Learning to love "Insurrection"

[sonak]

Actually we've shown time and again that the mission was up against a deadline (as shown in the film), you continue to ignore it.

No, BJ, it's you who's ignoring. I answered that point already:

"(The Baku) were never meant to be immortal." Then neither were the Sona. Any argument that they were "sentenced to death" or that they need to be saved is BS from this point on.

"We'll simply be restoring (The Baku) to their natural evolution."... Again, the Sona have no more or less of a right to be immortal.

so to be clear here, you're simply arbitrarily taking the side of the Baku even though you admit they have no more or less of a claim than the Son'a. Your arguments just get weirder and weirder.


Do you want to return to your argument about how you have no objection to Baku removal, you just have an objection to Federation involvement?

or do you want to conjure up a different argument now?

 

[Mark 2000]

I never claimed the Baku have more of a claim to the planet than the Sona, only that the Sona have no more of a claim than the Baku. You seem to think the Sona have more of a right because they were "wronged" some how. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I subscribe to the grammatically opposite of you.

And as for the Feds, all I've ever argued for is that they can't help relocate the Baku because it's an internal matter. All Picard does in the movie up to kill Raufo is stop illegal SF involvement in the relocation. Nothing I've said remotely contradictory. You see, you're not actually reading anything, you're just reacting with your own prejudices. You want to choose a side. I don't.

 

[sonak]

I never claimed the Baku have more of a claim to the planet than the Sona, only that the Sona have no more of a claim than the Baku. You seem to think the Sona have more of a right because they were "wronged" some how. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I subscribe to the grammatically opposite of you.

And as for the Feds, all I've ever argued for is that they can't help relocate the Baku because it's an internal matter. All Picard does in the movie up to kill Raufo is stop illegal SF involvement in the relocation. Nothing I've said remotely contradictory. You see, you're not actually reading anything, you're just reacting with your own prejudices. You want to choose a side. I don't.

OK, so once the Son'a asked for UFP permission to do the collector thing since it's in UFP territory(no UFP involvement, just permission!) they'd remove the Baku with no muss, no fuss, and no deceptive holoship crap, they'd bottle the healing particles, heal their own people, then sell the healing particles to the UFP and voila, a happy ending!

 

[Mark 2000]

OK, so once the Son'a asked for UFP permission to do the collector thing since it's in UFP territory(no UFP involvement, just permission!) they'd remove the Baku with no muss, no fuss, and no deceptive holoship crap, they'd bottle the healing particles, heal their own people, then sell the healing particles to the UFP and voila, a happy ending!

Yup. I don't even know why they would need permission. There must be dozens of non aligned worlds in Federation space that do business the way they see fit. The Ferengi, for instance, operate in Fed space. If the Sona wanted to commit genocide I could see how the Feds might step in.

 

[T'Girl]

the Son'a asked for UFP permission to do the collector thing since it's in UFP territory

Yup. I don't even know why they would need permission.

Well the federation thought the briar patch to be their territory, and the Sona perhaps didn't want to dispute that, or legally couldn't. And didn't want long range trouble with the federation by poaching federation natural resources.

I never claimed the Baku have more of a claim to the planet than the Sona, only that the Sona have no more of a claim than the Baku.

It always struck me as something interesting, maybe you noticed this too Mark 2000, that the Baku at no point during the movie claim the planet to be theirs. Or the rings, the star system, the briar patch. Neither do the Sona.

Only the federation claims the planet.

There must be dozens of non aligned worlds in Federation space that do business the way they see fit. The Ferengi, for instance ...

How would that be of any help to the Sona? These "non aligned worlds" would be unable to give the Sona permission to collect the particles from around a federation world. If the briar patch were inside the space of the Ferengi Alliance, or one of the non aligned worlds things would have been different.

If the Sona wanted to commit genocide I could see how the Feds might step in.

Two assumptions, one that the particles will continue to provide medical benefits after collection, and two the Baku will have access to the particles, along with the Sona and the federation's people. If both are true, then how do you figure genocide?

And as for the Feds, all I've ever argued for is that they can't help relocate the Baku because it's an internal matter.

But the federation isn't relocating the Baku because of their relationship with the Sona, from the federation' s point of view that irrelevant. The Baku are being relocated to pervent their harm when the particles are collected. The internal matter between the Baku and the Sona has nothing to do with the relocation, at least as far as the federation is concerned.

Actually we've shown time and again that the mission was up against a deadline (as shown in the film) ...

No, BJ, it's you who's ignoring. I answered that point already ...

You missed something Mark2000, the deadline comes from the Sona themselves. they need the particles in a timey fashion to prevent their own deaths. So, the deadline is likely a condition of the partnership between the Sona and the federation.

Except that the Baku are not Federation citizens.

