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

[C.E. Evans]

did you watch the movie? The Son'a were involuntarily EXPELLED from the planet, they didn't leave voluntarily. It's a huge planet, but instead of sending them somewhere else on it, they kicked them off of it.

Doesn't make a bit of difference. If the planet's leaders told them to go, then they had to go.

It's an issue of planetary sovereignty, and if the planetary government doesn't want these people on their planet, then that's it. Case closed. Any attempt for those exiles to come back and take over the planet then becomes an invasion if the planetary government doesn't agree to it.

The Baku have to agree to removal but the Son'a don't.
so your position is arbitrary-got it.

No, you don't have it all. My position is merely that the planet belonged to the Ba'ku, not to an exiled group, and they reserved the right to determine who they want on it.

Don't know where your "the Ba'ku have to agree to removal" stuff comes from, though.

 

[BillJ]

Doesn't make a bit of difference. If the planet's leaders told them to go, then they had to go.

So if the United States decides black or gay people are disruptive elements, they can kick them out?

I'm sure there are many white supremacists who want to be your friend...

 

[C.E. Evans]

Doesn't make a bit of difference. If the planet's leaders told them to go, then they had to go.

So if the United States decides black or gay people are disruptive elements, they can kick them out?

I'm sure there are many white supremacists who want to be your friend...

Nice try, but obviously there's a major difference between the laws of the United States and the Ba'ku.

 

[BillJ]

Doesn't make a bit of difference. If the planet's leaders told them to go, then they had to go.

So if the United States decides black or gay people are disruptive elements, they can kick them out?

I'm sure there are many white supremacists who want to be your friend...

Nice try, but obviously there's a major difference between the laws of the United States and the Ba'ku.

But what you said is that it's okay for the Ba'ku to suppress and ultimately evict (after a power struggle) what they deem a disruptive presence.

While I can see your point (but disagree with it) that the Federation shouldn't be partnering with the S'ona. Picard shouldn't be protecting a group known to be violating human rights and using him to boot.

Why would Picard as an explorer be okay with a government suppressing a portion of their population who want to be explorers?

 

[C.E. Evans]

So if the United States decides black or gay people are disruptive elements, they can kick them out?

I'm sure there are many white supremacists who want to be your friend...

Nice try, but obviously there's a major difference between the laws of the United States and the Ba'ku.

But what you said is that it's okay for the Ba'ku to suppress and ultimately evict (after a power struggle) what they deem a disruptive presence.

But it wasn't about skin color, gender, or sexual orientation. At the time, they removed a group of fellow Ba'ku that had tried to take over their planet.

While I can see your point (but disagree with it) that the Federation shouldn't be partnering with the S'ona. Picard shouldn't be protecting a group known to be violating human rights and using him to boot.

The whole situation with the Son'a was dodgy and ultimately blew up in everyone's faces.

Why would Picard as an explorer be okay with a government suppressing a portion of their population who wants to be explorers?

Not sure what you mean by this.

 

[horatio83]

It's been a few years since I saw the movie so I might be mistaken, but once Picard discovred it was an internal affair wasn't it Dougherty he refused to obey the PD. True Picard was technically guilty as well, but in the case of Picard by that point didn't he know that the Ba'ku weren't a pre-warp culture. And he was trying to ensure that their right to live on that planet was upheld. It doesn't matter that they didn't evovle there, they had lived on it for decades.

Perhaps the difference between Picard an Dougherty, is that while Picard might be voiliting the letter of the PD he was at least trying to obey the spirit of it. Whilst Dougherty wasn't.

why is Picard "ensuring their right to live on that planet?"

This was a Son'a-Baku internal feud. The Son'a had just as much of a claim on the planet. Picard is taking sides in what is basically a civil war.

As is Doughtery. The key difference between them is that unlike Dougherty Picard took of his uniform, being well aware that he violates the Prime Directive.

Let's also not forget that Dougherty's course of action would have let to a forced relocation whereas Picard's deeds let to an end of violence, a prevention of an atrocity and a reconciliation between the two parties. Once they are again one people they can determine without violence, intrusion and above all democratically how they wanna proceed, i.e. whether they wanna stay on Ba'ku or extract the medical radiation thingy.

It is very important that you point out that the Ba'ku sent the Son'a into exile, that they are not the peaceful hippies they seem to be. But suppose that the Son'a had returned under a different leadership. Do you really think that they would have forbidden their disfigured and sick children to return home? The ending suggested otherwise.
I am not denying that the Ba'ku started the violence (yes, throwing somebody off the planet is an act of violence). But this doesn't give the Feds any rights to ally with a mass murderer like Ru'afo. Picard had to stop him and thus create the very possibility for a peaceful reunion. Dougherty didn't give a shit about anything besides precious medical assets and a new ally in the Dominion War.
He should have read the Bard like Picard, then he would have known that somebody like Ru'afo will sooner or later stab him in his back.

