about in the film is one of the primary weaknesses of the film.

If this film was true to the spirit of TNG then the bulk of it would have been set in a conference room with the Bak'u, Son'a and Federation working collaboratively to come up with a compromise, and perhaps ending with Ru'afo and the other malcontents deciding to disregard the negotiations, if there was really a need to have a villain here.

But then, if this was true to the spirit of TNG then the Federation should have withdrawn (a la "Redemption") once it was established that the Son'a and Bak'u were the same species. In fact, the Son'a should have disclosed that early on and asked the Federation not to get involved in their internal dispute.
 
Borders have always been kind of fuzzy to me in Trek, because they’re constantly finding new civilizations within their own space. Doesn’t seem right that if a civilization becomes space faring they can’t leave their planet and colonize other uninhabited worlds.
The way they make the Federation and various other powers entirely contiguous "countries in space" doesn't really make sense, particularly the Federation, since not every world in their territory will want to join.

Realistically, it probably should have been more like a bunch of different spheres of influence, with a loose physical association to one another in space.
 
Do they have a right to keep the planet to themselves even if they know that the radiation they were lucky enough to stumble across could help millions of other people? Sure.

Is it moral of them to do so? Ehhhh...
Which is where the film falls part for me. Yes, they have the right but I'm supposed to sympathize that 300 or however many people have the right to an entire planet? What?
 
If it was their homeworld I'd be more inclined to say they should be left alone.

But it isn't, and to paraphrase a line from Buffy the Vampire Slayer, "they're not better than everyone else; they're just luckier than everyone else."

The film also opens up a Pandora's Box, because if the Bak'u are evidently unwilling to defend themselves (it begs the question of how they exiled the Son'a to begin with unless one assumes they had advanced tech they've since discarded), then who's going to be responsible for defending them going forward? Secrets have a way of getting out, and Ru'afo's group of Son'a apparently weren't the only ones out there.
 
More than 600 aliens with no ethnic diversity who are not native to the planet that is sovereign territory of an interstellar power, that is for sure. There is a big difference between removing a native indigenous population dependent on the radiation to survive (which the ba'ku aren't) and removing a bunch of settlers who have basically taken a planet that didn't belong to them (which the Ba'ku are). The Federation would actually have the right to remove the Ba'ku as the planet fell in federation space. Picard carries on like the federation were sending the Ba'ku to a gulag when it was planned from the beginning that the Ba'ku were being sent to a near identical paradise planet to continue their lives.

Insurrections biggest failure is it's lazy and superficial moralising. It treats the viewer like an idiot and asks that we look at the morality of the issue in black and white terms. But it's not that easy. The radiation would benefit trillions of beings. What if there was a planet with a population on the verge of extinction because of a disease the federation couldn't cure. What if the planetary radiation could cure the disease and save an entire species from extinction? Wouldn't that be worth moving 600 people to another warm and sunny planet? The story would have a million times more compelling and challenging if it had asked bigger questions like that.

Good point. I always wondered why the Ba'ku's situation left me somewhat cold. May have been my subconscious reaction to a line that somehow I never gave much thought until I saw it again last night: and that would be the fact that they did NOT originate on the planet. Which makes the entire sitation a bit like the origin of the Maquis, except differently judged. With the Maquis, the Federation, as well as the crew members of the Enterprise and DS9, constantly seemed to feel that these recalcitrant invididuals were bad people for standing in the way of peace with the Cardassians and consequently, for the greater good, had no right to their chosen home. What a small group wants vs. peace for everybody. Needs of the many type stuff.

So what are we defending here then? The basic human right to be conventionally good-looking in a milquetoast kind of way?
 
Do they have a right to keep the planet to themselves even if they know that the radiation they were lucky enough to stumble across could help millions of other people? Sure.

Again they weren't against other people living on other parts of the planet (which if they had been would have made them way too unreasonable), they just wanted that they be able to keep living there.

The idea that they were keeping others off, or at least they were wrong that others weren't there, seems to imply that should have been, had an obligation to be going around advertising the planet's effects to others.
 
Again they weren't against other people living on other parts of the planet (which if they had been would have made them way too unreasonable), they just wanted that they be able to keep living there.

The idea that they were keeping others off, or at least they were wrong that others weren't there, seems to imply that should have been, had an obligation to be going around advertising the planet's effects to others.

We have no idea how they would have felt about people living on other parts of the planet, because the question never comes up in the course of the film. Maybe they were asked and said no.
 
The film doesn’t bring up people establishing settlements on different parts of the planet.

The dilemma before the reveal that the Son’a and Ba’ku were related, was the needed expedience of the treatment for the Son’a. The Son’a came to the Feddies, told them about the planet, told them the benefits and shared the tech on how to harness the rings metaphasic energy.

The Starfleet Admiralty was all to eager to get a piece of that action. Using (banned) cloaking technology for a duck blind surveillance, building and staging a cloaked (seriously I thought this tech was off limits for Starfleet) holodeck to abduct and move the Ba’ku, and allying with a (past/present) Dominion ally.

Like what in the f*ck, guys?
 
^There may be some technicality regarding the use of cloaked ships in this manner; we have seen Starfleet use "duck blinds" for observation before and maybe the Treaty of Algeron has some wiggle room for non-capital ships. But I admit I'm grasping at straws here, and that it seems more likely that either the Federation Council didn't know what was going on (in detail) or actually signed off on it.

I know I've said it before, but ironically enough, if the Son'a had come forward and said, "We're related to the Ba'ku and we're returning to our people," the Feds would have had no business getting involved for the same reason that they couldn't get involved in the Klingon Civil War during "Redemption".
 
We have no idea how they would have felt about people living on other parts of the planet, because the question never comes up in the course of the film. Maybe they were asked and said no.

Obviously they wouldn't have been too happy sharing their planet with a bunch of randos. Hell, their own kids went to them wanting to explore space and they told them "FUCK OFF AND DIE!!!!" and ejected them. The Ba'ku were selfish assholes, and the Son'a were no better (or different).
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top