I cannot help but wonder what the actors thought about wearing someone else's unofrms?
The Nostalgia Critic: Odd Numbered Trek Films
- Thread starter Trekker4747
- Start date
"What a flub up"
"Okay, I did it. Now where's my paycheck?"
A
Amaris
Guest
Probably something like "I guess I'm not worth a proper fitting".
Eh...another so-so one. This seemed really forced. Not that the criticisms were bad, but the review was just weak, especially since some of the things they criticize were never in the film (such as the Baku "hating" technology and, therefore, they "hate" the people who have technology).
I guess when a film gets an in-depth RLM treatment, all others will kinda pale in comparison.
Then again, I don't care much for Linkera, so that probably colors my opinion somewhat.
I was nice to see Walker review Nemesis in a very abbreviated form.
I guess when a film gets an in-depth RLM treatment, all others will kinda pale in comparison.
Then again, I don't care much for Linkera, so that probably colors my opinion somewhat.
I was nice to see Walker review Nemesis in a very abbreviated form.
Most of it felt like a repeat of Mr. Plinkett's review and in response to the "Who are you, blue man?" question, he has a name and it's Lieutenant Commander Hars Adislo. Don't they ever read Memory Alpha? 
Also, one of Linkara’s clips of Troi kissing Riker doesn’t count, because it was Thomas and not William.
Also, one of Linkara’s clips of Troi kissing Riker doesn’t count, because it was Thomas and not William.
Seemed rather "forced" for a review and some of the stuff they nitpicked on was either not in the movie (like, for example the Baku hating people with technology) or, well, went against Trek's core "beliefs."
On the first point in the review they suggest that the Sona won't live on the planet because the Baku reject technology and won't let them. This isn't so. It's the other way around the Sona rejected the Baku and they didn't want to live on the planet. Nothing in the movie suggests the Baku would have been against the Sona settling on a distant continent of the planet.
Linkara also takes the "reject technology" ideal pretty far, yes everything in essence is technology but the Baku have obviously drawn a line. The Amish reject modern technology for religious reasons but they still use gardening tools and even in extreme cases lighting and motors powered by gas.
Linkara was also quick to point out the "Needs of the many..." line from TWK while ignoring the "Needs of the one..." line from Star Trek III where Kirk and the others all put their careers on the line just to save Spock.
On the forced relocation bit, the Federation was choosing to force-relocate several hundred people against their knowledge and will in order to rape their planet for its resources. He shows two clips to counter this:
Ensigns of Command: Where Data is sent to inform people they need to be relocated as a powerful and malevolent entity that doesn't regard human life highly is coming to seize a planet they've laid claim to per their rights under treaty. The people on the planet have to move or they will be killed and the Federation has neither the right or means to defend the planet.
In Final Mission (?) it was a similar situation where treaty negotiations have made the Indian planet property of the Cardassians who are not likely to be as hospitable hosts as the Federation the relocation was, again, for their benefit. In the end they opted to be allowed under Cardassian rule.
Both situations are very different than in INS where the Federation wants to take people off a planet, against their will and knowledge, in order to rape the planet of its resources. Further the Baku have more claim on the planet because they've been there for 300 years meaning they would have settled it in the early days of the Federation and likely before the Federation had claim to it! The Baku where there first!
But them arguing for the "bad guys" in the movie may likely come from, at least, Linkara's more Conservative/Republican values which he's not ashamed of hiding.
There's plenty to pick on in INS, they chose the wrong things.
On the first point in the review they suggest that the Sona won't live on the planet because the Baku reject technology and won't let them. This isn't so. It's the other way around the Sona rejected the Baku and they didn't want to live on the planet. Nothing in the movie suggests the Baku would have been against the Sona settling on a distant continent of the planet.
Linkara also takes the "reject technology" ideal pretty far, yes everything in essence is technology but the Baku have obviously drawn a line. The Amish reject modern technology for religious reasons but they still use gardening tools and even in extreme cases lighting and motors powered by gas.
Linkara was also quick to point out the "Needs of the many..." line from TWK while ignoring the "Needs of the one..." line from Star Trek III where Kirk and the others all put their careers on the line just to save Spock.
On the forced relocation bit, the Federation was choosing to force-relocate several hundred people against their knowledge and will in order to rape their planet for its resources. He shows two clips to counter this:
Ensigns of Command: Where Data is sent to inform people they need to be relocated as a powerful and malevolent entity that doesn't regard human life highly is coming to seize a planet they've laid claim to per their rights under treaty. The people on the planet have to move or they will be killed and the Federation has neither the right or means to defend the planet.
