Any Love for Insurrection?
- Thread starter Gojira
- Start date
I enjoy INSURRECTION, very much and I always have. It's flawed, it has its problems, but it's entertaining and that's all I was asking of it. I also like Frakes' direction, here, an obvious example being his choice of having a handheld camera circling Picard, Anij and Data in the Holoship, as they were unraveling the mystery of what the Federation was trying to do and how that might've translated into Data going haywire. As well, Marina and Gates looked great, as Frakes knows to put the cinematography's focus on the cast ... not the sets, so much. As well, I like seeing Riker & Troi hooking back up, which did not have to happen, but as a fan, it was a nice side thing and I'm glad it didn't hit the cutting room floor, as it easily could have. I have mixed feelings about Geordi being given his sight, though. It was so obvious a thing to go after and emotionally manipulative, especially LaForge's tears over viewing his first sunset in Living Colour. As well, Geordi was born blind, so his becoming more youthful and feeling more vigorous would've had no effect on the optic nerves. On the other hand ... the series toyed with the idea of giving Geordi sight a number of times, so I understand the temptation, here. Otherwise, INSURRECTION went down some very interesting roads, with topics of aging and forced relocation and finding love again ... layer upon layer upon layer, with this show. It's really underappreciated, but that's alright. Just keep it available, should I ever need to replace my copy of it and this franchise will see me paying Top Dollar for it -- gladly and as always!
The story's moral themes are either all over the map or inverted - remember, the Sona were kicked out by the Baku, meaning the aggressive kids kicked out the parents because they were aggressive.
Worf has rejuvenation problems before they go into the Briar Patch... how'd he get back from DS9? The writers didn't care, since there's no stardate to screw up DS9 continuity with... he's just on vacation again, since the distance from DS9 to the Briar Patch must be impressive...
Why do the crew all look like waiters in the white outfits now?
Picard is reduced to a one dimensional action figure, complete with big blue screen scenes they forgot to put CGI into.
Why do the Son'a need the Federation if they're known helpers to the Dominion? (And how long were they in Alpha quadrant without anyone knowing about the wormhole?)
The sunset scene for Geordi is the best scene in the movie. Then he loses his sight again, rendering 90% of the movie pointless at that point.
Anthony Zerbe has the same style of death (head go splodey) in the 1989 film "Licence to Kill". Highly underrated James Bond adventure, BTW.
The contrivance for the magical radiation and where it's at and why nobody can just share is too much to find believable.
The previous movie did the "to hell with our orders" and as a joke. Now the same showrunners expect us to be all wound up in the tense draaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaama over the same scene.
The transport ship, once revealed by Data turning on the damn (that the Baku should otherwise be against), shows the water level has not dropped. It should have dropped water levels - unlike a glacier floating in it (like an ice cube in a glass of water, or take a glass of water and drop a marble in it and see the levels rise.)
The Gilbert and Sullivan bit was almost shark-jumping.
The attempt to do a discussion on "how few is too many" was interesting, but flawed since the intended outcome of making the audience feel for the Baku just wasn't there, there was no dramatic impact.
And some historical references aren't exactly 100% accurate.
The revelation (or "reveal") that the Baku and Sona are the same species also feels flat.
Didn't I see the same Sona ship set panels on Risa in the episode "Let He Who Is Without Sin"?
Other people pointed it out readily: All white people. TNG has done a proper representation of humans in previous episodes. Why not now? Granted, not all species have skin color differentiation (white ants, anyone? Nope. A double-nope because termites are not "white ants" as colloquially claimed, termites are nowhere near the same family. Like dogs and cats both being mammals, that's the only class they share.)
And how drunk were the writers by the time they got the the sophomoric "b00bies that sag" joke?
While I could be here nitpicking the plot 120 times, I still can't deny it's enjoyable and the briar patch dogfight between the Enterprise and Sona Ships was pretty awesome, thanks largely to some decent dialogue and interplay where needed. The cast for this movie is impeccable, but - as with Star Wars - famous actors can't always improve on subpart characters and the movie has more moments of "blah" than the exciting stuff the movie should have consistently been. Abraham and Zerbe are definite standouts, though the actual story is a mess. That and Anji is hot, sagging or otherwise. Just don't begin to think about the actual story.
