Maybe that's why Wesley was back (albeit nearly off-screen) in Nemesis. After Picard showed greater understanding of the local's predicament, young Mr. Crusher renewed relations with both him and Starfleet.I think Insurrection is the most indefensible of what I believe most people consider the 'bad' group of Trek movies (TSFS, TFF, GEN, this, NEM).
The plot and the moral dilemma are so fucking stupid. It's "Journey's End", except Picard does a 180 in terms of his stance.
I think Insurrection is the most indefensible of what I believe most people consider the 'bad' group of Trek movies (TSFS, TFF, GEN, this, NEM).
The plot and the moral dilemma are so fucking stupid. It's "Journey's End", except Picard does a 180 in terms of his stance.
I forgot to mention TMP - I can watch Zardoz, but I can't stand TMP.I think Insurrection is the most indefensible of what I believe most people consider the 'bad' group of Trek movies (TSFS, TFF, GEN, this, NEM).
The plot and the moral dilemma are so fucking stupid. It's "Journey's End", except Picard does a 180 in terms of his stance.
I agree with your grouping of what are commonly considered the "bad" Trek movies, except for TSFS, which I think is more considered average, not really bad. I'd substitute TMP for that choice. This BBS skews really weirdly on TMP, which is pretty unpopular among Trek fans, but for some reason, is often well regarded here.
Stripped down to its basics, it comes down to the property rights of a tiny village vs. the medical and longevity benefits to BILLIONS.
Here's one problem that I see - as an Insurrection hater - with the "village vs billions" welfare scenario. If you move a village of people on Earth to make a damn that will power the region that seems to be ok if you pay them off. They're benefiting from loosing their land. There is nothing you could pay the Baku to make up for not being immortal anymore. In other words, your killing them. They found those particles, they colonized the planet, they are reaping the benefits. It isn't quit fair to take that from them.
It was the forced relocation, and murder, and the circumventing of Starfleet's total knowledge, that Picard was opposing. I'm not defending this film for fanboy reasons. It falls short in many areas, but I've never felt that stopping the relocation was indefensible.
I liked the movie entertainment wise, but I try really hard not to thing about the moral stupidity of it all. Again, its the expense of 600 people for the ability to help billions of Federation citizens... how silly can you get? "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.." Starfleet had no problem relocating the Maquis after the treaty and that was undoubtedly more people and a less noble reason.. Personally, I think Picard would have LOST the court martial in this instance (at least he should have). And I think it was said that Dougherty was part of Section 31
Oh, but they don't count because they're ugly.
Here's one problem that I see - as an Insurrection hater - with the "village vs billions" welfare scenario. If you move a village of people on Earth to make a damn that will power the region that seems to be ok if you pay them off. They're benefiting from loosing their land. There is nothing you could pay the Baku to make up for not being immortal anymore. In other words, your killing them. They found those particles, they colonized the planet, they are reaping the benefits. It isn't quit fair to take that from them.
Exactly, as I've written before, there is really NO reasonable argument you can make for not removing the Baku for the vastly greater good it would do. These kinds of relocations for a greater good happen FREQUENTLY in the real world!
The Son'a are the GOOD GUYS here, folks-they're willing to share their technology and these resources for the benefits of the galaxy, while the Ba'ku, sit and stagnate as isolationist luddites, refusing to let the galaxy know of the resources on their planet.
Further, for all the concern about the effects of removing the Baku and what it would cost them, what about the Sona'? We're given dialogue that confirms that NOT bringing them the resources of the planet would mean a bunch of them would die soon.
Oh, but they don't count because they're ugly.
The moral of the story: ugly people are evil.![]()
The Son'a are the GOOD GUYS here, folks-they're willing to share their technology and these resources for the benefits of the galaxy, while the Ba'ku, sit and stagnate as isolationist luddites, refusing to let the galaxy know of the resources on their planet.
Further, for all the concern about the effects of removing the Baku and what it would cost them, what about the Sona'? We're given dialogue that confirms that NOT bringing them the resources of the planet would mean a bunch of them would die soon.
Oh, but they don't count because they're ugly.
The moral of the story: ugly people are evil.![]()
No the Son'a are evil, because they worked with The Dominion and enslaved the Tarlac and the Ellora. Like Troi said "Why would we be working with these people?"
The Federation really must have been desperate to trust that their tech was going to work on the rings of the planet. There really was no guarantee it would. The only real guarantee was living on the planet which Picard offers as a solution and Dougherty flatly rejects.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.