This timeline version of Picard. I wonder if they would have made a Picard and Sisko joint battle to fight the dominion, then it would have garnered more views for DS9.
most of Starfleet understood the Maquis .... the problem was that Starfleet didn't want to go (back to) war with the Cardassians cuz it would serve no purpose.
I've heard people say this movie was "too much like a long TNG episode." I still don't know why that's a bad thing. If anything, the other TNG movies weren't like the show *enough.*
Insurrection sucked. Even Patrick Stewart wasn't a fan of it. Apparently the first few versions of the script were binned by Stewart as well. They had the perfect story arc to work with-The Dominion War. What did we get? A movie about a bunch of hippies who've rejected technology🙄
@@St_AngusYoung The Dominion War would certainly have hooked in the Star Trek fandom, but how much disappointment would there have been at the lack of DS9 characters, other than Worf? And what of those coming to see the film who had never seen DS9, or any other Star Trek for that matter? The producers of the films have always had to tread a fine line between satisfying the Trek crowd and not alienating the non-Trek crowd, which is likeliest to occur when things are too self-referential.
@@St_AngusYoung I'll give you that, this should have been a Dominion War movie. Perfect chance to show what the Enterprise was doing during the fighting.
@@MS-19 I get what you're saying. They should've had someone other than Michael Piller to write the story. They could've incorporated DS9 into it, even if briefly at the start or end. Ira Steven Behr as writer could've been a good option. But as the old saying goes, hindsight is a beautiful thing.
@@tyranusfan would've been awesome to see the Enterprise engaging Dominion forces in battle. But oh well, atleast we got to see Data as a flotation device or Worf with a zit🤨
You know, considering that Earth is supposed to be a paradise with virtually no crime and humanity is supposed to have gotten its collective shit together by the 24th century, it's interesting that Starfleet seems to be full of corrupt admirals.
there are always people in power believing in eithet the greater good or their own right to make devisions over others - even if they are not corrupt or bad. what i’ve seen … in most of the cases neither of these admirals were guided by being evil or wanting to gain more for themselves (explicitly) most of these are like Thanos really. they believe that they serve the community better with their own ideas and only them can see that they are right - everyone else calls them mad. and in general they are right: should you let them fulfill their dreams, they would usually make the place better… issue is, just like with Thanos: killing half the enitre universe is not something you could justify:) even if the remaining half would have a better future. and to drive the point home: Thanos (after killing half the universe) retires to his farm, even destroys the stones to “protect” the peace and wellbeing of the survivors. most of these admirals would make the call on what they think is right and move on. thus i dont see contradiction in “humanity is better after the 24th century” vs “these admirals” ;) hope it makes sense :)
Or, is Earth a pseudo-paradise because the corrupt admirals are making the hard choices behind closed doors? If and Admiral turned up one day saying weve got this new drug that will triple your lifespan, would anyone stop to ask where it came from?
"They dont want to live in the middle of the Briar Patch. Who would?" Well considering that living on this planet will return you to your youth and physical prime and you will become basically immortal I would say EVERYONE WOULD.
The Son'a do not want to live on the same planet as the rest of the Ba'ku because (spoiler alerts ahead) they have a grudge against them; the Son'a are a splinter cell of the Ba'ku. 100 years prior to the events of the film, a small group of young Ba'ku had rebelled against the anti-technology policy of the elders. They attempted a coup, but failed, and as punishment, the Ba'ku elders exiled them from the planet, stripping them of their immortality. And now they're back for revenge.
@@montgomeryscott5657 That doesn't mean the Son'a don't want to live on the planet, it just means that they don't want to live in the same culture as the Ba'ku. How the Ba'ku ever prevented the Son'a from just setting up another colony on the other side of the planet is never explained, nor is it clear how or why the Son'a lost if they have superior technology and a more militant way of life (or why they didn't come back shortly after they'd built up their power base). Honestly, the Son'a's whole plan kind of sucks.
"how many people does it take admiral, before it becomes wrong" 5 minutes of dialogue and talk, i love how engaging these segments are, they are never boring or insulting to the audience.
Is very odd though that the Baku were never asked if they would be okay with leaving the planet in order to use what this planet they found has in order to save billions of lives. Sure they said they liked living there, but I don't think they were given an opportunity to be included in this debate, despite them being the people most directly involved. It was only mentioned at the beginning of the movie but the Dominion war was still going on during this movie. Millions of lives are being lost in this bloody conflict, the Federation was right to feel that there was no time to waste.
@@0x1EGEN Now it is but not back then because wokeness is only a recent phoenomen. Being diverse for for the sake of being diverse. Having gay characters for example with the intention of attracting that portion of the population or having a female lead to just attract female viewers. Having stories spreading the "message" over plot, good characterization over everything else but just telling a good story. TNG, Voyager, Enterprise etc was never like that!!!!
@@marksilgram80 No man. Star Trek was woke from the very start. TOS literally almost got cancelled during the 1960s because it had a black female character along with a Japanese and Russian crew member. DS9 had episodes focusing on trans and lesbians. And I'm sure you recall one of the TNG movies where Data welcomes all the queer people at the beginning of the scene.
Fun Fact: The initial script for 1998's Star Trek: Insurrection featured a scene in which Picard discovers Quark stowing away on a Starfleet vessel, trying to get to the Ba'ku planet. Always the businessman, Quark was apparently intending to open up a spa on the planet.
Which is why it takes several passes of a script before it's honed down. Today? That scene would be in there. It'd be great for yuks, but ultimately nonsensical as A - the mission is clandestine. It's this off-book affair Starfleet "overlooked" because they needed allies. The Enterprise is only pulled in because of Data B- whilst "cute" and a fan service note, it grinds the pace down and distracts from the plot. As much as I love Armin and it'd be great to see a co-mingling of the universe, it then just leads to. "ok so Worf has to address this, where does Quark go? Etc etc. Just cut that idea and streamline the plot. It's about the Moral issue and the Baku. Many would love that idea, but also it's a feature film. Sure Trek was at it's zenith, but movie-goers might not know who Quark is. DS9 wasn't the beloved series it is today and there was no on-demand video service to get up to speed or wiki. So you'd be like "ok what was that?"
The Feature nature is why the Enterprise feels so weirdly absent from the Dominion War. Oh theres a million ways a writer in universe skirts around it, but simply. Theater audiences need a self capsuled story. The sheer fact the War was even paid lip service was astounding in the film. It often gets touted people would get confused between the show and the films, which is seemingly dumb, but remember the Cinema was a big thing. So you'd get non-fans going in and they get the concept, but haven't seen the latest show. Today it's easy. It's right there a few clicks. In 98' you had to rely on re runs or VHS.
It's like say Game of Thrones was airing, but there was a Movie about a band of Mercenaries. You kind of have the concept but you only saw a few episodes. Today it's a fully synchronised deal where you can just do a side story tangent. Back then, you have to just tell an enclosed story framed in the Game of Thrones atmosphere, because the average movie goer doesn't know wtf a Dothraki is. So the film reiterates. "oh so he's a sort of Mongolian Comanchie. I don't get why the scene where they kill the horse freaked him out. I mean they're starving right now I get it."
I think Picard and the Ba'ku would have preferred a spa hotel run by Quaekrto the total exploitation of the planet by Starfleet and their shady partners. Too bad the idea didn't come to fruition.
I was 11 years old, and my great-grandfather took me to see this movie. Even though he didn't like science fiction, He still took me to see it. Because I was going through a hard time with my parents' divorce. I'll never forget it.
I have never understood why soooo many thought that was a poor film. I feel the opposite way. Its a story about ethics and morals. I love the line in that says "when you have a machine do the work of a man, you take something away from the man".
There are two problems with this film. The first one is, that Picard is supposed to side with the Federation because he and his crew relocated species in TNG several times although these Species didn´t want to leave their planet. The second problem is that Star Trek is about how technology can improve our lives. Also the question what is taken from the man is never answered. Machines don´t take something away in my opinion. If used correctly they can help us doing the things we want to do quicker and more effectively. Unfortunately Insurrection doesn´t debate about it.
Because they themselves were using machines. Low tech ones but still using them. Second, they were trying to deny a resource that could have saved literally billions of lives on a planet they didn't even have a legal right to. They're hypocrites and the writers didn't even realize how poorly they'd written their "heroes". If you have to measure saving billions of lives by moderately inconveniencing 600, it's not a story about ethics and morals. It's a story about high-horsed Star Fleet officer wanting give grandstanding lectures so he can feel good about himself and possible bang a lady about 6 or 7 times his age. That's why so many thought it was a poor film.
@@Mofix222 Your first problem is completely inaccurate and untrue. Those 3 incidents you're probably referring to (rescuing human Federation colonists on a Sheliak-owned world, Worf's brother's surreptitious relocation of an imminently-doomed race, human Federation colonists on a Cardassian-owned world in Cardassian space) are not comparable in any way, and he never forcefully relocated anyone where the prime directive would even remotely apply.
@@Ahjile They are very comparable. When they tried to relocate the Native-American-type people in Wesleys last mission it was nearly identical. They also lived on a planet that was in Federation space they also didn´t want to leave the planet and they also invented warp travel in the past so the prime directive didn´t apply. Picard sided with the federation and got angry with Wesley who wanted to prevent a relocation
Picard: "It is morally and legally wrong to force people from their homes just because a greater number would benefit!" Admiral: "You've done it before, three times." Picard: "Oh, i forgot about that."
@@gorbachevdhali4952 I remember one instance where Worf's brother (from his human family) tricked the Enterprise crew into relocating a technologically primative culture from a doomed planet.
@@gorbachevdhali4952 I've not seen every episode, but I can think of at least twice where Picard willingly participated in trying to relocate a people against their will. The first in Season 3 in the Episode "The Ensigns of Command", and the second in Season 7 in the Episode "Journey's End". The season 7 one (with Wesley taking the place of Picard in Insurrection) even had a scene where Picard called him out for his recklessness and berated him for placing the entire mission in jeopardy. I very much agree with critics of this film that Picard seems out of character here. In fact, the studio and several cast members also had a problem with this central conflict, as they thought the Sona were in the right here.
This is how Star Trek should work: An ethical dilemma where both sides of the argument are presented in a frank way with both the logical and emotional aspects on display and done in a mature manner WITHOUT the excessive use of colorful metaphors.
Could you imagine this scene being played out in DISCO or modern Picard? Mikey Burnham: “The white man enslaved Africans that looked me, the white man is evil mother f*ucker” Admiral: “fu*k yeah. I’m part of that patriarchal system that has oppressed women, especially women of colour” Mikey Burnham: “Fu*kin ay!”
I said this before on another video of this scene, but it bears repeating. "How many people does it take before it is wrong" Words that should be engraved on every government building in the world.
Is 600 people being immortal worth the billions the treatments could save? Given the billions currently being lost in the Federation-Dominion War. Also the enterprise did forcibly relocate populations before in TNG.
@@gwilym1991 moving them for their own safety from a planet not owned by the federation is different than moving them from a federation owned planet for the benefit of others
One of the best things this movie did was find a way to make two members of the federation have conflict while being consistent with their culture. The admiral never comes off as a bad guy throughout the movie and as he realizes things are turning for the worst, he tries to turn course, like a good federation citizen would It's also consistent with past material that often when federation citizens disagree, it has something to do with how the prime directive should be interpreted.
