You know what really irks me about "Insurrection"?

[Hartzilla2007]

Look at threads on INS on this board alone. There's always significant disagreement, with the PRO-removal crowd often having more support.

Probably because their also the ones still going on about it.

I would say the same issue was raised to a lesser extent in FC. Crusher and Worf, at least, know that Picard's behaving irrationally, but ultimately they're both cowed by him and it takes a civilian to make Picard see reason. INS was in a sense the next logical step along that path of blind obedience.

Um, they kind of chose to follow his lead on this one, there was a scene and everything.

I mean hell Riker even pointed out that without the uniform he couldn't order them to do crap when he tried shoo them away while he was planing his one man war thing.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

^I made the argument in another thread that I feel the reason we never got such an arguably necessary scene is because the filmmakers were afraid the audience might turn on Picard. If Crusher or Riker made a compelling enough argument then large portions of the audience might have gone "Hey, that's a pretty good point, what the hell, Jean-Luc?".

I maintain that the basic problem with this movie is that it tries to have it both ways. They make a (very superficial) pretense that the story is about murky, morally grey events, yet they're never willing to let us disagree with Decisive Action Hero Picard.

^I made the argument in another thread that I feel the reason we never got such an arguably necessary scene is because the filmmakers were afraid the audience might turn on Picard. If Crusher or Riker made a compelling enough argument then large portions of the audience might have gone "Hey, that's a pretty good point, what the hell, Jean-Luc?".

I maintain that the basic problem with this movie is that it tries to have it both ways. They make a (very superficial) pretense that the story is about murky, morally grey events, yet they're never willing to let us disagree with Decisive Action Hero Picard.

This makes sense as a reason not to go that route. Because you're right, if you put a good argument into Beverly or Will's mouth, then you've got the audience scratching their heads going "yeah, why are we supposed to be rooting for Picard here?"

What they REALLY wanted was a "fun," "silly" action movie, not a movie with an ethical dilemma at its core. So instead of debate, we get a weak, half-hearted minute or two from Dougherty, and then it's sit back and enjoy the show!

If they wanted to go the route of fun little action movie, one wonders why they used such a flawed premise for it. It makes you either think that they're not very observant for missing the flaws, or that they thought THE AUDIENCE would be unobservant or lazy enough to overlook the other side of the debate.

I don't see a flaw in the premise. I agree with Picard, I disagree with Dougherty.

You, as many others here as well, just don't like that none of the heroes in this film share your personal opinion on the issue. And that is exactly what makes this film interesting. It's not a clear black and white problem, but the characters make a clear decision and stand by it.

Yeah, if it was about 6 billion people getting killed, everything would be nice and fine again, because everybody can agree on that. But no, it's just about a couple of folks not wanting to get relocated.

I don't see a flaw in the premise. I agree with Picard, I disagree with Dougherty.

You, as many others here as well, just don't like that none of the heroes in this film share your personal opinion on the issue. And that is exactly what makes this film interesting. It's not a clear black and white problem, but the characters make a clear decision and stand by it.

Yeah, if it was about 6 billion people getting killed, everything would be nice and fine again, because everybody can agree on that. But no, it's just about a couple of folks not wanting to get relocated.

they don't "share my personal opinion" because they're not actual people forming their own views on it. They're characters who are all mouthing the views of ONE PERSON, Michael Piller. There is no other side presented by ANY of the crew and that's a huge problem, because REALISTICALLY there would be.


Look at threads on INS on this board alone. There's always significant disagreement, with the PRO-removal crowd often having more support. Yet in the film, NONE of the crew of the Enterprise, senior officers or not, disagrees with Picard.


It's phony and absurd.

I would say the same issue was raised to a lesser extent in FC. Crusher and Worf, at least, know that Picard's behaving irrationally, but ultimately they're both cowed by him and it takes a civilian to make Picard see reason. INS was in a sense the next logical step along that path of blind obedience.

And this is why I think Star Trek Into Darkness is better than Star Trek-Insurrection (and maybe even Star Trek: First Contact.)

 

[sonak]

^I made the argument in another thread that I feel the reason we never got such an arguably necessary scene is because the filmmakers were afraid the audience might turn on Picard. If Crusher or Riker made a compelling enough argument then large portions of the audience might have gone "Hey, that's a pretty good point, what the hell, Jean-Luc?".

I maintain that the basic problem with this movie is that it tries to have it both ways. They make a (very superficial) pretense that the story is about murky, morally grey events, yet they're never willing to let us disagree with Decisive Action Hero Picard.

This makes sense as a reason not to go that route. Because you're right, if you put a good argument into Beverly or Will's mouth, then you've got the audience scratching their heads going "yeah, why are we supposed to be rooting for Picard here?"

What they REALLY wanted was a "fun," "silly" action movie, not a movie with an ethical dilemma at its core. So instead of debate, we get a weak, half-hearted minute or two from Dougherty, and then it's sit back and enjoy the show!

