The Nostalgia Critic: Odd Numbered Trek Films

[Admiral Shran]

Sorry Trekker4747, but I feel Linkara was spot on. Especially with points 6, 7, 8 and 9.

6.) The Federation has shown that during the Dominion War, they are willing to ignore the Treaty of Algernon. They have absolutely no problem with using the Defiant's cloaking device in the Alpha Quadrant (even though the agreement with the Romulans clearly stated that it was to be used ONLY in the Gamma Quadrant) and they use cloaked mines at the mouth of the Wormhole. Also, when this movie premiered, the Romulans were allies of the Federation against the Dominion. It makes no sense for the treaty to still be in effect.

7.) Linkara points out that the Baku are afraid of and dismissive toward Data. One flat out says "We're not interested in such things" when the boy shows an interest. And they have no problem benefiting from the very advanced technology they claim to abhor. They're hypocrites.

8.) You make a good point about how the Baku have settled the planet in the days before the Federation even formed. Therefore, since they've homesteaded it, they have every right to it. However, Linkara is right in that lives are more important than things. The Baku aren't even willing to entertain the notion of leaving simply because they like being immortal. They could help save billions of people but they refuse because their selfish. What was needed was a better script which had the Baku offer to move or come to some compromise, but the Sona refusing to accept that because they wanted their revenge.

9.) I agree that Ensigns of Command is not a very good episode for Linkara to point to. In that episode, there is no talk of forcible relocation and Data convinces them to leave (again, because lives are more important than things). However, Journey's End is a perfect example for Linkara's case. Worf does flat out say that they plan to forcibly beam them away if they don't agree to come peaceably. Picard then gets pissed at Wesley when he informs the colonists of this plan.

You say that it was for the colonists' on good that Picard was going to force them to leave. Well, who the hell is Picard to decide what is in their best interests? For that matter, who the hell is the Federation to decide that? In Insurrection, Picard again takes it upon himself to decide what is in everyone's best interest (including the billions of lives at risk from the Dominion). He had no right.

Very good discussion.

 

[Trekker4747]

You make a good point about how the Baku have settled the planet in the days before the Federation even formed. Therefore, since they've homesteaded it, they have every right to it. However, Linkara is right in that lives are more important than things.

That's a huge-ass problem and would make the Federation look like great-big hypocrites who simply ignore the rules whenever they think it's convenient.

I got the numbers wrong with the Baku timeline, the movie takes place sometime in the mid 2370s, three hundred years before that would've been the 2070s. In otherwords the Baku settled the planet just a few years after humans had even achieved warp drive and was probably still putting themselves together after WWIII and meeting the Vulcans!

What claim at all can the Federation make on the planet?! What place at all does the Federation have to come to the planet, decide it is theirs, remove people, and do with the planet whatever they want? That is against everything the Federation is supposed to stand for! Wouldn't that be very bad for the Federation if the word ever got out? Hell in the opening we see they're trying to recruit new member worlds, what would happen if potential applicants learned that the Federation drops all of their values and laws when it simply becomes inconvenient? What would happen if the current member worlds found about this? Would the Vulcans really find this idea "logical?" Certainly they would see more than anyone else that the Federation has no legit claim on the planet.

And maybe I need to see the movie again but I don't recall the Baku ever rejecting the notion of simply leaving, they were never even asked. The Federation was just going to swoop in and take the planet originally with the intent of the Baku not even knowing about it until they got to the duplicate planet (whose duplication would immediately seen through the moment someone woke up and looked up.) Hell, there's no indication the Baku would have even been given the benefits of the new technology after it was secured. You can't tell me that's not pretty damn evil on the part of the Federation to:

1. Lay claim on a planet that was already claimed a century before the Federation and probably just as long (if not much longer) before the planet was even known about.

2. Remove people from the planet against their will and relocate them to a place where they'd know they were moved probably within minutes or hours.

3. Not even give those people the benefits of the results of what you did to their original planet.

Sure the technology could be used to "save billions" but there's also a host of problems that very technology presents, it's stability (for example, LaForge's eyes reverted once he left the planet) isn't great, there's no knowledge on the long-term impact it has on other races and so on and so on.

