How could a Star Trek fan NOT like Insurrection?

[spaceballone]

IMO, the movie was very enjoyable both times I saw it in the theater. Not an epic TREK film in it's way as with some.
Now on the subject that Starfleet and the Sona' were in the right to remove the Baku because they were not natives is completely BS in my eyes. So all who say that answer a question? Say you move to a piece of land no one owns, which just by coincidence harbors a plant that will cure a variety of human diseases. You toil and work your hands to the bone for years, raising a family and making it your dream. All of a sudden someone (i.e. the government or some rich powerful company/or both) arrives and tells you, you will have to vacate that land because they want it and will destroy the area in it's processing of the cure. So in your mind's eye that since you are not native to the area it is justifiable?

That's well put except to make it like the movie the government or whoever is forcing you off the land wouldn't evan ask you to move. They'd just come one night while you were asleep, take you and dump you someplace else on the spot.

 

[Amaris]

How could a Star Trek fan not like Insurrection?

Hell, how could thinking people of ANY fan set LIKE it?

This review has all the dirt. It's brilliant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlV3bsafkq0

This guy had me in stitches.
That being said, I agree with him on INS. It's not really bad, it's just not very good. I can watch it in a pinch, but it's just not my cup of tea, and I say this as an avid fan of TNG.

 

[Captain Mike]

IMO, the movie was very enjoyable both times I saw it in the theater. Not an epic TREK film in it's way as with some.
Now on the subject that Starfleet and the Sona' were in the right to remove the Baku because they were not natives is completely BS in my eyes. So all who say that answer a question? Say you move to a piece of land no one owns, which just by coincidence harbors a plant that will cure a variety of human diseases. You toil and work your hands to the bone for years, raising a family and making it your dream. All of a sudden someone (i.e. the government or some rich powerful company/or both) arrives and tells you, you will have to vacate that land because they want it and will destroy the area in it's processing of the cure. So in your mind's eye that since you are not native to the area it is justifiable?

IMO, the movie was very enjoyable both times I saw it in the theater. Not an epic TREK film in it's way as with some.
Now on the subject that Starfleet and the Sona' were in the right to remove the Baku because they were not natives is completely BS in my eyes. So all who say that answer a question? Say you move to a piece of land no one owns, which just by coincidence harbors a plant that will cure a variety of human diseases. You toil and work your hands to the bone for years, raising a family and making it your dream. All of a sudden someone (i.e. the government or some rich powerful company/or both) arrives and tells you, you will have to vacate that land because they want it and will destroy the area in it's processing of the cure. So in your mind's eye that since you are not native to the area it is justifiable?

That's well put except to make it like the movie the government or whoever is forcing you off the land wouldn't evan ask you to move. They'd just come one night while you were asleep, take you and dump you someplace else on the spot.

I noticed how this thread certainly died ...Maybe not many have read it?

 

[darkshadow0001]

Because it's full of obnoxious, unfunny humor; the McGuffin is forced and absurd; the conflict is also forced; Picard and crew act like self-righteous douchebags for the entire last half of the film; the villains actually have a pretty good claim on the planet, or at least just as much of one as the protagonists; the Ba'ku are unsympathetic and annoying; and why didn't Starfleet just come out in the open and cut a deal with the Ba'ku and Son'a for use of half the planet as a heath spa or something, anyway? It's not like 300 people are going to be bothered by a Starfleet medical facility for treating people's ailments that could be located on another continent. Unless they would. Which would make them selfish jerks.

No. It's a movie that's powered by everyone being selfish asses, and I'll be perfectly happy if I never see it again.

Now don't be so harsh But I agree with you. The film is alright, but from going to a good film like First Contact and then ending up with Insurrection, will that's why it was a let down to the majoriy of the fans. I like Insurrection from time-to-time, but in a way I'm glad I didn't push to go watch it at the theatre.

 

[Delta1]

I like the plot in the movie to move an entire species off the planet. We've done that in past in our own history on earth. I'm gonna stop here, I don't want the history buff in me to come out. This is a trek fourm not a history one.

