Questions on Insurrection, on the Baku

[Hartzilla2007]

they knew the true motives and identity of the Son'a, who did not come back to reconcile, but to uproot/murder their parents.)

Actually the Ba'ku didn't know who the Son'a were until after Picard told them they were both from the same race

You only think it's built on a house of cards because you don't see how the Ba'ku could say "no" and still appear sympathetic. But that's easy.

"Excuse me, but would you be willing to negotiate for the Federation and Son'a to have access to this little Fountain of Youth you've got here?"

"Uh, you mean the same people who spied on us, disrupted our village, and were going to secretly steal our planet out from under us? These are the people you want us to negotiate in good faith with?"

"No, not the same people. Different people. We don't have a hive mind."

"Ah? Oh. Ok then. Well, get out of our planet anyway! It's mine, my own, my precioussss!"

Um, under the situation being discussed they are the same people, you know the whole 4 way between the Ba'ku, Picard, Dougherty, and the Son'a thing.

 

[JarodRussell]

Insurrection seems to be the only Trek film that sparked endless discussions about politics and morality. And people still criticize it for being bad. I'd say it's the most effective, literally thought provoking Trek film.

What you can also clearly see is how films don't change one's opinion. Quite to the contrary, your perception of the entire film is shaped by your predefined opinion. Some think the Ba'ku are the actual egoistic bad guys and deserve everything that happens to them, others think that the Ba'ku are innocent and absolutely right in what they do and how they do it, all in accordance to how they see the real world anyway. But nobody walked out of this film saying "Gee, I never thought of it this way, this film changed my mind."

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Um, under the situation being discussed they are the same people, you know the whole 4 way between the Ba'ku, Picard, Dougherty, and the Son'a thing.

Um, no. There's no reason why the Ba'ku should have to deal with Dougherty, who's quite obviously compromised.

 

[BillJ]

Insurrection seems to be the only Trek film that sparked endless discussions about politics and morality. And people still criticize it for being bad. I'd say it's the most effective, literally thought provoking Trek film.

It is a poor movie. The only reason it generates discussion is because there are so many mind-numbing gaps in the story.

Plus, you have Picard playing the smug bastard at the end when he says he has to go "slow thing down at the Federation Council".

 

[BillJ]

Um, under the situation being discussed they are the same people, you know the whole 4 way between the Ba'ku, Picard, Dougherty, and the Son'a thing.

Um, no. There's no reason why the Ba'ku should have to deal with Dougherty, who's quite obviously compromised.

There is never even a hint of seeking out a diplomatic solution anywhere in the movie. Which is part of the reason the movie fails. Picard is suppose to be one of the Federations best diplomats yet doesn't even try to broker a solution that works for everyone.

Essentially, the story fails because Picard is never the Picard we know from the TV series.

 

[T'Girl]

What you can also clearly see is how films don't change one's opinion. Quite to the contrary, your perception of the entire film is shaped by your predefined opinion.

Oh, I wouldn't say so. I first saw the movie when I was eleven years old, and I remember accepting the basic plot at surface level, obviously not picking up on the subtle clues scatter through the movie. It was only with repeated viewing through the years that the personal opinion of the movie that I hold today was formed.

While the execution of the movie is flawed in places, the story line itself is delightfully complex. It would have been easy to change only a few pieces of dialog to make things simplistic and obvious. Unlike a lot of modern movies, Insurrection presented the audience with information and allowed them to form an opinion as to which of the players actions were ethically correct at the end.

"Excuse me, but would you be willing to negotiate for the Federation and Son'a to have access to this little Fountain of Youth you've got here?"

"Uh, you mean the same people who spied on us, disrupted our village, and were going to secretly steal our planet out from under us? These are the people you want us to negotiate in good faith with?"

"No, I want you to negotiate in good faith with the same people who want to distribute the miraculous properties of the particles to many billions of people across hundreds of planets, so that people outside of your charming little whites only gated community can benefit too."

 

[Timo]

...And all that might be beneficial on the medium to long term. The characters were faced with the strict timetable of the Son'a here, though, and as long as Dougherty refused to question that timetable, Picard had no reason to think Dougherty would agree to any sort of negotiations. Refusing to question the Son'a was revealing enough: Dougherty wasn't thinking of the best of the Ba'ku, and perhaps not even the common good, so irrational was the refusal.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[sonak]

Insurrection seems to be the only Trek film that sparked endless discussions about politics and morality. And people still criticize it for being bad. I'd say it's the most effective, literally thought provoking Trek film.

