Insurrection was the best NG movie.

[Chrisisall]

Insurrection was preachy while based on a flawed moral premise

What? I'm missing something- what was the flaw? That forced relocation of a people is bad?

one that tells you from the start who the good guys and bad guys are and expects you to support that stance, without any subtlety or moral ambiguity or attention to arguments of the other side

I'm actually with you on this one.

 

[DevilEyes]

Insurrection was preachy while based on a flawed moral premise

What? I'm missing something- what was the flaw? That forced relocation of a people is bad?

In that case, since I'm feeling to lazy to explain it and someone else already has, I'll just quote another part of that wonderful rant in comment 3 on Jammer's review page:

We, the audience, are also supposed to fully support the Ba'ku's territorial claim and the morality of the crew of the Enterprize. The problem here is that anyone reasonable -wouldn't- approve of either; the planet is in Federation territory, and the Federation is exercising its right to that territory by moving these god-awful self-righteous primitive screw heads off it, rather than let them die horribly as they really could have. Since the Ba'ku themselves are not indigenous species, they can hardly claim rights on the planet that is in Federation space. Hmm... some advanced technology could really help right about now, huh?

Ethically, the Ba'ku don't have a leg to stand on either. The Ba'ku want the planet because... they want the planet. Furthermore, they want to keep the planet all to themselves and give a big middle-finger salute to the rest of the universe. Meanwhile, the Federation wants the planet to improve the standard of living and lives of -trillions- of people. The Ba'ku are selfish assholes who, quite frankly, deserved to fry with their planet. They do not have the moral high ground here. This is a decision weighing the -minor inconvenience- (relocation) of a few hundred people vs the health and well being of billions if not trillions. Only the most rigid, inflexible deontologist could possibly find issue here. It doesn't make the crew of the Enterprise look like heroes sticking to their moral guns, it makes them look like fanatic idiots worshiping doctrine and dogma and absconding free thought.

 

[LiLx]

I'm not sure I can pick a favorite, but I love Insurrection! I find the story really interesting and heartfelt.

 

[Chrisisall]

the Federation is exercising its right to that territory by moving these god-awful self-righteous primitive screw heads off it, rather than let them die horribly as they really could have.

*Edited out for reasons that would escape the peep I was going off on*

 

[C.E. Evans]

I tend to agree that Insurrection was the best TNG movie. First Contact had me up until they went back in time, Nemesis was a bit uneven (too put it kindly), and Generations left a bad taste in my mouth with the loss of Kirk and the Enterprise-D.

I'm not saying that Insurrection was a perfect movie (there are still a few cringe-worthy moments here and there), but it was the one I enjoyed the most, perhaps because it did feel the closest to an uprated television episode...

 

[Chrisisall]

it was the one I enjoyed the most, perhaps because it did feel the closest to an uprated television episode...

 

[Red Ranger]

Sorry, Chrisisall. Can't agree with you on INS. It's almost as flawed as NEM. The only two TNG movies I enjoyed were FC and GEN, the former because it was more of a movie movie than a glorified two-parter, and the latter because it had Picard and Kirk meet, which almost redeemed big parts of the movie that just didn't work. Hell, there were a number of TNG two-parters that would've made for a better movie than NEM and INS, like Best of Both Worlds, Gambit, or Redemption. -- RR

 

[BillJ]

Saving yuppies from 'Eminent Domain'... thrilling.

Ya got me there, that was hilarious.

I think it had its' moments but was built on a faulty premise like Enterprise season 3.

And while you say 'Eminent Domain' is Socialist/Communist dogma, it also has it's Star Trek equivalent: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few..."

If the 'insert technobabble radiation here' could do what the S'ona said it could do, then the Federation had every right to remove the Ba'ku. Who were nothing more than squatters anyways.

 

[Bones2]

^
That point about being squatters is true. The film could have gone some way to having a lot more clout if the Ba'ku were native to the planet.

 

[BillJ]

^
That point about being squatters is true. The film could have gone some way to having a lot more clout if the Ba'ku were native to the planet.

Even then, with only 600 inhabitants', I still kick them off the planet!