Hell, you could even ask if The Federation has the resources and "space" to provide for the billions of lives that are now extended. We could even ask if the radiation has an impact on reproduction, it's been 300 years and the Baku's numbers are "only" at 600. Consider that in 300 years ago on Earth the population was well under 1-billion people, in three hundred years we've more than septupled that! Did the Baku come to the planet with less than 100 people? That'd offer a fairly shallow gene pool.

Or does the radiation have such an impact on a person's life that it makes people so laid-back and easy going (like the Baku are) that any sense of self-preservation or species propogation is eroded away? Hell, Anij admits to "not having got around to" learning to swim yet. What would happen if an entire galactic quadrant worth of species and aliens get the same attitude of "not getting around to it" and that includes reproduction? Science and exploration stops, hell defending yourself from another power may stop. The laid-backness of them could be due to the radiation!

(And the aggressiveness of the Sona could be due to the withdraw.)

Clearly there's some things that maybe the Federation didn't look into here.

 

[sonak]

Linkara has demonstrated and expressed in the past that he has very capitalist/conservative views so it's not too out of place for him to value the removal of people from the land in order to use the land for a "greater good" or the needs of the government.

Which, again, I can see the Federation's position but the problem I have comes from how the Federation went about doing the whole thing and the Federation had to have known the real technological capacity of the Baku.

It baffles me how someone could describe Picard's views here as in any way left-wing or progressive. His stance is a full-throated defense of the property rights of a tiny few vs. the vastly greater good that would come from removing them. Dougherty's position is that the greater good trumps property rights, and it's not like he's doing this for wealth or weapons technology.

Whatever your position on the issue is, Picard is the right-winger here and Dougherty the left-winger. If you look at something like eminent domain, where the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, it's the LIBERAL justices who've been pro-removal for greater good, and conservatives for the absolutism of property rights.


Just wanted to clarify that, because it's puzzling to me that Picard could come off as anything but extremely right-wing in this movie.

 

[BillJ]

There's also the fact that, had the Fed got its hands on such a magical elixir, that the other races might not look too fondly on the situation. Hell, it could even start another war.

The only issue is that leaving the planet alone could very well start another war as well. If the Federation says "no" whose to say that the S'ona don't go to the Romulans, the Klingons or some other race that doesn't have the same ethical standards?

So regardless of which way you go, you could end up with a full blown war on your hands in the Briar Patch. Sacrificing Federation lives to protect six-hundred people.

At the end of the day, a war in the Briar Patch would at least have a negative impact on the Ba'ku and could lead to their extinction. While the Ba'ku may return to their original lifespans if moved, they would at least see their culture carried on through their offspring.

But whoever got ahold of it, I've never seen meta-phasics as a 'game-changer' in a conflict shorter than thirty to fifty years.

 

[Thestral]

I got the numbers wrong with the Baku timeline, the movie takes place sometime in the mid 2370s, three hundred years before that would've been the 2070s. In otherwords the Baku settled the planet just a few years after humans had even achieved warp drive and was probably still putting themselves together after WWIII and meeting the Vulcans!

What claim at all can the Federation make on the planet?!

I'm not sure what difference the timeline makes. I would imagine when the Federation was formed it inherited all the claims and rights of its predecessory members (not just Earth and Alpha Centauri, but the Vulcans, the Andorians, and the Tellarites as well). I don't think there's any indication of this in the movie, but if one of those latter three had legal claim to the planet it would presumably transfer the to Federation.

It's presumably a moot point of course and I don't know if it would have a role in the moral debate anyway.

 

[BillJ]

I got the numbers wrong with the Baku timeline, the movie takes place sometime in the mid 2370s, three hundred years before that would've been the 2070s. In otherwords the Baku settled the planet just a few years after humans had even achieved warp drive and was probably still putting themselves together after WWIII and meeting the Vulcans!

What claim at all can the Federation make on the planet?!

I'm not sure what difference the timeline makes. I would imagine when the Federation was formed it inherited all the claims and rights of its predecessory members (not just Earth and Alpha Centauri, but the Vulcans, the Andorians, and the Tellarites as well). I don't think there's any indication of this in the movie, but if one of those latter three had legal claim to the planet it would presumably transfer the to Federation.