What you can also clearly see is how films don't change one's opinion. Quite to the contrary, your perception of the entire film is shaped by your predefined opinion. Some think the Ba'ku are the actual egoistic bad guys and deserve everything that happens to them, others think that the Ba'ku are innocent and absolutely right in what they do and how they do it, all in accordance to how they see the real world anyway. But nobody walked out of this film saying "Gee, I never thought of it this way, this film changed my mind."

by your measure, "dear doctor" is a great episode because it also sparks lots of debate. Or it could just mean that they both share very faulty premises that a lot of fans have come to question.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I'm not suggesting a negotiation with the Federation Council, I'm suggesting a four-way negotiation between Picard, Dougherty, the Baku, and the Son'a. It's the obvious move after the holo-ship deception is revealed. Whatever Picard thinks of Dougherty is irrelevant, all diplomats negotiate with people they don't like. Maybe Dougherty would say no, maybe the Baku would say no, but the fact that it's not brought up as a possibility is just silly and a clear recognition that the plot is built on a house of cards.

You only think it's built on a house of cards because you don't see how the Ba'ku could say "no" and still appear sympathetic. But that's easy.

"Excuse me, but would you be willing to negotiate for the Federation and Son'a to have access to this little Fountain of Youth you've got here?"

"Uh, you mean the same people who spied on us, disrupted our village, and were going to secretly steal our planet out from under us? These are the people you want us to negotiate in good faith with?"

"Um, well. Yes."

"What kind of morons do you take us for??"

The Ba'ku had no reason to trust Picard or the Federation after the shit they pulled, and frankly they would've had every right to tell them to fuck off after the deception was uncovered. Why negotiate with people who were obviously willing to use underhanded measures to get what they wanted? (Not to mention, they knew the true motives and identity of the Son'a, who did not come back to reconcile, but to uproot/murder their parents.)

why wouldn't they trust Picard? They had no reason not to trust him, he'd done nothing but try to help them. And again, the plot never has Dougherty or Picard explicitly explain what the Son'a technology could do for billions across the galaxy. Now why do you think that is? Because they didn't want a scene where the Baku say no to leaving their planet and resettling to help billions. It just wouldn't have worked.

Because he was a representative of the same people who came to move them? So what if he outwardly appeared genial and conciliatory? Should they be naive enough to take that at face value, after what they'd been through?

You are still harping on the Ba'ku being forced to leave, when that is absolutely not the only choice possible here.

The rings, we are told, regenerate constantly, or at least they will, until the collector sucks all the magic out of them for good, which will make the planet uninhabitable "for generations." So, the Federation would take what is apparently a renewable resource and turn it into a non-renewable one, in order to make it more convenient. That is worth questioning, too.

There's no indication given in the film that the Ba'ku would be against other settlements on the planet, as long as they respected the Ba'ku way, or at least didn't shit up the place too much. Locutus went into this in some detail so I'm not going to repeat him. Suffice it to say, making it a binary choice between "Ba'ku stay" and "Ba'ku go" ignores the other possibilities, and it's the only way to make your argument work.

Let's leave aside which side you fall on here. Let's even assume that you defend the principle of the Baku decision. You've STILL got a premise of "Picard reluctantly defends tiny village of self-centered Luddites who choose their own privileged comforts over helping billions." The audience is left wondering why they should care about this small group they've never seen before.

They choose keeping their homes over helping billions of people they do not know and have no interest in.

Tell me, how much do you go without so you can help people you've never met? Would you give up your home for the benefit of strangers if asked? Would you be okay with being deceived into it? What about being forced to at gunpoint? Those are the scenarios you are promoting.

The group in question is not the issue. I wouldn't care if it's the Ba'ku, a tribe of Native Americans, or a colony of sentient garden gnomes. Forcing people to leave their homes to benefit others is wrong.

they knew the true motives and identity of the Son'a, who did not come back to reconcile, but to uproot/murder their parents.)

Actually the Ba'ku didn't know who the Son'a were until after Picard told them they were both from the same race

Seems kind of weird that they wouldn't recognize their own kin, but it's been a while since I saw the movie, so you may be right.

