Learning to love "Insurrection"

[Captrek]

So your analysis doesn't explain why those folks who may have initially sided with Picard's decision still do so even after long debates about the illogic and implications of such a position. It seems going by what you say, we should be expecting to see them reevaluate their positions AWAY from the immediate emotional impact of the film.

Just because a belief is the product of irrational cognitive processes doesn’t mean that a logical argument can convince the holder of that belief to abandon it.

We like to think of ourselves as logical beings, but there are many cognitive processes in our heads that are not logical and of which the conscious mind may not be aware. I suspect that beliefs not born of logic are less susceptible to logical argument than than beliefs born of faulty logic. If something doesn’t rest on logic in the first place, you can’t knock it down just by kicking the logic out from under it.

(This might make an interesting way in some cases to test the origin of a belief. Suppose somebody argues a position from faulty logic, and you clearly point out the flaws in the logic. If he goes, “Oh yeah, you’re right,” then the faulty logic was probably the source of the belief, and when the flaw in the logic became apparent the belief was abandoned. If he stubbornly clings to the position, then the faulty logic may be a rationalization of a belief to which he’s committed for other reasons.)

Yet people who side with the "anti-removal" position still do so in a context totally removed from the film. I can only conclude from this, baffling as such a conclusion might appear to you and me, that they really DO support this position, it's not a feature of the immediate impact of watching Picard and company on film.

It seems to me that most of those who defend the film are not accepting the film on its own merits.

The moral position staked out by the film isn’t subtle or ambiguous. The planet is the Ba’ku’s home, they have a legitimate claim to it, and they have the right to continue to live there free from outside interference. This right outweighs the public health benefits of the particles and the chain of command.

Some may actually agree with that position, but for the most part we see people defend the film by claiming that the moral issues presented in the film aren’t really what the previous paragraph describes. We get claims that the battle is really about honesty, that the particles wouldn’t really have the benefits Dougherty describes, etc.

 

[sonak]

So your analysis doesn't explain why those folks who may have initially sided with Picard's decision still do so even after long debates about the illogic and implications of such a position. It seems going by what you say, we should be expecting to see them reevaluate their positions AWAY from the immediate emotional impact of the film.

Just because a belief is the product of irrational cognitive processes doesn’t mean that a logical argument can convince the holder of that belief to abandon it.

We like to think of ourselves as logical beings, but there are many cognitive processes in our heads that are not logical and of which the conscious mind may not be aware. I suspect that beliefs not born of logic are less susceptible to logical argument than than beliefs born of faulty logic. If something doesn’t rest on logic in the first place, you can’t knock it down just by kicking the logic out from under it.

(This might make an interesting way in some cases to test the origin of a belief. Suppose somebody argues a position from faulty logic, and you clearly point out the flaws in the logic. If he goes, “Oh yeah, you’re right,” then the faulty logic was probably the source of the belief, and when the flaw in the logic became apparent the belief was abandoned. If he stubbornly clings to the position, then the faulty logic may be a rationalization of a belief to which he’s committed for other reasons.)

Yet people who side with the "anti-removal" position still do so in a context totally removed from the film. I can only conclude from this, baffling as such a conclusion might appear to you and me, that they really DO support this position, it's not a feature of the immediate impact of watching Picard and company on film.

It seems to me that most of those who defend the film are not accepting the film on its own merits.

The moral position staked out by the film isn’t subtle or ambiguous. The planet is the Ba’ku’s home, they have a legitimate claim to it, and they have the right to continue to live there free from outside interference. This right outweighs the public health benefits of the particles and the chain of command.

Some may actually agree with that position, but for the most part we see people defend the film by claiming that the moral issues presented in the film aren’t really what the previous paragraph describes. We get claims that the battle is really about honesty, that the particles wouldn’t really have the benefits Dougherty describes, etc.

hmmm. I definitely agree with you that Humans aren't the logical decision-makers we like to think of ourselves as, and that we are subject to a multitude of cognitive biases, but it's still a bit of a reach for me that viewers of INS get SO emotionally involved in the film that years later the residue of this emotional involvement is short-circuiting their logic processing. That would seem to apply more in an argument where the arguers have something real at stake, like in an argument over political beliefs or religion, not for a Trek film.