Really? Even as a kid when this first came out I thought the admiral seemed mildly skeezy. He wasn't as outrageous as his more blatant villain counterpart but he had an air of selective interpretation and abuse of authority. Like a shady but not explicitly criminal lawyer. And bailing upon encountering unfavorable winds is not what I would call good federation citizen behavior. Hell not recognizing the obvious consequence of that decision begs how on earth he ever made admiral. I think there's a version of this story where you're correct, it just isn't what was released.
This, Wrath of Khan, and The Final Frontier are my favorite movies because they feel like episodes in their respective shows. The other movies have time travel shenanigans, bringing a dead character back to life, or are too action fighty to be proper Trek.
@@IgnoredAdviceProductions but in fairness the films are designed for a bigger audience that just Trek fans and need to appeal to a wider section of viewers
@Ignored Advice Productions There are plenty of time travel episodes of Trek. A examble of one of the best episodes for trek time travel if not all of trek is City on the edge of forever.
UPDATED AND EDITED Years past had I met Anthony Zerbe, whilst working as an extra on a location shoot for a television motion picture. Long had I known him as portraying hard, unpleasant people. I found him in person very gentle, even somewhat shy, yet gracious, genuinely wishing me well.
What Daugherty should have said: Have you been to the front lines lately Captain? In case you've forgotten, we are at war with the Dominion. A war we are struggling with badly. Millions of lives are on the line every single day! This is no border war, we are locked into a fight for our very survival, and if this new medical science, keeps our troops from dying, then I'm perfectly willing to break a few rules to make that happen!
It’s a case of most Trek productions - too many cooks in the kitchen. I think both Stewart, Spiner, the studio, Berman and others all had input into the script Piller was trying to develop. Piller was one of the best writers at that time you could get but was hamstrung in every direction - more humour, less darkness and drama, more action, less talk… yada yada yada. Similar things happened with all the films really, as well as with Voyager and Enterprise.
Comfy and very formal looking imo. It's my favourite out of all the uniforms they've worn. The current era uniforms we saw in Picard are ok but isn't consistent with some of the crew wearing different styles of it.
"How many people does it take before it is wrong" vs "Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" would be a good debate thesis between Picard and Spock, applied to this situation.
Except Spock referred to "the few" making a willing self-sacrifice (i.e. Spock sacrificing himself in the Enterprise reactor room to seal the leak that would have otherwise destroyed the ship and killed all crew), rather than an external force imposing a decision on people that would deprive them of their freedom to live in peace.
3:50 that right there. THAT line, is where Picard realizes this is not the first time.... and he saw the already not-the-first-time 10 years prior. by this point, it was becoming tradition, to shit upon the principles of the Federation. and by this point he knew he had the moral authorization and high ground to oppose this... that's why he changes tone.
"They don't want to live in the middle of the Briar Patch. Who would?" "....the Ba'ku." The temperature in that room dropped rapidly the second Picard said these two words.
@@greggstrasser5791 Tng had an abortion performed on screen. Ds9 had a whole episode about the struggles of a same sex relationship when those relationships are taboo. Ds9 also had an episode about how conservative thinking is trying to bring us back to the dark ages and that thinking is always present and fighting us. It’s fair to say snw writing is lacking (every season 1 of stark trek is) but to blame it on “woke” is just ridiculous. The series was founded on wokeness and it always will be woke.
when picard takes the pips off the collar we are all thinking "this shit has got real" a bit like when worf yanked off the combadge and sash in the reunion episode when he to kill duras
@@nofun594 One was not by forse with Warf and his brother it as done with some transporter and halo deck trickery. In that the people technically went willing. Still it did violate the prime directive.
@@nofun594 Of course. In all of them, it was because of disaster, and that is the only ethical and moral reason for doing it. This one, relocating people for what is in all intents and purposes a shot at immortality is dead wrong.
@@bigtony4930 No, I would not. My culture agrees with me. We have a history of escaping a land we once had due to a disaster, in order to survive. Relocating an entire people for a resource and technology is wrong. We know that in my culture, because it was done to us. Also, when you watch TNG, Picard has an insight into this very scenario, when he is ordered to remove Native Americans from their colony because the Cardassians are moving in. It is stupid to do so, when all this Admiral had to do was negotiate access to study and develop that youth energy. The fact the Dominion War is raging as a defensive development against the Jem' hadar is even more of a bad motive. This admiral is lucky Kai Winn did not learn of this attempt. Bajor would have been an even greater difficulty for even the Emissary if it was known.
I'm gonna say this and I don't care who hates to read it. Insurrection is on the better end of Star Trek movies. In my personal opinion actually the best of all. Usually people say "it's bad because it is like a Star Trek TV show episode". Yes, it is exactly like an episode of TNG, DS9 or VOY and that is what makes it amazing. The whole plot is centered around an ethical dillema, where both sides have valid, legitimate points. It is not an action movie with Star Trek elements. It is a Star Trek movie with action elements. As it should be. And this scene, especially Picard's monologue about when forced relocation becomes wrong, is one of the strongest monologues of all of Star Trek.
He's got a point the prime directive doesn't apply as this isn't their native world, they are an advanced space fairing species (they may not be now but itvwas by choice and they still retain that knowledge and understanding) and their form of immortality isn't a natural part of their evolution and development. I don't entirely agree and find it ridiculous that the federation didn't try to negotiate and maybe set up a colony for the ill, disabled and injured to slowly heal. But the question 600 for trillions is also a good point but even with those very clear numbers I would probably side with Picard on two grounds, one that the federation hasn't tried nonviolent options first and instead sided with an aggressive species and secondly that the people on the planet are unarmed and peaceful so any aggressive action towards them would be wrong, immoral and dishonourable and therefore I'd have to defend them. This film tries to set up an interesting idea and I do like the whole federation is the enemy angle, the problem is that they just didn't do it in a way that really makes much sense when you think about it for a few minutes. Saying that I don't think that it's the worst star trek film.
It may not violate the Prime Directive. But a forced relocation would pretty much be a declaration of war. And doing that in secret probably violates the federation charta.
The PM isn't only about interfering in a primitive species' development. There's also a political component. The Baku colonized and established themselves on the planet 300 years prior (which precedes even the founding of the Federation). By all rights, the planet (or at least the portion they inhabit) is theirs, and they shouldn't be forced from it.
The prime directive applies even to single cell organisms. Since there is life on the planet and the Sona technology will make the planet uninhabitable it's in direct conflict with the prime directive. They just focus on the Baku because it's more emotional.
@@Kalenz1234 Is that from a TNG episode? The writers in that show were pretty good in writing themselves and the ones coming after them into a corner sometimes.
@@danielk5780 Yes, I remember at least one episode where the enterprise was assisting a terraforming team and they found some microbes on the planet so the project had to be scrapped (the terraformers had already invested years into the planet and were pretty pissed).
This scene would've been more impactful if Picard looked back on and admitted regret for his role in relocating Federation civilians out of the Starfleet/Cardassian DMZ. Missed opportunity from the writers.
It seems like in Star Trek , once you get promoted from Captain to Admiral something very strange happens to your values and principles and you forget everything you believed in as a Captain. Curious.
Since when did any human culture concern itself with the survival of another when it could profit from them? The Prime Directive is yet another nice idea that is easily expendable.
A huge part of what makes CGI look good is just how you do the lighting, and 90's science fiction pretty much had it perfected. There's a TH-cam channel, I forget the name, that is pretty much nothing but test videos of Star Trek ships from various eras shot with this same style, and it looks incredible. Then around 2000, seemingly all of Hollywood started moving towards the muddy, high bloom, lens flare-heavy style that's still popular today. No one I've talked or read a review from thinks it looks good, and until the day I die I will never understand why it became the new standard.
@@SargonTheGrape it can work, if the show or movie is congruent with it. Star trek was always about starships being akin to naval ships, moving slowly and with carefully considered tactics. Everything was clearly shown so you could judge space and distance to see what was happening. The high contrast and distraction type aesthetics remove those qualities. It's been almost impossible to tell what's happening in nuTrek when there's more than 2 ships on screen
@@SargonTheGrape I think another reason is that the art form has stagnated, and they're doing this to stop people from saying 'hey - why does this show in 2023 look the same as a show from 1997?' Everything always has to look different and 'better', even if they inadvertently make it worse.
Now that I’m older, I feel like the Admiral was right on some points, the Baku were being incredibly selfish- “we want to keep the healing properties of this world for ourselves, 400 vs hundreds of billions that could benefit from this . Then there’s the part about the prime directive not applying because they aren’t indigenous to the planet. I agree with the admiral, the way he went about removing them was just really bad
@@cmj0929 They deliberately chose a really small number because no one would have taken the admiral's side if the population had been millions or even billions.
@@imranbecks sisko would of gone along with it and left the debates for later. Janeway would of stood with picard and probably had an argument with the admiral, told him to go to hell and then used voyager as a distraction while she and an away party started causing problems
To be honest considering the revelation that the Sona and Baku are the same species and both have equal claim to the planet. It seems like this is the case of Federation picking a side in a civil war that is willing to share the planet property with the galaxy and trying to settle the civil war in a non-violent matter
Which is still a violation of the Prime Directive, since the other side was not invited to the discussions or even aware that an issue was ongoing in the first place, and instead is being kidnapped and relocated against their knowledge and will. Although the fact that the Federation are not even aware that they are the same species makes the violation even more flagrant.
Picard is a stickler for the rules unless he’s the one that’s breaking them, when, in his own opinion “it’s the right thing to do”. 600 relocations, so everyone else can live till 150? Sounds like a good deal to me. We can show the Baku how to manufacture iron tools, they should be pleased about that.
The baku were an offshoot of an advanced people. Also it's wrong because it's taking people off of a planet they rightfully found and built a home on. The federation didn't even try to negotiate with the Baku (likely to avoid the prime directive shenanigans) instead resorting to underhanded tactics to get what they wanted. Advancements in medical science should not come at the expense of others.
@@collinistyping All right, ask yourself this; why should the immortality of 600 take priority of saving billions? And how can the Baku claim the moral high ground if they prioritize their own immortality over saving billions? You may have noticed that the writers never have anyone pose those questions to the Baku. And the reason why is simple; there isn't a single answer the Baku can give that won't make them selfish assholes. Thus, the writers just ignore the issue altogether. This is big reason why this movie fails; Star Trek is at its best when it actually _debates_ topics and rather than force feed a particular view. In other words, _Star Trek_ is much better when it doesn't treat those with a different view like a bunch of strawmen.
@@redpillfreedom6692 If a life is priceless, how you can quantify the value of life? 1 versus 1,000,000,000, 2 versus 9, 30 versus 1,000...it's all the same. Priceless is priceless.
The whole reason the corridors of the enterprise were always empty was because the ship cold hold like 30,000 passengers. Why build such a capacity if relocating people wasn’t part of the mission.
@@michaelmaxwell2464Picard lucked out that the Native Americans colony opted to join Cardassia. The colony where Data got sent down to convince them to relocate or the Sheliak were going to nuke them did get removed under duress.
A true ethnical dilemma, now that I’m older I’m not sure which side of the argument I’d be on. Using Spock’s favorite logic phrase, the admiral would be correct.
Yes. And the medical insights gained from nazi experiments would also be logically correct. We know much more now because of that, and much of modern medical science is based upon it. So this is an extremely difficult question to ask; should we erase all knowledge that is based on past crimes, knowing that this will cause even more people to suffer and die? Or should we accept that out of the death of those people came a greater understanding? I am in no way suggesting that we kill people in order to learn. But dumping the recorded data would also be a crime. The moon landing, a triumph for the US, was based on the deaths of thousands of slave workers in V2 factories. Our very culture, based on people thrown to wild beasts in circus, and a few houdred years later, boiled to death for disordination or pronged though the anus if you opposed. We are surely a very mean ape. But we are successful in what we do.