 

[C.E. Evans]

It's been a few years since I saw the movie so I might be mistaken, but once Picard discovred it was an internal affair wasn't it Dougherty he refused to obey the PD. True Picard was technically guilty as well, but in the case of Picard by that point didn't he know that the Ba'ku weren't a pre-warp culture. And he was trying to ensure that their right to live on that planet was upheld. It doesn't matter that they didn't evovle there, they had lived on it for decades.

Perhaps the difference between Picard an Dougherty, is that while Picard might be voiliting the letter of the PD he was at least trying to obey the spirit of it. Whilst Dougherty wasn't.

why is Picard "ensuring their right to live on that planet?"

This was a Son'a-Baku internal feud. The Son'a had just as much of a claim on the planet. Picard is taking sides in what is basically a civil war.

Yep but unlike Dougherty he took of his uniform and was well aware that he violated the Prime Directive.

Wasn't it a case by that time it was determined that the Prime Directive no longer applied to the Ba'ku?

Let's also not forget that Dougherty's course of action would have let to a forced relocation whereas Picard's deeds let to an end of violence and a reconciliation between the two parties.

But didn't Picard only take up arms once the Son'a said they were going to remove the Ba'ku by force?

 

[BillJ]

Let's also not forget that Dougherty's course of action would have let to a forced relocation whereas Picard's deeds let to an end of violence, a prevention of an atrocity and a reconciliation between the two parties. Once they are again one people they can determine without violence, intrusion and above all democratically how they wanna proceed, i.e. whether they wanna stay on Ba'ku or extract the medical radiation thingy.

This works under the assumption that what we see are the total of the S'ona. It's great if no others exist but I find that unlikely since they were able to subjugate two other species.

Other S'ona may still want to extract the radiation and have the tech to do it.

 

[horatio83]

And you think it is OK for them to respond to the violence of their parents, i.e. throwing them off the planet (not that they didn't want to go see the universe in the first place), with kidnapping or planned mass murder like Ru'afo did?
The dogmatic rigidity of the Ba'ku (they remind me of the folks from Shyamalan's The Village) isn't the problem, the existential ties of this race to the planet is. Neither generation knew this went they went separate ways. Now that they know it the obvious thing to do is to sit together, stop hating each other, questioning your own dogmas and principles and then work out a solution. Forcing the other side to do your will is not an option among civilized people.

 

[sonak]

Doesn't make a bit of difference. If the planet's leaders told them to go, then they had to go.

It's an issue of planetary sovereignty, and if the planetary government doesn't want these people on their planet, then that's it. Case closed. Any attempt for those exiles to come back and take over the planet then becomes an invasion if the planetary government doesn't agree to it.

The Baku have to agree to removal but the Son'a don't.
so your position is arbitrary-got it.

No, you don't have it all. My position is merely that the planet belonged to the Ba'ku, not to an exiled group, and they reserved the right to determine who they want on it.

Don't know where your "the Ba'ku have to agree to removal" stuff comes from, though.

because you said it wasn't OK for the Baku to be removed but it was for the Son'a to be kicked off. Even though there was a WHOLE PLANET to exile the Son'a to the other side of.

I swear, it's really funny to watch folks try to defend the absurd premise of INS.


"Watch Picard get in the middle of a civil war to save a smug group of hypocritical Luddites because he wants to get into one's pants, while lecturing OTHERS about moral purity."

 

[C.E. Evans]

The Baku have to agree to removal but the Son'a don't.
so your position is arbitrary-got it.

No, you don't have it all. My position is merely that the planet belonged to the Ba'ku, not to an exiled group, and they reserved the right to determine who they want on it.

Don't know where your "the Ba'ku have to agree to removal" stuff comes from, though.

because you said it wasn't OK for the Baku to be removed but it was for the Son'a to be kicked off. Even though there was a WHOLE PLANET to exile the Son'a to the other side of.

No, you're mistaken, because what I said was that the Ba'ku had the right to decide who lived on their planet. At the time, they exiled fellow Ba'ku who had tried to take it over. By the same token, the Ba'ku reserved the right not to be kicked off their world.

 

[horatio83]

The Baku have to agree to removal but the Son'a don't.
so your position is arbitrary-got it.

No, you don't have it all. My position is merely that the planet belonged to the Ba'ku, not to an exiled group, and they reserved the right to determine who they want on it.