As to your second point, this is a very long thread. You're right in that many of the more recent arguments have rested on fanwanking away what the explicit scenario in the film actually is, but I think that earlier posts did deal more with the concrete "removal of village vs vastly greater good" argument.

 

[Captrek]

hmmm. I definitely agree with you that Humans aren't the logical decision-makers we like to think of ourselves as, and that we are subject to a multitude of cognitive biases, but it's still a bit of a reach for me that viewers of INS get SO emotionally involved in the film that years later the residue of this emotional involvement is short-circuiting their logic processing. That would seem to apply more in an argument where the arguers have something real at stake, like in an argument over political beliefs or religion, not for a Trek film.

If emotional manipulation is the source of a belief, and the belief is very resistant to logical counterarguments, then the emotions must be very strong. Is that your assumption? I’m not sure it’s correct.

Even if the assumption is correct, big deal. Trekkers can get both passionate and defensive about Trek. I know I do.

As to your second point, this is a very long thread. You're right in that many of the more recent arguments have rested on fanwanking away what the explicit scenario in the film actually is, but I think that earlier posts did deal more with the concrete "removal of village vs vastly greater good" argument.

OK, not every defender of the film reinterprets it contrary to its clear meaning. Some people agree with the position that the film really does stake out.

Picard’s position boils down to property rights and liberty: the Ba’ku own this place, they have the right to keep it and to live free from outside interference. Medical benefits for billions of people and the chain of command are non-considerations when they infringe those rights. A government that violates them should be resisted, by force if necessary.

This has an analogue in the real world: Tea Party politics. TPers mostly claim that property rights make low taxes a right, and the benefits of universal healthcare are a non-consideration when they infringe that right. Some even go so far as to argue that property rights trump majority rule, and any government that taxes one citizen to subsidize the healthcare of another is an illegitimate government that must be resisted, by force if necessary.

Although Picard’s position is essentially a TP position, many people who defend his conduct are not TP sympathizers. Whatever anyone thinks of the merits of the Tea Party, Jean-Luc Picard shouldn’t be portrayed as one.

 

[The Overlord]

One thing that bothered about this movie is, the Baku look exactly like humans. I can buy that on the shows in order to to meet a rather tight TV budget, they had to have aliens who looked exactly like humans, but seriously, they couldn't have come up with more alien looking designs on a movie budget?

Also the moral dilemma was presented in such a black and white fashion, that it didn't seem like a real dilemma. It isn't a real dilemma when the right choice is presented as completely obvious. I think this dilemma would been better if some of the crew supported the Baku, while some of the crew support the Federation.

Ironically I think the plot to Insurrection and the plot to Avatar are very similar, the only reason Avatar being a huge success, while Insurrection is not is because of the special effects Avatar had.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

From my writer's perspective, you can't have the fountain of youth. You can come close, and it slips through your fingers. Had the particles been collected, something would have to have gone wrong. That probably would have made a better story! Attempt collecting the particles, shit goes wrong, now all the ba'ku will die and nobody benefits. Because you can't have the fountain of youth. Grey ending, no clear good guys/bad guys.
As for Picard opposing Dougherty, again I think it's simply a matter of opposing the deception and violation of Starfleet's better modus operandi. I don't buy that the relocation had to happen immediately, and I don't buy that everything Dougherty is saying is spot on.
Ultimately, this is all subjective. It's not an argument to be won or lost. Some people like this movie, others don't.

It's worse in the original ending where they show that all the Son'a had to do is fly through the rings to solve their problem instead of using the likely expensive time consuming to build collector that can kill them if their shields have a glitch while their using it or if they just happen to be in the wrong section of the ship when it goes off

 

[Captrek]

One thing that bothered about this movie is, the Baku look exactly like humans. I can buy that on the shows in order to to meet a rather tight TV budget, they had to have aliens who looked exactly like humans, but seriously, they couldn't have come up with more alien looking designs on a movie budget?