In this film, the villain straps the admiral into a chair as a machine stretches his face until he dies. In an episode of Columbo, he gets his head chopped off by a Guillotine. 😳
This was pure Star Trek, and there were some more scenes like this in this movie. Sadly, some other scenes were silly. But overall, this might be my favourite Star Trek movie. Hard to imagine that the very next movie (Nemesis) was going to be the worst Star Trek movie ever made.
I really enjoyed nemesis. To me the worst film was the motion picture. Then maybe first contact. All the new stuff doesn't even count as star trek to me
I love Picard's line. "How many people does it take, Admiral, before it becomes wrong?" That's the whole point. Wrong cannot be measured by quantities. First someone relocates 600 people, then the next one will forcefully relocate a thousand because 600 weren't a problem either. In the end, forced relocation becomes the norm and everyone wonders how it happened in the first place!
@@mikebasil4832 The problem is that Picard is in the wrong here. Actually he was on the other side of this debate when he wanted to relocate another race in the episode where Wesley disappears with the traveller. The planet is in Federation space, the Baku are selfish and don´t let other people onto their planet although it could really be a help for billions as the Admiral said. You can criticise the way Starfleed operated and the Son´a had their own plans but you can´t blame the Admiral and Starfleet for this operation. Especially when you concider that this movie took place after the Dominian war.
@@Mofix222 The issues and dramas about the Prime Directive have been convoluted over time in the Star Trek universe. I think that the main problem is how the Trek stories in this regard can seem too tailor-made for the issues. They can lack a sense of naturalism in that regard and may therefore feel too constricting. If an alien race asks for our help, that's one thing. If they don't, then we should respect that. But making the Prime Directive flexible enough for the sake of an optimistic message, as opposed to what Enterprise had needlessly forced upon us with Dear Doctor and Cogenitor, was the kind of Star Trek that I grew up with. So that may just work better for me personally.
I have stated before that I don't understand the Prime Directive. It states that they will not interfere with another species development. But doesn't exploring, making contact, and sharing of culture and technology do just that, if even accidently or subconsciously?
By the Heisenberg principle, you can’t observe something without influencing it in some way. In Star Trek: Into Darkness, when the Enterprise crew neutralize the volcano on Nibiru, Spock was okay with that, but he disapproved of the Enterprise ship rising out of the ocean in order to beam him out of the volcano, saying it violates the Prime Directive. They were technically violating the Prime Directive by negating the volcano. Admiral Pike later says, “Starfleet’s mandate is to observe and to explore, not to interfere”, well they go out and search for alien civilizations and establish diplomatic ties, they are influencing the society’s fate by making themselves known to them. By doing what they do, they’re violating that very rule. In the context of Insurrection, I agree with Picard about deciding the fate of another group of people against their will; “Who the hell are we to determine the next course of evolution for these people?!”.
@@MikeWoodall I think they tend to explore the other cultures and civilizations before making contact - to see if that culture/civilization have discovered Warp technology yet. A bit like how the Vulcans found out about our warp flight in First Contact - the Pheonix does it's test flight and a Vulcan ship happens to be in the area to detect the warp technology and make contact.
@@montgomeryscott5657 now the one time I would agree with the Prime Directive... I can't remember the name of the episode in TNG, but Enterprise lands on a very primitive planet, and the people think they have seen some kind of deity in the Enterprise. Later some Starfleet admiral suggests to Picard to basically create a religion for the people in order to get them to stop fighting. That would be something that would violate the Prime Directive in its purest form
The problem with this movie wasn't that it was like a long episode. It was that the story didn't make any sense. The best example of this is the scene where they find the Holo Ship. That scene contradicts itself multiple times. And that's just one problem with this movie. There are multiple instances where this movie contradicts itself as well as the TNG show itself. The moral dilemma they present, while thought provoking, is completely undercut because the story is full of nonsense.
Agreed! And they were trying to be deep, but they ended up just having “evil weird looking face men want to take planet vs vitreous tng crew is going to stop them”! It isn’t thought provoking! Imagine how much better the story would have been if, let’s say, a scientist from the federation is trying to find a cure for their home planet (they are not from earth) and they want to save literally billions from some disease. They find this planet and the amazing properties. They don’t know it’s inhabited but eventually do. This would really make the viewer think “wow, they want to save their home planet of billions but these 600 are indigenous to this world (I’m changing it to they would actually be from the planet)”….This would have been a much better dilemma then what we got.
Sometimes Picard playing the eternal boy scout was very annoying. It's a miracle Starfleet was able to have covert intelligence operations without scout master Picard raising an objection to them just about every time.
@@iainwhite8617 if we had more picards china would be even more dominant. picard is one of these idealists who would rather die than win by any means necessary. this idealism is laughed at at chinese hq and chinese social media. they think we're retarded and they're completely right. once they win by exploiting our idealism they will erase every trace of us and that will be our final act. when we became this stupid? when self preservation was destroyed by utopian idealism ? and why is this utopian idealism is being forced on all of us ? i don't agree with a word picard is saying, why is he and people like him deciding in my name ?
Agreed. Picard always acted like his way was the only right one. He disrespected so many Admirals. If this was the military. He would be stuck at his rank till retirement.
I think the irony of the federation is put on full display here; The opportunist vs the idealist. No empire is forged without a certain level of disregard for niceties and ethical concepts, constraints placed upon it by morals only ever hinder its growth and the prosperity of its people. That is what the federation is, an empire in all but name. Dougherty represents the true face of the federation, Picard represents the ideal face of the federation. The truth lands somewhere in the middle. In the real world we have an example of this; The united states. It is a republic in face but an empire in all but name. The constitution and its proponents represent the ideal face and belief in its founding ideals and purpose, the establishment and the opponents of the US constitution represent the true face of the republic. In both fiction and reality it will always be a battle of wills, the concept vs human nature.
I think it's in the story that Picard started to have less faith in the federation. What happened later on with the abandonment of the evacuation of Romulus and the banning of synthetic life cemented that belief that it was no longer Starfleet.
Actually this argument is easily resolved. You do not take what is not yours. Prime Directive or not. This belongs to the Baku, not anyone else. That said, it is not the Federations job to protect them either. They have no agreement with them to do so. Saying the area is in “their space” is not accurate. It is in their “zone if military action vis a vis other militarized powers”. If they have no interest in stopping another power from entering that area and doing whatever, they have the right to refrain from action On that basis they can choose to offer to move the Baku on a temporary basis and make an agreement to return them several generations later . Or simply say “no sorry, we arent going to use everything we’ve developed to do your work for you.” On the other hand, principal actually can do far more for a civilization than any technological advance. Integrity towards ones own principles in the face of a clear short term advantage to abandon the same is what gives a civilization real staying power. Had they chose instead to tell the Soren to fuck off and protected these people regardless of whether they could harness the amazing properties of that world, it would have done themselves and everyone within the Federation far more good over the long term
The planet is in Federation space, so it actually is within their charter that they protect the planet’s people from outside threats, excluding acts of nature.
@@Renegade2786 you mean you hope I'm not an american that I don't propose invading foreign cultures and countries? Why the hell would you hope an American doesn't think like that? Do you think we haven't invaded and wrecked enough countries already?
They missed a real opportunity to have Admiral Nechayev in "Insurrection". Imagine if she was the antagonistic Admiral in this movie instead of the crazy Admiral of the week (total waste of Anthony Zerbe's talent) who dies by face stretch. The audience would have actually cared when she met her demise in the movie. They did nothing else with this well written character. It may have made "Insurrection" just a little bit more memorable instead of being the ultimate insomnia cure.
Picard talks about how their action may potentially destroy the Ba'Ku, kinda like how he almost destroyed the Native American descendants on a planet now under Cardassian control. Is he being hypocritical about it, or learning from a lesson from a mistake he almost made back then?
This set up made no sense. They could have easily built a base away from the village and brought sick and injured here to recover faster. No need to destroy the source of the "healing energy". And no reason to disrupt the village.
I have a high amount of respect for Picard. I have always regarded him as the most ideal StarFleet captain, and the best example of what humanity should strive to become. That being said, I’m afraid I’m against him in this argument about the Bakkul. For one thing, Picard once used the very tactic he is criticizing here himself. During an episode of the Next Generation, the Enterprise used its holodeck in order to transport a lesser developed species to a new planet without their consent or knowledge of the situation. Now the circumstances surrounding that incident were quite different and Picard himself was against the idea at first in that episode, but it still proved to be the morally correct thing to do in that episode. It is also worth noting that in that TNG episode, those people were relocated because their planet was becoming uninhabitable and those people would die otherwise. And Picard was originally against it because it would be a violation of the Prime Directive, meaning Picard originally intended to let those people die before his hand was forced by other people, and only then did he cooperate in the plan to help save their race. Picard has always been bound to the Prime Directive and it’s part of what makes him such a great captain. He didn’t want to let them die but he felt he had no other alternative because they were an underdeveloped species. As I mentioned before, the circumstances are different here. And it’s Picard’s actions during that TNG episode that allow me to understand his viewpoint in this movie. I still do not agree with it however. I do not agree with Picard here because in this case, like the Admiral said, the Prime Directive does not apply. The Bakkul were never meant to be immortal, they didn’t naturally evolve on this planet and the planet’s position within Federation space implies that they actually settled here illegally. After all without setting up any kind of buoy or satellite to state their claim to the region, thus challenging the Federation for ownership of the system, the Federation owns this planet, which makes them trespassers. Furthermore, there is the needs of the many argument. As the admiral said, this radiation could be used to help save or enhance the lives of billions of Federation citizens. One would think that would be worth the removal of six hundred people who illegally settled on this world. If anything, the Bakkul are actually pretty selfish for not agreeing to the relocation once they found out about it. The preservation of their accidental immortality and their dedication to living in just this one spot and living without using advanced technology, should not be seen as sufficient reasoning when the alternative would see billions of people saved and cured. It in fact portrays the Bakkul as very selfish considering that they are warp capable, are perfectly aware of life beyond the Brier Patch, and yet would rather keep this discovery all to themselves rather than share it with the rest of the Quadrant. So, you see why I am not personally on Picard’s side here. I still respect him as a person and I can see where he is coming from, from a moral and cultural perspective. But the Bakkul moved their society once before (to this planet in fact). I think their culture could survive another relocation, especially since the Federation has already agreed to pay the bill for them (through transporting them, locating a new planet for them, establishing identical infrastructure on the new planet, and moving all of their people and belongings with them). The Federation might even be willing to share the metaphasic medical breakthroughs with the Bakkul after the process has been refined. Assuming that the Bakkul would be willing to endure further visitors to their new planet. I don’t know about you, but I’d call that a bargain.
This is a terrific explanation. I haven’t even seen that TNG episode but it all makes sense. When I first saw this movie I was 10 and had absolutely no idea what was going on, but I still liked the film. Now that I’m 26 I can actually properly appreciate it and seeing comments like yours really helps me to understand the film better
At the start of insurrection, starfleet had no idea that the Baku were once an advanced people. They were likely concerned with breaking the prime directive by revealing themselves to a "primitive" people. This is another example where the prime directive is misused by starfleet officers to escalate a potentially harmless situation. The Federation should have asked and left it at that, or tried to come up with a scientific solution.
Because the only justification the Baku could give as to why they should stay is that they want the magical radiation stuff all to themselves and fuck everyone else.