They don't have to be. If you are present in a foreign nation, even if you were there before it's formation, you are subject to it's laws.

removing people from property that doesn't belong to you is illegal

While removing them from property that is yours, is legal.

Israel would not have the right to move people in Jordan for it's own good.

But Israel would have the right to move Jordanians who were present in Israeli territory.

Removing the colonists in [snip] Ensigns was in order to protect fed citizens from harm ...

But were they federation citizens? Nineteen years after the Sheliak Corporate and the federation defined their respective territories, a group of humans from the federation, left the federation and established a settlement (probably unknowingly) on a Sheliak Corporate planet. 92 years later, the Sheliak requested the Humans removal. The Humans eventually agreed to leave. Only then were they "removed."

There are some parallels, the Sheliak and the federation both claim and exercise control over the respective planets, the settlements were undiscovered for many years and only became a issue when the controling authorities wanted to make use of the planets (or rings) for themselves, if the settlers didn't leave they will be harmed.

Interesting difference, there was no on screen effort made to talk the Baku into leaving. Explaining to the Baku of the hundreds of billion of people in the galaxy who would be helped by the particles and then have the Baku refuse to leave would brand them in the eyes of the movie's audience as sympathetic assholes. I've talked to both Trek fans and non-fans about this movie through the years and the Baku position is far from universally supported. Actually showing a reasonable rational discussion of all the facts on screen (for very few minutes) would have been an impossibility, what support the Baku possessed with the viewing audience would have mostly disappeared.

 

[MasuPu'a]

Insurrection was actually the very first Trek film I saw in theater. At the time I liked it, more so it was the experience of getting to see Star Trek on the big screen that really appealed to me.

Now, after watching it repeatedly at home, the problems of Insurrection are glaringly obvious. It's not the worst Trek film, but neither is it a good one. It's kind of a bland film when compared to the better Trek movies. Still, I think I"ll always have a certain fondness for it, since it the first one I got to see in theater. And the boob conversation between Troi and Crusher always makes me laugh, I don't know why. Along with Picard singing to distract Data. Absurd, yes, but Worf's expression is priceless.

 

[T'Girl]

the Son'a ... then sell the healing particles to the UFP

The impression i received from the movie was that the federation and the Sona had entered into a (limited) partnership with the particles to be divided between them. The particles were the property of the federation, the Sona had the technology to collect them.

As for the Baku, just because the rain is falling on your hair, doesn't mean you own the clouds.

All Picard does in the movie up to kill Raufo is stop illegal SF involvement in the relocation.

He does more than that. In order to stall the collection of the (federation's) particles, Picard seeks to keep the Baku, including their children, on the surface as long as possible. Mark 2000, Picard was employing the Baku as "Human" shields. Which I believe today is regarded as a crime.

 

[Dick_Valentine]

Insurrection was actually the very first Trek film I saw in theater. At the time I liked it, more so it was the experience of getting to see Star Trek on the big screen that really appealed to me.

Now, after watching it repeatedly at home, the problems of Insurrection are glaringly obvious. It's not the worst Trek film, but neither is it a good one. It's kind of a bland film when compared to the better Trek movies. Still, I think I"ll always have a certain fondness for it, since it the first one I got to see in theater. And the boob conversation between Troi and Crusher always makes me laugh, I don't know why. Along with Picard singing to distract Data. Absurd, yes, but Worf's expression is priceless.

Yes when Picard tells Worf (orders?) him to sing and he just shakes his head I cracked up laughing, particularly if that was a direct order he was ignoring

Another good point to the movie is the Enterprise-E looks absolutely stunning in this film among the colours of the Briar Patch.

In Nemesis, I dunno what it is, different photography or different effects house not quite replicating the model or something but it never did look as good again as it does in this film.

 

[JarodRussell]

As for the Baku, just because the rain is falling on your hair, doesn't mean you own the clouds.

Neither do the Son'a, or the Federation.

And then again, the Ba'ku never claimed to own it. They just didn't want to leave. their. home.
Another thing is how everybody (including the movie) ignored the fact that an entire planet is destroyed during the process. Billions of animals and plant life. How would you feel about that if they had to kill all those beautiful living beings on our Earth just so you can get rid of your wrinkles?

Mark 2000, Picard was employing the Baku as "Human" shields. Which I believe today is regarded as a crime.

What the hell. Peaceful protest and sit down strikes are now considered "employing people as human shields" and hence a crime? What kind of world do you live in?

 

[T'Girl]

As for the Baku, just because the rain is falling on your hair, doesn't mean you own the clouds.

Neither do the Son'a, or the Federation.

Actually, according to the movie, the federation does "own the clouds."

Another thing is how everybody (including the movie) ignored the fact that an entire planet is destroyed during the process. Billions of animals and plant life.

Star Trek is the champion of the one climate planet, and the only life we see outside of the valley the Baku are cultivating is arid scrub and a single small reptile. Neither of which appear sapient.