Worf has rejuvenation problems before they go into the Briar Patch... how'd he get back from DS9? The writers didn't care, since there's no stardate to screw up DS9 continuity with... he's just on vacation again, since the distance from DS9 to the Briar Patch must be impressive...
Why do the crew all look like waiters in the white outfits now?
Picard is reduced to a one dimensional action figure, complete with big blue screen scenes they forgot to put CGI into.
Why do the Son'a need the Federation if they're known helpers to the Dominion? (And how long were they in Alpha quadrant without anyone knowing about the wormhole?)
The sunset scene for Geordi is the best scene in the movie. Then he loses his sight again, rendering 90% of the movie pointless at that point.
Anthony Zerbe has the same style of death (head go splodey) in the 1989 film "Licence to Kill". Highly underrated James Bond adventure, BTW.
The contrivance for the magical radiation and where it's at and why nobody can just share is too much to find believable.
The previous movie did the "to hell with our orders" and as a joke. Now the same showrunners expect us to be all wound up in the tense draaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaama over the same scene.
The transport ship, once revealed by Data turning on the damn (that the Baku should otherwise be against), shows the water level has not dropped. It should have dropped water levels - unlike a glacier floating in it (like an ice cube in a glass of water, or take a glass of water and drop a marble in it and see the levels rise.)
The Gilbert and Sullivan bit was almost shark-jumping.
The attempt to do a discussion on "how few is too many" was interesting, but flawed since the intended outcome of making the audience feel for the Baku just wasn't there, there was no dramatic impact.
And some historical references aren't exactly 100% accurate.
The revelation (or "reveal") that the Baku and Sona are the same species also feels flat.
Didn't I see the same Sona ship set panels on Risa in the episode "Let He Who Is Without Sin"?
Other people pointed it out readily: All white people. TNG has done a proper representation of humans in previous episodes. Why not now? Granted, not all species have skin color differentiation (white ants, anyone? Nope. A double-nope because termites are not "white ants" as colloquially claimed, termites are nowhere near the same family. Like dogs and cats both being mammals, that's the only class they share.)
And how drunk were the writers by the time they got the the sophomoric "b00bies that sag" joke?
While I could be here nitpicking the plot 120 times, I still can't deny it's enjoyable and the briar patch dogfight between the Enterprise and Sona Ships was pretty awesome, thanks largely to some decent dialogue and interplay where needed. The cast for this movie is impeccable, but - as with Star Wars - famous actors can't always improve on subpart characters and the movie has more moments of "blah" than the exciting stuff the movie should have consistently been. Abraham and Zerbe are definite standouts, though the actual story is a mess. That and Anji is hot, sagging or otherwise. Just don't begin to think about the actual story.
The Son'a are the young 'uns, and the Ba'ku are the old-timers. The aggressive kids were kicked out by the parents, not the other way around.
I think it rates as a fair TNG episode but is obviously ill fitting for the cinema. You're kept in suspense, there's a couple of genuine plot twists and surprises, there's action sequences between people and starships. There's a moral dilemma....
I take at face value the injustice of removing the Baku even if it doesn't quite work on a rigorous reading of things. This is the thing that binds the film together and if you reject that, the film falls flat. The Baku are a quite kitsch being yet another rehash of the primitive, wise aliens who have left their tech behind. And of course you get delinquent Admiral No. 1456789 which is about as ubiquitous as the red shirt death count at this stage. But on the whole I think it was a worthy Trek jaunt even if it doesn't fit on the big screen.
I take at face value the injustice of removing the Baku even if it doesn't quite work on a rigorous reading of things. This is the thing that binds the film together and if you reject that, the film falls flat. The Baku are a quite kitsch being yet another rehash of the primitive, wise aliens who have left their tech behind. And of course you get delinquent Admiral No. 1456789 which is about as ubiquitous as the red shirt death count at this stage. But on the whole I think it was a worthy Trek jaunt even if it doesn't fit on the big screen.