@@PlayNiceFolks No. It is objectively on par with feces in a burning paper bag. One's own standard would have to be so low that cow dung would be considered delectable. Most humans are not willing to sink that far and for good reason. Discovery should stay in the meadow like the cow-pie it is and the flies that like it and gather around it, enjoy your meal..
You know, looking at the comments shows you this movie did exactly what it intended. 24 years later and people are still holding spirited debates about the ethical dilemma surrounding the plot. Both sides have many decent points. This is a realistic example of how no matter what, someone will be dissatisfied with the decision. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. But how long can we justify that mindset until it becomes unjustifiable? This movie was peak Star Trek; they don't make them like this anymore because they want it to be more like Star Wars, which is itself suffering under bad writing.
If this was peak Star Trek, then what happened between 1998 and 2005? They didn't make them anymore because films like Nemesis and TV shows such as Voyager or Enterprise got drove the franchise into the ground. As much as I didn't feel the JJ Abrams films were true Star Trek, it made sense as to why they existed-- to prove to studios that Star Trek was profitable again.
I mean it seems pretty cut and dry to me. 600 people not native to this planet want to selfishly stay and live forever rather than save billions. The federation wasn’t going to kill them but relocate their selfish asses off the planet! And regardless this story has so many plot holes and many other things they could have done!
And if that is THEIR decision, what gives the newcomers the RIGHT to decide that those who were there should be moved so THEY could get it? This how we got all the genocides of history from slavery to the Holocaust because might makes right huh?
"how many people does it take admiral, before it becomes wrong" ok Picard but dont come back to me with healthcare is a right when you just denied the improvement of health for trillions out of respect of 600
Makes more than a little sense that this would be the man who'd resign from Starfleet to protest the Federation abandoning the Romulans some few decades later And that Starfleet - after the failure of this project and the Dominion War and the Borg invasions - would just let him go He became an Admiral to defeat corruption - only to become a lone voice in the desert. Trapped behind a desk - away from where he might have made a difference
@@Kalenz1234 He poisoned a planet, and was responsible for the murder of I don't know how many millions by lying the Romulan Empire into the War. And he knew what Garak was capable of doing. His hands are dirty just lke Ross's. I wonder if he's a member of 31?
Believe it or not, this is actually one of the rare times that I actually disagree with Picard and I would actually probably throw back the same question how many people does it take for it to be right one two five to quote a famous quote that I don't really remember where it's from The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few 😆
"A planet in federation space" but no, its not. Unless a world joins the Federation, its not in Federation space, its an independant enclave system inside the Federations borders. This logic is like saying that the Vatican is under the juristiction of Italy dispite been an independant enclave nation (its close ties with Italy are irrelevant). Making such a claim to all worlds that are inside the Federations borders means they that they have basically decided that they own everything inside its borders but there are many worlds inside the Federations borders that aren't in the Federation for a multitude of reasons. This kind of logic makes them no better than the Empires they so often oppose.
They are not apart of the Federation of course. Starfleet was observing them. As per the Prime Directive, they are not to interfere with their progression or be seen. But Data going haywire after finding out the true reason they were there threw all that out the window when he was seen by the locals. The plan of course by the admiral was to relocate the villagers from the planet using a cloaked holodeck ship, which is just wrong on so many levels imo. And then comes the whole complicated matter of the Prime Directive about interfering since that planet did not even belong to the Baku in the first place, so is it right to force them to leave? But it has been their home for the past 300 plus years. Picard of course is against all this since that planet is basically theirs for the past 300 years. And the whole metaphasic ring playing a big part.. The fountain of youth of the planet basically.
@@imranbecks its hars to justify it not been "theirs" after 300 years. Their settlement pre-dates the federation itself thus giving them a better claim to it. Fountain of youth aside.
I think there's a complex reason as to why he specifically said that and Picard didn't fully understand the truth of the planet's position at this time. And a good part of that complex reason has to do with the Admiral's new friendship.
Federation space means the Federation monopolizes certain powers and has responsibility by default. There are scenarios in which the Vatican is dependent on Italy, such as if there was a foreign military attack on the Vatican, it would have to pass through Italy.
@@MagicAl5F4781 yes but the same is not true of the Federation, the Vatican and Italy actually have a specific treaty for that scenario among others. Your arguement would be like saying Germany and France are responsible for Belgiums safety as you need to pass through them to attack it. While they may not let you pass, they are in no way responsible for its protection and hold no powers over Belgium either. Yes I know they have mutual defence pacts too and certain treaty requirements as part of NATO. It's hard to find a good example in the real world. Best one I can think of would be saying something like during WW2 the US had a duty to protect and control Easter Island because it was technically closer to Hawaii and the US mainland dispite actually been owned by Chile and thus the US had no say over it. Its surrounded by unclaimed territory, which is in reality what most of the Federation is. They have no right to claim unoccupied systems, especially ones closer to non-aligned worlds than aligned ones. This when you realise the size of the federation and the number if non-aligned worlds inside it (pre-warp, warp and post warp/extinct civilisations) more of "federation space" is actually independant than legitimate controlled territory. Also just because a Federation citizen is on a world (even as its lone inhabitant) doesn't make that a Federation world, they have to apply for that right to be recognised as such. We actually see evidence of this in Picard, the world there is inside Federation space but until it formally asks for Federation protection, its not part of the Federation and not under its protection, the Romulan fleet broke no laws by travelling there dispite passing through "Federation territory" as they never entered an occupied system belonging to a member world. It actually took the evidence that the world had applied for and been granted Federation protection to make the Romulans back down, as they knew without that proof, they were not the aggressors and were not breaking any rules/treaties.
I was not a fan of TNG but I did like this movie. This was classic Trek. A philosophical debate where both sides actually had a point (talking about the starfleet officers)
I would be inclined to side with the admiral if not for the Sona being assholes, untrustworthy, and dangerous. If it was purely the Federation doing it, then yeah, I wouldn't stand with Picard on this one.
But the Baku found that planet first, they are entitled to live there. No one has the right to force them to leave. The Federation should have taken a diplomatic approach.
PICARD best captain ever!!!!
This timeline version of Picard. I wonder if they would have made a Picard and Sisko joint battle to fight the dominion, then it would have garnered more views for DS9.
@@lysanderhuynh
No. Picard is a douche.
I think Kirk, Sisko and Janeway would have reacted the same way.
JANEWAY
SPock: It would be logical for you to hold ma beer now
It was this moment that Picard understood the Maquis
Oh yeah, good call
most of Starfleet understood the Maquis .... the problem was that Starfleet didn't want to go (back to) war with the Cardassians cuz it would serve no purpose.
I've heard people say this movie was "too much like a long TNG episode." I still don't know why that's a bad thing. If anything, the other TNG movies weren't like the show *enough.*
Insurrection sucked. Even Patrick Stewart wasn't a fan of it. Apparently the first few versions of the script were binned by Stewart as well. They had the perfect story arc to work with-The Dominion War. What did we get? A movie about a bunch of hippies who've rejected technology🙄
@@St_AngusYoung The Dominion War would certainly have hooked in the Star Trek fandom, but how much disappointment would there have been at the lack of DS9 characters, other than Worf? And what of those coming to see the film who had never seen DS9, or any other Star Trek for that matter? The producers of the films have always had to tread a fine line between satisfying the Trek crowd and not alienating the non-Trek crowd, which is likeliest to occur when things are too self-referential.
@@St_AngusYoung I'll give you that, this should have been a Dominion War movie. Perfect chance to show what the Enterprise was doing during the fighting.
@@MS-19 I get what you're saying. They should've had someone other than Michael Piller to write the story. They could've incorporated DS9 into it, even if briefly at the start or end. Ira Steven Behr as writer could've been a good option. But as the old saying goes, hindsight is a beautiful thing.
@@tyranusfan would've been awesome to see the Enterprise engaging Dominion forces in battle. But oh well, atleast we got to see Data as a flotation device or Worf with a zit🤨
You know, considering that Earth is supposed to be a paradise with virtually no crime and humanity is supposed to have gotten its collective shit together by the 24th century, it's interesting that Starfleet seems to be full of corrupt admirals.
there are always people in power believing in eithet the greater good or their own right to make devisions over others - even if they are not corrupt or bad. what i’ve seen … in most of the cases neither of these admirals were guided by being evil or wanting to gain more for themselves (explicitly)
most of these are like Thanos really. they believe that they serve the community better with their own ideas and only them can see that they are right - everyone else calls them mad. and in general they are right: should you let them fulfill their dreams, they would usually make the place better… issue is, just like with Thanos: killing half the enitre universe is not something you could justify:) even if the remaining half would have a better future.
and to drive the point home: Thanos (after killing half the universe) retires to his farm, even destroys the stones to “protect” the peace and wellbeing of the survivors.
most of these admirals would make the call on what they think is right and move on.
thus i dont see contradiction in “humanity is better after the 24th century” vs “these admirals” ;)
hope it makes sense :)
The road to hell is plastered with good intention.
@@danijelandroid very true :)
Or, is Earth a pseudo-paradise because the corrupt admirals are making the hard choices behind closed doors? If and Admiral turned up one day saying weve got this new drug that will triple your lifespan, would anyone stop to ask where it came from?
@@danijelandroid and heaven is full of good people who died because they were debating moral dilemas when they should have do something instead.
"They dont want to live in the middle of the Briar Patch. Who would?"
Well considering that living on this planet will return you to your youth and physical prime and you will become basically immortal I would say EVERYONE WOULD.
Would I have an erection constantly?
The Son'a do not want to live on the same planet as the rest of the Ba'ku because (spoiler alerts ahead) they have a grudge against them; the Son'a are a splinter cell of the Ba'ku. 100 years prior to the events of the film, a small group of young Ba'ku had rebelled against the anti-technology policy of the elders. They attempted a coup, but failed, and as punishment, the Ba'ku elders exiled them from the planet, stripping them of their immortality. And now they're back for revenge.
@@montgomeryscott5657Wow the Ba'ku are dicks...
Immortality isn't always a good thing
Even on a peaceful planet like the Ba'Ku. The same thing day in, day out
@@montgomeryscott5657 That doesn't mean the Son'a don't want to live on the planet, it just means that they don't want to live in the same culture as the Ba'ku.
How the Ba'ku ever prevented the Son'a from just setting up another colony on the other side of the planet is never explained, nor is it clear how or why the Son'a lost if they have superior technology and a more militant way of life (or why they didn't come back shortly after they'd built up their power base).
Honestly, the Son'a's whole plan kind of sucks.
"how many people does it take admiral, before it becomes wrong"
5 minutes of dialogue and talk, i love how engaging these segments are, they are never boring or insulting to the audience.
Is very odd though that the Baku were never asked if they would be okay with leaving the planet in order to use what this planet they found has in order to save billions of lives.
Sure they said they liked living there, but I don't think they were given an opportunity to be included in this debate, despite them being the people most directly involved.
It was only mentioned at the beginning of the movie but the Dominion war was still going on during this movie. Millions of lives are being lost in this bloody conflict, the Federation was right to feel that there was no time to waste.
And no wokeness in sight. The old days!
@@marksilgram80 Star Trek is woke though..
@@0x1EGEN Now it is but not back then because wokeness is only a recent phoenomen. Being diverse for for the sake of being diverse. Having gay characters for example with the intention of attracting that portion of the population or having a female lead to just attract female viewers. Having stories spreading the "message" over plot, good characterization over everything else but just telling a good story. TNG, Voyager, Enterprise etc was never like that!!!!
