Learning to love "Insurrection"

[sonak]

Sometimes I get tired of defending this movie. In the Star Trek movies there is usually a evil humanoid looking to destroy the Enterprise or Earth. This movie doesn't do that. Outside of the choices made by Jonathan Frakes regarding F. Murray Abraham's character (he's a lot more interesting if subdued) and Will Riker playing with his joystick on the bridge of the Enterprise, this is a solid plot.

They built a culture for the first time in a long time in Trek movies. Actually, it's the first time. Having all the time in the world has allowed the Bak'u to be students for decades. This is something that could happen on earth. Rejecting technology as a means of peace is hardly a new idea, but it is done well in this movie.

The problem is that people don't listen to what is said on screen. The Bak'u are not only culture in this film. The Son'a are described as well. Makers of Ketrecel White, conquering the Tarlaq, going through regeneration procedures, etc. The Enterprise is acting in every imaginable way except being violent and savage (diplomats, explorers, defenders, etc.).

Data is in peril. We almost lose him and have to re-work his positronic brain in order to keep him functioning. Picard in the middle of this movie uses his brain and starts to sing to Data. He's trying to get through to him anyway he can. Data has more humanity to explore as well. He finds out what it is like to be a child, something he will never experience.

Picard is torn between what is right and what Federation policy is. He's not doing this for friendship the way that Kirk did for Spock, he is taking off the pips to do what is right and to stop the Federation from making a mistake. And at that point, he is sacrificing the new medicine that could develop, the changes to our society, to protect these 600 people on the planet.

The argument between Picard and the Admiral is very balanced. Each side has an argument and it's an interesting problem. Because we face this every day in foreign policy (regarding oil and our allies). We have forcefully relocated many races and it continues to be done around the world. This is something they tried (and failed) to explore with the Maquis. This is the moral conundrum--help millions by destroying 600 people, or leave the planet alone. Science research faces this problem every day. There's a lot of material, from a moral stance, explored in this film.

The relationship between the Son'a and Bak'u is interesting. Again, it's how the director treated the material that makes it seem like it's been done before.

We have big developments with characters, developed cultures, an interesting moral dilemma, and it shows Starfleet as more than madman stoppers. This is a Star Trek film where the others have failed. If that seems like something on television, it's because they've never tried it in the movie theatre before.

This isn't the best movie, but I like what it tries to do. People need to leave this one alone and just think about what we liked about Star Trek as we watch it.

good for you that you liked it, but I disagree that the movie presents an effective moral dilemma.

Stripped down to its basics, it comes down to the property rights of a tiny village vs. the medical and longevity benefits to BILLIONS.


That's not a dilemma, that's a joke. A dilemma has to be balanced.

 

[BillJ]

I think Plinkett got this right. The most infuriating thing about the Baku is that they look like characters in a douche commercial. It would have been far better if they had been some kind or insect people of something. The insulting thing about the whole movie is its very premise that pretty people are good and ugly people are bad.

That and DS9 over saturated the Trek world with Star Fleet people being bad. It's not what I watch the show for. I never enjoyed that.

The point is that they are healthy. That their health has been improved by living on the planet.

You can claim whatever point you like. But the final product was: young, pretty white people vs. old, gross folks. They even made Admiral Dougherty old and severe looking, it was like they were bashing us over the head with it.

I loathe Insurrection, they don't present a moral issue and allow the audience to decide who's right and wrong. They beat you over the head with their collective moral authority.

 

[HaventGotALife]

Sometimes I get tired of defending this movie. In the Star Trek movies there is usually a evil humanoid looking to destroy the Enterprise or Earth. This movie doesn't do that. Outside of the choices made by Jonathan Frakes regarding F. Murray Abraham's character (he's a lot more interesting if subdued) and Will Riker playing with his joystick on the bridge of the Enterprise, this is a solid plot.