 

[HaventGotALife]

Well, I think it's lost on people and we, as the Federation, shouldn't even be asking them to leave. That's the "attack upon its very soul." And by the end of the movie, some of the Son'a are on the planet. Picard said he would visit. I doubt the planet stays as obscure as it is in the beginning of the movie, but that is never talked about in the movie.

This is a moral like any other. If Picard was asked to murder 600 people, would we be screaming that it wasn't enough of a moral dilemma? This is the 24th century where the Prime Directive is as much a part of law and morality as the laws against murder are today. People tend to overlook that when asking these questions.

And to apply it to our world, how would we treat the Middle East differently if we never had oil interests? What else is the Federation willing to do from this point forward for "medical advancement?" As Geordi says, "How can I look at another sunrise knowing what my sight cost these people?" If we didn't have to play footsie with people for their resources, would we keep our moral high-ground? If the movie depicted the way women are treated by Saudi Arabia, for instance, would we still think it's a clunker?

I think there's a lot of merit to this story. I think the "fountain of youth" is overplayed. This is about ending disease and genetic problems that remain unsolved in the 24th century. The problem with peace is that it leaves you defenseless, as the Bak'u are not willing to defend themselves. And this is about the moral equivalency to killing off 600 people for scientific research, say a cure for cancer or AIDS. We have laws against those kind of experiments now. But we have a study where babies are never touched. If we can see that as progress, why can't we understand we are judging 24th century by 21st century morals?

The ONLY criticisms I have of the movie are the lighthearted comedy and the fact the Bak'u are all white and thin.

Also, the only way to keep the "fountain of youth" if the Bak'u leave the planet is to take injections--technology--for the rest of their lives. That's destroying who they are. So it's us or them.

 

[JarodRussell]

Seems kind of weird that they wouldn't recognize their own kin, but it's been a while since I saw the movie, so you may be right.

How would they be able to recognize them?

All of them were totally distorted by their genetic manipulation and anti age liftings.

 

[BillJ]

Seems kind of weird that they wouldn't recognize their own kin, but it's been a while since I saw the movie, so you may be right.

How would they be able to recognize them?

All of them were totally distorted by their genetic manipulation and anti age liftings.

Yet Anij recognized one of them towards the end. Said she helper his mother bathe him.

 

[sonak]

You only think it's built on a house of cards because you don't see how the Ba'ku could say "no" and still appear sympathetic. But that's easy.

"Excuse me, but would you be willing to negotiate for the Federation and Son'a to have access to this little Fountain of Youth you've got here?"

"Uh, you mean the same people who spied on us, disrupted our village, and were going to secretly steal our planet out from under us? These are the people you want us to negotiate in good faith with?"

"Um, well. Yes."

"What kind of morons do you take us for??"

The Ba'ku had no reason to trust Picard or the Federation after the shit they pulled, and frankly they would've had every right to tell them to fuck off after the deception was uncovered. Why negotiate with people who were obviously willing to use underhanded measures to get what they wanted? (Not to mention, they knew the true motives and identity of the Son'a, who did not come back to reconcile, but to uproot/murder their parents.)

why wouldn't they trust Picard? They had no reason not to trust him, he'd done nothing but try to help them. And again, the plot never has Dougherty or Picard explicitly explain what the Son'a technology could do for billions across the galaxy. Now why do you think that is? Because they didn't want a scene where the Baku say no to leaving their planet and resettling to help billions. It just wouldn't have worked.

Because he was a representative of the same people who came to move them? So what if he outwardly appeared genial and conciliatory? Should they be naive enough to take that at face value, after what they'd been through?

You are still harping on the Ba'ku being forced to leave, when that is absolutely not the only choice possible here.

The rings, we are told, regenerate constantly, or at least they will, until the collector sucks all the magic out of them for good, which will make the planet uninhabitable "for generations." So, the Federation would take what is apparently a renewable resource and turn it into a non-renewable one, in order to make it more convenient. That is worth questioning, too.

There's no indication given in the film that the Ba'ku would be against other settlements on the planet, as long as they respected the Ba'ku way, or at least didn't shit up the place too much. Locutus went into this in some detail so I'm not going to repeat him. Suffice it to say, making it a binary choice between "Ba'ku stay" and "Ba'ku go" ignores the other possibilities, and it's the only way to make your argument work.



They choose keeping their homes over helping billions of people they do not know and have no interest in.