@@marksilgram80 No man. Star Trek was woke from the very start. TOS literally almost got cancelled during the 1960s because it had a black female character along with a Japanese and Russian crew member. DS9 had episodes focusing on trans and lesbians. And I'm sure you recall one of the TNG movies where Data welcomes all the queer people at the beginning of the scene.
Fun Fact: The initial script for 1998's Star Trek: Insurrection featured a scene in which Picard discovers Quark stowing away on a Starfleet vessel, trying to get to the Ba'ku planet. Always the businessman, Quark was apparently intending to open up a spa on the planet.
Which is why it takes several passes of a script before it's honed down. Today? That scene would be in there. It'd be great for yuks, but ultimately nonsensical as A - the mission is clandestine. It's this off-book affair Starfleet "overlooked" because they needed allies. The Enterprise is only pulled in because of Data B- whilst "cute" and a fan service note, it grinds the pace down and distracts from the plot.
As much as I love Armin and it'd be great to see a co-mingling of the universe, it then just leads to. "ok so Worf has to address this, where does Quark go? Etc etc. Just cut that idea and streamline the plot. It's about the Moral issue and the Baku.
Many would love that idea, but also it's a feature film. Sure Trek was at it's zenith, but movie-goers might not know who Quark is. DS9 wasn't the beloved series it is today and there was no on-demand video service to get up to speed or wiki. So you'd be like "ok what was that?"
The Feature nature is why the Enterprise feels so weirdly absent from the Dominion War. Oh theres a million ways a writer in universe skirts around it, but simply. Theater audiences need a self capsuled story. The sheer fact the War was even paid lip service was astounding in the film. It often gets touted people would get confused between the show and the films, which is seemingly dumb, but remember the Cinema was a big thing. So you'd get non-fans going in and they get the concept, but haven't seen the latest show. Today it's easy. It's right there a few clicks. In 98' you had to rely on re runs or VHS.
It's like say Game of Thrones was airing, but there was a Movie about a band of Mercenaries. You kind of have the concept but you only saw a few episodes. Today it's a fully synchronised deal where you can just do a side story tangent. Back then, you have to just tell an enclosed story framed in the Game of Thrones atmosphere, because the average movie goer doesn't know wtf a Dothraki is. So the film reiterates.
"oh so he's a sort of Mongolian Comanchie. I don't get why the scene where they kill the horse freaked him out. I mean they're starving right now I get it."
Was filmed
I think Picard and the Ba'ku would have preferred a spa hotel run by Quaekrto the total exploitation of the planet by Starfleet and their shady partners. Too bad the idea didn't come to fruition.
The fact that his gift from the Mintakans is draped over the back of Picard's chair is a nice touch.
Wow. I had no idea that's what that was! That's fantastic.
I feel older then dirt knowing this movie came out 25 years ago in 1998. I remember going to the theater to watch this as clearly as it was yesterday.
Yeah we're old.. Lol. I was 15 when this movie came out and I too saw it in the theater.
Just be thankful that your memory seems to still be in good working order 😂
@@imranbecks That means you're not older than dirt 😁
I was 11 years old, and my great-grandfather took me to see this movie. Even though he didn't like science fiction, He still took me to see it. Because I was going through a hard time with my parents' divorce. I'll never forget it.
Many are far older
I have never understood why soooo many thought that was a poor film. I feel the opposite way. Its a story about ethics and morals. I love the line in that says "when you have a machine do the work of a man, you take something away from the man".
There are two problems with this film. The first one is, that Picard is supposed to side with the Federation because he and his crew relocated species in TNG several times although these Species didn´t want to leave their planet. The second problem is that Star Trek is about how technology can improve our lives. Also the question what is taken from the man is never answered. Machines don´t take something away in my opinion. If used correctly they can help us doing the things we want to do quicker and more effectively. Unfortunately Insurrection doesn´t debate about it.
Because they themselves were using machines. Low tech ones but still using them. Second, they were trying to deny a resource that could have saved literally billions of lives on a planet they didn't even have a legal right to. They're hypocrites and the writers didn't even realize how poorly they'd written their "heroes". If you have to measure saving billions of lives by moderately inconveniencing 600, it's not a story about ethics and morals. It's a story about high-horsed Star Fleet officer wanting give grandstanding lectures so he can feel good about himself and possible bang a lady about 6 or 7 times his age. That's why so many thought it was a poor film.
The villain was so badly written and portrayed it was unintentionally hilarious. This movie made Star Trek 5 seem like a masterpiece.
@@Mofix222 Your first problem is completely inaccurate and untrue. Those 3 incidents you're probably referring to (rescuing human Federation colonists on a Sheliak-owned world, Worf's brother's surreptitious relocation of an imminently-doomed race, human Federation colonists on a Cardassian-owned world in Cardassian space) are not comparable in any way, and he never forcefully relocated anyone where the prime directive would even remotely apply.
@@Ahjile They are very comparable. When they tried to relocate the Native-American-type people in Wesleys last mission it was nearly identical. They also lived on a planet that was in Federation space they also didn´t want to leave the planet and they also invented warp travel in the past so the prime directive didn´t apply. Picard sided with the federation and got angry with Wesley who wanted to prevent a relocation
Picard: "It is morally and legally wrong to force people from their homes just because a greater number would benefit!"
Admiral: "You've done it before, three times."
Picard: "Oh, i forgot about that."
The writers certainly did.
Well, that was different!
Where did he do it 3 times? Lies.
@@gorbachevdhali4952 I remember one instance where Worf's brother (from his human family) tricked the Enterprise crew into relocating a technologically primative culture from a doomed planet.
@@gorbachevdhali4952 I've not seen every episode, but I can think of at least twice where Picard willingly participated in trying to relocate a people against their will. The first in Season 3 in the Episode "The Ensigns of Command", and the second in Season 7 in the Episode "Journey's End". The season 7 one (with Wesley taking the place of Picard in Insurrection) even had a scene where Picard called him out for his recklessness and berated him for placing the entire mission in jeopardy. I very much agree with critics of this film that Picard seems out of character here. In fact, the studio and several cast members also had a problem with this central conflict, as they thought the Sona were in the right here.
This is how Star Trek should work: An ethical dilemma where both sides of the argument are presented in a frank way with both the logical and emotional aspects on display and done in a mature manner WITHOUT the excessive use of colorful metaphors.
Could you imagine this scene being played out in DISCO or modern Picard?
Mikey Burnham: “The white man enslaved Africans that looked me, the white man is evil mother f*ucker”
Admiral: “fu*k yeah. I’m part of that patriarchal system that has oppressed women, especially women of colour”
Mikey Burnham: “Fu*kin ay!”
@mikey2363 hahaha good one, and picard would be so distraught and depressed that he would resign his comission from starfleet.
Spock: "Are you sure it isn't time for a colorful metaphor?"
@@jmk1975 Kirk: That’s simply the way they talk here. Nobody pays attention to you unless you swear every other word.
Yeah I’m definitely finding Dougherty’s arguments more compelling. The Baku were a bunch of selfish assholes.
I said this before on another video of this scene, but it bears repeating.
"How many people does it take before it is wrong"
Words that should be engraved on every government building in the world.
The hard truth right there.
Is 600 people being immortal worth the billions the treatments could save? Given the billions currently being lost in the Federation-Dominion War.
Also the enterprise did forcibly relocate populations before in TNG.
@@gwilym1991 moving them for their own safety from a planet not owned by the federation is different than moving them from a federation owned planet for the benefit of others
@@gwilym1991 Kidnapping people and destroying their way of life is wrong, yes. Nowhere in tng were people every forcibly removed.
@@michaelhulton3143 I agree with you, but also change the word 'moving' to 'kidnapping'.
Anthony Zerbe, criminally underrated actor.
He's good at getting his head inflated like a balloon.
I agree. I'd seen him typecast as an unhinged, borderline psycho in my childhood. This role shows his depth and talent as an actor.
Loved him in License To Kill!
Wrong. It's Patrick Stewart
He's talking about the one playing the Admiral 🤦🏻♂️
One of the best things this movie did was find a way to make two members of the federation have conflict while being consistent with their culture. The admiral never comes off as a bad guy throughout the movie and as he realizes things are turning for the worst, he tries to turn course, like a good federation citizen would
It's also consistent with past material that often when federation citizens disagree, it has something to do with how the prime directive should be interpreted.
Really? Even as a kid when this first came out I thought the admiral seemed mildly skeezy. He wasn't as outrageous as his more blatant villain counterpart but he had an air of selective interpretation and abuse of authority. Like a shady but not explicitly criminal lawyer. And bailing upon encountering unfavorable winds is not what I would call good federation citizen behavior. Hell not recognizing the obvious consequence of that decision begs how on earth he ever made admiral.
I think there's a version of this story where you're correct, it just isn't what was released.
This movie would be one of the best two part episodes ever made. It is in that spirit that it needs to be evaluated.
I love Insurrection for that reason. It would have fit brilliantly within the series.
This, Wrath of Khan, and The Final Frontier are my favorite movies because they feel like episodes in their respective shows. The other movies have time travel shenanigans, bringing a dead character back to life, or are too action fighty to be proper Trek.
@@IgnoredAdviceProductions but in fairness the films are designed for a bigger audience that just Trek fans and need to appeal to a wider section of viewers
@@scottyunitedboy2925 Sure but action star Picard doing kung fu or whatever is ridiculous nonetheless
@Ignored Advice Productions There are plenty of time travel episodes of Trek. A examble of one of the best episodes for trek time travel if not all of trek is City on the edge of forever.
UPDATED AND EDITED
Years past had I met Anthony Zerbe, whilst working as an extra on a location shoot for a television motion picture. Long had I known him as portraying hard, unpleasant people. I found him in person very gentle, even somewhat shy, yet gracious, genuinely wishing me well.
That's a lie and you know it.
What a lovely memory. I've been an Anthony Zerbe fan since I was a teenager.
@@faithcastillo9597 , aww, thank you!
"How many people does it take, Admiral?"
And people say the slippery slope doesnt exist....
Only stupid people think it's a fallacy.
He's got such a good point. A wrong is not defined by quantity!
What Daugherty should have said:
Have you been to the front lines lately Captain? In case you've forgotten, we are at war with the Dominion. A war we are struggling with badly. Millions of lives are on the line every single day! This is no border war, we are locked into a fight for our very survival, and if this new medical science, keeps our troops from dying, then I'm perfectly willing to break a few rules to make that happen!
And replace Daughtery with Janeway.
@@CaptainM792 Janeway is still in the Delta Quadrant
Its too easy for Picard to take the high road in this situation.
It’s similar to the argument that Ross gave Bashir in reference to Section 31
Doherty should have made a reference to federation resources being depleted by the dominion war
INS was good, its final act was kind of weak though but overall definitely an underrated film.
Morals is what star fleet is all about ...a reminder for any generation not to sell your soul or ideals for any price
It's enjoyable, but it's a glorified TNG 2-parter.
@@EnforcerX71 That's fine. I don't even think thats a bad thing tbh.
It’s a case of most Trek productions - too many cooks in the kitchen. I think both Stewart, Spiner, the studio, Berman and others all had input into the script Piller was trying to develop. Piller was one of the best writers at that time you could get but was hamstrung in every direction - more humour, less darkness and drama, more action, less talk… yada yada yada. Similar things happened with all the films really, as well as with Voyager and Enterprise.
it got better with age. like all next generation movies
It’s a bit off topic but damn
These specific Starfleet uniforms always looked really comfy
Comfy and very formal looking imo. It's my favourite out of all the uniforms they've worn. The current era uniforms we saw in Picard are ok but isn't consistent with some of the crew wearing different styles of it.