Mark 2000, Picard was employing the Baku as "Human" shields. Which I believe today is regarded as a crime.

What the hell. Peaceful protest and sit down strikes are now considered "employing people as human shields" and hence a crime? What kind of world do you live in?

If someone were to place their child in front of a moving bulldozer as part of a "sit down strike" ... yes, I would call that a crime. How about you?

Picard had his plan formulated prior to leaving the Enterprise in his "yacht." He could have beamed the children back to the ship before Riker departed with the ship.

 

[RAMA]

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.

Hmm I see...so the story isn't supposed to take a POV? I recall TOS did numerous times...

One thing going for Insurrection, its light years beyond STV. I'll never love the movie, but it watchable.

RAMA

 

[Captrek]

When Picard beams off the self-destructing collector, why does he leave Ru’afo there to die?

 

[MasuPu'a]

When Picard beams off the self-destructing collector, why does he leave Ru’afo there to die?

Well, Riker was the one who beamed him off, but the question still remains. Because the sensors would have just told Riker that Picard and one Baku were on the collector...yet he only beams up Picard.

 

[TenLubak]

Star Trek soundtracks always seem to be good.

 

[Tiberius]

When Picard beams off the self-destructing collector, why does he leave Ru’afo there to die?

Because it's a movie and the bad guy has to die.

 

[Captrek]

When Picard beams off the self-destructing collector, why does he leave Ru’afo there to die?

Well, Riker was the one who beamed him off, but the question still remains. Because the sensors would have just told Riker that Picard and one Baku were on the collector...yet he only beams up Picard.

Sensors or no, Picard could tell Riker about Ru'afo.

Picard tells Riker that he needs to be beamed off the collector before it blows up, but he does not mention that there's someone else aboard the collector who is also going to die if not beamed away. He orders Riker only to save him. How is this defensible?

 

[JarodRussell]

Blame that on the test audience. The original ending had Rua'fo accidently dying and Picard was desperately trying to save him. But test audiences didn't like the ending, so they reshot it.

 

[Tiberius]

If someone shows that they will take every oportunity to try to kill you, are you expected to try to save them if it means you will probably both die?

 

[BillJ]

If someone shows that they will take every oportunity to try to kill you, are you expected to try to save them if it means you will probably both die?

How is Picard risking himself if it's Riker beaming him off the Collector?

 

[Captrek]

Harvesting the space particles will cook the surface of the planet, this is why the Federation wants to move the Baku, so they wouldn't be harmed . After "decades" the Federation likely would have had no problem with the Baku returning to that valley (on a Federation planet) to re-establish their settlement/colony - if that would have even been possible.

Assuming of course that the medical effects were real after collection, none of the Baku would have been "condemned to death," if the assembled Baku wish to continue to live in a isolated valley some where, the Federation was "a thousand worlds and moving out," there was likely a unoccupied valley somewhere.

The Admiral also said that the effects of the removal of the rings would effect the planet's surface for "decades," suggesting that the effects were not permanent. Were they so inclined, the Baku could have re-establish their settlement, in the same valley, if they wished. Because no one (again) wanted the planet. The particles would have still been available to them.

Would the surface of the planet have become uninhabitable only to humanoids, or to land-based animal life in general? If the former, what kind of environment would be uninhabitable for humanoids only? If the latter, how does a planet go from no land-based life to viable ecosystem in a matter of “decades”¹?

Back on subject: The Ba’ku wouldn’t actually have to leave the planet at all. They could take shelter in a life-sustaining environment (such as the holoship) for a few decades until the planet becomes inhabitable again. Ultimately this isn’t really about the Ba’ku being evicted from the planet, it’s about them losing the effects of the rings for a few decades. If the Son’a have survived for centuries after leaving the planet, presumably the Ba’ku could survive a few decades without the rings, especially if they have access to medical preparations of the metaphasic particles.

I guess the idea is that the Ba’ku rightfully own the rings. A few hundred people found an uninhabited planet and established a settlement, and this gives them ownership of all the resources of the planet. That doesn’t strike me as a reasonable rule for the Star Trek universe.

The Baku are being relocated to pervent their harm when the particles are collected.

It’s not even a relocation. It’s a temporary evacuation.

After World War II, the United States conducted nuclear weapons testing at Bikini Atoll. In 1946, the population of about 200 people was compulsorily relocated to Rongerik Atoll. In 1968 the US declared that Bikini was habitable again and allowed the population to return.²

Was this wrong? The national security of the US was at stake. Should America have forgone testing of its nuclear arsenal rather than evacuate 200 Bikinians?



¹ Dougherty actually says “generations,” not “decades.” I don’t think that makes much difference.

² Oops... turned out the ecosystem was still toxic and they had to evacuate again. In 1983 the US paid the Bikinians $150 million as compensation. This is probably not relevant to the INS discussion.