It's presumably a moot point of course and I don't know if it would have a role in the moral debate anyway.

Well we know from The Augment storyline that the Klingons controlled the territory in the mid-22nd century. Probably became Federation territory via treaty...

 

[sonak]

If a tiny community that had been living unknown in a forest somewhere in the US since the seventeenth century were found, would they have claims on the state where they were living?

 

[BillJ]

If a tiny community that had been living unknown in a forest somewhere in the US since the seventeenth century were found, would they have claims on the state where they were living?

We'd immediately start calculating the back taxes they owed.

 

[CorporalClegg]

The only issue is that leaving the planet alone could very well start another war as well. If the Federation says "no" whose to say that the S'ona don't go to the Romulans, the Klingons or some other race that doesn't have the same ethical standards?

So regardless of which way you go, you could end up with a full blown war on your hands in the Briar Patch. Sacrificing Federation lives to protect six-hundred people.

At the end of the day, a war in the Briar Patch would at least have a negative impact on the Ba'ku and could lead to their extinction. While the Ba'ku may return to their original lifespans if moved, they would at least see their culture carried on through their offspring.

But whoever got ahold of it, I've never seen meta-phasics as a 'game-changer' in a conflict shorter than thirty to fifty years.

Maybe. But it's not wise to worry about the other guy. Just worry about what you're doing.

It baffles me how someone could describe Picard's views here as in any way left-wing or progressive. His stance is a full-throated defense of the property rights of a tiny few vs. the vastly greater good that would come from removing them. Dougherty's position is that the greater good trumps property rights, and it's not like he's doing this for wealth or weapons technology.

Whatever your position on the issue is, Picard is the right-winger here and Dougherty the left-winger. If you look at something like eminent domain, where the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, it's the LIBERAL justices who've been pro-removal for greater good, and conservatives for the absolutism of property rights.


Just wanted to clarify that, because it's puzzling to me that Picard could come off as anything but extremely right-wing in this movie.

Except the underlying issue (and Picard's main objection) had absolutely nothing to do with property.

Maybe you should watch the movie again?

And the comparison you makes relates to a government legislating a sociological change to it's own populace.

They were interfering with a culture who did not belong to the Federation. That first rule is a big one.

"No interference" is absolute. It is also an extremely progressive ideal and philosophy. Dougherty was breaking that rule. Picard wanted to stop him.

I also think you seem to be confusing economic with sociological politics.

If a tiny community that had been living unknown in a forest somewhere in the US since the seventeenth century were found, would they have claims on the state where they were living?

Yes.

That issue was resolved in the 1960s.

For further reference see: Any Native American Reservation.

But, non the less, your argument is a total straw man. Even if such a thing were discovered, the land annexed, and the people forced to assimilate, that still doesn't make it right.

Besides, there are countless civilizations (both warp and pre-warp) residing within the boundaries of the Federation who are not members of it. "No interference" applies to them as well.

I also have no doubt many of them would--in theory--have resources that would benefit way more people if the Fed annexed them as well. Funny they didn't.

 

[sonak]

The only issue is that leaving the planet alone could very well start another war as well. If the Federation says "no" whose to say that the S'ona don't go to the Romulans, the Klingons or some other race that doesn't have the same ethical standards?

So regardless of which way you go, you could end up with a full blown war on your hands in the Briar Patch. Sacrificing Federation lives to protect six-hundred people.

At the end of the day, a war in the Briar Patch would at least have a negative impact on the Ba'ku and could lead to their extinction. While the Ba'ku may return to their original lifespans if moved, they would at least see their culture carried on through their offspring.

But whoever got ahold of it, I've never seen meta-phasics as a 'game-changer' in a conflict shorter than thirty to fifty years.

Maybe. But it's not wise to worry about the other guy. Just worry about what you're doing.

It baffles me how someone could describe Picard's views here as in any way left-wing or progressive. His stance is a full-throated defense of the property rights of a tiny few vs. the vastly greater good that would come from removing them. Dougherty's position is that the greater good trumps property rights, and it's not like he's doing this for wealth or weapons technology.

Whatever your position on the issue is, Picard is the right-winger here and Dougherty the left-winger. If you look at something like eminent domain, where the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, it's the LIBERAL justices who've been pro-removal for greater good, and conservatives for the absolutism of property rights.