They built a culture for the first time in a long time in Trek movies. Actually, it's the first time. Having all the time in the world has allowed the Bak'u to be students for decades. This is something that could happen on earth. Rejecting technology as a means of peace is hardly a new idea, but it is done well in this movie.

The problem is that people don't listen to what is said on screen. The Bak'u are not only culture in this film. The Son'a are described as well. Makers of Ketrecel White, conquering the Tarlaq, going through regeneration procedures, etc. The Enterprise is acting in every imaginable way except being violent and savage (diplomats, explorers, defenders, etc.).

Data is in peril. We almost lose him and have to re-work his positronic brain in order to keep him functioning. Picard in the middle of this movie uses his brain and starts to sing to Data. He's trying to get through to him anyway he can. Data has more humanity to explore as well. He finds out what it is like to be a child, something he will never experience.

Picard is torn between what is right and what Federation policy is. He's not doing this for friendship the way that Kirk did for Spock, he is taking off the pips to do what is right and to stop the Federation from making a mistake. And at that point, he is sacrificing the new medicine that could develop, the changes to our society, to protect these 600 people on the planet.

The argument between Picard and the Admiral is very balanced. Each side has an argument and it's an interesting problem. Because we face this every day in foreign policy (regarding oil and our allies). We have forcefully relocated many races and it continues to be done around the world. This is something they tried (and failed) to explore with the Maquis. This is the moral conundrum--help millions by destroying 600 people, or leave the planet alone. Science research faces this problem every day. There's a lot of material, from a moral stance, explored in this film.

The relationship between the Son'a and Bak'u is interesting. Again, it's how the director treated the material that makes it seem like it's been done before.

We have big developments with characters, developed cultures, an interesting moral dilemma, and it shows Starfleet as more than madman stoppers. This is a Star Trek film where the others have failed. If that seems like something on television, it's because they've never tried it in the movie theatre before.

This isn't the best movie, but I like what it tries to do. People need to leave this one alone and just think about what we liked about Star Trek as we watch it.

good for you that you liked it, but I disagree that the movie presents an effective moral dilemma.

Stripped down to its basics, it comes down to the property rights of a tiny village vs. the medical and longevity benefits to BILLIONS.


That's not a dilemma, that's a joke. A dilemma has to be balanced.

You wouldn't see it that way if it was the Cardassians doing this to some backwards Federation settlement.

The people who reject technology are going to be destroyed by it. Their lack of technology makes them vulnerable and they need Starfleet, who has learned this lesson through the Borg and the Dominion, to defend themselves. The scenes with the Bak'u where Picard vows to help them, is followed by Geordi watching a sunrise. We are seeing, first hand, through Picard, what the two sides are. It also talks about the effects of nuclear power, oil on the environment. It comments on the difference between the button pushed by politicans and the people they harm or destroy.

Admiral: You're looking well, Jean-Luc, rested.
Picard: I won't let you move them, Admiral. I will take this to the Federation Council.
Admiral: I'm acting on Orders from the Federation Council.
Picard: How can their be an order to abandon the Prime Directive?
Admiral: The Prime Directive doesn't apply. These people were not indigenous to this planet. They were never meant to be immortal. We'll simply be restoring them to their natural evolution.
Picard: Who the hell are we to determine the next course of evolution for these people!?!
Admiral: Jean-Luc, there are 600 people down there. We'll be able to use the regenerative properties of this radiation to help billions. The Son'a have developed a procedure to collect the metaphasic particles from the planet's rings.
Picard: A planet in Federation space.
Admiral: That's right. We have the planet, they have the technology. A technology we can't duplicate. You know what that makes us? Partners.
Picard: Our partners nothing more than petty thugs.
Admiral: On earth, petroleum once turned petty thugs into world leaders. Warp drive turned a bunch of Romulan thugs into an Empire. We can handle the Son'a. I'm not worried about that.
Picard: Someone probably once said the same thing about the Romulans a century ago.
Admiral: With metaphasics, lifespans will be doubled. An entire new medical science will evolve. I understand your Chief Engineer has use of his eyes for the first time in his life. Would you take that away from him?
Picard: There are metaphasic particles all over the Briar Patch. Why does it have to be this one planet?
Admiral: It's the concentration in the rings that makes the whole damn thing work. Don't ask me to explain it. I only know they inject something into the rings that starts a thermalitic reaction. When it's over, the planet will be uninhabitable for generations.
Picard: Admiral, delay the procedure. Let my people look at the technology.
Admiral: Our best scientific minds already have. We can't find any other way to do this.
Picard: Then the Son'a can establish a seperate colony on the planet until we do.
Admiral: It would take ten years of normal exposure to begin to reverse their condition. Besides, they don't want to live in the middle of the Briar Patch. Who would?
Picard: The Bak'u. We are betraying the principles upon which the Federation was founded. It's an attack upon its very soul. It will destroy the Bak'u just as cultures have been destroyed in every other relocation throughout history.