If they wanted to go the route of fun little action movie, one wonders why they used such a flawed premise for it. It makes you either think that they're not very observant for missing the flaws, or that they thought THE AUDIENCE would be unobservant or lazy enough to overlook the other side of the debate.

they don't "share my personal opinion" because they're not actual people forming their own views on it. They're characters who are all mouthing the views of ONE PERSON, Michael Piller. There is no other side presented by ANY of the crew and that's a huge problem, because REALISTICALLY there would be.


Look at threads on INS on this board alone. There's always significant disagreement, with the PRO-removal crowd often having more support. Yet in the film, NONE of the crew of the Enterprise, senior officers or not, disagrees with Picard.


It's phony and absurd.

I would say the same issue was raised to a lesser extent in FC. Crusher and Worf, at least, know that Picard's behaving irrationally, but ultimately they're both cowed by him and it takes a civilian to make Picard see reason. INS was in a sense the next logical step along that path of blind obedience.

And this is why I think Star Trek Into Darkness is better than Star Trek-Insurrection (and maybe even Star Trek: First Contact.)

Not only is STID far, far better than INS, I think it's insulting for the former to be compared to the latter. It's like comparing The Empire Strikes Back to The Phantom Menace.

 

[BillJ]

Star Trek Into Darkness is miles ahead of any of the NextGen films, in my opinion.

 

[AgentCoop]

I'd put First Contact ahead of either of the Abrams movies, but yeah, they're both better than Insurrection. At least JJ seemed to know what kind of movies he wanted to make.

 

[urbandefault]

I thought the little mouseweasel was unnecessary, but hey. They had the technology to do it, so ...

It had its issues, but so does everything about Star Trek. Overall, I like Insurrection. It's a Star Trek movie. I like Star Trek movies.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

^I made the argument in another thread that I feel the reason we never got such an arguably necessary scene is because the filmmakers were afraid the audience might turn on Picard. If Crusher or Riker made a compelling enough argument then large portions of the audience might have gone "Hey, that's a pretty good point, what the hell, Jean-Luc?".

I maintain that the basic problem with this movie is that it tries to have it both ways. They make a (very superficial) pretense that the story is about murky, morally grey events, yet they're never willing to let us disagree with Decisive Action Hero Picard.

This makes sense as a reason not to go that route. Because you're right, if you put a good argument into Beverly or Will's mouth, then you've got the audience scratching their heads going "yeah, why are we supposed to be rooting for Picard here?"

What they REALLY wanted was a "fun," "silly" action movie, not a movie with an ethical dilemma at its core. So instead of debate, we get a weak, half-hearted minute or two from Dougherty, and then it's sit back and enjoy the show!

If they wanted to go the route of fun little action movie, one wonders why they used such a flawed premise for it. It makes you either think that they're not very observant for missing the flaws, or that they thought THE AUDIENCE would be unobservant or lazy enough to overlook the other side of the debate.

they don't "share my personal opinion" because they're not actual people forming their own views on it. They're characters who are all mouthing the views of ONE PERSON, Michael Piller. There is no other side presented by ANY of the crew and that's a huge problem, because REALISTICALLY there would be.


Look at threads on INS on this board alone. There's always significant disagreement, with the PRO-removal crowd often having more support. Yet in the film, NONE of the crew of the Enterprise, senior officers or not, disagrees with Picard.


It's phony and absurd.

I would say the same issue was raised to a lesser extent in FC. Crusher and Worf, at least, know that Picard's behaving irrationally, but ultimately they're both cowed by him and it takes a civilian to make Picard see reason. INS was in a sense the next logical step along that path of blind obedience.

And this is why I think Star Trek Into Darkness is better than Star Trek-Insurrection (and maybe even Star Trek: First Contact.)

Well the debate about how far the fedeation or really any society should go to preserve said society and at what point they have crossed the line is a little more identifible then if a society where people live to their mid to late 100s and have technology to over come disabilities and people generally not being afraid of death needing to screw over people by stealing their planet to live even longer just for the hell of it.

 

[DonIago]

Is it clear that the Baku would have been any more screwed over than the Son'a already had been if they actually were forced to relocate? For instance, would they even develop the medical issues the Son'a were already faced with, or is it merely a case of "Boo hoo, I have to move from a planet that gave me immortality my species was merely lucky enough to stumble upon before anyone else to one that doesn't"?

Because honestly, in an age of holodecks and transporters and replicators, the whole "but it's my home" argument means virtually nothing to me. Hell, that's one problem I have with the Maquis as well.

The Baku didn't do anything to earn the immortality they had, they were just lucky enough to find the planet before anyone else did. And while the relocation situation was obviously mishandled, their apparent refusal to do anything to assist anyone other than themselves makes them completely unsympathetic to me. The "they were never asked" argument is ludicrous as well, since there was nothing stopping them from offering during the events of the film, and there's something kind of sickening about the idea that people should have to ask for better health...no pun intended.

 

[SeerSGB]

What I don't get is how could the Baku have stopped the Federation or the S'ona from landing colonists on the far side of the planet? For that matter, drop a few shield generators and a cloak around said colony and the Baku would be none the wiser.

 

[urbandefault]

I have Insurrection playing now.

