The problem is that there is even MORE reason to move the Ba'ku than there was in Journey's End. First of all, they are not native to the planet and its controlled by the Federation. The Federation has the legal right to remove them. Second, there's a full scale war going on against the Dominion and many people have already died. Hundreds of billions of lives are at stake, but Picard's going to fight for 600 people who want to live forever, I don't buy that he would do that. Many more lives were at stake here than in Journey's End. Spock said it best "the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." I also don't see the ENTIRE crew supporting him.
The Son'a
- Thread starter The Overlord
- Start date
I wouldn't have. I don't get how no one at all said, "Uh, sir... are you sure it's a good idea to defy Federation orders and deny us this super medical technology which will save millions of lives? Which would be kinda helpful since we're engaged in a life or death struggle... not to mention we don't wanna piss these Son'a guys off and add another enemy to our list... especially since they're producing ketracel white which our enemy finds slightly useful."
The problem with the Ba'ku and thus the Son'a, for me, is actually very simple.
We can spend all day here debating the morality and ethics of each side, the pro's and con's....but for me the REAL, underlying issue with Insurrection's bizarre plot is that it is completely lacking one sentence that could have helped the film make a lot more sense...
"We asked the Ba'ku to leave the planet, or give us a continent the size of Australia while they kept the rest, so that we could build a vast medical facility....they refused."
That's it for me. YES the film has a zillion plot holes but they are all built upon this unanswered question. Was it asked? Did the Ba'ku give a reason? It makes everyone, from Ba'ku to Son'a to Picard look like idiots.
I actually LIKE the bumbled philosophical question that "Is it ever right to forcefully relocate anyone?". The execution, however, is dismal.
The Son'a, Bak'u and Picard all look like idiots. The Bak'u are what? 600 strong?
SIX HUNDRED. My University holds ten times that ammount. My city, about a hundred times. What the hell is stopping the Son'a....just landing on another continent? What are the Bak'u planning on doing? Shelving their farms and bringing out some old school weapons that they have denounced?
Imagine 600 people living in Ireland on Earth.....why would you not just land your people in China? Japan? Australia? Brazil? The sheer ratio of landmass to Bak'u is staggering. I really dont see what the problem actually is and the film DOESN'T ACTUALLY TELL US. At no point is it made completely clear that the Bak'u aren't willing to hand over a huge swathe of land for medical use.
Sorry for the lecture guys but it has always bothered me.
We can spend all day here debating the morality and ethics of each side, the pro's and con's....but for me the REAL, underlying issue with Insurrection's bizarre plot is that it is completely lacking one sentence that could have helped the film make a lot more sense...
"We asked the Ba'ku to leave the planet, or give us a continent the size of Australia while they kept the rest, so that we could build a vast medical facility....they refused."
That's it for me. YES the film has a zillion plot holes but they are all built upon this unanswered question. Was it asked? Did the Ba'ku give a reason? It makes everyone, from Ba'ku to Son'a to Picard look like idiots.
I actually LIKE the bumbled philosophical question that "Is it ever right to forcefully relocate anyone?". The execution, however, is dismal.
The Son'a, Bak'u and Picard all look like idiots. The Bak'u are what? 600 strong?
SIX HUNDRED. My University holds ten times that ammount. My city, about a hundred times. What the hell is stopping the Son'a....just landing on another continent? What are the Bak'u planning on doing? Shelving their farms and bringing out some old school weapons that they have denounced?
Imagine 600 people living in Ireland on Earth.....why would you not just land your people in China? Japan? Australia? Brazil? The sheer ratio of landmass to Bak'u is staggering. I really dont see what the problem actually is and the film DOESN'T ACTUALLY TELL US. At no point is it made completely clear that the Bak'u aren't willing to hand over a huge swathe of land for medical use.
Sorry for the lecture guys but it has always bothered me.
There a few problems with this, to start the Sona couldn't just live on the planet to obtain the cure, because the cure would have effected them too slowly, they would have died.