In Final Mission (?) it was a similar situation where treaty negotiations have made the Indian planet property of the Cardassians who are not likely to be as hospitable hosts as the Federation the relocation was, again, for their benefit. In the end they opted to be allowed under Cardassian rule.
Both situations are very different than in INS where the Federation wants to take people off a planet, against their will and knowledge, in order to rape the planet of its resources. Further the Baku have more claim on the planet because they've been there for 300 years meaning they would have settled it in the early days of the Federation and likely before the Federation had claim to it! The Baku where there first!
But them arguing for the "bad guys" in the movie may likely come from, at least, Linkara's more Conservative/Republican values which he's not ashamed of hiding.
There's plenty to pick on in INS, they chose the wrong things.
The ethical dilemmas in Insurrection, which have been hashed elsewhere on this board, are pretty weak (mostly because it wasn't explored enough for the solid right/wrong viewpoint the movie goes with). However, the way they criticize and attempt to deconstruct it doesn't wash because their points don't quite add up and relies a bit too much on fan opinion and less on what's actually stated in the movie (which is kinda funny considering that the review opened with a bit on how NC sometimes gets things facts wrong).
I didn't think the review was that bad. Certainly not great, but not horrible either.
That being said, I think SFDebris did a much better job with INS.
That being said, I think SFDebris did a much better job with INS.
I've always said that Insurrection felt like a set up movie. Meaning that it felt--to me at least--like the start of a story and that there was going to be some sort of follow up or expansion to the story afterwards.
Then again, I like Insurrection--warts and all. It's not a perfect movie, but not as bad as some of the hell it gets.
Then again, I like Insurrection--warts and all. It's not a perfect movie, but not as bad as some of the hell it gets.
The bigger WTF in my mind, and Linkara didn't even mention it, is the Son'a make "White". The only govt. that uses "White" is the Dominion in order to keep the Jemhe'dar alive...HELLO why is the Federation helping someone that is making critical military supplies for the enemy? Even if you go with the argument that they're selling it on the black-market and it's become an illegal narcotic, again WHY?
The Federation now knows about the planet. Say, thanks but GTF out, station a squadron in the system and take time to properly study the planet.
The Federation now knows about the planet. Say, thanks but GTF out, station a squadron in the system and take time to properly study the planet.
Pretty much a waste of a review. The movie has its flaws, but only a small percentage of them were actually touched on here. Linkara sure seems to have selective memory when it comes to Star Trek, as most of his examples from the TV show easily had their counterparts. As others have mentioned, the relocation argument was probably the weakest because the examples cited from the show were both under much different circumstances.
Overall, I would much rather that Doug had made this a solo effort, as Linkara really got on my nerves. It's too bad that he ranks Nemesis as one of his "Top 10 films that he likes but everyone else hates," because I'd have loved to have seen him give that movie the Nostalgia Critic treatment.
Overall, I would much rather that Doug had made this a solo effort, as Linkara really got on my nerves. It's too bad that he ranks Nemesis as one of his "Top 10 films that he likes but everyone else hates," because I'd have loved to have seen him give that movie the Nostalgia Critic treatment.
Eh, not a very good one IMO. Nothing against Linkara but when he goes into super-ranty-mode I start to tune out; just something about the way he does it.
I think the Critic doing crossovers can work fine (two of his very best are the crossovers with the Nostalgia Chick for Fern Gully and Moulin Rouge), but this time... meh.
Though the clip of Troi kissing Tom Riker totally counts - it was afterall still "him" with a beard, which was the complaint.
Somewhat surprised they didn't do anything with the "boobs firmed up" moment. That should have at least gotten a spit-take.
I think the Critic doing crossovers can work fine (two of his very best are the crossovers with the Nostalgia Chick for Fern Gully and Moulin Rouge), but this time... meh.
Though the clip of Troi kissing Tom Riker totally counts - it was afterall still "him" with a beard, which was the complaint.
Somewhat surprised they didn't do anything with the "boobs firmed up" moment. That should have at least gotten a spit-take.
I thought it was very good. Admittedly I was watching more for the interaction between the NC and Linkara than the review itself, so I think my expectations were different. I loved sci-fi guy getting awkwardly left out of the review and NC's little freak out during Linkara's geeky rant. The actual Star Trek bits were secondary to me.
So, yeah, Insurrection sucks. That's about all I've got to say about the film.
So, yeah, Insurrection sucks. That's about all I've got to say about the film.
Similar threads
