How would you improve Insurrection?

[JarodRussell]

-Consequences! Have Picard (and eventually possibly the rest of the crew) really take a stand against Starfleet, if he feels their actions go against his morality. Have him take a stand. Have him lose his command. End the movie with Picard leaving Starfleet. What a wonderful set up for Nemesis: Picard, disillusioned about Starfleet to which he has given his whole life up until now. And there is Shinzon, tempting him away even further. Praying upon his uncertainties. Give us the feeling that something important (not forgettable aliens of the week) is in the balance: Picard, this man we've followed through 7 years of tv series and 3 or 4 movies. Is he going to fall to despair, or will he find something new to fight for? Something to restore our confidence in the Federation, before the TNG crew takes a bow and leaves us behind.

This.

Yeah, that might have been something. The good thing about the TOS films was that they dared to do things differently. Killed Spock, gave Kirk a son, destroyed the Enterprise, killed Kirk's son, a whole film without the Enterprise.

 

[Plain Simple]

Praying upon his uncertainties.

Oops...

 

[Xaios]

Plain Simple has the right of it, although I don't know if the story as is could be saved, even if it was heavily tinkered with. If any of you have ever watched Nostalgia Critic and Linkara's video review of Insurrection, they tear this film a new one and explain how it makes no sense in the greater scope of Trek, because it backtracks on many of Trek's key themes. I know their style isn't for everyone, but was really a great summation of everything that's wrong with this movie.

 

[Methos]

There... i improved my copy of Insurrection on DVD by 500%

M

 

[sonak]

Plain Simple has the right of it, although I don't know if the story as is could be saved, even if it was heavily tinkered with. If any of you have ever watched Nostalgia Critic and Linkara's video review of Insurrection, they tear this film a new one and explain how it makes no sense in the greater scope of Trek, because it backtracks on many of Trek's key themes. I know their style isn't for everyone, but was really a great summation of everything that's wrong with this movie.

Yep, I saw that episode of NC and they were spot-on. One of the(many) baffling things about INS is how it contradicts so many of Trek's popular themes. (like technology is a force for progress in Trek vs. the Baku's "advanced technology is eeeevil" stance)

 

[Ssosmcin]

I never understand this argument. There will hardly be anyone out there who doesn't know that Star Trek is a major franchise (and had been for some 30 years at that point), with many tv series and films already out there. So you would expect there to be a larger universe out there in which this movie takes place (on a side note, that's one of the reasons watching First Contact was a catalyst for me to start watching the tv shows). I agree that the movie shouldn't just be another installment in a larger arc, but why couldn't the general backdrop of the Trekverse at that point be used? Why not make the Dominion war an extra factor in the necessity to get whatever medical mcguffin they were looking for? After all, they do already mention it, iirc. Surely audiences can handle a bit of background.

I don't mind some tie-ins, and the amount they did was just about perfect. A character here or there who could exist without backstory and not disrupt the story (Admiral Janeway, the EMH, Barclay, etc.).

I just don't think it's necessary to potentially lose people because of the fan desire to tie it all in. Sure, everyone knows the film is part of a larger franchise, but what about those audience members who finish the film and wonder about the outcome of the war that was mentioned, the people who don't want to watch DS9? The TNG films should exist on their own, with their own stories and problems and not be dependant on a storyline from another show. People shouldn't have to ask their Trekkie friends if they need to watch something else before they see the newest film.

It's easier to have these references at the time of release, but as time goes on, DS9 fades into memory and now a movie is tied to a show that is no longer in production and barely rerun. Nah.

What Insurrection needed was a better story, not Deep Space Nine crossovers.

 

[CoveTom]

Yeah, that might have been something. The good thing about the TOS films was that they dared to do things differently. Killed Spock, gave Kirk a son, destroyed the Enterprise, killed Kirk's son, a whole film without the Enterprise.

This. Not to mention that, in addition to taking chances, they were willing to do different types of stories. Compare TMP, TWOK, and TVH for example. Three very, very different types of stories. From more "hard sci-fi" to action/adventure space opera to comedy. All of which TNG did on TV. But when it came to the movies, they wanted it to be cookie cutter.

Oh, sure, Insurrection was played lighter than First Contact. But all four movies still try to follow that basic cookie cutter action/adventure format with the bad guy, the big action sequences, etc. None really dares to do a story about exploration or a scientific mystery or even just a straight-up comedy. And I think it was to the TNG films' detriment.

 

[Xaios]

There... i improved my copy of Insurrection on DVD by 500%

M

Sulu probably had the same coaster on the Excelsior. That's why it fell off the table.

 

[MrPointy]

Watching the Plinkett review of Insurrection.

The problem with Insurrection is that Who Watches The Watchers and Journey's End were made before it and are infinitely better. The only thing that could fix it is if they burned the script and wrote something completely different.

 

[JarodRussell]

I actually thought it was a good progression of both episodes. Lessons learned and stuff like that.