Last edited:
Some people like it because it's an overblown episode. 
I wasn't that impressed by it when I saw it first. Since then I've grown to appreciate some moments in it, the cinematography, and dedication by the cast.
My biggest qualm relates to the fact the movie did not take advantage of the single biggest event in the Trek universe up to that time..the Dominion War, and the likelihood the UFP would be defeated.
While the producers and studio seemed to think they needed to separate the two ways of exhibiting them, what better way to generate interest in DS9 and vice versa? To me, this is one of the biggest missteps of the Berman era...and yet the movie itself isn't really all that bad.
RAMA
I wasn't that impressed by it when I saw it first. Since then I've grown to appreciate some moments in it, the cinematography, and dedication by the cast.
My biggest qualm relates to the fact the movie did not take advantage of the single biggest event in the Trek universe up to that time..the Dominion War, and the likelihood the UFP would be defeated.
While the producers and studio seemed to think they needed to separate the two ways of exhibiting them, what better way to generate interest in DS9 and vice versa? To me, this is one of the biggest missteps of the Berman era...and yet the movie itself isn't really all that bad.
RAMA
Why waste a movie generating interest in a TV show? DS9 was never the favorite among the majority of Trek fans, even those who did watch it weekly.
And the majority of the general movie audience who went to see Insurrection probably never heard of DS9 nor the Dominion War.
IIRC, exactly when Insurrection takes place was never stated in the movie, no stardate, no captain's log, my feelings are it's set after the wars end.
If the majority hadn't heard about it, that's even more reason to have a movie about it. They could work hand-in-hand.
They did mention the Dominion War as being current.
They did mention the Dominion War as being current.
I like it the best of the TNG movies, which is saying little. (I rewatch none of them.)
I still don't understand Generations (what is a nexus?).
I don't like Die Hard movies, especially when a thoughtful, avuncular, senior captain becomes Bruce Willis because it's kewl for the movies.
I still don't understand why Shinzon wanted to destroy Earth? I rebel at kewl dune buggy chases in a Trek movie. Finally got rid of that annoying Data, but B4 (come on!) will take over. . .
So that leaves Insurrection which at least has a Trek-ian moral dilemma at its core, if not executed so well.
Oh, and it's a big episode with nice cinematography, you say?
Good.
I still don't understand Generations (what is a nexus?).
I don't like Die Hard movies, especially when a thoughtful, avuncular, senior captain becomes Bruce Willis because it's kewl for the movies.
I still don't understand why Shinzon wanted to destroy Earth? I rebel at kewl dune buggy chases in a Trek movie. Finally got rid of that annoying Data, but B4 (come on!) will take over. . .
So that leaves Insurrection which at least has a Trek-ian moral dilemma at its core, if not executed so well.
Oh, and it's a big episode with nice cinematography, you say?
Good.
I watched it, I knew it featured the TNG crew and that's what I got - something I could group together with the TNG episodes. So I wasn't antagonised by it. It's a reasonable TV movie in short.
Last edited:
Yes, and I have written ad nauseam about this movie, and have been challenged on every point, without changing my opinion.
The Dominion War is over, or at least on hold, for this movie. Deep Space Nine made the argument we are no better than our circumstances. Next Generation has always said that we have had a choice.
Picard has ordered men into battle that never returned. The Dominion represent an existential threat to Picard's way of life. He is an "explorer," contained in several lines in this movie, and beats that have no meaning wthout knowing this about the character. He wants to return, after two years of defending that way of life, to it. This is why he looks up from his paperwork to view the planet.
So, what is Starfleet doing, in contrast? They are, again, challenging Picard's lifestyle, and values, from within. He wants to explore the Ba'ku, and, ultimately, leave them alone. The Federation and Starfleet seek to exploit their planet over a resource. Picard invites a Court-Martial, defies orders, to defend that way of life from those that seek to destroy it. Hence, the Insurrection. And, why the elements of this movie make it less episode, more movie. Because it isn't delicately stated, or executed with Gore, I call our fans stupid. Because since this movie, Star Trek has become Star Wars to stay commercially viable. Proving NBC right, when they said of the pilot, that it was "too cerebral," for television.
