Is the lack of 'arc' elements in the TNG films a problem?

[Lance]

One thing which really jumps out at me when I watch Star Trek I - X these days is just how much of a marked difference there is in the structure of the TOS films and that of the TNG crew. TMP stands on it's own (deliberately, as none of the others wanted to acknowledge it), but every film from TWOK through to TUC basically has arc elements. There's a pretty good flow-through all the way from the second film to the four. TFF breaks it up a little, bit still manages to carry a few elements along, and TUC basically acts as a coda to the TWOK/TSFS/TVH 'trilogy'. Even the Kirk parts of GENS kind of carry these character arcs forward a bit.

By contrast, the TNG films almost seemed determined to stand alone as much as possible. I can't help but imagine this contributes to the regular criticism that that they feel "too episodic"; that they feel like "two-part episodes on the big screen". There's an individualism to them which contrasts to the way the TOS films were structured. TWOK/TSFS/TVH/TFF/TUC really felt like they were expanding the canvas on which they were telling their stories. The TNG films, in contrast to the television series they span off from, almost feel like they go the opposite direction. Like they were saying, "hey, we don't want to get heavy with arc elements". Just about the only thing of consequence was Troi and Riker finally getting hitched, something which played out over two films -- but in a way even that feels too little, too late.

 

[BillJ]

Episodic or not, the films simply didn't tell engaging stories.

 

[C.E. Evans]

I really kind of felt that Insurrection could have been the start of a story arc uncovering something not particularly right at the heart of Starfleet and/or the Federation. The Briar Patch incident could have just been the tip of the iceberg...

 

[BillJ]

I really kind of felt that Insurrection could have been the start of a story arc uncovering something not particularly right at the heart of Starfleet and/or the Federation. The Briar Patch incident could have just been the tip of the iceberg...

I guess. If you find eminent domain "not particularly right".

 

[cbspock]

They had horrible stories, they weren't true to the series, and they were pretty lame.


-Chris

 

[C.E. Evans]

I really kind of felt that Insurrection could have been the start of a story arc uncovering something not particularly right at the heart of Starfleet and/or the Federation. The Briar Patch incident could have just been the tip of the iceberg...

I guess. If you find eminent domain "not particularly right".

When it comes to kicking people out of their homes against their will and joining forces with thugs, I don't think your idea of "eminent domain" could possibly be seen as particularly right.

 

[BillJ]

I really kind of felt that Insurrection could have been the start of a story arc uncovering something not particularly right at the heart of Starfleet and/or the Federation. The Briar Patch incident could have just been the tip of the iceberg...

I guess. If you find eminent domain "not particularly right".

When it comes to kicking people out of their homes against their will and joining forces with thugs, I don't think your idea of "eminent domain" could possibly be seen as particularly right.

I'll leave this one go. I've derailed enough movie threads pointing out the fallacies involved in Insurrection.

 

[sonak]

I really kind of felt that Insurrection could have been the start of a story arc uncovering something not particularly right at the heart of Starfleet and/or the Federation. The Briar Patch incident could have just been the tip of the iceberg...

I guess. If you find eminent domain "not particularly right".

When it comes to kicking people out of their homes against their will and joining forces with thugs, I don't think your idea of "eminent domain" could possibly be seen as particularly right.

in other words, yes, you find eminent domain to be a huge, interstellar injustice worthy of a major film. Star Trek: Insurrection "to boldly prevent a small community of smug Luddites from being inconvenienced by eminent domain."

Ok, so it worked for you. As BillJ wrote though, no more hijacking of the thread.


I don't think the flaws of the TNG films were their episodic nature. INS and NEM just had some major problems-INS' premise and story was simply lousy, and it amazes me that no one on the staff caught it.

NEM had a workable and decent premise ruined by some bad execution and some story elements.


Also, the ridiculous focus on Picard and Data to the exclusion of so many other characters didn't help.

 

[C.E. Evans]

I guess. If you find eminent domain "not particularly right".

When it comes to kicking people out of their homes against their will and joining forces with thugs, I don't think your idea of "eminent domain" could possibly be seen as particularly right.

in other words, yes, you find eminent domain to be a huge, interstellar injustice worthy of a major film. Star Trek: Insurrection "to boldly prevent a small community of smug Luddites from being inconvenienced by eminent domain."

Um, nice trying to put words in my mouth, but I can speak for myself (and actually say what I mean, not what you think), thank you.

No, what I find wrong is the Federation agreeing to relocate people from a planet that didn't belong to the Federation or their Son'a partners.

 

[BillJ]

No, what I find wrong is the Federation agreeing to relocate people from a planet that didn't belong to the Federation or their Son'a partners.

When the S'ona were expelled, were they compensated for their lost property? If not, then a case could be made that the planet belongs just as much to the S'ona as the Ba'ku.

Star Trek: Insurrection, is by far, my least favorite Trek outing. Yet I think I've written far more about it than all other Trek combined.

 

[sonak]

When it comes to kicking people out of their homes against their will and joining forces with thugs, I don't think your idea of "eminent domain" could possibly be seen as particularly right.

in other words, yes, you find eminent domain to be a huge, interstellar injustice worthy of a major film. Star Trek: Insurrection "to boldly prevent a small community of smug Luddites from being inconvenienced by eminent domain."

Um, nice trying to put words in my mouth, but I can speak for myself (and actually say what I mean, not what you think), thank you.

No, what I find wrong is the Federation agreeing to relocate people from a planet that didn't belong to the Federation or their Son'a partners.

Both of them had a legal claim to the planet.

 

[Jeyl]

Also, the ridiculous focus on Picard and Data to the exclusion of so many other characters didn't help.

