The TV episodes were free to watch. If I'm going to pay money to see the latest adventure, it had better offer up something more "alien of the week."
LAY OFF Insurrection/Nemesis
- Thread starter sovereign
- Start date
I think I'm leaning in JarodRussell's direction on this one. I don't necessarily equate "high stakes" with "good story". Seems to me that if it's entertainingly and interestingly done, you could make a good movie about a kid who's trying his darndest not to keep missing the school bus! I suppose it's a bit different with heroic-type characters, but still...
"High stakes" might not strictly be necessary, but "Something we could possibly give a shit about" definitely helps.
True enough. In Insurrection, the So'na to me were just creepy weirdos and didn't exactly grab my intrigue. The Ba'ku were just...there.
Funny thing is, when Insurrection came out, either Sky and Telescope or Astronomy magazine had a big article about how the movie didn't hold up scientifically, on account of the evolution of the planet and the dietary needs of its inhabitants (some weird talk about mirror dna helixes or something
). What I didn't get, is where has this writer been for the last thirty-plus years? Has he never seen Star Trek before? Or any science fiction, for that matter? I thought they unfairly targeted this particular film for criticism.
Funny thing is, when Insurrection came out, either Sky and Telescope or Astronomy magazine had a big article about how the movie didn't hold up scientifically, on account of the evolution of the planet and the dietary needs of its inhabitants (some weird talk about mirror dna helixes or something
). What I didn't get, is where has this writer been for the last thirty-plus years? Has he never seen Star Trek before? Or any science fiction, for that matter? I thought they unfairly targeted this particular film for criticism.Just like the ten movies before them. Only difference is that the Abrams movies were successful, where the previous ten were hit-and-miss, to put it generously.
There's a reason they didn't make money.
I presume that you mean you see more "The Next Generation" in those films than what came after. There's plenty of "Star Trek" (TOS if you prefer) in the Abrams movies, and next to none in Insurrection or Nemesis.
Why couldn't they have faith in the TNG franchise?
Imagine, for Generations, a budget similar to the one for ST09 had been approved, and Someone like JJ Abrams allowed to work with the TNG writers to come up with something worthy of the TNG crew (with no stupid laundry lists).
I liked the two recent Star Trek films with nuKirk, and can only feel how we never got a TNG film that even approached that kind of scope.
So fuck you Paramount! Fuck you sideways!
A
Amaris
Guest
No. Because you wish it.
Seriously, though, just like what you like, let other people like what they like.
INS was an ok film, though did have its flaws such as: the two-dimensional Son'a (they look hiddeous therefore they must be evil), the cringe-inducing Data and Artim scenes, to mention just a couple. It did however have some nice points, I liked some of the new alien looks, as well as the Son'a ships (shame wwe never saw them in the Dominion War).
NEM however was just bad. There were too many things just off or plainly wrong with the film that there really is no way to redeem it.
NEM however was just bad. There were too many things just off or plainly wrong with the film that there really is no way to redeem it.
No. Because you wish it.
Seriously, though, just like what you like, let other people like what they like.
Nice TSFS reference. Made me chuckle
I've hated Insurrection since opening night back in 98. The crappy box office had nothing to do with it. I thought Insurrection was an awful movie then and I think it's an awful movie now. But I'll tell you what. I will lay off of Insurrection when everybody on the internet lays off of The Phantom Menace. Deal?
Insurrection should feel epic. It doesn't. Even all these years later I still can't quite put my finger on exactly why, though. It's just my gut feeling, "It feels wrong".
The stakes are small. An epic should be about the most important thing happening to the protagonists --- more, it should be something which makes the protagonists realize things are vaster than they had imagined --- but for the Enterprise crew, well, this is just the Species of the Week, and the Weekian's problems, however dire they are, just aren't that important.
If the protagonists were the Weekians they could have had an epic, but it would be a very odd Trek film if the Enterprise crew were just the people who popped in and helped them through the crisis.
A
Amaris
Guest
No. Because you wish it.
Seriously, though, just like what you like, let other people like what they like.
Nice TSFS reference. Made me chuckle
Then my job here is done. [/removes pants] [/dives into swimming pool filled with champagne]
Insurrection should feel epic. It doesn't. Even all these years later I still can't quite put my finger on exactly why, though. It's just my gut feeling, "It feels wrong".
The stakes are small. An epic should be about the most important thing happening to the protagonists --- more, it should be something which makes the protagonists realize things are vaster than they had imagined --- but for the Enterprise crew, well, this is just the Species of the Week, and the Weekian's problems, however dire they are, just aren't that important.
If the protagonists were the Weekians they could have had an epic, but it would be a very odd Trek film if the Enterprise crew were just the people who popped in and helped them through the crisis.
They both strongly deserve criticism and Nemesis especially should be noted as a pretty big precursor to the Abrams movies.
It's OK for Insurrection to be a little smaller scale and to involve some moral ambiguity but the stakes should indeed be higher than one rogue admiral.
It's OK for Insurrection to be a little smaller scale and to involve some moral ambiguity but the stakes should indeed be higher than one rogue admiral.
IIRC, original drafts had the Enterprise battling turncoat Starfleet vessels while trying to escape the nebula to contact the Federation. That really would have meant that it was more than one rogue admiral, and that he had the muscle to bully a planet and indeed force relocation. But, as pointed out earlier, the Sona themselves were really lackluster and the Admiral himself was incompetent on several levels (at least giving him his own task force would show *some* kind of leadership in action).
what's with the references to "rogue admiral?"
Dougherty wasn't rogue, he was acting on explicit orders from the Federation Council. Picard was violating lawful orders from a superior officer, which in a realistic military or quasi-military scenario, would put him in deep trouble.
Even Kirk got demoted for it in TVH. Picard however, gets off with nothing because apparently he gets to violate whatever orders he personally disagrees with, even though he'd chew out someone like Wesley Crusher for doing that.
That part of the story involved trying to notify other authorities and that Picard didn't seem at all concerned about his future at the end implied that Dougherty had misinformed the authorities initially and/or was stretching his orders. Regardless, the film didn't give enough weight to the ideas that the Federation was in the wrong and that the heroes were taking risks in opposing it.