Tell me, how much do you go without so you can help people you've never met? Would you give up your home for the benefit of strangers if asked? Would you be okay with being deceived into it? What about being forced to at gunpoint? Those are the scenarios you are promoting.

The group in question is not the issue. I wouldn't care if it's the Ba'ku, a tribe of Native Americans, or a colony of sentient garden gnomes. Forcing people to leave their homes to benefit others is wrong.

they knew the true motives and identity of the Son'a, who did not come back to reconcile, but to uproot/murder their parents.)

Actually the Ba'ku didn't know who the Son'a were until after Picard told them they were both from the same race

Seems kind of weird that they wouldn't recognize their own kin, but it's been a while since I saw the movie, so you may be right.

I'm just amazed at this notion that making someone move for a greater good is like one of the biggest rights violations out there. You must think that eminent domain and episodes like "journey's end" are just horrifying. And yes, I know, the difference is citizenship, but that's a legal distinction, not an ethical one. If the UFP granted automatic citizenship to the Baku retroactively and to be guaranteed after the relocation, would that change what's done? I guess it's just an unbridgeable gap in philosophy. To me, resettlement IF there's a legitimate greater good for doing it, is reasonable and acceptable.

 

[HaventGotALife]

why wouldn't they trust Picard? They had no reason not to trust him, he'd done nothing but try to help them. And again, the plot never has Dougherty or Picard explicitly explain what the Son'a technology could do for billions across the galaxy. Now why do you think that is? Because they didn't want a scene where the Baku say no to leaving their planet and resettling to help billions. It just wouldn't have worked.

Because he was a representative of the same people who came to move them? So what if he outwardly appeared genial and conciliatory? Should they be naive enough to take that at face value, after what they'd been through?

You are still harping on the Ba'ku being forced to leave, when that is absolutely not the only choice possible here.

The rings, we are told, regenerate constantly, or at least they will, until the collector sucks all the magic out of them for good, which will make the planet uninhabitable "for generations." So, the Federation would take what is apparently a renewable resource and turn it into a non-renewable one, in order to make it more convenient. That is worth questioning, too.

There's no indication given in the film that the Ba'ku would be against other settlements on the planet, as long as they respected the Ba'ku way, or at least didn't shit up the place too much. Locutus went into this in some detail so I'm not going to repeat him. Suffice it to say, making it a binary choice between "Ba'ku stay" and "Ba'ku go" ignores the other possibilities, and it's the only way to make your argument work.



They choose keeping their homes over helping billions of people they do not know and have no interest in.

Tell me, how much do you go without so you can help people you've never met? Would you give up your home for the benefit of strangers if asked? Would you be okay with being deceived into it? What about being forced to at gunpoint? Those are the scenarios you are promoting.

The group in question is not the issue. I wouldn't care if it's the Ba'ku, a tribe of Native Americans, or a colony of sentient garden gnomes. Forcing people to leave their homes to benefit others is wrong.

Actually the Ba'ku didn't know who the Son'a were until after Picard told them they were both from the same race

Seems kind of weird that they wouldn't recognize their own kin, but it's been a while since I saw the movie, so you may be right.

I'm just amazed at this notion that making someone move for a greater good is like one of the biggest rights violations out there. You must think that eminent domain and episodes like "journey's end" are just horrifying. And yes, I know, the difference is citizenship, but that's a legal distinction, not an ethical one. If the UFP granted automatic citizenship to the Baku retroactively and to be guaranteed after the relocation, would that change what's done? I guess it's just an unbridgeable gap in philosophy. To me, resettlement IF there's a legitimate greater good for doing it, is reasonable and acceptable.

How is it reasonable? They either take injections for the rest of their lives, destroying their culture of no technology, or they are moved off planet and given a death sentence. How is that a reasonable compromise?

 

[sonak]

Because he was a representative of the same people who came to move them? So what if he outwardly appeared genial and conciliatory? Should they be naive enough to take that at face value, after what they'd been through?

You are still harping on the Ba'ku being forced to leave, when that is absolutely not the only choice possible here.

The rings, we are told, regenerate constantly, or at least they will, until the collector sucks all the magic out of them for good, which will make the planet uninhabitable "for generations." So, the Federation would take what is apparently a renewable resource and turn it into a non-renewable one, in order to make it more convenient. That is worth questioning, too.