And the inclusion of characters who have lots of story time devoted to them even though they're only one shot characters who will never be mentioned again in any future endeavor. Lilly was a great character, but also an unfortunate reminder that the writers and producers have zero faith in the other main characters of the show. Beverly Crusher's only role in the entire movie is to bring aboard the character who gets all the development time with Picard even though Beverly has had a very long and interesting history with Picard and the Borg. She was there trying to help Picard when he was assimilated, and when Picard wanted to use the lone borg drone Hugh as a weapon to annihilate the entire Borg race. It's just disappointing.

But nothing is compared to LeVar Burton's treatment in Nemesis.

 

[C.E. Evans]

When the S'ona were expelled, were they compensated for their lost property? If not, then a case could be made that the planet belongs just as much to the S'ona as the Ba'ku.

So that's how theft is legalized?

in other words, yes, you find eminent domain to be a huge, interstellar injustice worthy of a major film. Star Trek: Insurrection "to boldly prevent a small community of smug Luddites from being inconvenienced by eminent domain."

Um, nice trying to put words in my mouth, but I can speak for myself (and actually say what I mean, not what you think), thank you.

No, what I find wrong is the Federation agreeing to relocate people from a planet that didn't belong to the Federation or their Son'a partners.

Both of them had a legal claim to the planet.

So did the Ba'ku, but they were willing to ignore that.

 

[BillJ]

So did the Ba'ku, but they were willing to ignore that.

For me, the Federation is involved because it will allow the Ba'ku culture to go on. Without Federation involvement, nothing stops the S'ona from going in and scooping up the Ba'ku and dumping them on the first rock they find or just firing up the collector and cooking the Ba'ku.

 

[BillJ]

So that's how theft is legalized?

So you're saying it was okay for the Ba'ku to take the S'ona homes and lands without compensation? Isn't that theft as well?

 

[C.E. Evans]

So did the Ba'ku, but they were willing to ignore that.

For me, the Federation is involved because it will allow the Ba'ku culture to go on. Without Federation involvement, nothing stops the S'ona from going in and scooping up the Ba'ku and dumping them on the first rock they find or just firing up the collector and cooking the Ba'ku.

So what's to stop the Federation from taking over any planet it feels like taking?

 

[BillJ]

So did the Ba'ku, but they were willing to ignore that.

For me, the Federation is involved because it will allow the Ba'ku culture to go on. Without Federation involvement, nothing stops the S'ona from going in and scooping up the Ba'ku and dumping them on the first rock they find or just firing up the collector and cooking the Ba'ku.

So what's to stop the Federation from taking over any planet it feels like taking?

If you're the Federation, do you believe the S'ona are going to leave the Ba'ku alone if you say no? Do you believe that no other race in the Alpha Quadrant is going to be interested in the life extending properties of meta-phasics? Would you be willing to spend Federation lives to protect those six-hundred people while in the middle of another, far larger, conflict?

The Federation chose the best option available to protect those six-hundred people.

 

[C.E. Evans]

For me, the Federation is involved because it will allow the Ba'ku culture to go on. Without Federation involvement, nothing stops the S'ona from going in and scooping up the Ba'ku and dumping them on the first rock they find or just firing up the collector and cooking the Ba'ku.

So what's to stop the Federation from taking over any planet it feels like taking?

If you're the Federation, do you believe the S'ona are going to leave the Ba'ku alone if you say no? Do you believe that no other race in the Alpha Quadrant is going to be interested in the life extending properties of meta-phasics? Would you be willing to spend Federation lives to protect those six-hundred people, while in the middle of another far larger, conflict?

The Federation chose the best option available to protect those six-hundred people.

That's not answering my question, so I'll ask you again--what's to stop the Federation from invading any planet it wants? That was essentially the question Picard asked Dougherty.

The Federation can't be everywhere and can't protect every world from thugs, but this was a case in which the Federation chose to lie down with thugs and aid in the theft of a planet that wasn't theirs.

 

[BillJ]

That's not answering my question, so I'll ask you again--what's to stop the Federation from invading any planet it wants? That was essentially the question Picard asked Dougherty.

The Federation can't be everywhere and can't protect every world from thugs, but this was a case in which the Federation chose to lie down with thugs and aid in the theft of a planet that wasn't theirs.

Every situation is unique and you know it. Part of it is ethics, part is payoff and part is simply is a given move practical. They all three weigh heavily in any decision that would be made.

But let's not pretend the Federation hasn't used planets with living, sentient lifeforms on them before as either bargaining chips (Journey's End) or to better the lives of Federation citizens at large (Devil in the Dark, Friday's Child). Did the Federation give the Cardassians whose worlds they were taking a vote on whether or not they wanted to give up their homes and Cardassian citizenship?

Remember how pissed Picard was when a junior officer stuck his nose into a mission that he had no real grasp of? He did the same thing in Insurrection.

 

[sonak]

When the S'ona were expelled, were they compensated for their lost property? If not, then a case could be made that the planet belongs just as much to the S'ona as the Ba'ku.

So that's how theft is legalized?

Um, nice trying to put words in my mouth, but I can speak for myself (and actually say what I mean, not what you think), thank you.

No, what I find wrong is the Federation agreeing to relocate people from a planet that didn't belong to the Federation or their Son'a partners.

Both of them had a legal claim to the planet.

So did the Ba'ku, but they were willing to ignore that.

um, no, that's not what I'm saying. Both the UFP and the Son'a have a right to the planet-the UFP because of where the planet is, the Son'a because that's where they were living for so long and that they were part of the group that landed there.


The Son'a were kicked off the planet by the Baku. Why in your mind do they NOT have the right to do exactly the same to the Baku?

if you deny the Son'a claim, then the Baku one falls apart.


this is the whirlpool of fail that one gets sucked into when it comes to trying to defend the premise of INS.