Of course they could. They didn’t want to.

The Ba’ku look like us and are all good looking. The Son’a are different and their appearance is repulsive. That’s part of the emotional manipulation I’ve been talking about.

Logically, their appearance has nothing to do with the moral issues of the film. However, if the Son’a were attractive and like us and the Ba’ku were hideous looking aliens, the film would have been even less successful.

Ironically I think the plot to Insurrection and the plot to Avatar are very similar, the only reason Avatar being a huge success, while Insurrection is not is because of the special effects Avatar had.

I agree that the plots are very similar, but the special effects are not the only difference by a long shot. It is much better storytelling in general (although I think it’s a little overrated).

Look how Cameron uses emotional manipulation to a different effect. He never tells us what unobtainium is. He never tells us why it’s so valuable. He just shows us Giovanni Ribisi drooling over stock evaluations and gives it a name that sounds like the only reason people want it is because it belongs to someone else. When the Colonel tells Jake “you betrayed your race,” we just because we haven’t seen him hurt anyone who didn’t have it coming, and the Colonel comes off sounding like a white supremacist.

Logically, is Jake in the right? For all we know, the unobtanium is desperately needed on Earth to stave off a disaster that will decimate or extinguish the world’s population. Or maybe it’s bling. The film doesn’t invite us to consider that. It just gets us rooting for the natives and takes us on a ride.

This is very different from INS, where that dilemma is front and center. So the problems I have with Picard’s behavior in INS don’t bother me when I watch Avatar.

 

[Danoz]

When it comes to Insurrection, all I can say is-- what's not to like? We can all agree that Nemesis was bad for obvious reasons, but Insurrection really took me back to what TNG was all about. That, and I absolutely love the Gilbert and Sullivan scene where Picard chases Data in a shuttlecraft. Personally, I have trouble seeing how someone could really hate Insurrection but have enjoyed most of TNG season 1-7... Insurrection is, in many ways, very much like a classic two-parter we all knew and loved!

 

[The Overlord]

When it comes to Insurrection, all I can say is-- what's not to like? We can all agree that Nemesis was bad for obvious reasons, but Insurrection really took me back to what TNG was all about. That, and I absolutely love the Gilbert and Sullivan scene where Picard chases Data in a shuttlecraft. Personally, I have trouble seeing how someone could really hate Insurrection but have enjoyed most of TNG season 1-7... Insurrection is, in many ways, very much like a classic two-parter we all knew and loved!

What's not like is this is supposed to be a movie, not a TV show, it should have had more epic scope then what it did. Heck most of the Two parters in TNG had a far more epic scope then this movie, The best of Both Worlds and Redemption seem more cinematic then this film. Its like a mediocre TNG episode, but its a movie. That's the problem with this movie, it doesn't feel like a movie.

The fact that they couldn't give the aliens a better design then making them look like white people, just makes the movie look cheap, I can understand that on a TV budget, but on a movie budget they couldn't have come with something more interesting?

 

[Captrek]

When it comes to Insurrection, all I can say is-- what's not to like?

The protagonist.

 

[Danoz]

When it comes to Insurrection, all I can say is-- what's not to like? We can all agree that Nemesis was bad for obvious reasons, but Insurrection really took me back to what TNG was all about. That, and I absolutely love the Gilbert and Sullivan scene where Picard chases Data in a shuttlecraft. Personally, I have trouble seeing how someone could really hate Insurrection but have enjoyed most of TNG season 1-7... Insurrection is, in many ways, very much like a classic two-parter we all knew and loved!

What's not like is this is supposed to be a movie, not a TV show, it should have had more epic scope then what it did. Heck most of the Two parters in TNG had a far more epic scope then this movie, The best of Both Worlds and Redemption seem more cinematic then this film. Its like a mediocre TNG episode, but its a movie. That's the problem with this movie, it doesn't feel like a movie.