Don't know where your "the Ba'ku have to agree to removal" stuff comes from, though.

because you said it wasn't OK for the Baku to be removed but it was for the Son'a to be kicked off. Even though there was a WHOLE PLANET to exile the Son'a to the other side of.

I swear, it's really funny to watch folks try to defend the absurd premise of INS.


"Watch Picard get in the middle of a civil war to save a smug group of hypocritical Luddites because he wants to get into one's pants, while lecturing OTHERS about moral purity."

The story does not really make clear what happened. All we know is that the Son'a wanted a different life, that the Ba'ku have been rigid, that the Son'a tried to take over and that they have been sent into exile.
I doubt that they have been forced off the planet, how could the Ba'ku tell where their children with spaceships land. They could just land 100 miles away but why should they, they wanted to see the galaxy anyway.

So yeah, the background is as always not sketched out perfectly and I think it is important that you point out the errors of the Ba'ku. But to excuse the violence of the Son'a is just appalling.
Picard created the very conditions for peaceful coexistence whereas the Son'a fans are fine with kidnapping and murder. In the end it always boils down to very basic things.

 

[horatio83]

Not sure what you mean by this.

Neither do I. They wanted to explore the galaxy and got what they wanted.

If this is a "human" rights violation I wonder what kidnapping, mass murder and theft of a planet are.
By the way, in the real world you also see that human rights are misused to rationalize an imperialist agenda. "We are in Afghanistan to protect the poor women from the nasty Taliban" (but do not give a shit about whether Karzai is better) and stuff like that.

Dougherty wants a precious medical asset and an ally in the Dominion War, Picard wants the violence to stop. It is not a complicated movie and follows the typical TNG pattern of Picard fighting against an evil Admiral.
Of course one can start to question the villain, whether he actually has a point and so on but gee, that's like saying that Khan is the good guy because Kirk did not care about how well he does in his self-chosen exile and is thus responsible for all the Augment deaths.

 

[sonak]

No, you don't have it all. My position is merely that the planet belonged to the Ba'ku, not to an exiled group, and they reserved the right to determine who they want on it.

Don't know where your "the Ba'ku have to agree to removal" stuff comes from, though.

because you said it wasn't OK for the Baku to be removed but it was for the Son'a to be kicked off. Even though there was a WHOLE PLANET to exile the Son'a to the other side of.

No, you're mistaken, because what I said was that the Ba'ku had the right to decide who lived on their planet. At the time, they exiled fellow Ba'ku who had tried to take it over. By the same token, the Ba'ku reserved the right not to be kicked off their world.

so again, what you're saying is that it's OK that the Baku forcibly expelled a group off of an entire planet that was mostly empty, but it's just a huge ethical violation for those who were wronged to come back and remove those who exiled him, and in doing so, provide huge medical benefits to billions.


if that's your position, then fine. I just think it's a silly and pretty arbitrary one.

 

[horatio83]

Legally they might have exiled them but practically the Ba'ku can only have forced them out of their town as they have no technology to check whether they have settled anywhere else on the planet.
Young people who just tried to take over are not really the type that cares about legal matters. They wanted to explore the galaxy and that's why they went away. Once their medical problems started they could have just went home and settled somewhere else. The Ba'ku are not responsible for their illness.

The So'na wanted to gain the profits of their planet as well as continue their life in space and instead of talking with the Ba'ku and work out a compromise they resorted to a violent solution. "We are stronger so we can just throw them out and take what we want with the help of our stupid Federation allies who always talk about principles but due to their dire war with the Dominion do not care at all that we are nasty SOBs who have already subjugated two other species and are now ready to subjugate our parents".

 

[C.E. Evans]

because you said it wasn't OK for the Baku to be removed but it was for the Son'a to be kicked off. Even though there was a WHOLE PLANET to exile the Son'a to the other side of.

No, you're mistaken, because what I said was that the Ba'ku had the right to decide who lived on their planet. At the time, they exiled fellow Ba'ku who had tried to take it over. By the same token, the Ba'ku reserved the right not to be kicked off their world.

so again, what you're saying is that it's OK that the Baku forcibly expelled a group off of an entire planet that was mostly empty, but it's just a huge ethical violation for those who were wronged to come back and remove those who exiled him, and in doing so, provide huge medical benefits to billions.

Pay attention. What I actually said (more than once) was that the Ba'ku had the right to govern their own planet. Now, we don't have to like how they govern it, but it's not a requirement for us to like it. Still, it's their world and any attempt to take it from them without their permission can only be regarded as invasion and theft.

if that's your position, then fine. I just think it's a silly and pretty arbitrary one.