They weren't moving an entire species. They were moving a hamlet. A small town. The species was alive and well and traveling through space, enslaving Tarlac and Ellorans and working with the Federation to get the resources from their lost colony back.

 

[Captain Robert April]

And so we ask again, how many does it take before it becomes wrong?

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

47

 

[Captain Robert April]

Not 42?

 

[Bones2]

There's no issue in this "how many people" because it's not their planet in the first place. That's why there's no real dilemma there and it's among the poorest of the films in my view.

 

[RoJoHen]

What does it matter if it's their planet, though? They're not indigenous, no, but they found it first and claimed it as their own. That makes it theirs as much as anything.

 

[Broccoli]

And so we ask again, how many does it take before it becomes wrong?

Depends. Is Capt. Robau involved?

 

[Hartzilla2007]

And so we ask again, how many does it take before it becomes wrong?

Depends. Is Capt. Robau involved?

But, Captain Robau wouldn't need special radiation to stay young forever, he would just do it through will power.

 

[Broccoli]

^ Clearly. I was just assuming he was doing it for kicks.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

There's no issue in this "how many people" because it's not their planet in the first place. That's why there's no real dilemma there and it's among the poorest of the films in my view.

So again it's alright to kick people out of an area that has some important resource WITHOUT ASKING IF YOU CAN HAVE ACCESS TO IT FIRST as long as they weren't born there and you ignore the ones THAT WERE born there.

 

[RyuRoots]

For me, the issue was, far more than any debate on general policy, that the Baku came off as self-righteous asses who I wouldn't really give a damn if they got relocated or not.

 

[Kelthaz]

There's no issue in this "how many people" because it's not their planet in the first place. That's why there's no real dilemma there and it's among the poorest of the films in my view.

So again it's alright to kick people out of an area that has some important resource WITHOUT ASKING IF YOU CAN HAVE ACCESS TO IT FIRST as long as they weren't born there and you ignore the ones THAT WERE born there.

Nobody is saying that moving the Baku isn't wrong, but it's such a minor wrong when compared to the enormous good it would do.

Would you punch a random guy in the face if doing so would lead to the cure for cancer?

 

[Bones2]

And I'd argue that the Son'a had just as much claim as the Ba'ku, perhaps more as they're willing to share the radiation with the Federation, bearing in mind the planet was in Federation space in the first place.

Could have helped billions.

 

[Caligula]

For all the juvenile humor, a plot and a villain that would've found a better home on a two-part TV episode, Insurrection has a few things going for it that still keep it watchable for me. For example, it is the film responsible for rekindling the Riker/Troi romance (something I'd always wanted to see). And, hey, at least it's better than Nemesis. Okay, so that may not be saying much, but the difference between the two is enough that I own a copy of Insurrection on DVD while choosing to largely ignore the existence of Nemesis.

 

[RyuRoots]

For all the juvenile humor, a plot and a villain that would've found a better home on a two-part TV episode, Insurrection has a few things going for it that still keep it watchable for me. For example, it is the film responsible for rekindling the Riker/Troi romance (something I'd always wanted to see). And, hey, at least it's better than Nemesis. Okay, so that may not be saying much, but the difference between the two is enough that I own a copy of Insurrection on DVD while choosing to largely ignore the existence of Nemesis.

I think the ONLY reason I ever put Insurrection in now is for the "A British Tar" bit. Nemesis, on the other hand, for all its flaws, I can sit through and get some enjoyment out of. Not to say it's a great movie, but it's better than this slop. Frakes made a valiant effort, but there's only so much you can do without simply having the script rewritten. In my opinion, of course.

 

[AJBryant]

Ah, but what *is* "Federation space"?

Does every planet in the Federation sphere of influence belong to the Federation? Obviously not, or Kirk et al would not be exploring in the first place. There are countries on the continent of Europe that are not in the EU, for example.

Does the Federation have the right to confiscate every occupied planet in the area, even though those who live on it have claimed it and made it their home?