Insurrection: Snore fest

[Discofan]

And whose space was it in prior to the Klingons, the Hurq maybe.

And whose space before them? Through the eons that area of space could have changed hands thousands of time.

The point is that if the planet belonged to the Klingons then the Baku went there illegally. Like if someone, unbeknownst to you is squatting a property that you own and someday you sell that property to someone, then they would still be there illegally, regardless of the change in owners.

 

[Khan 2.0]

I think Insurrection and ID was similar to what happened with The Last Jedi. A lot people did go see it, but was either divided by it, or flat out didn't like it.

And then they take it out on the next movie. No one goes to see it. With The Last Jedi, it was Solo. With ID, it was Beyond. With Insurrection, it was Nemesis.
.

possible, id add to those you mentioned which disappointed leading next film to have notable drop in box office (and often considered an even bigger disappointment critically) - Superman III/IV, Alien3/4, Prometheus/Covenant, Phantom Menace/Clones, Matrix Reloaded/Revolutions, Transformers 4/5, BvS/JL

 

[UssGlenn]

The point is that if the planet belonged to the Klingons then the Baku went there illegally.

It might be in space controlled by the Klingons, but I would think it would take more than drawing a line on a map to actually claim ownership of a planet. Is it really fair to let the Klingons claim ownership if they have never set foot on it or even know it exists? I'm sure there are many independent planets within Federation space, and it doesn't make them property of the Federation if the inhabitants settled there when it was Andorian controlled space.

 

[Discofan]

It might be in space controlled by the Klingons, but I would think it would take more than drawing a line on a map to actually claim ownership of a planet. Is it really fair to let the Klingons claim ownership if they have never set foot on it or even know it exists? I'm sure there are many independent planets within Federation space, and it doesn't make them property of the Federation if the inhabitants settled there when it was Andorian controlled space.

I'll refer you to "Journey's End" when the Federation and the Cardassians were dividing planets between them based on a border. If that planet had squatting people on it, do you think it would have made any difference? To the Cardassians, it would definitely not and to the Federation they would have probably delocalized the people regardless of their wishes. Picard, for example, was a lot more hesitant than Netchaev would have been and she was an Admiral.

 

[DonIago]

I think it might be the case that the benevolent Federation lets planets within its recognized boundaries choose whether or not they want to actually join up or remain isolated (I guess that would involve their solar system plus maybe a few local systems?).

Things probably don't work out as well if you're living in Cardassian space when the Cardassians decide to take an interest in your world.

 

[Discofan]

And even if the Cardassians were tolerant of some, I shudder to think of what happened when the dominion took over. They barely acknowledged the Cardassians themselves, they wouldn't have thought twice before wiping out any non-Cardassian indigenous life and nonindigenous alike.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Wasn't the planet in Klingon space prior to being ceded to the Federation? In other words, weren't the Baku basically squatting?

...and for just a second I imagined how this would go if it was the Klingons involved rather than Starfleet...

Nothing ever said the briar patch was in anyone's space prior to the Federation's claim. This claim seems to be traceable solely to the ENT augment arc where the briar patch is mentioned (because the movie never even mentions Klingons and the ENT ep is the only other mention of the Briar patch in the franchise). But the line there simply says that the Klingons and Romulans fought a battle there once (no mention of them fighting over the patch, simply fighting near it) and the Klingons had a name for it (klach d'kel bracht), which doesn't mean they claimed it at all.

 

[Nightdiamond]

In other words they weren't indigenous, they were (at some point) warp capable, and the prime directive doesn't apply,

Sources say the Baku colonized the planet in 2066. Humans weren't even warp capable yet, and the Federation wouldn't exist for almost 100 years. Under that, the Feds definitely have no claim.

The Briar's Patch looks like a no man's land that various powers claimed at different times all while the Baku occupied it.

It seems like the Federation's own legal code or "interstellar law" says if you find a planet in unclaimed territory, with no occupants, it's a legal claim. The Federation has done this itself.

They were ignoring Baku sovereignty. Unless it shows otherwise, the Prime Directive applies.

possible, id add to those you mentioned which disappointed leading next film to have notable drop in box office (and often considered an even bigger disappointment critically) - Superman III/IV, Alien3/4, Prometheus/Covenant, Phantom Menace/Clones, Matrix Reloaded/Revolutions, Transformers 4/5, BvS/JL

Should have quit while they were ahead with the Transformers films--too many trips to the well.

And the Terminator films. The first two did great. The 3rd one was the turning point. The 4th turned everyone off and Genisys was a disaster.