You have to see the morals in Star Trek, to understand how balanced this is.

 

[HaventGotALife]

I think Plinkett got this right. The most infuriating thing about the Baku is that they look like characters in a douche commercial. It would have been far better if they had been some kind or insect people of something. The insulting thing about the whole movie is its very premise that pretty people are good and ugly people are bad.

That and DS9 over saturated the Trek world with Star Fleet people being bad. It's not what I watch the show for. I never enjoyed that.

The point is that they are healthy. That their health has been improved by living on the planet.

You can claim whatever point you like. But the final product was: young, pretty white people vs. old, gross folks. They even made Admiral Dougherty old and severe looking, it was like they were bashing us over the head with it.

I loathe Insurrection, they don't present a moral issue and allow the audience to decide who's right and wrong. They beat you over the head with their collective moral authority.

Data and Picard are beautiful? The point of the "ugly" Son'a is to show a race that is dying. The point of the Admiral being old is to be believable. He has to have a long career. I will give you "white." Other then that, you are asking them to not be physically fit on a planet that promises youth and vitality.

 

[Mark 2000]

Data and Picard are beautiful?

I can name a lot of ladies who dig the Picard and the Riker, so yes. And Data is not really hard on the eyes. My point is that it's easy to make a stand for a J Crew catalog. It's another thing to force the audience to feel compassion for something they don't want to fuck. You know, like a Horta or a Gorn or a sparkly gas cloud. Think that extra layer of ethical questions that would bring up. "They're just bugs!" "No, all life is important" etc.

I personally think Insurrection pulls a cheap shot in that way. There's so much more wrong, but that's pretty lame.

 

[BillJ]

Data and Picard are beautiful? The point of the "ugly" Son'a is to show a race that is dying. The point of the Admiral being old is to be believable. He has to have a long career. I will give you "white." Other then that, you are asking them to not be physically fit on a planet that promises youth and vitality.

I know I've seen more than one or two people that find both Patrick Stewart and Brent Spiner attractive.

Why exactly did Dougherty have to be old to be believable? Kirk was an Admiral in his late-30's, Janeway in her mid-40's and Picard could've been one in his late-40's.

They tried to weight the movie in such a way that you could only feel empathy for the Ba'ku. But they failed miserably. They had Picard violate orders time and again because "he felt like it".

The movie's basic message is that those who have shouldn't have to share.

 

[HaventGotALife]

Data and Picard are beautiful? The point of the "ugly" Son'a is to show a race that is dying. The point of the Admiral being old is to be believable. He has to have a long career. I will give you "white." Other then that, you are asking them to not be physically fit on a planet that promises youth and vitality.

I know I've seen more than one or two people that find both Patrick Stewart and Brent Spiner attractive.

Why exactly did Dougherty have to be old to be believable? Kirk was an Admiral in his late-30's, Janeway in her mid-40's and Picard could've been one in his late-40's.

Exception, not the rule.