 

[Cyke101]

America's current economic climate brought about comparisons to the Baku in my head. You'll have tent cities erected by newly homeless people who have nothing left but each other. They do this in cities like LA and Detroit and while it may or may not be illegal depending on the city, sometimes the city has these tent cities move to a different location. Oftentimes it's not a bad thing, as moving these tent cities means moving them to a place where food, supplies, and even wifi would be more readily available for the tent city denizens. Since this is city property, it's up to the city to decide what to do with the tent cities, but the city isn't going to dismiss these tent city dwellers, either. They have every right to disband them, but the city tends to relocate them in order to help them.

In this case, the Baku would be the tent city dwellers and the Federation could be LA/Detroit.

 

[Bones2]

^
That point about being squatters is true. The film could have gone some way to having a lot more clout if the Ba'ku were native to the planet.

Even then, with only 600 inhabitants', I still kick them off the planet!

Yeah, but it gives the illusion of a moral dilemma at least. The film, as it stands, doesn't even have that when you scratch the surface.

 

[Aike]

Seriously, if Insurrection is the best TNG movie how come everyone started whining about how bad everything Trek was after its release?

No, Insurrection was a big disappointment. It was the Waterloo of Berman Trek.

 

[Chrisisall]

the Federation had every right to remove the Ba'ku. Who were nothing more than squatters anyways.

Even then, with only 600 inhabitants', I still kick them off the planet!

In this case, the Ba'ku would be the tent city dwellers and the Federation could be LA/Detroit.

Wow. I remember a time when Trek fans were a progressive lot, full of good will towards their fellow man & woman.

Now we are happy labeling peeps who settled a planet no one wanted as "squatters" because it has something suddenly discovered on it.

Lemme take a stab here- are you guys really young, like in your twenties? Supporting yourselves? Fans of Bush & the idea that there's this big monster terrorism we need to defend against? Just really scared little children, lookin' for Capitalism & Uncle Sam to save you?
That's the only place this idea that the Baku don't deserve to own their world can come from IMO...from peeps that never took a philosophy class, yet excelled in mathmatics. Peeps who can debate the meaning of individual words, but not their collective meaning when used to describe complex ideas of right & wrong.

Am I close?

I think I'll head over to the Rush Limbaugh fan board where things are a little less conservative...

 

[Cyke101]

the Federation had every right to remove the Ba'ku. Who were nothing more than squatters anyways.

Even then, with only 600 inhabitants', I still kick them off the planet!

In this case, the Ba'ku would be the tent city dwellers and the Federation could be LA/Detroit.

Wow. I remember a time when Trek fans were a progressive lot, full of good will towards their fellow man & woman.

Now we are happy labeling peeps who settled a planet no one wanted as "squatters" because it has something suddenly discovered on it.

Lemme take a stab here- are you guys really young, like in your twenties? Supporting yourselves? Fans of Bush & the idea that there's this big monster terrorism we need to defend against? Just really scared little children, lookin' for Capitalism & Uncle Sam to save you?
That's the only place this idea that the Baku don't deserve to own their world can come from IMO...from peeps that never took a philosophy class, yet excelled in mathmatics. Peeps who can debate the meaning of individual words, but not their collective meaning when used to describe complex ideas of right & wrong.

Am I close?

I think I'll head over to the Rush Limbaugh fan board where things are a little less conservative...

I don't think politics have anything to do with it. Like I said above, some of these tent cities have been relocated by the government in order to give them fresh supplies, career and therapy counseling, and free internet access for their own job hunts. If you're holed up in a park far away from wifi but you need it, doesn't it make sense to move to a stronger power source that's actually broadcasting a signal? And guess what? Not one complaint from these tent city dwellers. Quite the opposite, they've thanked the mayors of those respective cities, and quite a few have found jobs thanks to government support.

And if you must know, I've voted for Obama three times now: one for state senator, one for US senator, and one for president. As of now I'd happily give him a fourth vote in 2012. I've met Obama in a church basement close to a decade ago. I've marched in the streets -- on the front lines -- of various issues, from immigration reform to gay rights to improved education, and up next is a pro-health care reform rally (my 1960s Schwinn bicycle has seen more protests than the average person). I'd like to thank you for not putting words and beliefs in my mouth. One of the big tenets of the Democratic party is government intervention when it would save the most lives, which is exactly what LA and Detroit did (on their own accord) for those who lost their jobs and were forced by fate and circumstance to band together.

What you're talking about isn't about charity and goodwill, it's about refusing the help of the government in order to break established law. That's not conservative or liberal, that's fringe. It's really no different than David Koresh proclaiming his small compound as essentially a sovereign nation (Democrats Bill Clinton and Janet Reno and the mostly-Republican state of Texas, if you'll recall, had a big problem with that).