"How many people does it take before it is wrong" vs "Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" would be a good debate thesis between Picard and Spock, applied to this situation.
Except Spock referred to "the few" making a willing self-sacrifice (i.e. Spock sacrificing himself in the Enterprise reactor room to seal the leak that would have otherwise destroyed the ship and killed all crew), rather than an external force imposing a decision on people that would deprive them of their freedom to live in peace.
Picard never hesitated giving his life as Enterprise captain. To die for a cause is better than to live not doing anything.
his case is wrong
should be removed as captain for not following direct orders
@@robertswift6101 "to hell with our orders" - Data
No matter what he did, the end result would be the same. He had no ability to save them from removal
3:50
that right there.
THAT line, is where Picard realizes this is not the first time.... and he saw the already not-the-first-time 10 years prior.
by this point, it was becoming tradition, to shit upon the principles of the Federation.
and by this point he knew he had the moral authorization and high ground to oppose this... that's why he changes tone.
"They don't want to live in the middle of the Briar Patch. Who would?"
"....the Ba'ku."
The temperature in that room dropped rapidly the second Picard said these two words.
As a kid, Ive always loved that disgusted look on Dougherty's face that he then tries to disguise when Ruafo's forehead bled
Same here actually lol
"How many people.does it take, Admiral... *BEFORE* it becomes wrong?"
Even after 25 years , still a Excellent debate ！
Oh my god! I am shocked! This is a Quarter Century old?! I am getting old …
Sadly it's still an excellent debate. Man you make it sound like we have gone backwards. 😂. Not denying that though. You got a point.
@@jebiniv
We HAVE gone backwards. The new Star Trek is incapable of this level of writing.
Even SNW is woke garbage.
@@greggstrasser5791
Tng had an abortion performed on screen. Ds9 had a whole episode about the struggles of a same sex relationship when those relationships are taboo. Ds9 also had an episode about how conservative thinking is trying to bring us back to the dark ages and that thinking is always present and fighting us. It’s fair to say snw writing is lacking (every season 1 of stark trek is) but to blame it on “woke” is just ridiculous. The series was founded on wokeness and it always will be woke.
@@starkiller7603
That’s a surface level lame answer. I remember listening to some douchebag in 1991 in class talk like you just did.
People hate on this movie but it’s super fun.
It's like a long TNG episode.
It was the curse of the odd numbered Star Trek movies at least up to Star Trek 10.
when picard takes the pips off the collar we are all thinking "this shit has got real" a bit like when worf yanked off the combadge and sash in the reunion episode when he to kill duras
"Ughh... 🙄Jean-Luc, it's *only* 600 people"
"That makes us partners."
I thought it was more like a dealer and junky reletionship.
That scene was amazing. The Picard speech at the end about force relocation, was so perfect Trek. (And still so valid).
Even though Picard is responsible for Forced Relocation 3 other times in his career?
@@nofun594 One was not by forse with Warf and his brother it as done with some transporter and halo deck trickery. In that the people technically went willing. Still it did violate the prime directive.
@@nofun594 Of course. In all of them, it was because of disaster, and that is the only ethical and moral reason for doing it.
This one, relocating people for what is in all intents and purposes a shot at immortality is dead wrong.
@@shauntempley9757 You would be saying something very different if you were faced with this decision.
@@bigtony4930 No, I would not. My culture agrees with me. We have a history of escaping a land we once had due to a disaster, in order to survive.
Relocating an entire people for a resource and technology is wrong. We know that in my culture, because it was done to us.
Also, when you watch TNG, Picard has an insight into this very scenario, when he is ordered to remove Native Americans from their colony because the Cardassians are moving in.
It is stupid to do so, when all this Admiral had to do was negotiate access to study and develop that youth energy.
The fact the Dominion War is raging as a defensive development against the Jem' hadar is even more of a bad motive.
This admiral is lucky Kai Winn did not learn of this attempt. Bajor would have been an even greater difficulty for even the Emissary if it was known.
Salieri has really let himself go.
It's really annoying how Picard was changed so much for the movies. It kind of betrays the TNG series.
What movie is this?
@@DannyCosmos Star Trek Insurrection
I'm gonna say this and I don't care who hates to read it. Insurrection is on the better end of Star Trek movies.
In my personal opinion actually the best of all. Usually people say "it's bad because it is like a Star Trek TV show episode". Yes, it is exactly like an episode of TNG, DS9 or VOY and that is what makes it amazing. The whole plot is centered around an ethical dillema, where both sides have valid, legitimate points.
It is not an action movie with Star Trek elements. It is a Star Trek movie with action elements. As it should be.
And this scene, especially Picard's monologue about when forced relocation becomes wrong, is one of the strongest monologues of all of Star Trek.
He's got a point the prime directive doesn't apply as this isn't their native world, they are an advanced space fairing species (they may not be now but itvwas by choice and they still retain that knowledge and understanding) and their form of immortality isn't a natural part of their evolution and development.
I don't entirely agree and find it ridiculous that the federation didn't try to negotiate and maybe set up a colony for the ill, disabled and injured to slowly heal.
But the question 600 for trillions is also a good point but even with those very clear numbers I would probably side with Picard on two grounds, one that the federation hasn't tried nonviolent options first and instead sided with an aggressive species and secondly that the people on the planet are unarmed and peaceful so any aggressive action towards them would be wrong, immoral and dishonourable and therefore I'd have to defend them.
This film tries to set up an interesting idea and I do like the whole federation is the enemy angle, the problem is that they just didn't do it in a way that really makes much sense when you think about it for a few minutes. Saying that I don't think that it's the worst star trek film.
It may not violate the Prime Directive. But a forced relocation would pretty much be a declaration of war. And doing that in secret probably violates the federation charta.
The PM isn't only about interfering in a primitive species' development. There's also a political component. The Baku colonized and established themselves on the planet 300 years prior (which precedes even the founding of the Federation). By all rights, the planet (or at least the portion they inhabit) is theirs, and they shouldn't be forced from it.
The prime directive applies even to single cell organisms. Since there is life on the planet and the Sona technology will make the planet uninhabitable it's in direct conflict with the prime directive. They just focus on the Baku because it's more emotional.
@@Kalenz1234 Is that from a TNG episode? The writers in that show were pretty good in writing themselves and the ones coming after them into a corner sometimes.
@@danielk5780 Yes, I remember at least one episode where the enterprise was assisting a terraforming team and they found some microbes on the planet so the project had to be scrapped (the terraformers had already invested years into the planet and were pretty pissed).
This scene would've been more impactful if Picard looked back on and admitted regret for his role in relocating Federation civilians out of the Starfleet/Cardassian DMZ. Missed opportunity from the writers.
they never got relocated through. the natives got to stay on the planet with the Cardassians.
@@stevenfries7032
Not because of anything Picard did. Picard would have followed orders
Would of been cool.
But that is what Picrad is referring to about the forced relocation of citizens and what it led to with the Maquis.
It seems like in Star Trek , once you get promoted from Captain to Admiral something very strange happens to your values and principles and you forget everything you believed in as a Captain. Curious.
Patrick Stewart said that if he was in charge and not Picard he would have made the baku leave the planet
Since when did any human culture concern itself with the survival of another when it could profit from them? The Prime Directive is yet another nice idea that is easily expendable.
This movie had several great scenes
This one is one of the best in all the series.
I always liked this movie. Wasn’t perfect. But solid TNG.
In the expanded universe, Dougherty was working for Section 31 at the time.
The ships look better in this movie than in the modern trek.
They're CGI in this as well, which is amazing
A huge part of what makes CGI look good is just how you do the lighting, and 90's science fiction pretty much had it perfected. There's a TH-cam channel, I forget the name, that is pretty much nothing but test videos of Star Trek ships from various eras shot with this same style, and it looks incredible. Then around 2000, seemingly all of Hollywood started moving towards the muddy, high bloom, lens flare-heavy style that's still popular today. No one I've talked or read a review from thinks it looks good, and until the day I die I will never understand why it became the new standard.
@@SargonTheGrape it can work, if the show or movie is congruent with it. Star trek was always about starships being akin to naval ships, moving slowly and with carefully considered tactics. Everything was clearly shown so you could judge space and distance to see what was happening. The high contrast and distraction type aesthetics remove those qualities. It's been almost impossible to tell what's happening in nuTrek when there's more than 2 ships on screen
@@SargonTheGrape I think another reason is that the art form has stagnated, and they're doing this to stop people from saying 'hey - why does this show in 2023 look the same as a show from 1997?'
Everything always has to look different and 'better', even if they inadvertently make it worse.
@@SargonTheGrape PS: your name made me laugh
Now that I’m older, I feel like the Admiral was right on some points, the Baku were being incredibly selfish- “we want to keep the healing properties of this world for ourselves, 400 vs hundreds of billions that could benefit from this . Then there’s the part about the prime directive not applying because they aren’t indigenous to the planet. I agree with the admiral, the way he went about removing them was just really bad
600 people lol
@@Makeitso2023 lol yes 600, but still my point still stands the Baku we’re being dicks and Picard was being kinda self-righteous here too
@@cmj0929
They deliberately chose a really small number because no one would have taken the admiral's side if the population had been millions or even billions.
@@cmj0929 Makes me wonder now though, what would Sisko or Janeway had done if they were in Picard's position here...
@@imranbecks sisko would of gone along with it and left the debates for later. Janeway would of stood with picard and probably had an argument with the admiral, told him to go to hell and then used voyager as a distraction while she and an away party started causing problems
To be honest considering the revelation that the Sona and Baku are the same species and both have equal claim to the planet. It seems like this is the case of Federation picking a side in a civil war that is willing to share the planet property with the galaxy and trying to settle the civil war in a non-violent matter
Which is still a violation of the Prime Directive, since the other side was not invited to the discussions or even aware that an issue was ongoing in the first place, and instead is being kidnapped and relocated against their knowledge and will.
Although the fact that the Federation are not even aware that they are the same species makes the violation even more flagrant.
Wish this movie used the dominion war as the background with a story using a Bismarck hunting style
Picard is a stickler for the rules unless he’s the one that’s breaking them, when, in his own opinion “it’s the right thing to do”. 600 relocations, so everyone else can live till 150? Sounds like a good deal to me. We can show the Baku how to manufacture iron tools, they should be pleased about that.
The baku were an offshoot of an advanced people. Also it's wrong because it's taking people off of a planet they rightfully found and built a home on. The federation didn't even try to negotiate with the Baku (likely to avoid the prime directive shenanigans) instead resorting to underhanded tactics to get what they wanted. Advancements in medical science should not come at the expense of others.
@@collinistyping
All right, ask yourself this; why should the immortality of 600 take priority of saving billions?
And how can the Baku claim the moral high ground if they prioritize their own immortality over saving billions?
You may have noticed that the writers never have anyone pose those questions to the Baku. And the reason why is simple; there isn't a single answer the Baku can give that won't make them selfish assholes. Thus, the writers just ignore the issue altogether.
This is big reason why this movie fails; Star Trek is at its best when it actually _debates_ topics and rather than force feed a particular view. In other words, _Star Trek_ is much better when it doesn't treat those with a different view like a bunch of strawmen.
@@redpillfreedom6692 If a life is priceless, how you can quantify the value of life? 1 versus 1,000,000,000, 2 versus 9, 30 versus 1,000...it's all the same. Priceless is priceless.