There also the fact that they didn't really want to live there. It would be like you TheGoodStuff quitting your job, selling your house, saying goodbye to your friends, and having to moving next to the pharmaceutical facility that produces the drugs that keep you alive.
Better to have the drugs sent to you, and for the Sona (and the Federation) to have the magic particles distributed to their many planets.
And you also need to consider that the Baku were able to force the Sona off the planet once before, they probably still could.
In a interesting scene cut from the movie, a Ferengi (Quark) shows up and say that he was going to build a medical spa on the planet, Picard said that he wouldn't permit the construction of such medical facilities on the planet.
So much for that idea,
And instead of asking the Baku if they would willingly leave the planet, the Federation should have openly approached them and simply informed them of the harvesting of the particles, explain the effect of the harvest upon the planet (rendered uninhabitable for generations), and direct told the Baku to get their things together.
They were leaving.
Look at the episode Pen Pals, there was debate among the senior officers as to the course of action that should be taken. The officers disagreed as to whether or not the prime directive applied.
This type of discussion was absent from Insurrection, no one disagreed with Picard, no one voiced opposition.
One of the reasons I like Insurrection (more so than most) is that it is more complex than the average Trek movie, Who the good guys are, and who the bad guys are isn't as obvious as it would first seem. The plot isn't black and white.
The movie could have been made simplistic but it wasn't, straight forward things like who the planet belongs too could have been easy by making the Baku indigenous to the planet instead of interstellar immigrants.
Soon after the Baku figured out the planet's special properties, they could have used their warp ships to spread the word to the galaxy, they didn't.
What's the morality of moving several hundred people in order to help multiple billions?
Instead of spoon feeding the audience, we're allowed to pick sides on our own. based on our own thoughts and beliefs. I like that.
None of that makes Son'a particularly interesting villains, especially since Ru'afo barely does anything during the film.
The movie can't seem to decide whether this is a gray conflict or black and white conflict. If this a gray conflict, the Son'a should have been made more sympathetic to reflect the gray nature of the conflict, if the conflict was more black and white, some of the crew should have disagreed with Picard.
The problem is, the Son'a greatest evil acts occur entirely off screen, so in a debate where one side is represented by drug dealing slavers, then one side is not well represented, but since the Son'a barely did anything menacing on screen, they are not very threatening either.
So the Son'a fail at being sympathetic and they fail at being scary, threatening villains. That's why making them "a little bit evil and little bit sympathetic" didn't work, because they were not sympathetic enough to be relatable and they were not evil enough to be menacing, so they were just bland. That is not the mark of a good villain, they are most forgettable villains to appear in a Star Trek movie.
You know another question that's never asked of the Ba'ku "are you people really going to put your own immortality and principles above the lives of hundreds of billions of people?" Do you know why it wasn't asked, because there is no answer that the Ba'ku could have given that DIDN'T make them look like selfish assholes.
Look at the episode Pen Pals, there was debate among the senior officers as to the course of action that should be taken. The officers disagreed as to whether or not the prime directive applied.
This type of discussion was absent from Insurrection, no one disagreed with Picard, no one voiced opposition.
That would've made the movie way more interesting. Heck you could have the dissenters be the one sent back with the Enterprise to inform Earth too. The TNG crew largely lacked conflict which ironically was their biggest flaw from an entertainment standpoint.
They don't believe in technology. There's your answer. And it's beside the point--they were never asked; the Federation was just going to move them without telling the Ba'ku. Think about that. It's not just moving. It's dying--condemning 600 people to die--that would ordinarily be immortal. They chose the planet before they knew what it would do to them. They weren't selfish.
Was it right to destroy black neighborhoods in order to build the interstate system? Was it right to move the Indians off their reservations, breaking a treaty, in order to build the Transcontinental highway?
This is a Star Trek movie, not Star Wars. The stakes are the Federation, facing extinction, has abandoned all that Picard has fought for through active participation in the culture, and defense of it from the Borg or the Romulans. We are there to seek out new lives and new civilizations. We are to do this peacefull, to build relationships with peoples of the universe to better understand our place in that universe and to seek out cooperation. That is the driving force of humanity. They do this, and every person who benefits has blood on their hands.