When talking about the trauma of war, mindfulness, and meditation, can help control the emotions in the aftereffects of shell-shock. What you are seeing is a Science Fiction representation mindfulness. Anij is not wrong when she says "we have found a single moment in time can be a universe, in itself."
Geordi gains his eyesight and still doesn't want your radiation. The cost is too damned high. We face this moral pickle every day, over resources. Did we intervene in the Sudan? No, but we have oil interests in the Gulf, and that has led to propping up regimes that will sell us oil. Hence, the relationship with the Son'a.
So, Picard and Data sing. What are they singing? What is Data doing? Acting as Picard will in an hour or so, rejecting the "tang of a tyrant tongue." More importantly, Star Trek has always been about using phasers, brute strength, only when necessary. Braun and a big weapon didn't end the Borg threat--putting them to sleep, did, and deceiving the Borg Queen. It has always been a talk-fest, not action films. Don't believe me? Look at the lack of Gore in the series, and every movie before First Contact.
So, Chris Pine is right--a modern audience doesn't appreciate intro to philosophy and using imagination, anymore. We want what they give us. I judge my fans by a simple question: what do you think of Insurrection? Because, we are not all alike and I wish for something that may never return. I want Star Trek that says something about the internal journey through the prism of finding one.
A
Amaris
Guest
I saw Waterworld several times myself. Two people in the "we saw Waterworld more than once!" category! We're waterbuddies! Yay!
Why the fuck do you hide a spaceship with transporters underwater?!? 
Yes, I ask the same question of Star Trek Into Darkness, but with STID it was part of an overall very cool sequence.
Insurrection was very poorly set up, with flat humor, unlikable characters across the board and no ambition. I think it is the worst Trek movie by a country mile and the only one I actively avoid. I do give it points for the "Gilbert & Sullivan" routine and when Dougherty got his face stretched.
Yes, I ask the same question of Star Trek Into Darkness, but with STID it was part of an overall very cool sequence.
Insurrection was very poorly set up, with flat humor, unlikable characters across the board and no ambition. I think it is the worst Trek movie by a country mile and the only one I actively avoid. I do give it points for the "Gilbert & Sullivan" routine and when Dougherty got his face stretched.
I like the deleted scene where Picard spills his lunch all over him. I like the RedLetterMedia review of this film.
The only thing I love about this film is Michael Piller's memoir Fade In, which is a fascinating insight into the behind the scenes of writing the screenplay. I really loved his initial concepts, like how he was going to use the Romulans or the new group of androids or the ideas about what role civilians play in the Federation. I don't think what we got was anything as interesting as those outlines.
The only thing I love about this film is Michael Piller's memoir Fade In, which is a fascinating insight into the behind the scenes of writing the screenplay. I really loved his initial concepts, like how he was going to use the Romulans or the new group of androids or the ideas about what role civilians play in the Federation. I don't think what we got was anything as interesting as those outlines.
Love no, like, yes
Last edited:
Why the fuck do you hide a spaceship with transporters underwater?!?
Yes, I ask the same question of Star Trek Into Darkness, but with STID it was part of an overall very cool sequence.
Insurrection was very poorly set up, with flat humor, unlikable characters across the board and no ambition. I think it is the worst Trek movie by a country mile and the only one I actively avoid. I do give it points for the "Gilbert & Sullivan" routine and when Dougherty got his face stretched.
This movie doesn't lack ambition any more than "A Private Little War," "Rocks and Shoals," and "Let This Be Your Last Battlefield," lack ambition.
The movie is jam-packed with lines of dialogue that explore rich themes, define Star Trek, and it barely wastes a single line, a single frame. Again, I blame the audience.
"Can she Mambo?"
"Very Funny."
"The Captain used to cut quite a rug."
"Computer, music."
"No, no not that. Something Latin."
"Specify."
"The Mambo."
The first set of dialogue establishes the history between Beverly and Jean-Luc. Attaching it to youth allows them to call back to it later when Picard feels the affects of the radiation, building. "Increased muscle tone, high energy, we should all be so lucky," as she goes to Geordi and examines his eyes.