The fact that they couldn't give the aliens a better design then making them look like white people, just makes the movie look cheap, I can understand that on a TV budget, but on a movie budget they couldn't have come with something more interesting?

I dunno, can't say I understand these critiques. I never needed TNG movies to be of epic proportions, and they had already done it with First Contact and that was excellent. What we have with Insurrection is a movie that is at least true to the heart of the series. If you're going to lay the smack down on a TNG movie, make it Nemesis, not Insurrection. Insurrection has replay value and some great character writing for Patrick Stewart and Brent Spiner.

I'm content to disagree with the apparent consensus on this one.

 

[Danoz]

When it comes to Insurrection, all I can say is-- what's not to like?

The protagonist.

Unless you are referring to Jean-Luc Picard you'll have to be more specific.

 

[sonak]

When it comes to Insurrection, all I can say is-- what's not to like? We can all agree that Nemesis was bad for obvious reasons, but Insurrection really took me back to what TNG was all about. That, and I absolutely love the Gilbert and Sullivan scene where Picard chases Data in a shuttlecraft. Personally, I have trouble seeing how someone could really hate Insurrection but have enjoyed most of TNG season 1-7... Insurrection is, in many ways, very much like a classic two-parter we all knew and loved!

what's not to like?

hmm..

well, the premise for one thing is horrible. Perhaps the worst so-called "moral dilemma" they've ever done. The Baku come off as totally unsympathetic. But we've covered that a lot in this thread.


Also, the "humor" is frequently juvenile, with firmed-up boobs, pimples, and the like.

It is indeed very small scale for a movie, and a huge let down as a follow-up to FC, one of the best of the Trek movies.

Data's character gets a sudden regression to early seasons-TNG Data.


I could go on but that's a start.

 

[Captrek]

When it comes to Insurrection, all I can say is-- what's not to like?

The protagonist.

Unless you are referring to Jean-Luc Picard you'll have to be more specific.

I am.

 

[Charles Phipps]

Honestly, the movie just left a bad taste in everyone's mouth. The magical elven white people getting rescued by Picard who are all about "technology=bad" just seem ridiculously out of place in Trek.

Oddly, one thing I wonder is why if these guys are literally CENTURIES OLD and FALLING APART they can have an action sequence.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

He never tells us what unobtainium is.

Well he did tell us it was a floating rock, so we at least know something about it.

He never tells us why it’s so valuable.

True

He just shows us Giovanni Ribisi drooling over stock evaluations and gives it a name that sounds like the only reason people want it is because it belongs to someone else.

Meh, its a Cameron film so of course the corporation is evil and lets face it corporations aren't known for caring for more than their profit margins.

When the Colonel tells Jake “you betrayed your race,” we just because we haven’t seen him hurt anyone who didn’t have it coming, and the Colonel comes off sounding like a white supremacist.

True

Logically, is Jake in the right?

Seeing as most of the problems he had came from forgeting why he was there to chase after alien booty I not to sure.

For all we know, the unobtanium is desperately needed on Earth to stave off a disaster that will decimate or extinguish the world’s population. Or maybe it’s bling. The film doesn’t invite us to consider that. It just gets us rooting for the natives and takes us on a ride.

It's floating rocks so I have no idea how that wouls starve off distaster and earth seems to have more major problems in that film than a lack of flying rocks i.e. the dying planet (remeber there was an environmental message too) and wars apparently breaking out everywhere.

This is very different from INS, where that dilemma is front and center. So the problems I have with Picard’s behavior in INS don’t bother me when I watch Avatar.

Where as with Avatar I can't get past the fact that Jake doesn't mention once to the natives that the humans want the flying rocks under the tree they all live in to like I don't know WARN them maybe. Say what you will about Picard at least he let the Ba'ku know why the Federation and Son'a wanted the planet instead of letting them wonder around in ignorancy while getting shot at.