They tried to weight the movie in such a way that you could only feel empathy for the Ba'ku. But they failed miserably. They had Picard violate orders time and again because "he felt like it".

Then name me a couple of times because my only recollections are small ones. He left his uniform behind. He essentially quit his job and acted against Federation orders, inviting a court martial. Any time he went that far?

The movie's basic message is that those who have shouldn't have to share.

 

[CaptainStoner]

The movie's basic message is that those who have shouldn't have to share.

I never got that message at all from INS. As a certain Vulcan said, "there are always alternatives".
This film, for all its flaws, was not about a choice between the Ba'ku snubbing the galaxy, or their forced removal/mass murder. Those were not the only options.
The So'na, and the rogue Admiral, were circumventing all process and negotiation. That's why Picard countered them.

 

[sonak]

The movie's basic message is that those who have shouldn't have to share.

I never got that message at all from INS. As a certain Vulcan said, "there are always alternatives".
This film, for all its flaws, was not about a choice between the Ba'ku snubbing the galaxy, or their forced removal/mass murder. Those were not the only options.
The So'na, and the rogue Admiral, were circumventing all process and negotiation. That's why Picard countered them.

SFdebris,(not important if you know who he is or not for this point) in his review of St: INS brought up this argument:



Basically, the whole reason nobody in the film, not Picard, not Dougherty, not Ru'Afo, etc. EVER directly ask the Baku to share or even resettle to permit the rest of the galaxy to benefit from the resources on their planet is simple: THERE'S NO WAY TO ANSWER WITHOUT RUINING THE FILM.(Sorry for caps, but this is key)


Either the Baku say "yes, we'd be happy to share or resettle to allow billions access to this resource," and the movie's over, because it has no conflict.


Or, the Baku say "no way, we're not moving, finders keepers, sorry," and the audience has ZERO sympathy for these selfish, pretty Luddites. The movie doesn't work that way either.



it's a central plot flaw that shows how weak and poorly thought out this film's supposed "moral dilemma" is.

 

[HaventGotALife]

The movie's basic message is that those who have shouldn't have to share.

I never got that message at all from INS. As a certain Vulcan said, "there are always alternatives".
This film, for all its flaws, was not about a choice between the Ba'ku snubbing the galaxy, or their forced removal/mass murder. Those were not the only options.
The So'na, and the rogue Admiral, were circumventing all process and negotiation. That's why Picard countered them.

SFdebris,(not important if you know who he is or not for this point) in his review of St: INS brought up this argument:



Basically, the whole reason nobody in the film, not Picard, not Dougherty, not Ru'Afo, etc. EVER directly ask the Baku to share or even resettle to permit the rest of the galaxy to benefit from the resources on their planet is simple: THERE'S NO WAY TO ANSWER WITHOUT RUINING THE FILM.(Sorry for caps, but this is key)


Either the Baku say "yes, we'd be happy to share or resettle to allow billions access to this resource," and the movie's over, because it has no conflict.


Or, the Baku say "no way, we're not moving, finders keepers, sorry," and the audience has ZERO sympathy for these selfish, pretty Luddites. The movie doesn't work that way either.



it's a central plot flaw that shows how weak and poorly thought out this film's supposed "moral dilemma" is.

Um...Picard presents what is happening to the Bak'u and their first response is "the moment we pick up a weapon, we become one of them." They want to keep their community, but they aren't willing to defend themselves. They also, because the plan is in motion, would have no choice to resettle. The Son'a never ask because they want to banish the Bak'u to their graves the way it was done to them.

They are xenophobes that reject technology, so they are going to hop on the next starship off their world. They have built a community and don't want anyone else around. "They are isolated in order to be free."

So pencil in the last explanation and realize both you and the person who wrote the review overlooked the characteristics of the Bak'u and how indirectly they address this in the movie.

 

[HaventGotALife]

Data and Picard are beautiful?