So, he hears those words, feels the rush of energy from his youth, after being on the planet, and sees his skin tightening along his jawline. Cut to a door, a knock, and a medium shot of Picard:
"How old are you?"
Deduction. Exploring, with a question. Testing a hypothesis: Are the Ba'ku feeling the same effects of being on the surface, and, if so, how long have they been there?
"No, no. We can't delay the archeological expedition to Hanoran II. That will put us right in the middle of the Monsoon Season."
"The diplomatic corps is busy with Dominion negotiations."
"Yes, and they need us to put out one more brush fire. Can anyone remember when we used to be explorers?"
"They have incredible mental discipline; clarity of perception."
"You have warp capability."
"Capability, yes. But where can Warp Drive take us, except away from here?"
"Apprenticing for 30 years. Did your people's mental discipline develop, here?"
"More questions. Always the explorer."
"If you stay long enough that will change."
"Will it?"
"You stop planning for tomorrow, reviewing yesterday. Let me ask you a question: Have you ever experienced a perfect moment in time?"
"A perfect moment?"
"Where time seemed to stop, and you could live, in that moment?"
"Seeing my home planet from space, for the first time."
"Yes, exactly. Nothing more complicated, than perception You explore the universe, we have found a single moment in time, can be a universe, in itself."
"How are you doing this?"
"No more questions."
I'll let you connect the dots on the last bits of dialogue. This script is really good, the acting in understated and subtle. I have 12 more bits like this. I just did two.
It's not your cup of tea, sure. But, leave it alone. This is the best film TNG, did.
One thing that bothered me the first time I watched it, and still bothers me now, is that there is no way to make the population demographics of planet Ba'ku make sense. There are simply too many children shown for the rate of population growth (or, rather, lack thereof) and every possible explanation is outright denied by the movie.
Ba'ku was settled by a population of about 500 people, approximately 300 years before the movie. At the time of the movie, there are about 600 people on the planet. We know that the metaphasic radiation field makes everyone who lives there immortal, permanently young and healthy. We are also shown that exposure to the radiation restores fertility to those who had lost it, and furthermore appears to make people want to hook up and have children. We would therefore assume that the initial population of people would do so, reproducing at a healthy rate limited only by their environment.
If we assume a conservative population doubling time of 30 years, that initial population of 500 should have increased to over half a million by the time of the movie. (300 years divided by 30 = ten doublings, 2 ^ 10 * 500 = 512,000). And yet, the population given at the time of the movie is only 600. In 300 years, it hasn't even doubled once!
How can we explain this?
Does the immortality effect make people unable or uninterested in having children? No, we are specifically shown the opposite to be true - people who come to Ba'ku if anything become more willing and able to reproduce.
Does the metaphasic radiation make children grow more slowly? No, we are specifically told that children grow at the normal rate until they reach 18.
Are they limited by their environment? We see no signs of starvation, and there is plenty of untouched arable land, they aren't farming every square foot of the terrain like you would expect if they were running into resource limits that limited their growth.
Do they deliberately limit their numbers? We see no evidence of that. Instead, we are shown multiple children of varying ages, enough to suggest that the people of Ba'ku are still having children at a reasonable rate.
Do many of them die each generation of accident or disease? There is no disease on Ba'ku, and injuries heal quickly. There also seem to be no dangerous natural predators or anything else to cull the population.
Did most of the population leave to become Son'a? That might be an attractive explanation, since we know at least some of the population did so, but it's hard to explain the massive lack of population by that alone. You would have to had multiple exoduses over the years, with much of the planet's population leaving every generation. It's implied in the movie that the departure of the Son'a was a one-time thing - you might lose one doubling from that, but you wouldn't have such a population loss as we see.
I can only assume that something deep and sinister is going on behind the scenes on Ba'ku. Perhaps the same mysterious force that generates the metaphasic radiation demands sacrifices. Perhaps the entire planet is nothing more than a breeding colony created by one of the many god-like alien forces in the Star Trek, providing an environment that keeps their captive population of humans healthy and comes by periodically to remove the excess children. Maybe the parents of Ba'ku have their memories altered so they don't remember the many kids who were taken away by the mysterious alien force ... or maybe they are fully complicit, hiding the knowledge from the Federation, knowing that if the Federation found out they would put a stop to the entire setup, and as a result removing the parents of Ba'ku from the planet that keeps them alive forever.