 

[CaptainStoner]

1) The public condemns the deception, then does on the up-and-up what Dougherty and the Son’a had tried to do on the sly. The Ba’ku are relocated by honest force instead of subterfuge. The end result is the same as if Picard had not interfered, except that Dougherty and many Son’a are dead, and two ships and a collector destroyed. All the death and destruction ultimately changed nothing. This is a tragedy, not an exciting action-adventure where good triumphs.

2) The public is scandalized not only by the questionable methods of Dougherty and the Son’a, but by what they tried to do. The people agree with Picard: the Ba’ku have a right to live on that planet, and that right outweighs the public benefits of the particles. When Dougherty and the Son’a attempted to violate it, good prevailed, the villains perished, and the Ba’ku lived on the planet happily ever after.

You can’t seriously deny that #2 is the film’s intent. The battle isn’t about honesty, it’s about saving the Ba’ku’s home.

It doesn't have to be #1 or #2. Your pattern indicates two-dimensional thinking. We don't know what happened next, except there was apparently a reconciliation of the Baku/Sona. I think that over time, some other option based on further study and diplomacy would have occurred.
Again, given that Doughtery's plan was against basic principles, there was no real reason to force any relocation immediately. I specifically recall a line from Picard stating that he will expose the holo-ship plan to the Federation Council, which means this wasn't done with approval. Maybe I'm imagining that line but I've seen the film a few times.

I'm content to disagree with the apparent consensus on this one.

Who knows. Some people have to write a dissertation against a movie they don't like, and can't stand having anyone disagree. To me, it's not the greatest Trek film, but Picard is right to oppose Dougherty's plan, and let calmer minds find a solution.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

When it comes to Insurrection, all I can say is-- what's not to like? We can all agree that Nemesis was bad for obvious reasons, but Insurrection really took me back to what TNG was all about. That, and I absolutely love the Gilbert and Sullivan scene where Picard chases Data in a shuttlecraft. Personally, I have trouble seeing how someone could really hate Insurrection but have enjoyed most of TNG season 1-7... Insurrection is, in many ways, very much like a classic two-parter we all knew and loved!

What's not like is this is supposed to be a movie, not a TV show, it should have had more epic scope then what it did.

Which is why i wish they had gone with the original idea. Heck even the moral dilemma was better in that version.

 

[The Dominion]

I've always really enjoyed it, but it's very forgettable too. I always got it confused with being a two part episode, and even after seeing it many times I can't remember enough about it to even summarize what I liked about it right now.

 

[RAMA]

Goldsmith's score is nice. But the cinematography doesn't hold a candle to Star Trek: Generations, which might be the best photographed of the Trek movies. As a movie, it's just okay. It captures the tone of the series better than the three other movies, I think, for better or worse.

It seems no one ever likes the movies that actually perfectly captured the spirit of the TV show. See all the dislike about The Final Frontier.

Here's the thing...we wait years for Trek movies, and we know resources put into them...we want something BIG! Until ST Nemesis the studio never put in enough of a budget into the movie! ST09 showed what a decent budget could do...the starships look solid and real, the sequences have scale!

As for the movie I have mixed feelings...sometimes it just feels mediocre to me, other times I enjoy it and have fun with it. There's some nice scenery (yes better than Generations) and the message is worthwhile, which is more than I can say for Transformers...

I won't get into the morality of the needs of the many, etc etc at this time, however, I don't feel the movie was trying to tell us we need to revert to Luddites, only that we should stop and smell the roses a bit.

RAMA

 

[RAMA]

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.

Utter nonsense...the movies should have a POV, its not wrong to have Picard believe in something and fight for it...it's a lot more reason the Kirk often had. The flip side of your opinion on this movie....if the S'ona or Starfleet had negotiated instead of stealing...two things probably colored their view...the recent wars vs Klingons and the Dominion, and the fact that there were so few inhabitants on the planet. Someone had to come in and balance the view. It also makes sense that this sort of thing would go against Data's basic programming and make him go haywire. Whatever your opinions may be they ARE breaking basic tenants of UFP law.