Additionally, since you're quite anti-Limbaugh, I'd have to ask, did you listen to Obama's latest address to the nation? It was about the 4th anniversary of Katrina and the promise that effective government intervention would be used to provide resources and living alternatives to unfortunate citizens and refugees displaced by similar situations, learning from a painful mistake made by the Bush Administration. Pardon me, but that does sound like a very Federation ideal, and the polar opposite of what Picard and Co. did in Insurrection. So when did Obama become a full-fledged right-wing conservative?

It's about a hand-up, not a hand-out, but the Baku could have gotten *both.*

 

[Chrisisall]

As a liberal myself, I'll politely have to ask you to get off your high horse, buddy.

But look! I can see my house from up here!

What you're talking about isn't about charity and goodwill, it's about refusing the help of the government in order to break established law. That's not conservative or liberal, that's fringe.

The Ba'ku didn't NEED government help.
Eminent Domain is what courts use against the little guy to make a bigger guy happy. The Federation had no right to remove the Ba'ku just because it wanted the planet they settled, IMO.
Giving homeless peeps assistance isn't the same thing.

 

[Cyke101]

As a liberal myself, I'll politely have to ask you to get off your high horse, buddy.

But look! I can see my house from up here!

What you're talking about isn't about charity and goodwill, it's about refusing the help of the government in order to break established law. That's not conservative or liberal, that's fringe.

The Ba'ku didn't NEED government help.
Eminent Domain is what courts use against the little guy to make a bigger guy happy. The Federation had no right to remove the Ba'ku just because it wanted the planet they settled, IMO.
Giving homeless peeps assistance isn't the same thing.

I edited to further back up the claim, especially the Branch Davidian precedent we had in the 90s. But they trespassed and yes, as a result of that trespass, they *would* need government help. It's the same with political refugees, too. If they find an uninhabited island off the coast of Maine but still within US coastal waters, those refugees would still have to answer to the government, no matter how liberal the government becomes. That's the law.

If a total stranger breaks into your home and shacks up on the couch with nothing to contribute, would you let that continue?

 

[Chrisisall]

as a result of that trespass, they *would* need government help.

Equating people in space finding an uninhabited planet with peeps partying on an island off Maine is quite a leap IMO.

BTW, I'm NOT a Liberal, and you are. Wouldn't know it from this conversation, though.

 

[Cyke101]

as a result of that trespass, they *would* need government help.

Equating people in space finding an uninhabited planet with peeps partying on an island off Maine is quite a leap IMO.

BTW, I'm NOT a Liberal, and you are. Wouldn't know it from this conversation, though.

But the rule of established law applies. It's there for a reason, to protect the sovereignty and property of a nation.

If I'm not a liberal, then Obama's downright facist. Again, listen to his Katrina address and compare it to Insurrection. What you're talking about lies almost beyond Ron Paul-level libertarianism (as opposed to UFP/USA authoritarianism), in that finders-keepers applies and government intervention/sovereignty should be kept to a minimum, if not outright eliminated from a section. It's anarchism and maximum individual property ownership, not liberalism which is concerned about sharing resources rather than hoarding them (sound familiar?).

 

[Good]

"Since this Eden-like planet has only 600 inhabitants, why couldn't they use the planet as a spa, circling inside those metaphasic rings and bathing in the radiation, which is probably faster-acting in space than down on the surface?

Far be it for me to contradict the director, but I think he didn't read the script. The point of taking the metaphasic ring-stuff was that the planet was out of the way and took weeks to get to. There wasn't time to bring all the wounded into the Briar Patch. The point was to take the particles and scatter them across the Federation.

After all, we're not talking magic here, are we? Above these practical questions looms a larger philosophical one. Wouldn't it be right to sacrifice the lifestyles of 600 Ba'ku in order to save billions? "I think maybe I would," said Jonathan Frakes, the film's director and co-star, when I asked him that question after the movie's press screening.

And ultimately, that's why this is a good movie. I disagree. I think bigger, stronger governments should not be able to bully around smaller ones because they 1) dislike the way that they live, and 2) want their stuff.

It's not a perfect movie, but it's a good one, and it has good bones. There are some problems with the way it all came together, but it's not a train wreck.

Oh yeah, I liked the gortch joke