Ba'ku was settled by a population of about 500 people, approximately 300 years before the movie. At the time of the movie, there are about 600 people on the planet. We know that the metaphasic radiation field makes everyone who lives there immortal, permanently young and healthy. We are also shown that exposure to the radiation restores fertility to those who had lost it, and furthermore appears to make people want to hook up and have children. We would therefore assume that the initial population of people would do so, reproducing at a healthy rate limited only by their environment.
If we assume a conservative population doubling time of 30 years, that initial population of 500 should have increased to over half a million by the time of the movie. (300 years divided by 30 = ten doublings, 2 ^ 10 * 500 = 512,000). And yet, the population given at the time of the movie is only 600. In 300 years, it hasn't even doubled once!
How can we explain this?
Does the immortality effect make people unable or uninterested in having children? No, we are specifically shown the opposite to be true - people who come to Ba'ku if anything become more willing and able to reproduce.
Does the metaphasic radiation make children grow more slowly? No, we are specifically told that children grow at the normal rate until they reach 18.
Are they limited by their environment? We see no signs of starvation, and there is plenty of untouched arable land, they aren't farming every square foot of the terrain like you would expect if they were running into resource limits that limited their growth.
Do they deliberately limit their numbers? We see no evidence of that. Instead, we are shown multiple children of varying ages, enough to suggest that the people of Ba'ku are still having children at a reasonable rate.
Do many of them die each generation of accident or disease? There is no disease on Ba'ku, and injuries heal quickly. There also seem to be no dangerous natural predators or anything else to cull the population.
Did most of the population leave to become Son'a? That might be an attractive explanation, since we know at least some of the population did so, but it's hard to explain the massive lack of population by that alone. You would have to had multiple exoduses over the years, with much of the planet's population leaving every generation. It's implied in the movie that the departure of the Son'a was a one-time thing - you might lose one doubling from that, but you wouldn't have such a population loss as we see.
I can only assume that something deep and sinister is going on behind the scenes on Ba'ku. Perhaps the same mysterious force that generates the metaphasic radiation demands sacrifices. Perhaps the entire planet is nothing more than a breeding colony created by one of the many god-like alien forces in the Star Trek, providing an environment that keeps their captive population of humans healthy and comes by periodically to remove the excess children. Maybe the parents of Ba'ku have their memories altered so they don't remember the many kids who were taken away by the mysterious alien force ... or maybe they are fully complicit, hiding the knowledge from the Federation, knowing that if the Federation found out they would put a stop to the entire setup, and as a result removing the parents of Ba'ku from the planet that keeps them alive forever.
But you can't blame the audience here. Films like Inception and The Dark Knight-and for a sci-fi example 2001: A Space Odyssey-have shown that audiences are able to understand films with rich themes, moral dilemmas, and high concepts not usually seen in the average Hollywood movie. Insurrection had the tools to make it a great movie at the time; the same director as their last film, a huge budget, a great composer to do the score, and no direct competition at the box office (the fate that befell Nemesis). No, the failings are in the story.
Forced relocation: The whole story revolves around the Ba'Ku being forced off the planet they live on. Picard has a problem with this idea when he apparently didn't back when it involved the Cardassians? When Wesley gives the same argument to Picard in Journey's End he's given a severe lecture about how as a member of Starfleet he will follow orders no matter what they are. Yeah, the exact same thing Daugherty tells Picard in this film only he's made the bad guy because he's not a main character. We can easily sympathize with the Native Americans in that episode because we as the audience know of the attrocities done to their people, therefore a reason to side with them. The Ba'ku have no such reason other than "we'll lose our simple way of life." A way of life they could do anywhere.