Picard asked an interesting question in this movie: "How many people does it take before it becomes wrong?" So ask yourself that when thinking about this. 1 million people have to die where they wouldn't have before. 10 million people. 1 billion people. Why does the number matter?
And another question, why does killing one of the crew, say Data, more objectionable then if we kill 600 people?
Ru'Afo is cuddly? He kills Admiral Dougherty. He is five minutes from killing Picard and all the members of his parent's community. What needs to happen, are you so enthralled with violence in movies, that you would rather see him be less relatable?
What is Star Trek? Or more importantly, what makes Star Trek unique to other Science Fiction? When are they breaking new ground?
The fact is, Star Trek stories about the complexity of human civilization through the prism of what we would find in space, are where it breaks ground. It imagines, rather brilliantly, what would happen if we got our wish. "Apprenticing for 30 years."
I would like an answer from those that dislike Insurrection about what makes Star Trek unique. Because I think this movie is imaginative, the best of TNG and Trek, and I think it takes risks that other Trek films failed to do. I will elaborate further if you wish, but I am done typing for now.
Again, its not necessarily the concept of the film that is bad, its the execution.
The concept could have made for a good film, but the way it was executed didn't work.
What makes the Ba'ku's claim to the planet better then the Son'a claim to the planet? Why is it wrong for the Son'a to force the Ba'ku off the planet, but okay for the Ba'ku to force the Son'a off the planet? How were the Luddite and pacifist Ba'ku able to force the more aggressive and tech savey Son'a off the planet? After losing the battle with the Ba'ku why didn't the Son'a simply establish a colony on the other side of the planet? How did the Ba'ku banish the Son'a if they had no technology?
Really the more you think about the Ba'ku and the Son'a, the less sense they make.
And here is the biggest question, is the conflict in this movie supposed to be a gray moral dilemma or a simple black and white morality tale, because the movie can't seem to decide that and it makes the message muddled. If its supposed to be a gray situation, the Son'a should have been more sympathetic, if its a simple black and white situation, the Son'a should have been far more evil and not native to the planet at all. As it stands now, the Son'a are just bland and forgettable villains, Ru'afo barely did anything in this movie.
Yet they were able to accurately determine the exact problem with Data's positronic brain. They might not use it in their daily lives, but the Baku did possess technology.
Yes they were, and this is why. After they found out about the beneficial properties of the planet, they then did not use their starship (starships) to spread the word to other species that could have benefited. They kept the knowledge to themselves.
And that is the Baku being selfish.
There is no reason to believe that the Baku wouldn't have the same access to the radiation from the collected particles as others would, the main difference would be the Baku would no longer have exclusive access.
I would have loved for the Admiral to have immediately confronted Picard with the opposing quesion of how many people have to be helped before it becomes right?
Picard didn't have a logical leg to stand on.
What gave the Baku the right to ban the Sona from the planet? Was it wrong for the Baku to relocate the Sona? How many Sona had to die before it was wrong. Or is it OK because the Sona were ugly and the Baku leader was cute. Did Picard check who had the 'moral' right to the planet?
And the Sona weren't planning on killing the Baku- just moving them.
Come to thing of it Admiral Dougherty was probably the noblest one there. He wanted everyone in the Federation to share in the benefits of the planet while the Sona and Baku were thinking only of themselves (who can blame them). Picard maybe was guilty over what happened at "Journeys End" - although it was never said why he had such an about face .
They have rejected technology. Taking a drug a form of technology. They would have to give up their way of life in order not to die. That's destroying the culture or destroying them. It also ignores the fact that the Federation was going to move them without ever knowing that they were someplace else, away from the particles. People would just start getting old.
I would have loved for the Admiral to have immediately confronted Picard with the opposing quesion of how many people have to be helped before it becomes right?
Picard didn't have a logical leg to stand on.
