Why do so many people hate 'Insurrection' so much?

Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies I-X' started by Stroudarian, Jan 4, 2018.

  1. Stroudarian

    Stroudarian Lieutenant Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2017
    Location:
    Las Cruces, NM
    I have noticed, even with people I converse with away from the forum, that many people hold a strong disdain for Star Trek Insurrection. I am just curious why so many people really despise the film? Out of the TNG movies, I feel as if it is one of my favorites, after First Contact. I was just hoping to get a consensus as to why so many different people share the same opinion about this film, and what makes them dislike it so much. Please, serious answers, I really want to hear your critique of the film. Thanks.
     
  2. Kor

    Kor Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2001
    Location:
    Dahar Master final exams
    It's an overblown TV episode (and an unremarkable one at that) with some very confused ethics.

    Kor
     
    lurok, Gepard, Ghostface1701 and 8 others like this.
  3. ItIsGreen

    ItIsGreen Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2015
    Location:
    Coventry, UK
    People put down the TNG movies for not being much like the show, and then put down Insurrection for being too much like the show. I like it. You know why? Because it's like the show. Is it perfect? No. Is it a fun movie? Yes. Is the manual steering column stupid? Hell yes. Is it more stupid than clean-shaven Riker's chubby cheeks? God no.
     
    Markonian, plynch and PhotoBoy like this.
  4. JonnyQuest037

    JonnyQuest037 Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Location:
    Parsippany, New Jersey, USA
    Because it's so aggressively mediocre. It's like a completely unmemorable episode of the show. If you're giving me a movie once every three years, I expect something of higher quality than that.
     
    lurok, Armus, BillJ and 4 others like this.
  5. Vger23

    Vger23 Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2014
    Location:
    New England
    I dislike INS because it is tepid, unremarkabke, unengaging foolishness.

    1. They literally strove for mediocrity in producing this movie. They said "well, we've had some pretty heavy outings lately...let's do something light and frothy." And, unless you're Leonard Nimoy, Nicholas Meyer and Harve Bennett making a movie about time travel and whales, that shit probably ain't gonna fly.
    2. The TNG cast doesn't do silliness very well.
    3. They spent 60 million dollars on a major motion picture in a popular sci-if adventure franchise that was less interesting or thrilling than 75-80% of the one-hour small screen syndicated TV episodes from the series it was based on. And that 75-80% includes a bucketfull of episodes that weren't very remarkable. INS was less remarkable than the series' most unremarkable episodes. What I mean is that INS would have been a totally forgettable 1-hour episode of TNG. And, this is what was made into a 60 million dollar major motion picture. A story that, if it was a one hour Season 6 episode,I wouldn't even remember it's title.
    4. Too many cooks in the kitchen. Spiner wanted to sing so there's singing because we need to keep Spiner happy. Stewart wanted romance so there's romance because we want to keep Stewart happy. Heart of Darkness plot watered down to a 10 min prologue. More cooks (especially actors throwing their weight around) usually equals a sloppy, hodgepodge of crapola.
    5. Nobody cares about the Ba'ku. At all. So the entire movie is built on a foundation of melting Jello Pudding Pops. Because the Ba'ku are entirely unsympathetic, and Picard is only trying to save them because he thinks Anij is hawt.

    INS is TNG era Trek at its absolute worst.

    Sorry...I'll relax now.

    :lol:
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2018
    burningoil, Skipper, lurok and 7 others like this.
  6. fireproof78

    fireproof78 Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2014
    It just doesn't fit.
     
    Vger23 likes this.
  7. Khan 2.0

    Khan 2.0 Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2013
    Location:
    earth...but when?...spock?
    Its kind of meh
     
    Bry_Sinclair likes this.
  8. Timo

    Timo Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    It's the only TNG movie with a plot in it.