I think Rise of Skywalker is going to be a massive hit because the fanbase is so big. But the fans are really divided on it. The fans are going to see it, but they're not going to like it--that's attitude they've been putting out.

 

[WarpFactorZ]

And then they take it out on the next movie. No one goes to see it. With The Last Jedi, it was Solo. With ID, it was Beyond. With Insurrection, it was Nemesis.

I don't think they took it out on the next movies. In fact, every follow-up movie in that list was awful (with Beyond being the most tolerable).

 

[Tosk]

In other words they weren't indigenous, they were (at some point) warp capable, and the prime directive doesn't apply,

Despite Dougherty making excuses, the Prime Directive still applies to species that have warp capabilities. Forcibly removing people from their home is interference.

 

[DonIago]

Nothing ever said the briar patch was in anyone's space prior to the Federation's claim. This claim seems to be traceable solely to the ENT augment arc where the briar patch is mentioned (because the movie never even mentions Klingons and the ENT ep is the only other mention of the Briar patch in the franchise). But the line there simply says that the Klingons and Romulans fought a battle there once (no mention of them fighting over the patch, simply fighting near it) and the Klingons had a name for it (klach d'kel bracht), which doesn't mean they claimed it at all.

Yeah, my memory on that was obviously a little fuzzy. It seems it may have been Klingon territory at some point, but that's not clearly established, and if it was, it may have postdated the Baku finding the planet...not that I think Klingons would care about such things.

As for interfering or not, once it's clear that the Son'a-Baku feud is between members of the same species, the Federation should be withdrawing from the conflict for the same reasons that they wouldn't get involved in the Klingon Civil War. If that doesn't work out so well for the pretty people? Well, I'm sure Our Heroes can offer humanitarian aid.

 

[Mojochi]

I can't think of a single thing about Insurrection that was better than Nemesis.

It didn't end with a knock-off sacrificial stunt, repurposed from an earlier incarnation of the franchise? Granted, that's the only example I could think of. Otherwise, both are equally insufferable slogs imho

 

[DonIago]

INS at least raises some philosophical questions that are more complicated than "nature vs. nurture".

 

[Smellmet]

I'd still rather watch nemesis any day. At least it makes the effort to entertain and excite, despite being derivative in parts.

 

[Nightdiamond]

I don't think they took it out on the next movies. In fact, every follow-up movie in that list was awful (with Beyond being the most tolerable).

I think it's a real thing.

I have a theory that Trek 2009 screwed up somewhat from the very start. They rushed everything, made Kirk an instant captain at the end of the movie. They skipped over a lot and relied on action too much.

There was no growth, no sense of bonding. ITD reflected that. Enough people went to see it, but they were so divided by it, that it was the tipping point where they didn't bother much to see Beyond.

It was a ripple effect that started with the 2009 movie.

Same with the new Star Wars trilogy except Solo was the victim. The other two movies can afford the criticism because the hype and fan base is too big.

A stand alone like Solo couldn't take the hit. They're probably going to hate/dislike the next one, but they're going to go see it anyway.

 

[donners22]

I have a theory that Trek 2009 screwed up somewhat from the very start. They rushed everything, made Kirk an instant captain at the end of the movie. They skipped over a lot and relied on action too much.

There was no growth, no sense of bonding. ITD reflected that. Enough people went to see it, but they were so divided by it, that it was the tipping point where they didn't bother much to see Beyond.

I have a simpler theory that Beyond was simply the least appealing to the general public, who make up the majority of potential cinemagoers.

That is supported by the fact that Into Darkness attracts far better user scores than Beyond - see IMDb, Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes - and that Beyond had a substantial drop-off after the first week, suggesting poor word of mouth. Into Darkness also did hugely superior numbers on disc sales.

I knew Beyond was in trouble from the first review I heard which said it was "one for the fans" - by implication, therefore, not for the vast majority of people who go to movies.

I daresay its failure is more due to that perception, plus poor advertising, a lack of a recognisable addition to the cast (contrast the prominence of the popular Cumberbatch in Into Darkness' advertising with the unrecognisable Elba in Beyond) and a lack of engagement with viewers.

 

[Smellmet]

I have a simpler theory that Beyond was simply the least appealing to the general public, who make up the majority of potential cinemagoers.

That is supported by the fact that Into Darkness attracts far better user scores than Beyond - see IMDb, Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes - and that Beyond had a substantial drop-off after the first week, suggesting poor word of mouth. Into Darkness also did hugely superior numbers on disc sales.

