Char Aznable
Lieutenant Commander
"Needs of the many outway the needs of the few"
Checkmate. /discussion
Checkmate. /discussion
How could a Star Trek fan NOT like Insurrection?
- Thread starter Danoz
- Start date
And the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many.
Or, to paraphrase from another interrupted franchise, NOT YOUR PLANET, MONKEY BOY!!
Or, to paraphrase from another interrupted franchise, NOT YOUR PLANET, MONKEY BOY!!
Count me in as one who didn't like Insurrection. I consider it a corn-ball movie with gimmicks that feel like attempted fun that fell short on execution. I rarely watch it, and if I run it, I keep it playing for background noise while I work.
http://trekannoyances.com/insurrection_fun_for_the_whole_family/
http://trekannoyances.com/insurrection_fun_for_the_whole_family/
When has it ever been any other way? This is a visual tactic that Trek ALWAYS uses, save a few exceptions.
It's a visual tactic that predates Star Trek by several decades, if not centuries.
Then you must have disliked much of the series.
Whatever. Hate on.
I quite enjoyed it, but then I'm rather easily entertained. That said, it felt more like an FX-upgraded two-parter than a real movie. The humor was a bit clumsy, and it really bothered me that at times it felt like I was watching SW: Phantom Menace. The kid had the same hair as Anakin (and IMO would've made a better Anakin than Jake Lloyd), not to mention those flying droids...
What really had me in stitches, though, was Picard's comment about how he liked older women. Because each of Stewart's girlfriends is younger than the last.
What really had me in stitches, though, was Picard's comment about how he liked older women. Because each of Stewart's girlfriends is younger than the last.
A
Amaris
Guest
Wait, what?
When did Deanna and Beverly talk about their boobs being firmer on the show?
When did Data become a flotation device on the show? When did he start beating people up because he was shot at? He'd been shot at hundreds of times in the series, even sustaining damage from other events in episodes, but he didn't go around beating up people. He either shut down or went to a backup system. Even in Generations (a movie that has it's own problems), Data's positronic net fused with his emotion chip, and he was still being fired at, and he STILL didn't beat people up or try to attack his ship mates as a result.
Picard was adamant about removing the native settlers in Journey's End to cede their home to the Cardassians, and even chewed Wesley up one side and down the other for rebelling. Here, in Insurrection, he doesn't even give it a second thought and immediately sets about to undoing what the Federation and Sona set out to do.
Which brings me to the Federation. Why, oh, why, in all their illustrious history, would the Federation work with a group of terrorists to deprive a planet's population of it's home? I mean, in Journey's End, there was a peace agreement between the Federation and the Cardassians, which resulted in some people on both sides being displaced, but the end result was to prevent full scale war. Here, it's nothing about that at all.
Oh, and you have to like the movie or else you hate much of the series? Tell me how that one works.
Some of the following may have been touched upon in above posts. I don't know because I haven't waded through all 100+ of them. So I apologize if some, or all of this is redundant.
Insurrection just didn't carry enough weight or energy in its story to work on the big screen, but I've always thought that thematically, it was very good Star Trek.
-- First, I thought the Ba'ku represented the idealism of baby boomers in the 1960s, when TOS came out. The Son'a represented what many of those baby boomers had become by the mid-1990s when Insurrection came out, vain, materialistic middle class folks who had forgotten or given up the ideals of the past to focus on self-preservation. Optimism and joy were replaced by dread and ennui. For that reason, I thought it was signficant to find out at the end that these groups were the same people. Did the Son'a lose their souls?
-- Second, the movie conveyed Trek's generally positive view towards well-applied technology. There is no irony in the use of technology to help the technology-eschewing Ba'ku. That even "flower power" needs protection is taken as an axiom. Ebracing "Cold War liberalism," Trek was never pacifist. And even though the Ba'ku reject advanced technology, they embrace the embodiment of it, Data, as their friend. So, technology itself was never the enemy. It was the misapplication of technology and how it can become what drives what is important to people.
-- Third, in the Ba'ku, Picard saw what differentiated the Federation from the Dominion more than anything else. The right to self determination. To be happy on your own terms. Picard did not violate the Prime Directive, because the Ba'ku were not indigenous to their planet, and they were aware of life on other worlds (having even had warp drive at one time). So, the Prime Directive does not apply, and what the Federation was doing there was perfectly legal. So, Picard took a principled stand against what the Federation was doing, questioned its character and motives, and changed policy. That's what made it insurrection -- Picard's choice to fight Federation policy in this case.
I mean, basically, the movie reminded people to jump out of the rat race now and then. Stop and smell the roses. Rethink priorities. Play. OK, it's not that deep. But for Trek, it's pretty good. In that sense, it's hard not to like the movie.
Insurrection just didn't carry enough weight or energy in its story to work on the big screen, but I've always thought that thematically, it was very good Star Trek.
-- First, I thought the Ba'ku represented the idealism of baby boomers in the 1960s, when TOS came out. The Son'a represented what many of those baby boomers had become by the mid-1990s when Insurrection came out, vain, materialistic middle class folks who had forgotten or given up the ideals of the past to focus on self-preservation. Optimism and joy were replaced by dread and ennui. For that reason, I thought it was signficant to find out at the end that these groups were the same people. Did the Son'a lose their souls?
-- Second, the movie conveyed Trek's generally positive view towards well-applied technology. There is no irony in the use of technology to help the technology-eschewing Ba'ku. That even "flower power" needs protection is taken as an axiom. Ebracing "Cold War liberalism," Trek was never pacifist. And even though the Ba'ku reject advanced technology, they embrace the embodiment of it, Data, as their friend. So, technology itself was never the enemy. It was the misapplication of technology and how it can become what drives what is important to people.