@@Ragitsu 😂 absolutely not! Ship these 600 selfish idiots off the planet and save the billions! Bye
even in this crappy movie, Picard is so good when someone else is writing his character and Stewart isn't in creative control.
When Picard takes off his rank pips you know it's about to get real real, real fast.
Why is every admiral either incompetent, hypocritical or just flat out evil in star trek?
Plot armor, to make Picard look better
The irony of Picard against the relocation of a people. He's done it himself on a few occasions.
Never by force
The whole reason the corridors of the enterprise were always empty was because the ship cold hold like 30,000 passengers. Why build such a capacity if relocating people wasn’t part of the mission.
No he DID NOT. Which TNG did you watch or did you watch and have a problem comprehending?
@@michaelmaxwell2464Picard lucked out that the Native Americans colony opted to join Cardassia. The colony where Data got sent down to convince them to relocate or the Sheliak were going to nuke them did get removed under duress.
Picard's track record of obliterating admirals is nearly as impressive as his other works.
I'm always amused by the "ethics" of the Federation 🤦♂️
So sad when Picard removed his batteries.
Rank insignia actually.
@@mikegallant811 Nah they're batteries. They power his artificial heart.
2:30
You leave Geordi out of this, Admiral.
🤣
A true ethnical dilemma, now that I’m older I’m not sure which side of the argument I’d be on. Using Spock’s favorite logic phrase, the admiral would be correct.
Yes. And the medical insights gained from nazi experiments would also be logically correct. We know much more now because of that, and much of modern medical science is based upon it. So this is an extremely difficult question to ask; should we erase all knowledge that is based on past crimes, knowing that this will cause even more people to suffer and die? Or should we accept that out of the death of those people came a greater understanding? I am in no way suggesting that we kill people in order to learn. But dumping the recorded data would also be a crime. The moon landing, a triumph for the US, was based on the deaths of thousands of slave workers in V2 factories. Our very culture, based on people thrown to wild beasts in circus, and a few houdred years later, boiled to death for disordination or pronged though the anus if you opposed. We are surely a very mean ape. But we are successful in what we do.
In this film, the villain straps the admiral into a chair as a machine stretches his face until he dies. In an episode of Columbo, he gets his head chopped off by a Guillotine. 😳
In another film, he dies from pressure.
This was pure Star Trek, and there were some more scenes like this in this movie. Sadly, some other scenes were silly. But overall, this might be my favourite Star Trek movie. Hard to imagine that the very next movie (Nemesis) was going to be the worst Star Trek movie ever made.
Well is plausibly 100% better than the largely atrocious Star Trek Picard.
@@Amorrecords
Your comment is 5 months old and still rings true.
Even SNW is crap.
I really enjoyed nemesis. To me the worst film was the motion picture. Then maybe first contact. All the new stuff doesn't even count as star trek to me
The only thing I didn't appreciate in Nemesis was the death of Data. Other than that though? Pretty cool movie.
@@christianriddler5063
Nemesis is fireworks. Look good, sounds good, has no story.
Best Prime Directive story ever told in Star Trek. 🖖🏻
I just realized he is the same guy that plays Teaspoon on Young Riders
It's like they "rescued" people from a Starbucks. 😄
F. Murray Abraham rocks every role he ever took!
Except this one is sort of silly and over the top.
And Spock says 'the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few'. Who's in the right then? Picard or Spock?
Picard, of course! There's more Ba'ku in the area (many) than there are So'na and Starfleet officers (few)!
@@loganidol Heresy!
600 people being moved vs billions having their life span doubled and saving millions from disease….yeah I’d put them on the next ship too
is that really a good thing tho?
@@zainm5919 the needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few
WHO THE HELL ARE WE TO DETERMINE THE NEXT COURSE OF EVOLUTION FOR THESE PEOPLE?!!!
"We can't disobey the prime directive."
But you did that like 12 times before in TNG...
Honestly this movie weirded and creeped me out when I was a kid... But holy crap I need to revisit it as an adult
I love Picard's line. "How many people does it take, Admiral, before it becomes wrong?" That's the whole point. Wrong cannot be measured by quantities. First someone relocates 600 people, then the next one will forcefully relocate a thousand because 600 weren't a problem either. In the end, forced relocation becomes the norm and everyone wonders how it happened in the first place!
Of course this totally ignores the episode where the transporter reduced a group to childhood.
Ironically Picard had colonists relocated in TNG
By choice, not by force.
Federation colonists occupying other peoples' land.
Such an under rated movie!
Agreed. Its one of those Trek movies that has aged really well.
Especially for the very crucial subject that this key scene clarifies.
@@mikebasil4832 The problem is that Picard is in the wrong here. Actually he was on the other side of this debate when he wanted to relocate another race in the episode where Wesley disappears with the traveller. The planet is in Federation space, the Baku are selfish and don´t let other people onto their planet although it could really be a help for billions as the Admiral said. You can criticise the way Starfleed operated and the Son´a had their own plans but you can´t blame the Admiral and Starfleet for this operation. Especially when you concider that this movie took place after the Dominian war.
@@Mofix222 The issues and dramas about the Prime Directive have been convoluted over time in the Star Trek universe. I think that the main problem is how the Trek stories in this regard can seem too tailor-made for the issues. They can lack a sense of naturalism in that regard and may therefore feel too constricting. If an alien race asks for our help, that's one thing. If they don't, then we should respect that. But making the Prime Directive flexible enough for the sake of an optimistic message, as opposed to what Enterprise had needlessly forced upon us with Dear Doctor and Cogenitor, was the kind of Star Trek that I grew up with. So that may just work better for me personally.
The needs of the many outweighs the few.
The death of one is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic.
I have stated before that I don't understand the Prime Directive. It states that they will not interfere with another species development. But doesn't exploring, making contact, and sharing of culture and technology do just that, if even accidently or subconsciously?
By the Heisenberg principle, you can’t observe something without influencing it in some way. In Star Trek: Into Darkness, when the Enterprise crew neutralize the volcano on Nibiru, Spock was okay with that, but he disapproved of the Enterprise ship rising out of the ocean in order to beam him out of the volcano, saying it violates the Prime Directive. They were technically violating the Prime Directive by negating the volcano. Admiral Pike later says, “Starfleet’s mandate is to observe and to explore, not to interfere”, well they go out and search for alien civilizations and establish diplomatic ties, they are influencing the society’s fate by making themselves known to them. By doing what they do, they’re violating that very rule. In the context of Insurrection, I agree with Picard about deciding the fate of another group of people against their will; “Who the hell are we to determine the next course of evolution for these people?!”.
@@montgomeryscott5657 sounds like you agree with the problem behind my question
@@MikeWoodall I think they tend to explore the other cultures and civilizations before making contact - to see if that culture/civilization have discovered Warp technology yet.
A bit like how the Vulcans found out about our warp flight in First Contact - the Pheonix does it's test flight and a Vulcan ship happens to be in the area to detect the warp technology and make contact.
@@montgomeryscott5657 now the one time I would agree with the Prime Directive... I can't remember the name of the episode in TNG, but Enterprise lands on a very primitive planet, and the people think they have seen some kind of deity in the Enterprise. Later some Starfleet admiral suggests to Picard to basically create a religion for the people in order to get them to stop fighting. That would be something that would violate the Prime Directive in its purest form
The problem with this movie wasn't that it was like a long episode. It was that the story didn't make any sense. The best example of this is the scene where they find the Holo Ship. That scene contradicts itself multiple times. And that's just one problem with this movie. There are multiple instances where this movie contradicts itself as well as the TNG show itself. The moral dilemma they present, while thought provoking, is completely undercut because the story is full of nonsense.
Agreed! And they were trying to be deep, but they ended up just having “evil weird looking face men want to take planet vs vitreous tng crew is going to stop them”! It isn’t thought provoking!
Imagine how much better the story would have been if, let’s say, a scientist from the federation is trying to find a cure for their home planet (they are not from earth) and they want to save literally billions from some disease. They find this planet and the amazing properties. They don’t know it’s inhabited but eventually do. This would really make the viewer think “wow, they want to save their home planet of billions but these 600 are indigenous to this world (I’m changing it to they would actually be from the planet)”….This would have been a much better dilemma then what we got.
Sometimes Picard playing the eternal boy scout was very annoying. It's a miracle Starfleet was able to have covert intelligence operations without scout master Picard raising an objection to them just about every time.
Look at the world we live in right now. We could use more Picard's.
@@iainwhite8617 if we had more picards china would be even more dominant. picard is one of these idealists who would rather die than win by any means necessary. this idealism is laughed at at chinese hq and chinese social media. they think we're retarded and they're completely right. once they win by exploiting our idealism they will erase every trace of us and that will be our final act. when we became this stupid? when self preservation was destroyed by utopian idealism ? and why is this utopian idealism is being forced on all of us ? i don't agree with a word picard is saying, why is he and people like him deciding in my name ?
That is his way. Which made it even more interesting when we got Sisko as the next captain.
Agreed. Picard always acted like his way was the only right one. He disrespected so many Admirals. If this was the military. He would be stuck at his rank till retirement.
That's why he passed over for promotions to admiral.
I think the irony of the federation is put on full display here; The opportunist vs the idealist.
No empire is forged without a certain level of disregard for niceties and ethical concepts, constraints placed upon it by morals only ever hinder its growth and the prosperity of its people. That is what the federation is, an empire in all but name. Dougherty represents the true face of the federation, Picard represents the ideal face of the federation. The truth lands somewhere in the middle.
In the real world we have an example of this; The united states. It is a republic in face but an empire in all but name. The constitution and its proponents represent the ideal face and belief in its founding ideals and purpose, the establishment and the opponents of the US constitution represent the true face of the republic. In both fiction and reality it will always be a battle of wills, the concept vs human nature.
I think it's in the story that Picard started to have less faith in the federation. What happened later on with the abandonment of the evacuation of Romulus and the banning of synthetic life cemented that belief that it was no longer Starfleet.
Card? And the Federation and Starfleet are two separate things.
@@LordTalax edited. I meant Picard
@@Artisan1979 Awesome Card.
Yo Picard.. Why do you have so many ipads? 😂
Holoprojection not good enough?
Actually this argument is easily resolved. You do not take what is not yours.
Prime Directive or not. This belongs to the Baku, not anyone else.
That said, it is not the Federations job to protect them either. They have no agreement with them to do so. Saying the area is in “their space” is not accurate. It is in their “zone if military action vis a vis other militarized powers”. If they have no interest in stopping another power from entering that area and doing whatever, they have the right to refrain from action
On that basis they can choose to offer to move the Baku on a temporary basis and make an agreement to return them several generations later . Or simply say “no sorry, we arent going to use everything we’ve developed to do your work for you.”
On the other hand, principal actually can do far more for a civilization than any technological advance. Integrity towards ones own principles in the face of a clear short term advantage to abandon the same is what gives a civilization real staying power. Had they chose instead to tell the Soren to fuck off and protected these people regardless of whether they could harness the amazing properties of that world, it would have done themselves and everyone within the Federation far more good over the long term
The planet is in Federation space, so it actually is within their charter that they protect the planet’s people from outside threats, excluding acts of nature.
I hope you are not an American, otherwise you are literally throwing stones while in a glass house.
It’s a federation world. It’s in federation space. It may not be a federation member, but they are still protected by the federation
fuck the 600 people if this radiation stuff can double life spans
@@Renegade2786 you mean you hope I'm not an american that I don't propose invading foreign cultures and countries? Why the hell would you hope an American doesn't think like that? Do you think we haven't invaded and wrecked enough countries already?
