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

[donners22]

For starters, so many cringeworthy moments - the slow pan as they did their gunfighter poses, the dialog (the "day of lightning" bit, Data's boob joke, etc), the joystick, the bazooka.

Then there's the laziness (Worf's unexplained presence, having the Baku all look perfectly human, etc), bad editing (the cut from dark caves to glaring sunlight elicits a groan from the audience every time), bad effects (the shuttle in particular), the clichéd bad admiral...

Plus overall it's just really bland.

I was just reading the Fifty Year Mission accounts of the writing process, and it explains a lot.

 

[Vger23]

For starters, so many cringeworthy moments - the slow pan as they did their gunfighter poses, the dialog (the "day of lightning" bit, Data's boob joke, etc), the joystick, the bazooka.

Then there's the laziness (Worf's unexplained presence, having the Baku all look perfectly human, etc), bad editing (the cut from dark caves to glaring sunlight elicits a groan from the audience every time), bad effects (the shuttle in particular), the clichéd bad admiral...

Plus overall it's just really bland.

I was just reading the Fifty Year Mission accounts of the writing process, and it explains a lot.

I'd love to hear more about the insights on the writing process.

 

[Tosk]

and not as much "Picard Action Hero" as the others.

Except Generations, where Picard gets smacked around by some old guy. Twice.

 

[Vger23]

Except Generations, where Picard gets smacked around by some old guy. Twice.

I actually thought INS was the most out-of-character and action-heroish portrayal of Picard out of all of them

 

[fireproof78]

I actually thought INS was the most out-of-character and action-heroish portrayal of Picard out of all of them

That and the stupid Argo rover.

 

[Vger23]

That and the stupid Argo rover.

True! But even that came off as a "moderately inappropriate potential mid-life crisis moment" as opposed to "horndawg rebellious phaser rifle leather jacket badass guy" that showed up for INS.

 

[fireproof78]

True! But even that came off as a "moderately inappropriate potential mid-life crisis moment" as opposed to "horndawg rebellious phaser rifle leather jacket badass guy" that showed up for INS.

Yes, but then you consider the Prime Directive violations (non warp capable species), the lack of a windshield (rocks can hurt) and the "Dukes of Hazard" jump of the cliff. Yeah, INS was definitely ridiculous but Picard then went as a one man commando team against the Remans. It's a toss up.

But its only bad if Abrams does it lol

 

[Vger23]

Yes, but then you consider the Prime Directive violations (non warp capable species), the lack of a windshield (rocks can hurt) and the "Dukes of Hazard" jump of the cliff. Yeah, INS was definitely ridiculous but Picard then went as a one man commando team against the Remans. It's a toss up.

But its only bad if Abrams does it lol

It's actually a tragedy how much better a film Nemesis could have been. You trim out the conflict with the Kolarans you're referring to (heck, they can still go exploring and collecting the B4 parts...just axe the chase scene) and add back in about 90% of the deleted material which fleshed out the characters and themes of the film, it might have been a really good flick.

 

[marsh8472]

yeah I kept falling asleep to this movie when I first saw it. Once I opened my mind up more and saw the good parts it wasn't as bad. Mainly what it would take to get the crew to rebel against star fleet. The same kind of concept as DS9 "The Search pt 2"

 

[Tosk]

True! But even that came off as a "moderately inappropriate potential mid-life crisis moment" as opposed to "horndawg rebellious phaser rifle leather jacket badass guy" that showed up for INS.

In INS' defense, the storyline itself did provide a reason for Picard acting a little differently.

 

[DonIago]

I don't hate the film, but the supposed ethical dilemma doesn't work for me, particularly in that I ultimately find the Son'a potentially more sympathetic than the Baku, the logistics of the conflict don't even make sense to me (how did the Baku manage to exile the Son'a, and why can't they defend themselves the same way now?). Perhaps most damning, there was a tv show on at the same time that was doing far more interesting and relevant to the franchise things, and somehow TPTB felt it was better to do a movie that would essentially act like all of that didn't exist.

Plus, as an earlier poster said, I don't see how there's ultimately any room for a happy ending here. Unless the Federation is planning to deploy a permanent force to defend the Baku world, sooner or later someone's going to come along and finish what the Son'a were willing to start. Probably someone who's not even willing to show the good faith to work through Federation channels as the Son'a did. Granted the Son'a weren't entirely honest about the situation, but they also didn't just send a fleet through either.

 

[Tenacity]

Foreign Government, yes the Ba'ku planet was withing UFP space but how many other inhabited planets that aren't UFP members also fall within Federation space?

I would imagine that the vast majority of inhabited systems surrounded by Federation space aren't Federation members, don't consider themselves to be a part of the Federation, and aren't claimed by the Federation. The Federation likely (I think) doesn't extend into most non-Federation inhabited systems. There are probably hundreds of areas that are claimed by multiple federations, assemblies, republics, and so forth.

But the movie explains that it goes beyond the world just being a planet surrounded by Federation space. It's a case of ...

Picard: A planet in Federation space.
Dougherty: That's right. We have the planet.