    Timo Saloniemi
     
  9. at Quark's

    at Quark's Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2012
    From my point of view, it's a very contrived drama (I don't buy no other solutions were possible than the Son'a one). Also, the 'insurrection' cause doesn't strike me as very compelling or worthy. We're supposed to feel sympathy for the Ba'ku, but all they really are is a selfish bunch of aliens with pretty faces.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2018
    Armus and BillJ like this.
  10. Tosk

    Tosk Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2001
    Location:
    On the run.
    Who was selfish? Was it the small community who had no idea a powerful conglomeration of planets were secretly conspiring to kidnap and relocate them against their will? Or was it said conglomeration? (Which happened to include people known to have worked with an opposing side during wartime.) Government says get the hell out, you have something we want!
     
    urbandefault and ItIsGreen like this.
  11. MacLeod

    MacLeod Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    Location:
    Great Britain
    Foriegn Government, yes the Ba'ku planet was withing UFP space but how many other inhabitated planets that aren't UFP members also fall within Federation space?
     
  12. Timo

    Timo Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    That the planet was UFP property was the plot reason why the mighty Son'a had to crawl on their knees in front of the Federation to gain access to the place. Their two-and-a-half ships would not have gained that access by force, so they bought their way in with lies instead.

    It wasn't the plot reason for the locals having no say in their fate - now that came from the Prime Directive, where primitives cannot be spoken with and therefore cannot have a say. Except that, too, was a lie, as the Son'a and the Starfleet people working with them could easily see the Ba'ku were not natives. But it was a convenient lie.

    Ultimately, giving the Ba'ku a say wouldn't matter much, though. Why should their vote outweigh that of the trillions who wanted them gone from the planet? "Right to protection of property" doesn't cut it - they could take their property with them, or be compensated for. Unless they were selfish. And arguing about that is interesting. Forcing the audience to take sides would have been uninteresting, the opposite of having ethics.

    I don't think the movie suffered from having "unsympathetic victims". Those are an acceptable trope: everybody wants to see the gruesome death of the the annoying snitch whom the two heroic cops escort through a gauntlet of bad guys, but the heroes still keep him alive and the plot moves forward.

    Rather, the movie takes a surprise twist in the end and tries to paint the ugly bad guys as sympathetic victims after all. It sorta halfway works. And of course, both factions have that one contrast character: the irredeemably evil Rua'fo and the irredeemably hawt Anij. It's pretty much standard Hollywood fare, only Trek never tried to be this complex before, so it may feel a bit alien.

    Timo Saloniemi
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2018
  13. at Quark's

    at Quark's Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2012
    All parties are selfish in the movie, yes, the Ba'ku are not less so than the other parties.

    The Ba'ku aren't native to that planet. The fact that they found it earlier than others means they might have some more ("senior") rights to it, but by no means exclusive rights in my book. They should have been willing to settle for a compromise, which they don't seem to be. Also, if you accept the exclusive claim of the Ba'ku as legitimate, then the claim of the Son'a is equally legitimate, since they originate from the same population.

    Which means that In essence, the Federation got involved in an internecine struggle, for which there never is an excuse. That's principally the fault of Dougherty, but Picard choosing sides in the same struggle doesn't make it any better. He should have taken the fight up with the Federation council, not the Son'a.
     
    Shaka Zulu likes this.
  14. Timo

    Timo Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    Which just adds to the layers of the movie. Without Picard picking the wrong fight for the wrong reasons, the Ba'ku would be dead (I wouldn't believe for a second in the Son'a lies about transplanting the natives or even about gathering the waters of the fountain of youth, it was about deadly revenge all along).

    What happens after the movie is the interesting bit. Picard led an illegal insurrection against both his immediate military superiors and his government - why and how does he keep his job? Riker made the complaint to the Council - did they find reasons to reverse their decision (such as public pressure) or did they proceed with their original plan (which would be the one where they don't have to fight constant galactic wars over the possession of the Briar Patch)? The Ba'ku secret is out - do they have remaining reasons to keep hiding in the Patch, now destined to become a tourist and military attraction at the very best?

    It's one of 'em open-ended movies, only (luckily) it wasn't followed with an immediate negating sequel like the one Nimoy felt he was obligated to do after TWoK.

    Timo Saloniemi
     
  15. Tosk

    Tosk Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2001
    Location:
    On the run.
    What are you basing that on? The only thing they do (so far as I recall) is protect themselves from being kidnapped. Everything else stems from the fact that Admiral and Co. want only to move the Ba'ku and will not accept any other course of action. They are the ones who will not compromise. Picard even offers one to Dougherty who dismisses it immediately.
     