Just wanted to clarify that, because it's puzzling to me that Picard could come off as anything but extremely right-wing in this movie.

Except the underlying issue (and Picard's main objection) had absolutely nothing to do with property.

Maybe you should watch the movie again?

And the comparison you makes relates to a government legislating a sociological change to it's own populace.

They were interfering with a culture who did not belong to the Federation. That first rule is a big one.

"No interference" is absolute. It is also an extremely progressive ideal and philosophy. Dougherty was breaking that rule. Picard wanted to stop him.

I also think you seem to be confusing economic with sociological politics.

If a tiny community that had been living unknown in a forest somewhere in the US since the seventeenth century were found, would they have claims on the state where they were living?

Yes.

That issue was resolved in the 1960s.

For further reference see: Any Native American Reservation.

But, non the less, your argument is a total straw man. Even if such a thing were discovered, the land annexed, and the people forced to assimilate, that still doesn't make it right.

Besides, there are countless civilizations (both warp and pre-warp) residing within the boundaries of the Federation who are not members of it. "No interference" applies to them as well.

I also have no doubt many of them would--in theory--have resources that would benefit way more people if the Fed annexed them as well. Funny they didn't.

"non-interference" is not on its own a progressive philosophy. Anti-war may be in many cases, but non-interference taken to an extreme as the PD is, can lead to many outcomes that are in no way progressive.

 

[BillJ]

Maybe. But it's not wise to worry about the other guy. Just worry about what you're doing.

This type of thinking is just incredibly short-sighted. The Federation doesn't exist in a vacuum...

This is the type of thinking that led to the 9/11 tragedy. We backed the Afghan guerrilla fighters in our attempt to comply with our own 60's/70's version of the Prime Directive, "to fight communism at any cost" never worrying what the post-Soviet occupation was going to look like. Much like today, when we toppled the Iraqi government without really thinking out how destabilizing such an action would have.

Or...

Think to the planet Neural from A Private Little War, non-intervention would've certainly meant that the world would've fallen to the Klingons or if the Organians were what they appeared to be then the Federation would've been forced to allow a peaceful but strategic world to fall to the Klingons at the altar of the Prime Directive? Not to mention areas or planets that could represent danger to interstellar travel like Beta IIIA, Gamma Trianguli VI or the Eminiar system.

Or...

Think to The Omega Directive. Do we allow child races that make an astounding technological leap to endanger space and species for thousands of light years around them at the altar of the Prime Directive?

There is a reason Star Trek: Voyager mentions forty-seven subsections of the Prime Directive. Because not every situation is going to fit a straight non-interference policy anymore than every situation fit the "to fight communism at any cost" Prime Directive of the 60's/70's. Even today we continue to learn harsh lessons from mistakes made under that line of thinking.

The Ba'ku unfortunately exist in a situation that doesn't fit a straight non-interference policy on any level. Nor does it really fit property ownership rights. If the world doesn't belong to the Federation, then the Prime Directive demands that they stand by while any race comes in and either negotiates for or takes from the Ba'ku the meta-phasic particles. If the world does belong to the Federation, then it's up to them to try and do what's right for the Federation in general and the Ba'ku in particular.

When I look at what the Federation is doing, however stupid in execution it may be, they were trying to do what was right by both groups.

We should never be following a rule just to be following a rule. We have the ability to question the things that go on around us and should always do so.

 

[Trekker4747]

LINK

Louis Lovhaug (Linkara) and Doug Walker (The Nostalgia Critic) do a commentary on their Insurrection "review." In it they address some of the issues raised by viewers.

 

[Admiral Shran]

Interesting commentary. I like how Linkara brought up some of the objections you made yourself, Trekker4747. It's nice to see that he's willing to defend his position when others question it.

 

[Trekker4747]

I noticed that too, though I do wonder if others posted similar concerns on his blog/website/TGWTG website. But it was interesting hear their take on their review (I normally don't watch the commentaries they've done for other videos.) Also interesting to hear Louis and Doug sort of admit some of the "mistakes" they made in reviewing the film and even Louis seemed willing to admit, a bit, that maybe the Baku are willing to accept certain levels of technology.