They missed a real opportunity to have Admiral Nechayev in "Insurrection". Imagine if she was the antagonistic Admiral in this movie instead of the crazy Admiral of the week (total waste of Anthony Zerbe's talent) who dies by face stretch. The audience would have actually cared when she met her demise in the movie. They did nothing else with this well written character. It may have made "Insurrection" just a little bit more memorable instead of being the ultimate insomnia cure.
Picard talks about how their action may potentially destroy the Ba'Ku, kinda like how he almost destroyed the Native American descendants on a planet now under Cardassian control. Is he being hypocritical about it, or learning from a lesson from a mistake he almost made back then?
A far better film than I ever remembered! Classic TNG episode vibes.
In the post DS9 novels its confirmed this whole enterprise was engineered by Section 31 and the admiral was willingly complicit 👍
sounds plausible, it even has the smell off a Section 31 Operation.
novels are not canon, only what happens on screen is considered canon.
This set up made no sense. They could have easily built a base away from the village and brought sick and injured here to recover faster. No need to destroy the source of the "healing energy". And no reason to disrupt the village.
I have a high amount of respect for Picard. I have always regarded him as the most ideal StarFleet captain, and the best example of what humanity should strive to become.
That being said, I’m afraid I’m against him in this argument about the Bakkul.
For one thing, Picard once used the very tactic he is criticizing here himself. During an episode of the Next Generation, the Enterprise used its holodeck in order to transport a lesser developed species to a new planet without their consent or knowledge of the situation. Now the circumstances surrounding that incident were quite different and Picard himself was against the idea at first in that episode, but it still proved to be the morally correct thing to do in that episode. It is also worth noting that in that TNG episode, those people were relocated because their planet was becoming uninhabitable and those people would die otherwise. And Picard was originally against it because it would be a violation of the Prime Directive, meaning Picard originally intended to let those people die before his hand was forced by other people, and only then did he cooperate in the plan to help save their race. Picard has always been bound to the Prime Directive and it’s part of what makes him such a great captain. He didn’t want to let them die but he felt he had no other alternative because they were an underdeveloped species.
As I mentioned before, the circumstances are different here. And it’s Picard’s actions during that TNG episode that allow me to understand his viewpoint in this movie. I still do not agree with it however.
I do not agree with Picard here because in this case, like the Admiral said, the Prime Directive does not apply. The Bakkul were never meant to be immortal, they didn’t naturally evolve on this planet and the planet’s position within Federation space implies that they actually settled here illegally. After all without setting up any kind of buoy or satellite to state their claim to the region, thus challenging the Federation for ownership of the system, the Federation owns this planet, which makes them trespassers.
Furthermore, there is the needs of the many argument. As the admiral said, this radiation could be used to help save or enhance the lives of billions of Federation citizens. One would think that would be worth the removal of six hundred people who illegally settled on this world. If anything, the Bakkul are actually pretty selfish for not agreeing to the relocation once they found out about it. The preservation of their accidental immortality and their dedication to living in just this one spot and living without using advanced technology, should not be seen as sufficient reasoning when the alternative would see billions of people saved and cured. It in fact portrays the Bakkul as very selfish considering that they are warp capable, are perfectly aware of life beyond the Brier Patch, and yet would rather keep this discovery all to themselves rather than share it with the rest of the Quadrant.
So, you see why I am not personally on Picard’s side here. I still respect him as a person and I can see where he is coming from, from a moral and cultural perspective. But the Bakkul moved their society once before (to this planet in fact). I think their culture could survive another relocation, especially since the Federation has already agreed to pay the bill for them (through transporting them, locating a new planet for them, establishing identical infrastructure on the new planet, and moving all of their people and belongings with them). The Federation might even be willing to share the metaphasic medical breakthroughs with the Bakkul after the process has been refined. Assuming that the Bakkul would be willing to endure further visitors to their new planet. I don’t know about you, but I’d call that a bargain.
This is a terrific explanation. I haven’t even seen that TNG episode but it all makes sense. When I first saw this movie I was 10 and had absolutely no idea what was going on, but I still liked the film. Now that I’m 26 I can actually properly appreciate it and seeing comments like yours really helps me to understand the film better
Here a question, WTF not ASK them if they can move?
Like, seriously, explain the situation to them and ask them to move. Maybe they'd even understand?
At the start of insurrection, starfleet had no idea that the Baku were once an advanced people. They were likely concerned with breaking the prime directive by revealing themselves to a "primitive" people. This is another example where the prime directive is misused by starfleet officers to escalate a potentially harmless situation. The Federation should have asked and left it at that, or tried to come up with a scientific solution.
@@collinistyping true but that excuse goes out the window the moment it's revealed that they aren't a lower level civilization.
Because the only justification the Baku could give as to why they should stay is that they want the magical radiation stuff all to themselves and fuck everyone else.
0:30
Me whenever they announce a new series of Discovery or any New-Trek
Discovery is really good, you just have to give it a chance.
@@PlayNiceFolks No. It is objectively on par with feces in a burning paper bag. One's own standard would have to be so low that cow dung would be considered delectable. Most humans are not willing to sink that far and for good reason. Discovery should stay in the meadow like the cow-pie it is and the flies that like it and gather around it, enjoy your meal..
You know, looking at the comments shows you this movie did exactly what it intended. 24 years later and people are still holding spirited debates about the ethical dilemma surrounding the plot. Both sides have many decent points. This is a realistic example of how no matter what, someone will be dissatisfied with the decision. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. But how long can we justify that mindset until it becomes unjustifiable? This movie was peak Star Trek; they don't make them like this anymore because they want it to be more like Star Wars, which is itself suffering under bad writing.
If this was peak Star Trek, then what happened between 1998 and 2005?
They didn't make them anymore because films like Nemesis and TV shows such as Voyager or Enterprise got drove the franchise into the ground.
As much as I didn't feel the JJ Abrams films were true Star Trek, it made sense as to why they existed-- to prove to studios that Star Trek was profitable again.
I mean it seems pretty cut and dry to me. 600 people not native to this planet want to selfishly stay and live forever rather than save billions. The federation wasn’t going to kill them but relocate their selfish asses off the planet!
And regardless this story has so many plot holes and many other things they could have done!
And if that is THEIR decision, what gives the newcomers the RIGHT to decide that those who were there should be moved so THEY could get it? This how we got all the genocides of history from slavery to the Holocaust because might makes right huh?
"how many people does it take admiral, before it becomes wrong" ok Picard but dont come back to me with healthcare is a right when you just denied the improvement of health for trillions out of respect of 600
Makes more than a little sense that this would be the man who'd resign from Starfleet to protest the Federation abandoning the Romulans some few decades later
And that Starfleet - after the failure of this project and the Dominion War and the Borg invasions - would just let him go
He became an Admiral to defeat corruption - only to become a lone voice in the desert. Trapped behind a desk - away from where he might have made a difference
Picard is the best captain from Star Trek, in my opinion...
Sisko
@@Kalenz1234 Benjamin "I'm an angry man that commits war crimes." Sisko.
@@Kalenz1234 He poisoned a planet, and was responsible for the murder of I don't know how many millions by lying the Romulan Empire into the War. And he knew what Garak was capable of doing. His hands are dirty just lke Ross's. I wonder if he's a member of 31?
Kirk
Believe it or not, this is actually one of the rare times that I actually disagree with Picard and I would actually probably throw back the same question how many people does it take for it to be right one two five to quote a famous quote that I don't really remember where it's from The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few 😆
The S'ona and Baku were fighting before the events of TMP, I'm going to need to see more of that conflict, with the pyjama uniforms 😂
"A planet in federation space" but no, its not. Unless a world joins the Federation, its not in Federation space, its an independant enclave system inside the Federations borders. This logic is like saying that the Vatican is under the juristiction of Italy dispite been an independant enclave nation (its close ties with Italy are irrelevant). Making such a claim to all worlds that are inside the Federations borders means they that they have basically decided that they own everything inside its borders but there are many worlds inside the Federations borders that aren't in the Federation for a multitude of reasons. This kind of logic makes them no better than the Empires they so often oppose.
They are not apart of the Federation of course. Starfleet was observing them. As per the Prime Directive, they are not to interfere with their progression or be seen. But Data going haywire after finding out the true reason they were there threw all that out the window when he was seen by the locals. The plan of course by the admiral was to relocate the villagers from the planet using a cloaked holodeck ship, which is just wrong on so many levels imo. And then comes the whole complicated matter of the Prime Directive about interfering since that planet did not even belong to the Baku in the first place, so is it right to force them to leave? But it has been their home for the past 300 plus years. Picard of course is against all this since that planet is basically theirs for the past 300 years. And the whole metaphasic ring playing a big part.. The fountain of youth of the planet basically.
@@imranbecks its hars to justify it not been "theirs" after 300 years. Their settlement pre-dates the federation itself thus giving them a better claim to it. Fountain of youth aside.
I think there's a complex reason as to why he specifically said that and Picard didn't fully understand the truth of the planet's position at this time. And a good part of that complex reason has to do with the Admiral's new friendship.
Federation space means the Federation monopolizes certain powers and has responsibility by default. There are scenarios in which the Vatican is dependent on Italy, such as if there was a foreign military attack on the Vatican, it would have to pass through Italy.
@@MagicAl5F4781 yes but the same is not true of the Federation, the Vatican and Italy actually have a specific treaty for that scenario among others. Your arguement would be like saying Germany and France are responsible for Belgiums safety as you need to pass through them to attack it. While they may not let you pass, they are in no way responsible for its protection and hold no powers over Belgium either. Yes I know they have mutual defence pacts too and certain treaty requirements as part of NATO. It's hard to find a good example in the real world. Best one I can think of would be saying something like during WW2 the US had a duty to protect and control Easter Island because it was technically closer to Hawaii and the US mainland dispite actually been owned by Chile and thus the US had no say over it. Its surrounded by unclaimed territory, which is in reality what most of the Federation is. They have no right to claim unoccupied systems, especially ones closer to non-aligned worlds than aligned ones. This when you realise the size of the federation and the number if non-aligned worlds inside it (pre-warp, warp and post warp/extinct civilisations) more of "federation space" is actually independant than legitimate controlled territory. Also just because a Federation citizen is on a world (even as its lone inhabitant) doesn't make that a Federation world, they have to apply for that right to be recognised as such. We actually see evidence of this in Picard, the world there is inside Federation space but until it formally asks for Federation protection, its not part of the Federation and not under its protection, the Romulan fleet broke no laws by travelling there dispite passing through "Federation territory" as they never entered an occupied system belonging to a member world. It actually took the evidence that the world had applied for and been granted Federation protection to make the Romulans back down, as they knew without that proof, they were not the aggressors and were not breaking any rules/treaties.
I was not a fan of TNG but I did like this movie. This was classic Trek. A philosophical debate where both sides actually had a point (talking about the starfleet officers)
the only tng movie not to have a captains log. this was the first star trek movie i'd seen when it first came out.
This is so pertinent right now
Patrick Stewart....gr8 actor. Keeps it real...stands up for what he believes in... even up against an Admiral....
I would be inclined to side with the admiral if not for the Sona being assholes, untrustworthy, and dangerous. If it was purely the Federation doing it, then yeah, I wouldn't stand with Picard on this one.
But the Baku found that planet first, they are entitled to live there. No one has the right to force them to leave. The Federation should have taken a diplomatic approach.
@@collinistyping It's a Federation planet, in Federation Space.They are tenents.