  16. Timo

    Timo Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    Which is a welcome exception from a trope: Picard says his heroic crew might have an alternate solution, and Dougherty says that the best minds of the Federation tried and failed - and no doubt is right!

    The time for alternatives came and went, and Picard wasn't invited to participate. Too bad.

    Timo Saloniemi
     
  17. JamesRye

    JamesRye Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2012
    I dislike Insurrection for many reasons:
    1. The Gilbert and Sullivan sing a long is truly awful. Ya know, just stop and analyse Picards plan for a moment. He's going to distract Data by making him sing so that Worf can shoot him. Data is literally the best multi-tasker on the ship!
    2. The whole new age 'perfect moment' tripe.
    3. It's completely the opposite message to the also terrible 'Journey Home' episode
    4. The joystick on the bridge.
    5. Since this Eden-like planet has only 600 inhabitants, why couldn't they use the planet as a spa, circling inside those metaphasic rings and bathing in the radiation, which is probably faster-acting in space than down on the surface?
    6. That duckblind is carved in solid granite about three feet away from the town centre, how did it get there?
    7. How did the So’na get banished? Did the Bak'u keep a couple of warships in orbit, just in case?
    8. As I mentioned earlier - there's 600 people on the entire planet. Why not relocate the disaffected?
    9. The Baku just swan about, watching the rest of the galaxy die while they sit around making mediocre tapestries?
    10. The inside of the collector is blue - cause they couldn't be bothered to finish the movie.
    11. The FX are poor.
    12. Ill conceived tit and zit jokes.
    13. Geordi's eyes couldn't regenerate as he was 'born that way'.
    14. Remember to have a little fun....every day. Sheesh.
     
  18. at Quark's

    at Quark's Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2012
    Well, let's see. A century before, the Son'a tried to take over, so the Ba'ku banished them. Which is understandable in itself. Only did they not just banish them from their village, but from the entire planet. They just as easily could have said, "you're still our children, live on the other hemisphere, you can live your life the way you want but don't come ever near our area again. Which shouldn't be too hard considering that we are only with 600 people". And they knew that over time, banishment from the planet was essentially a death sentence.

    (* That is of course assuming that the Son'a weren't lying when they said they were banished from the planet to die - which we can't know for certain.)

    Then, the first time Picard beams down to the village there is a Son'a officer there, and he also mentions that he is from the 'Son'a' command. So at that point in time the Ba'ku either already knew the Son'a were behind it all, and deliberately choose not to tell Picard their little history together, or they didn't even think of who those Son'a really might be until Picard discovered their DNA matched ('Gee, I could think of nobody willing to relocate us!') . The last would indicate that concern for the fate of their lost sons and daughters hadn't exactly been at the top of their minds for a long time.

    So, no, I'm really not impressed with their egotistical, self-absorbed mindset.

    Also, there's no real indication that the compromise Picard suggests has been sanctioned by the Ba'ku. Though it isn't impossible either, seeing the reconciliation between a Ba'ku and a Son'a at the end of the movie -- the movie doesn't tell us either way.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2018
    Shaka Zulu likes this.
  19. φ of π

    φ of π Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2016
    Location:
    Unimatrix √-1
    There's a review of the movie over on the website SFDebris and I agree with all of the points raised there.

    Also, how did the self-imposed pre-industrial community even attempt to repair a positronic net? Do they have high tech tools stashed away for, like, only when it's really necessary and we're, like, totally not hypocrites for using them when it's convenient for us but all other times, technology is, like, totally diminishing because it "takes away" from the person...
     
    BillJ likes this.
  20. Vger23

    Vger23 Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2014
    Location:
    New England
    Having a shitty plot isn't a good merit, though. I'd rather have a plot that is disjointed and doesn't hold up great under careful scrutiny if the experience of watching the movie in the moment is enjoyable. INS may be the tightest-plotted TNG movie ever...but that doesn't mean it's interesting, relevant, engaging or entertaining in any way.
     
    JonnyQuest037 likes this.