Dominion War and Medical Benefits: Dougherty's main reason for going along with Ru'afo's plan is that the regenerative nature of the planet's rings would be put to use saving lives on the war front. Worf, one of the people who has been on the frontlines since the start of the war, should have been the first person to speak up about this. He would bring up how many lives he's seen killed in battle by the genetically superior enemy and how this could be an advantage for the allied forces that they desperately need. Likewise Beverly would be thinking as a doctor about the patients that would benefit not only in the war, but all over the Federation. The Federation prides itself on being a utopia where things such as disease and sickness are things of the past so why does Doctor Crusher not jump at the chance to make lives better?
An Inconvenient Truth: Because the Ba'ku would be asked to leave is the explanation we're given in the film. Picard tries to say that they're protected by Federation law like the Prime Directive except they're not. By their own admission they're settlers on this planet, not an indigenous people. The only reason they don't leave is because they'll lose their immortality. Now they could take this to the Federation Council to plead that the small number of Ba'ku leaving the planet would lead to their eventual extinction, which might give them a leg to stand on. But this particular aspect is never brought up. It's only "we won't give up our farms because technology is evil." Even a Paramount executive was able to notice this and mentioned it in a memo. This undermines the entire plot leaving the people we're supposed to sympathize with seem extremely petty. No, no; don't give up your little farm to help the billions of people out there dying to protect you from an invasion. We'd hate for you to be slightly inconvenienced by rebuilding on literally any other Class M planet the Federation has open for colonization.
No Technlogy = Easier Life: This isn't something special to this film as it's plagued many, many, many films, but it is brought up by the main Ba'ku guy constantly. A belief that not having technology around will suddenly make life seem simpler. Getting away from the city can be advantagous to one's physical and mental health. Less noise, traffic, and interference from harmful people can help someone clear their head or relax in a way they couldn't otherwise. A reason I see frequently for why people do things like farming is that they like to work with their hands. Fair enough, but anyone who has set foot on any farm can tell you that it's extremely difficult to do without the right tools, it's even harder to build and maintain a whole village. Yet the Ba'ku village and its surrounding areas are able to exist in a state that just isn't possible without the advent of certain tools. Kids having time to play outside in daylight hours? That's not happening. They would be spending every waking hour learning to do a craft by hand. Those not learning a craft would be out in the fields working to make up for the lack of machinery. The irrigation system they have to get water from the nearby lake to their crops wouldn't be able to exist without certain pieces of technology to build it. There's also the fact that the whole place is way too clean to be a place without tech. No crumbling structures, perfectly clean surfaces, no dirt and mud all over the walkways, no stray animals making a mess, no wear and tear from the weather; it reeks of being a set that was only meant to evoke images of paradise that we don't want to see destroyed.
In closing I'll say the Ba'ku were very lucky to deal with someone like Picard. If it were Sisko they had to talk to he would tell them to piss off so he could get back to doing important things like making sure these whiny wannabe elves aren't killed in a Dominion invasion of the entire Alpha Quadrant. The jokes of this story aren't funny, the plight of our "good" faction would be dealt with in five minutes in a more realistic script, the action is extremely tame for a feature film, the romantic subplot has no chemistry, the romantic subplot should have been with Picard and Beverly and not a random girl of the week, and the production design is very average especially when compared to the leaps First Contact made just one film prior. I would have loved to see scenes of various crew members discussing the pros and cons of the situation with some of them being divided in their opinions. Beverly is Chief Medical Officer of the Enterprise, but would Nurse Ogawa feel the same as she does after hearing report after report of how badly things are going for the Alliance against the Dominion? I love that Worf doesn't even have an excuse to be in the story at all. He's just there. My favorite part of that is that he has access to places such as the bridge despite not being a member of the Enterprise crew anymore. He waltzes in and replaces Lt. Nobody at Tactical in this and Nemesis without provocation. How can Picard tell him he's late for his duty assignment when he's still assigned to DS9 and the Defiant? This is all stuff presented in the finished movie and script so again, no, it's not a problem with the audience. If us fans have this many problems and questions from the movie then there's no way in hell the average moviegoer or critic is. If it does something for you, fine, but you can't pass the blame for its failures from the real reasons it doesn't hold up to everyone else.
Similar threads