I can name a lot of ladies who dig the Picard and the Riker, so yes. And Data is not really hard on the eyes. My point is that it's easy to make a stand for a J Crew catalog. It's another thing to force the audience to feel compassion for something they don't want to fuck. You know, like a Horta or a Gorn or a sparkly gas cloud. Think that extra layer of ethical questions that would bring up. "They're just bugs!" "No, all life is important" etc.

I personally think Insurrection pulls a cheap shot in that way. There's so much more wrong, but that's pretty lame.

You can't talk to a bug. You can't find out what they want. You can't do much exploring. Talking bugs belong in TAS. I think looking human is not the way to go, but who said this movie was perfect? Youth, vitality, the effect of the planet without us ever thinking its a part of their race.

 

[RandyS]

The soundtrack is nice. I've been listening to it a lot lately.

Agreed. Jerry Goldsmith gave us the one good thing to come out of that movie.

 

[jgalley]

I like Insurrection...sure it has some bad parts..mainly the joystick...but all Trek Movies do.

otherwise it has good character moments.

 

[BillJ]

Then name me a couple of times because my only recollections are small ones. He left his uniform behind. He essentially quit his job and acted against Federation orders, inviting a court martial. Any time he went that far?

Picard is suppose to be headed to the Goran system at the beginning of the film and turns the Enterprise completely around to head to the Briar Patch (ignoring his assignment), he is told that the Enterprise is not fit for operations in the Briar Patch (ignoring Dougherty) and then refuses to leave when Dougherty tells him to leave in 12 hours. Then to put the cherry on top, he defies the orders of a democratically-elected governing body. But he's Picard so that's all okay.

And we already have the Ba'ku answer to sharing the planet with off-worlders, they expelled the S'ona (which were their own children). When the S'ona wanted to explore off-world, they weren't moved to the other side of the planet, they were kicked off of it. When Picard found out that this was an internal matter his principles should've dictated that he back the Federation completely out of the situation and allow them to settle it themselves.

But people continue to overlook Picard's actions... simply because he's Picard. Wrong is wrong whether your the "evil" Admiral or the "heroic" Starship captain.

 

[sonak]

I never got that message at all from INS. As a certain Vulcan said, "there are always alternatives".
This film, for all its flaws, was not about a choice between the Ba'ku snubbing the galaxy, or their forced removal/mass murder. Those were not the only options.
The So'na, and the rogue Admiral, were circumventing all process and negotiation. That's why Picard countered them.

SFdebris,(not important if you know who he is or not for this point) in his review of St: INS brought up this argument:



Basically, the whole reason nobody in the film, not Picard, not Dougherty, not Ru'Afo, etc. EVER directly ask the Baku to share or even resettle to permit the rest of the galaxy to benefit from the resources on their planet is simple: THERE'S NO WAY TO ANSWER WITHOUT RUINING THE FILM.(Sorry for caps, but this is key)


Either the Baku say "yes, we'd be happy to share or resettle to allow billions access to this resource," and the movie's over, because it has no conflict.


Or, the Baku say "no way, we're not moving, finders keepers, sorry," and the audience has ZERO sympathy for these selfish, pretty Luddites. The movie doesn't work that way either.



it's a central plot flaw that shows how weak and poorly thought out this film's supposed "moral dilemma" is.

Um...Picard presents what is happening to the Bak'u and their first response is "the moment we pick up a weapon, we become one of them." They want to keep their community, but they aren't willing to defend themselves. They also, because the plan is in motion, would have no choice to resettle. The Son'a never ask because they want to banish the Bak'u to their graves the way it was done to them.

They are xenophobes that reject technology, so they are going to hop on the next starship off their world. They have built a community and don't want anyone else around. "They are isolated in order to be free."

So pencil in the last explanation and realize both you and the person who wrote the review overlooked the characteristics of the Bak'u and how indirectly they address this in the movie.

