• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Insurrection was the best NG movie.

It was by no means a great movie but I enjoyed it as a kid. It's been a while since I've seen it so maybe I wouldn't like it as much the second time around; I don't know.
 
I dunno, I kinda like more now. When I was a kid, I just thought the story was retarded. Now I like seeing the characters interacting with each other again. It's almost nostalgic.
 
This post has been deleted, as it is spam and also copied from Amazon.com's reviews. Thank you, the Management.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It was the first Trek film I saw in the cinema as a child (and I didn't go that often either, making it more special). I enjoyed it then, but now that my age has doubled, I can see its flaws much more clearly. It's not completely awful, but certainly could have used a few rewrites.
 
Chrisisall said:
And in spite of all those flaws, Insurrection still managed to be a better Next Generation movie than any of the others. :devil:

:techman:

I've come late to this party, but I need to point this out.

You're challenging other people to be objective and specific in their definition of what is bad about INS, yet you gave a thumbs up to Psion, who simply AGREES WITH YOU.

Shouldn't this go both ways? Shouldn't someone who actually likes INS give specific reasons?

I think you're painting yourself into quite the corner here with such hypocritical missteps.
 
I like all of the Next Generation movies. I think all four were vastly superior to the piece of trash released this year. Boy, Star Trek XI really sucked.
 
I like all of the Next Generation movies. I think all four were vastly superior to the piece of trash released this year. Boy, Star Trek XI really sucked.

Thank you. And while Insurrection doesn't get any real big points for the story it presented, I do give the writers credibility for writing a story that in no way involves Earth. Seriously, this is the ONLY Star Trek movie where Earth isn't seen, or to my memory even mentioned.
 
I really enjoy Insurrection.

The Baku are your typical unsympathetic "boo hoo, technology is lame" idiots, but I find that not to be the aspect of the movie I like or focus on.

The running theme throughout the movie of trying to capture and live in a perfect moment in time is just wonderful, and I can recall times in my life where I have felt like that. For that alone, Insurrection has a special spot for me. Data also felt more Data-y. I don't know how to explain it, but the Data in this movie felt more like the Data we knew on the series.

There's also a core moral dilemma at the heart of the film - which I feel is integral to Star Trek. Sure, the moral dilemma focuses on a bunch of unlikeable douchebags, but it's a solid dilemma with real-world relevance nonetheless.

Plus at the end of the day, it's a light-hearted romp and it at least FEELS like Star Trek, which is a lot more than I can say for Nemesis.

I'd say it's the second best TNG flick behind First Contact.
 
As far as I'm concerned, Insurrection is okay if you regard it as a missing TV 2-parter episode, but as a movie, it's deeply flawed.
 
Thank you. And while Insurrection doesn't get any real big points for the story it presented, I do give the writers credibility for writing a story that in no way involves Earth. Seriously, this is the ONLY Star Trek movie where Earth isn't seen, or to my memory even mentioned.
Generations?
 
Thank you. And while Insurrection doesn't get any real big points for the story it presented, I do give the writers credibility for writing a story that in no way involves Earth. Seriously, this is the ONLY Star Trek movie where Earth isn't seen, or to my memory even mentioned.
Generations?

I was thinking Generations too, but there are scenes on the Nexus set on Earth so you're never completely disconnected from it in that movie.
 
Well, to be honest, there's a difference between Earth appearing and Earth being the focus.
 
Insurrection had a good story with believable character motivations, good FX, and a meaningful & subtle semi-love interest for Picard.
I've heard much negativity about it, but rarely much beyond "Meh, it's like a long episode!"
LOL, like that's a bad thing???

Yes, it is. A film should feel like a film. It should feel much bigger, much more epic, much grander, than can be accomplished on the television screen.
 
Well, to be honest, there's a difference between Earth appearing and Earth being the focus.

Part of the appeal of seeing Earth - in the early films, at least - is that this was something new for Star Trek. Remember, in the original series we saw Earth in the past, Earth-like planets, recreations of environments on Earth, but our characters never actually went to their contemporaneous, regular Earth they'd call home. So seeing this glimpses of this futuristic society in the Trek movies was a nice touch.

Anyway... it's Earth. Audiences care and relate to Earth, we live here, we don't live with the pre-industrial peoples of Veridian III. It's an anchor into the fantasy of the space opera universe.

Insurrection had a good story with believable character motivations, good FX, and a meaningful & subtle semi-love interest for Picard.
I've heard much negativity about it, but rarely much beyond "Meh, it's like a long episode!"
LOL, like that's a bad thing???

Yes, it is. A film should feel like a film. It should feel much bigger, much more epic, much grander, than can be accomplished on the television screen.
A film should feel like a film, not a telemovie, but it doesn't follow that a film needs to be 'big', 'epic', etc., though this is typically the formula for movies based on sci-fi/fantasy TV shows (notoriously: Serenity).

It's entirely possible to make a good movie which isn't more epic, grander, and so forth. For my money Moon was the best sci-fi film of this year, and it's comparatively low-key... but not without feeling wholly cinematic in ways INS never did.

This obviously isn't a wise approach with a Trek film since people have come to expect action-adventure spectacle, but I wouldn't on principle rule it out of a definition as to what a film feels like.
 
INS tends to be my favorite of the TNG films also. Although I get the "big episode" feel, it is on a larger, more spectacular scale, than any TV episode. Even the final eps of DS9 doesn't have the kind of location shooting and heavy use of FX as INS.

I do think there is something of a "setback" in Data's character in this film: it's almost as if he's timewarped back to S2 or S3 in terms of his understanding of humanity. But I think there are good reasons for it ~ to re-tell the Data Equation to a broader audience.

Although the Klingon zits are silly, Worf + bazooka = Win.
 
Thank you. And while Insurrection doesn't get any real big points for the story it presented, I do give the writers credibility for writing a story that in no way involves Earth. Seriously, this is the ONLY Star Trek movie where Earth isn't seen, or to my memory even mentioned.
Generations?

I was thinking Generations too, but there are scenes on the Nexus set on Earth so you're never completely disconnected from it in that movie.

Anybody forgot that the movie again begins with a ship in drydock in Earth orbit? For like the 100th friggin' time!

Every TOS movie was focused on Earth, with the Enterprise waiting in drydock for a new mission. I'm glad the TNG movies got away from that.
 
Remember, in the original series we saw Earth in the past, Earth-like planets, recreations of environments on Earth, but our characters never actually went to their contemporaneous, regular Earth they'd call home.

...other than the brief glimpse of Mojave.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top