I think it's silly to say that the Ba'ku should allow people to take over their planet that they don't want to.

 

[BillJ]

Legally they might have exiled them but practically the Ba'ku can only have forced them out of their town as they have no technology to check whether they have settled anywhere else on the planet.

You just pointed to the biggest flaw in the film: the Ba'ku are liars. Ru'afo claims they were exiled to die (which is what happens when they leave the area of the planet) and no Ba'ku corrects him. We see the meta-phasic radiation has an effect even on people in spaceships.

Not only did the Ba'ku have to be able to get them off the planet and know they were not settled elsewhere. But the Ba'ku had to have a way to force the S'ona away from orbital space. If the Ba'ku were unable to enforce exile, the S'ona could've came back at any time to rejuvenate and collecting the particles would've never been an issue.

Then you have the Ba'ku serving the S'ona after Data shoots the duckblind, yet no Ba'ku recognize members of their own race?

For me, this was just a bad situation for the Federation. Unless you plan on letting the Ba'ku fend for themselves, you're going to have to defend them from either the S'ona or a foreign power who learns of meta-phasics. Nothing stays a secret forever...

 

[horatio83]

Via claiming that they lie and secretly have some technology you are really going off the deep end here. They were exiled but the writers did not really think about the problem I mentioned, that the Son'a cannot be forced off the planet, and that the Son'a wanted to see the galaxy anyway. It makes no sense once you think about it as always with background stuff.
We talk about a few lines and you cannot take such ordinary script issues and project them upon the figures inside of the story.

I absolutely have no problem with criticizing the movie. I hate the notion that premodern life is an option in general. You see it in some sci-fi movies in the last years as an option to deal with the consequences of climate change and of course some ecological guys preach this simpler life, back to nature kind of stuff. If you lived like the Ba'ku you'd have no time to spend decades for an art education as a large part of the population would have to work long days in the fields. A premodern economy will sooner or later make the society premodern, i.e. most likely feudal and monarchic. What the movie depicts is extremely unrealistic. Not that this is the point, it just wanted to portray an idyllic place which was kinda nice in a Trek movie where we rarely get so many outside shots.

But once I accept the setup of the movie and view it from the inside instead of the outside I cannot say that the Ba'ku are the bad guys.

 

[BillJ]

But once I accept the setup of the movie and view it from the inside instead of the outside I cannot say that the Ba'ku are the bad guys.

One, I cannot accept the setup of the movie. It makes my brain hurt that so many lapses in basic logic made it through the writing process.

Two, I can easily see the Ba'ku as just as morally bankrupt as the S'ona. They failed to mention to Picard that they were in a blood feud with the people they were serving cocktails to nor did they mention they may know who wanted their planet and they sent away their own children, who they had a philosophical divide with, to die.

Star Trek: Insurrection is simply a bad movie. It made the hero look as incompetent and naive as the "villain", which is truly saying something because Dougherty's plan looks like it was drawn up by a four-year old.

Inexcusable. You defied the orders of the ranking officer on the scene.

I will agree that the live-action cinematography was the best in a Trek film.

 

[horatio83]

I actually think that it is the most TNG-ish movie of the four as it follows the conventional pattern of "Picard vs. the evil Admiral" and I always like "me/we against our own organization" heroics even if they are as badly done as a conventional good guy vs. bad guys story as we have far too little people who have the guts to do that in the real world.
As you pointed out Dougherty is far less interesting than Satie or Nechayev who was obviously not evil but her divide with Picard about the needs of the many and the few was better done than in the case of Dougherty.


A little afterthought on the exile stuff you wrote about, I can easily imagine that the physical consequences of it, being thrown out of town or the planet, are less severe than the symbolic violence of this act. Of course the old and young generation have already gotten estranged from each other long before the coup and the exile but to cut all ties is nonetheless pretty harsh.
It's a bit like with Ghandi, of course he was totally non-violent in the conventional sense, he hasn't committed any acts of intersubjective violence, but in not recognizing the authority of the Brits he has committed an act of symbolic violence.
Or, not a good comparison but perhaps useful nonetheless, if a parents hits its child it might be less abusive than saying "I do not love you".

This might make it hard for the two groups to reconcile and work out their differences. Before they struggled with each other on the planet, then the Ba'ku said that this is the end of all relations and the Son'a under Ru'afo have done precisely what the Ba'ku wanted, not deal with them directly anymore.
I nonetheless wouldn't view this form of symbolic violence as problematic as actual violence.

Note that this is only stupid, idle speculation on my part, as I already said the story did, like all Trek stories, not occupy itself a lot with the background.