I knew Beyond was in trouble from the first review I heard which said it was "one for the fans" - by implication, therefore, not for the vast majority of people who go to movies.

I daresay its failure is more due to that perception, plus poor advertising, a lack of a recognisable addition to the cast (contrast the prominence of the popular Cumberbatch in Into Darkness' advertising with the unrecognisable Elba in Beyond) and a lack of engagement with viewers.

You make sound points here - pretty much everyone I know who are not Trek fans thought that Beyond was the weakest in the trilogy (I thought it was great and on a par with the other two). I really convinced myself it was going to be a 500m+ hit but in hindsight it had a lot working against it - the inflated budget, and crowded release date I would add to the points you make.

 

[Khan 2.0]

I have a simpler theory that Beyond was simply the least appealing to the general public, who make up the majority of potential cinemagoers.

That is supported by the fact that Into Darkness attracts far better user scores than Beyond - see IMDb, Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes - and that Beyond had a substantial drop-off after the first week, suggesting poor word of mouth. Into Darkness also did hugely superior numbers on disc sales.

I knew Beyond was in trouble from the first review I heard which said it was "one for the fans" - by implication, therefore, not for the vast majority of people who go to movies.

I daresay its failure is more due to that perception, plus poor advertising, a lack of a recognisable addition to the cast (contrast the prominence of the popular Cumberbatch in Into Darkness' advertising with the unrecognisable Elba in Beyond) and a lack of engagement with viewers.

Yes absolutely. Still not entirely sure what they should've done to celebrate the 50 and maintain the mainstream/'cool' appeal of the previous 2 films.. (sounds like Orci's ST3 had the same concerns and probably would've been just as fan orientated as 'Guardians' Trek Beyond ended up). maybe they shouldve just built on the ID Klingon stuff: Klingon threat/war about to happen (or already happening)/Kirk and Co attempts to avert everything going 'Yesterdays Enterprise' (maybe ending with a battle that mirrored the Enterprise C sacrifice that would end the war) ..so basically a loose remake of VI but no need for corrupt Starfleet as already done in ID (and no need for villain out for revenge again- Elba could've been unrecognisable as the lead Klingon warlord instead of some alien/human vampire). The Klingons were always the main Trek threat in the eyes of the mainstream and hadn't really been used in movies since VI/25th anniversary aside their ID 'cameo' (after seeing ID i'll bet most casual/non fans would've been thinking it'd be the Klingons as the main threat in the next film)

I know they sort of cleared it up at the end of ID by setting the Kirk speech a few months (year?) on as if to suggest everything was fine/cleared up but it couldve still been a thing to explore in next movie

 

[Smellmet]

Yes absolutely. Still not entirely sure what they should've done to celebrate the 50 and maintain the mainstream/'cool' appeal of the previous 2 films.. (sounds like Orci's ST3 had the same concerns and probably would've been just as fan orientated as 'Guardians' Trek Beyond ended up). maybe they shouldve just built on the ID Klingon stuff: Klingon threat/war about to happen (or already happening)/Kirk and Co attempts to avert everything going 'Yesterdays Enterprise' (maybe ending with a battle that mirrored the Enterprise C sacrifice that would end the war) ..so basically a loose remake of VI but no need for corrupt Starfleet as already done in ID (and no need for villain out for revenge again- Elba could've been unrecognisable as the lead Klingon warlord instead of some alien/human vampire). The Klingons were always the main Trek threat in the eyes of the mainstream and hadn't really been used in movies since VI/25th anniversary aside their ID 'cameo' (after seeing ID i'll bet most casual/non fans would've been thinking it'd be the Klingons as the main threat in the next film)

I know they sort of cleared it up at the end of ID by setting the Kirk speech a few months (year?) on as if to suggest everything was fine/cleared up but it couldve still been a thing to explore in next movie

This is what I always assumed the third movie would cover - hell they could have even broken Cumberbatch out of deep freeze again - could be the Klingons who wanted him for killing they people and Kirk and co had to get him back to avoid a war or something. Instead they went for something that was a little disconnected from the first two movies, and I think the box office suffered because of that too.

 

[DonIago]

I'd still rather watch nemesis any day. At least it makes the effort to entertain and excite, despite being derivative in parts.

I think it's a little unfair to the people involved with the writing to claim that they weren't even trying to do these things.

As far as Beyond and the general public, I suspect the biggest issue is that most of the film involves Our Heroes stuck on a fairly-generic planet with no ship, and arguably another fairly-generic villain.