-- Third, in the Ba'ku, Picard saw what differentiated the Federation from the Dominion more than anything else. The right to self determination. To be happy on your own terms. Picard did not violate the Prime Directive, because the Ba'ku were not indigenous to their planet, and they were aware of life on other worlds (having even had warp drive at one time). So, the Prime Directive does not apply, and what the Federation was doing there was perfectly legal. So, Picard took a principled stand against what the Federation was doing, questioned its character and motives, and changed policy. That's what made it insurrection -- Picard's choice to fight Federation policy in this case.
I mean, basically, the movie reminded people to jump out of the rat race now and then. Stop and smell the roses. Rethink priorities. Play. OK, it's not that deep. But for Trek, it's pretty good. In that sense, it's hard not to like the movie.
Which is exactly why I didn't like it. A Star Trek movie shouldn't leave you with the feeling that you just finished watching a really long TV episode. Moreover, the character development and plot movement should EXPAND what was established in the series, not repave it.
Except you still have the issue of it still being a series, even after making the leap to the big screen. So a certain amount of the status quo has to be maintained.
The premise is off.
Why the heck is Starfleet's flagship, with a CO whose strength as a Starfleet captain is diplomacy, combating a backwater planet, whilst the Federation is involved in its biggest war in history?
I don't think a Dominion War story would have gone amiss, even if the Dominion was a DS9 enemy and not a TNG one. The Dominion War was portrayed as the biggest catastrophe to ever hit the Federation, so having capital ships do nonsense and BS is not making sense. FDR/Truman would not have ordered a capital ship in the US Navy on a diplomatic mission during WWII. The Dominion War to the Federation, in terms of scale, persons engaged in it, losses, etc. is as WWII was to the USA (and all other combatants, whether Allied or Axis).
Why the heck is Starfleet's flagship, with a CO whose strength as a Starfleet captain is diplomacy, combating a backwater planet, whilst the Federation is involved in its biggest war in history?
I don't think a Dominion War story would have gone amiss, even if the Dominion was a DS9 enemy and not a TNG one. The Dominion War was portrayed as the biggest catastrophe to ever hit the Federation, so having capital ships do nonsense and BS is not making sense. FDR/Truman would not have ordered a capital ship in the US Navy on a diplomatic mission during WWII. The Dominion War to the Federation, in terms of scale, persons engaged in it, losses, etc. is as WWII was to the USA (and all other combatants, whether Allied or Axis).
Withers
Captain
I agree with every word of that. What the hell was the Enterprise doing mucking about with the lives of 600 people? More people were lost than that every time a Miranda exploded on DS9. C'mon.
But, anyway, I didn't read through the 8 pages of replies I just wanted to chime in on why i didn't particularly care for this movie and its a very simple reason that won't take much explaination.
It was ****ing boring. I never had the sense that anything going on was of much consequence. I kept thinking to myself "Yeah, okay, they're doing the right thing and all... but so is volunteering at a soup kitchen. I don't want to watch them do that either." I understand they wanted a lighter film than First Contact (which, in my opinion, also had a pretty yawn filled middle) but they went too far in the other direction. Ultimately, this movie game me no reason to care what happened. The implications were so small it all seemed inconsequential (especially given that the Dominion War was in full swing.) That, to me personally, translated into a big yawn and the question "And?"
-Withers-
A Star Trek "fan" is intitled to dislike any Trek movie they want to. I for one am a Trek fan and didn't like Insurrection. But no one is gonna hold it against me, are they? Unless I'm in a Trek forum and posters could be like: "omg, you didn't like Insurrection!? THE NERVE! You're not a Trek fan then because you obviously don't know the series very well to appreciate a good movie." 
It was my least favorite TNG movie. I just didn't enjoy the plot at all. The only thing that was ok was the humorous parts of it(but that also seemed forced to me as well). But unlike some other fans, I did enjoy "Nemesis" because I liked the plot and there were some parts in the movie that made my mouth drop thirty feet down to the ground. And I also enjoyed "ST:V: The Final Frontier" too, unlike some other fans who just can't stand the movie. I could have done without Sybok, but otherwise pretty good movie.
It was my least favorite TNG movie. I just didn't enjoy the plot at all. The only thing that was ok was the humorous parts of it(but that also seemed forced to me as well). But unlike some other fans, I did enjoy "Nemesis" because I liked the plot and there were some parts in the movie that made my mouth drop thirty feet down to the ground. And I also enjoyed "ST:V: The Final Frontier" too, unlike some other fans who just can't stand the movie. I could have done without Sybok, but otherwise pretty good movie.
On the whole, I think that Trek-fandom has been horridly ill-served by the movies. Only a few were really good, IMHO, and the rest were either just passable or absolute shite. "number 5", Insurrection, Generations, and Nemesis, I think, were just the bottom of the barrel.
EXACTLY!!! This is what destroyed any possibility of me enjoying the film.
That's why I liked it -- I like episodes of Star Trek! It does have some BAD, ill-fitting humor moments. But that's usually true of humor in Trek, eh? But I like the whole concept/feel of it. Had a moral dilemma. Not just defeat-the-bad-guy.
Even though that's exactly what happened. In true cheesy action movie fashion, our heroes arrive riding above the explosions and get out the main character and leave the villain to die. As soon as the bad guy is dead and we fulfill the movie's explosion quota, problem solved.
Similar threads