The Son'a could have destroyed their "home" planet on their own if they wanted to by collecting the radiation or whatever. It seems to me that they didn't have the means to move the population from the planet, and they (even if subconsciously) didn't want to murder their families. They needed the Fed's resources to move the Baku to achieve their goals.

Ru'afo was just batshit crazy.

 

[DonIago]

I kind of agree. As has been alluded to before, I think Picard's actions, right or wrong, inflamed the situation. I think originally the Son'a just wanted the Baku out of the way, but when the E arrived and started making an issue of things Ru'afo's already tenuous acceptance of the relocation situation flew out the window.

In an ironic twist that Picard should be able to appreciate, Ru'afo's crew went right along with him instead of anyone standing up to him and telling him his behavior was out of line.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

What I don't get is how could the Baku have stopped the Federation or the S'ona from landing colonists on the far side of the planet? For that matter, drop a few shield generators and a cloak around said colony and the Baku would be none the wiser.

But the thing is we don't even know if the Baku would care if they set up a colony on the other side of the planet, as they were never asked.

 

[DonIago]

This whole "they were never asked" argument seems less and less credible to me and more and more like a rationalization. Is there some reason they couldn't have offered? They claim to be pacifists but are apparently quite content to let violence erupt all around their pacifism.

Furthermore it seems that in a realistic depiction of the situation they would have been asked at some point, so "they weren't asked" to me sounds more like "the movie was written badly".

 

[SeerSGB]

This whole "they were never asked" argument seems less and less credible to me and more and more like a rationalization. Is there some reason they couldn't have offered? They claim to be pacifists but are apparently quite content to let violence erupt all around their pacifism.

Furthermore it seems that in a realistic depiction of the situation they would have been asked at some point, so "they weren't asked" to me sounds more like "the movie was written badly".

Yeppers.

All it would have taken in a couple of lines. An offer to let the S'ona/Federation colonize another part of the planet. Doughtery agrees, Ruafo doesn't, movie moves forward as it did.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

This whole "they were never asked" argument seems less and less credible to me and more and more like a rationalization. Is there some reason they couldn't have offered?

Well I don't know about you but if I was dealing with members of a foriegn power who I had found spying on me and then found out they planed to kidnap me to steal my home under some Neoconish might makes right justification I doubt I would want to negotiate with them and would proceed to call the cops to come and lock them up.

 

[DonIago]

What cops were the Baku supposed to call?

In any event, if you're really a pacifist then don't just sit back while people fight all around you, do your part for peace by offering a compromise.

And I don't give a damn how badly you've been treated, if you're going to sit on, say, a cure for cancer for even hundreds of innocent people because a few individuals treated you badly? You're no better than they are.

Speaking as a Jew, the idea that Nazi medical research, however ill-gotten, should be swept under the carpet because of how it was obtained horrifies me. If -anything- positive can be gained from the research, then we should utilize it. The idea that that's legitimizing the methodology is bollocks. The dead are dead, and I can't imagine that they would all have an attitude of, "The way you discovered this medicine killed me, so no, I don't want you to use it to cure others."

Innocent people should not be made to suffer out of little more than spite, and if that's what the Baku would think then they're even more petty than the movie arguably makes them out to be.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

And I don't give a damn how badly you've been treated, if you're going to sit on, say, a cure for cancer for even hundreds of innocent people because a few individuals treated you badly? You're no better than they are.

It's not a cure for cancer its a vanity item seeing they already live to their 160s at least and are apparently up afraid of death.

So excuses me if I'm not sympathetic to the federation's supposed plight since I see living to my mid to late 100s as a good run.

Innocent people should not be made to suffer out of little more than spite, and if that's what the Baku would think then they're even more petty than the movie arguably makes them out to be.

Old age isn't suffering and the federation had better alternatives than acting like imperialistic assholes.

I really don't get why people are over estimating the particles, they were said to possibly make people live longer and somehow cure a condition the guy who had it up to this point didn't give a crap about and was kind of offended when people made it sound like he wasn't normal.

It was never said to cure diseases, or resurrect that dead, and it wasn't even immortality.

In fact it's kind of pathetic next to half the crap the federation already has.

 

[AgentCoop]

^Geordi's perceived attitude towards his blindness (I'm assuming that's who you're referring to) is beside the point. The particles were able to spontaneously cure a condition that is beyond the abilities of Federation science to fix. Who knows what else it could do?

 

[DonIago]

Exactly. It's clearly established in the movie, multiple times, that the particles are capable of far more than merely prolonging lifespans.

Curing the Son'a, for instance.

 

[SeerSGB]

Exactly. It's clearly established in the movie, multiple times, that the particles are capable of far more than merely prolonging lifespans.

Curing the Son'a, for instance.

This is why the Son'a was unneeded. They could have done the same story using a Federation crew, out looking for refugee worlds for the Post War Federation. Using the Son'a makes it look like a vanity issue. We're not shown Federation citizens suffering/dying, who could have been saved by the rings. It's implied, but we're never shown; hell, even a mention of a inbound medical ship filled with refugees would have worked.

As I said up thread, even use the Enterprise crew; with the Federation coming in to stake a claim after the miracle properties of the rings were discovered and the Enterprise's crew splitting over the issue.