I refer to my examples of the Transcontinental Railroad and the Interstate Highway system. Or Eminent Domain. This is a moral question, one that has no immediate answer. The Federation could've studied the particles, like scientists, and spent years trying to replicate it. They are doing this as a matter of convenience. The Federation hasn't lost anything yet. They would be gaining something.
We can argue about this all day, but remember, we are in the 24th century, not the 21st. Humanity has evolved.
This was addressed in the film. They could establish a separate colony. They "Don't want to live in the middle of the Briar Patch," remember?
Hate to tell it to you but the whole Baku rejection of technology and the "when you build a machine you take something from the man" is nonsense. Go back and look at their village again.
Irrigated fields with gates, dams, tools, metal forges, carts, spinning wheels, that's all technology and/or machines. To say nothing of the rock quarry and mines they had to have to get all that metal and stone. Maybe not advanced technology or machines, but they still had it.
Not to mention as clean as that freaking place was they either had to have vacuum cleaners stashed away some place or be scrubbing and sweeping for hours a day. Which I guess would explain why they apprenticed for 30 years if they're spending most of their time keeping the place clean.
Irrigated fields with gates, dams, tools, metal forges, carts, spinning wheels, that's all technology and/or machines. To say nothing of the rock quarry and mines they had to have to get all that metal and stone. Maybe not advanced technology or machines, but they still had it.
Not to mention as clean as that freaking place was they either had to have vacuum cleaners stashed away some place or be scrubbing and sweeping for hours a day. Which I guess would explain why they apprenticed for 30 years if they're spending most of their time keeping the place clean.
I would ask Picard why he was fine with forcibly relocating those Indians during Journey's End, but would throw his entire career away to help these people. Is it because they're white and he wants to bang one of them. You know that your movie has problems when even some of the actors disagree with the message.
And those colonists in Ensigns of Command weren't given any choice either.
First off, I agree that moving the Baku employing the holoship was a poor idea, the Baku should have been openly approach and been simply told that they were going to be moved.
However, the holoship was basically only to keep the Baku quiet during the move, once they were at the ultimate destination the Baku would have realized immediately that they were somewhere else.
Per dialog from the movie, Starfleet did in fact study the particles prior to the Federation Council's decision to move the Baku and harvest the particles.
From dialog in DS9 and ST: Enterprise, as well as the movie, when the Baku arrived on the planet it was in Romulan space, subsequently it became part of the Klingon Empire (there's no indication either ventured into the Brier Patch). At some point the area became part of the Federation. The Enteprise had enough information on the Patch to indicate that Starfleet had at least done a brief survey of the area.
Eminent Domain does appply because the planet was never the Baku's. Even Picard, a supporter of the Baku, acknowledges that the planet is in the Federation.
Necessity really. The Federation had formed a partnership with the Sona, and the Sona were dying, so there was a time constraint.
Last edited:
Without some technology, they would have to wrestle their food with bare hands and live in nomadic wilderness, according to your definition.
--- Irrigation was first used in 1800 BCE.
--- The first dams were constructed in 3,000 BCE.
--- The Wheel was introduced in the 4,000 BCE.
--- First Copper Mines were in 3,800 BCE
--- The first stone tools, 4,000 BCE
So...not exactly a replicator and a positronic brain. Can they kill en masse with these tools? "Verge of self-annihilation" because of technology. What is happening with people and climate change (not to mention food budgets now?) Co-op farming and cities with areas for farming. Think about it. They cannot do irreparable damage to the world with the tools that they have.
My house is in the United States. It doesn't make it the property of the Federal Government until they seize it. Because it moved over the course of 300 years to Federation hands, that's making my point for me. They have a longer claim on it than the Federation does. This is moving the Native Americans off their lands. They migrated from what is now Asia over Alaska into North America. They were indigenous to the region. Eminent Domain certainly does apply. They are not Federation citizens. They were not consulted about the future of this world, as the two examples you have stated, have been. Without Data going crazy, the Federation would've killed 600 people, asking them to "slowly die." Like the Ba'ku or not, that is what they were being forced to do.