So.... let me get this straight. You're sympathetic to these folks who you admit are xenophobic, isolationist "pacifists" who are willing to let Picard and his crew fight for them but won't do any fighting themselves even though it's supposedly for their homes? (let's ignore for the moment how a village of pacifists expelled the Son'a in the first place, which is actually impossible)

And I don't just mean why the Son'a never asked the Baku, I mean why Dougherty and the Federation didn't. Obviously, at first because they thought they were a primitive civilization. But once they discovered that they WEREN'T, why didn't Dougherty just come clean, apologize, and then ask the Baku to resettle for the sake of the benefits that could be brought to billions?



Again, the answer is because they would have said no, to create the conflict in the film. And the audience would've been like "ummmm,, why are we supposed to be sympathetic to these selfish, hypocritical jerks?"



I think people end up defending Picard and the Baku actions in this film simply because Picard and the crew are supposed to be the "heroes", as BillJ says.

If the arguments were reversed, if Picard was arguing for the removal of the Baku, deceptive or otherwise, people would be supporting him then, too.


It's sort of like the Prime Directive, where fans accept ridiculously flawed arguments simply because they come from the mouths of the "heroes" of the show.


I listen to that argument he gives to Dougherty, and everytime I think to myself "wow, you're wrong on like every point that you're making."

 

[Saxman1]

Wasn't Picard initially all about kicking the Native Americans off that planet in the 7th season ep "Journey's End" with Wesley and The Traveler because those were his orders? Starfleet felt it was more important to make nice with the Cardassians at the that point in time, who wanted the planet and due to the new treaty, had the rights to it?

By that logic, Picard should have been all about going along with Doherety and Starfleet. In the case of the Ba'kuu, it's hard to feel sympathy for selfish jerks who don't want to share the benefits of the planet with millions. The movie doesn't make a lot of sense, in no small part due to the "lightening up" of Michael Pillar's very dark original draft.

Having said that, I probably feel it's the best TNG film and no, that's not saying a lot.

 

[kirk55555]

It's an unforgivably dull film with a weak plot, lame humor, and some substandard VFX. I'm glad you enjoy it, but to me it's an utter snooze.

These were my thoughts on it, too. Its not anywhere near as bad as the 2009 Abrahms film that called itself Star Trek, but its the worst of the 10.

 

[Mark 2000]

Wasn't Picard initially all about kicking the Native Americans off that planet in the 7th season ep "Journey's End" with Wesley and The Traveler because those were his orders?

Because those were yucky Indians. Picard doesn't want to fuck something all covered in desert dust that smells like smoke signals. He want's something in a Summer's Eve commercial that spent hours on its hair and just douched recently.

Besides, more seriously, the Native American colony was a colony. That was the Baku's home world, was it not? It's a little different knocking someone off settled land (like Tau Cygna V, which was ceded to the Sheliak under the same circumstances) than someplace that they evolved on.

 

[Mark 2000]

Sure, baby. I'll save your planet for you. Mmmm, your private parts smell like roses.

 

[sonak]

Wasn't Picard initially all about kicking the Native Americans off that planet in the 7th season ep "Journey's End" with Wesley and The Traveler because those were his orders?

Because those were yucky Indians. Picard doesn't want to fuck something all covered in desert dust that smells like smoke signals. He want's something in a Summer's Eve commercial that spent hours on its hair and just douched recently.

Besides, more seriously, the Native American colony was a colony. That was the Baku's home world, was it not? It's a little different knocking someone off settled land (like Tau Cygna V, which was ceded to the Sheliak under the same circumstances) than someplace that they evolved on.

Nope. Picard doesn't even have that figleaf of an argument to explain his different actions regarding the Baku. They WEREN'T native to that planet in the Briar Patch, they were just some folks on a ship who happened to crash there. The Indians in "Journey's End" were supposed to have MORE of a connection to that planet, because they had actually sought it out or something. The Baku just crashed into the planet they settled on out of dumb luck.