There's no indication given in the film that the Ba'ku would be against other settlements on the planet, as long as they respected the Ba'ku way, or at least didn't shit up the place too much. Locutus went into this in some detail so I'm not going to repeat him. Suffice it to say, making it a binary choice between "Ba'ku stay" and "Ba'ku go" ignores the other possibilities, and it's the only way to make your argument work.



They choose keeping their homes over helping billions of people they do not know and have no interest in.

Tell me, how much do you go without so you can help people you've never met? Would you give up your home for the benefit of strangers if asked? Would you be okay with being deceived into it? What about being forced to at gunpoint? Those are the scenarios you are promoting.

The group in question is not the issue. I wouldn't care if it's the Ba'ku, a tribe of Native Americans, or a colony of sentient garden gnomes. Forcing people to leave their homes to benefit others is wrong.



Seems kind of weird that they wouldn't recognize their own kin, but it's been a while since I saw the movie, so you may be right.

I'm just amazed at this notion that making someone move for a greater good is like one of the biggest rights violations out there. You must think that eminent domain and episodes like "journey's end" are just horrifying. And yes, I know, the difference is citizenship, but that's a legal distinction, not an ethical one. If the UFP granted automatic citizenship to the Baku retroactively and to be guaranteed after the relocation, would that change what's done? I guess it's just an unbridgeable gap in philosophy. To me, resettlement IF there's a legitimate greater good for doing it, is reasonable and acceptable.

How is it reasonable? They either take injections for the rest of their lives, destroying their culture of no technology, or they are moved off planet and given a death sentence. How is that a reasonable compromise?

er, because BILLIONS are going to get medical benefits from it? The Baku may not care, but that is part of the equation.

 

[HaventGotALife]

I'm just amazed at this notion that making someone move for a greater good is like one of the biggest rights violations out there. You must think that eminent domain and episodes like "journey's end" are just horrifying. And yes, I know, the difference is citizenship, but that's a legal distinction, not an ethical one. If the UFP granted automatic citizenship to the Baku retroactively and to be guaranteed after the relocation, would that change what's done? I guess it's just an unbridgeable gap in philosophy. To me, resettlement IF there's a legitimate greater good for doing it, is reasonable and acceptable.

How is it reasonable? They either take injections for the rest of their lives, destroying their culture of no technology, or they are moved off planet and given a death sentence. How is that a reasonable compromise?

er, because BILLIONS are going to get medical benefits from it? The Baku may not care, but that is part of the equation.

From the Federation's point-of-view. Look, if you were asked to help find the cure for cancer, but be subjected to testing materials that could cause you to almost certainly die or be disabled for the rest of your life, would you submit to that experiment? Billions and all who come after you get cured from cancer, you get to die in a vegetative state for the good of all humanity. Would you take that deal?

 

[Hartzilla2007]

If the UFP granted automatic citizenship to the Baku retroactively and .....

It doesn't work that way.

Thats still conquest.

 

[sonak]

If the UFP granted automatic citizenship to the Baku retroactively and .....

It doesn't work that way.

Thats still conquest.

I was being semi-facetious, I realize you can't do it that way, I was just trying to show the absurdity of a legalistic trip-up over citizenship as the main difference between when relocation is okay and when it's not. I grant that it makes a legal difference, just not a difference in evaluating the ethical case for it.

 

[BillJ]

Look, if you were asked to help find the cure for cancer, but be subjected to testing materials that could cause you to almost certainly die or be disabled for the rest of your life, would you submit to that experiment? Billions and all who come after you get cured from cancer, you get to die in a vegetative state for the good of all humanity. Would you take that deal?

But what your proposing isn't what will happen to the Ba'ku, as we've seen in the S'ona. Without treatment they'd simply go back to their normal lifespan and live close to another century.

 

[HaventGotALife]

Look, if you were asked to help find the cure for cancer, but be subjected to testing materials that could cause you to almost certainly die or be disabled for the rest of your life, would you submit to that experiment? Billions and all who come after you get cured from cancer, you get to die in a vegetative state for the good of all humanity. Would you take that deal?

But what your proposing isn't what will happen to the Ba'ku, as we've seen in the S'ona. Without treatment they'd simply go back to their normal lifespan and live close to another century.

It's still death where they would be immortal. They would live indefinitely if the Son'a leave their planet alone. And disease would return to their lifespan.