It's a Federation planet, not merely one of the planets surrounded by the Federation. The Federation has the planet, the star system, the brier patch.

Perhaps most damning, there was a tv show on at the same time that was doing far more interesting and relevant to the franchise things

If you mean DS9, then no it wasn't. And the greater audience was going to see a TNG movie, which was continuation of the previous two Star Trek movies.

There was no reason to include any kind of DS9 "spill over."

 

[DonIago]

^You mean beyond the fact that we would probably have ended up with a better film? Sure, okay.

 

[donners22]

I'd love to hear more about the insights on the writing process.

There are several sources - The Fifty Year Mission, Secrets of Star Trek Insurrection and Fade In.

The very short version was that it was originally a substantially darker and more impactful tale, wherein Picard loses his Starfleet commission and is involved in a lengthy and ongoing battle with Data. Stewart and/or the studio hated it.

Stewart, it should be noted, had a clause in his contract allowing him to bring in a writer to re-write scripts, which he exercised on First Contact. That undoubtedly made the writers gunshy about conflicts with him. Spiner also had substantial power.

 

[ItIsGreen]

I would imagine that the vast majority of inhabited systems surrounded by Federation space aren't Federation members, don't consider themselves to be a part of the Federation, and aren't claimed by the Federation. The Federation likely (I think) doesn't extend into most non-Federation inhabited systems. There are probably hundreds of areas that are claimed by multiple federations, assemblies, republics, and so forth.

But the movie explains that it goes beyond the world just being a planet surrounded by Federation space. It's a case of ...

Picard: A planet in Federation space.
Dougherty: That's right. We have the planet.

It's a Federation planet, not merely one of the planets surrounded by the Federation. The Federation has the planet, the star system, the brier patch.

I've seen that argument raised a few times, and it just plain doesn't make any sense. Is the Federation in the business of claiming ownership of planets with existing populations on them? Whether or not that population is indigenous is irrelevant; they've clearly been there since before the Federation laid claim to the planet, ergo the planet is theirs. The only way the Federation claim on the planet makes sense is if they didn't know the Ba'ku were there - as soon as they were discovered it (should have) made the Federation claim null and void. The fact that there are some within the Federation willing to turn a blind eye to this, wilfully ignore the Prime Directive, and work with known enemies to surreptitiously move the Ba'ku off world in order to profit from an unusual natural resource is exactly what Picard is insurrecting against.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I'd love to hear more about the insights on the writing process.

Wasn't there a whole book published online for free about the making of Insurrection?? Does anyone remember?

 

[MacLeod]

I've seen that argument raised a few times, and it just plain doesn't make any sense. Is the Federation in the business of claiming ownership of planets with existing populations on them? Whether or not that population is indigenous is irrelevant; they've clearly been there since before the Federation laid claim to the planet, ergo the planet is theirs. The only way the Federation claim on the planet makes sense is if they didn't know the Ba'ku were there - as soon as they were discovered it (should have) made the Federation claim null and void. The fact that there are some within the Federation willing to turn a blind eye to this, wilfully ignore the Prime Directive, and work with known enemies to surreptitiously move the Ba'ku off world in order to profit from an unusual natural resource is exactly what Picard is insurrecting against.

Agreed.

 

[Vger23]

I've seen that argument raised a few times, and it just plain doesn't make any sense. Is the Federation in the business of claiming ownership of planets with existing populations on them? Whether or not that population is indigenous is irrelevant; they've clearly been there since before the Federation laid claim to the planet, ergo the planet is theirs. The only way the Federation claim on the planet makes sense is if they didn't know the Ba'ku were there - as soon as they were discovered it (should have) made the Federation claim null and void. The fact that there are some within the Federation willing to turn a blind eye to this, wilfully ignore the Prime Directive, and work with known enemies to surreptitiously move the Ba'ku off world in order to profit from an unusual natural resource is exactly what Picard is insurrecting against.

Picard was insurrecting against the fact that he wouldn't get to play with Anij if the plan all went down.

 

[Vger23]

One of the cable channels I get has been playing Star Trek movies all week. I think it's just a straight-out marathon this weekend.

Anyway, caught some of INS yesterday. Nothing is more laughable than when, on the "day of lightning," the phaser bolts hit the Ba'ku village bridge, and the bridge shakes like a balsa wood prop with a little spark and smoke coming out of it.

Awesome stuff right there.

Ah, and purple bazooka bolts. Also quite awesome.

 

[DonIago]

I've seen that argument raised a few times, and it just plain doesn't make any sense. Is the Federation in the business of claiming ownership of planets with existing populations on them? Whether or not that population is indigenous is irrelevant; they've clearly been there since before the Federation laid claim to the planet, ergo the planet is theirs. The only way the Federation claim on the planet makes sense is if they didn't know the Ba'ku were there - as soon as they were discovered it (should have) made the Federation claim null and void. The fact that there are some within the Federation willing to turn a blind eye to this, wilfully ignore the Prime Directive, and work with known enemies to surreptitiously move the Ba'ku off world in order to profit from an unusual natural resource is exactly what Picard is insurrecting against.

So if I'm squatting on land that you legally purchase, my rights should trump yours?