Okay I gotta ask, what's so bad about the manual steering column? I see so many people complaining about it, but I don't get it. I guess it's pretty oddly designed, but wouldn't it make sense to have a form of manual helm control? Especially in Star Trek where consoles are constantly exploding in space battles.
While I don't especially have a problem with the thrustmaster on the bridge we've constantly seen that any computer console can be reconfigured so a front console get blown off the bridge someone just goes over to science 1 and says computer I need to drive the ship from here, they don't necessarily need to keep looking up at the viewscreen as we've seen from other bridge layouts
It's an off-the-shelf prop that many of Star Trek's core demographic actually owned at the time. It pulls you out if the film when you see your own joystick on the Enterprise.
There's nothing wrong with the idea, but the prop they used was lazy. They just bought an off-the-shelf joystick available at many stores at the time, and stuck it on the Enterprise bridge. They didn't even bother to repaint the joystick so it matches the rest of the look of the Enterprise-E bridge. Very lazy execution.
It was horrible because I had the same one sitting on my desk at home on the PC. Played Mechwarrior with it! THAT...was the worst thing about the movie. The rest of it was ok. I asked Jonathan Frakes about it, and he thinks it was done by the producer to get the attention of the gaming crowd at the time. Regardless, we may complain about that scene, but in MANY modern movies we see the X52 and X55 joystick setups. So nothing has changed there really.
I actually liked Insurrection. A change of pace from the depressing doom that was First Contact - that's what the producers of Insurrection said. And First Contact is my favorite Star Trek movie.
I dont blame you, First contact is quite cool :0 My fav is between First Contact and Nemesis. I dont know but to me Shinzon is very interesting as a concept. An exiled clone that rejects its humanity, very unique to me
Leaving the cinema I was quite satisfied it was a very Star Trek story (perhaps current Star Trek writers should have a viewing), leaving the cinema after Nemesis I was thinking what the hell did I just sit through & how can I get my money back
To me Generations, Insurrection and Nemesis felt like their scripts where just written as episodes of TNG, good stories for 2 part episodes for season finales of the series but not for films. First Contact was the only one that felt like an actual film because it followed up on a story from the TNG series like Star Trek 2 followed up on Space Seed from the original show.
STAR TREK VI: The Undiscovered Country is the best Star Trek movie, in my opinion It's almost a perfect translation of the TV series to film, with a great narrative, just the right amount of action, mystery, political intrigue and cheesiness In fact I actually think that the Director's Cut of Undiscovered Country is even better, because it adds about 10% more cheese. What's your favorite Star Trek movie? Do you agree with me? Would love to hear your thoughts in a video!
Undiscoved Country is my second fav after Wrath of Kahn. It mirrored the end of the US/USSR cold war and the Federation/Kingon War so well. It felt like a fitting end to the entire original crew on screen.
6:42 "But where can warp drive take us, except from here?" is not a dumb thing. Consider the freedom a man uses to explore & find his soulmate, & now, after finding that life partner, he decides to renounce (some of) that freedom & now hopes to live peaceable in his new found environment, & while this may not be everyone's preference (or yours), Star Trek is also about respecting the freedom & self-determination of others.
I think the entire video is generally written from a very individualistic and "western" point of view, where peaceful life is equated with stagnation, and therefore failure, while "achievement" and "progress" are automatically assumed as correct and right. I disagree with this view strongly, as different people choose their way of life differently. Who are we to impose our definition of success on others? This is what Star Trek is about. Adopting this view to an episode like "Journey's End" would basically say "fuck your life, get on with the times." Ironically, this video does the very thing that it accuses "Insurrection" of doing, just in the reverse.
Since Insurrection took place during the Dominion War, and even mentioned in the movie, they could have easily change the theme of this movie to the classic Trek theme of the needs of the many vs needs of the few. Instead of tech vs nature, the story theme would be protecting the innocent at a time of strife. Only lines by Starfleet characters needs to be changed, none of the lines and motivations of the Ba'ku and Son'a characters need to change at all. You can even have Worf be for taking the healing power of the planet at first because he has fought the Dominion before he finds this is a dishonorable action. What if the plot-radiation can negate the Polaron bleeding effect of Jem'hadar weapons? Is it right to conquer a planet to save millions lives in a war the thousands of inhabitants have no part in? Picard and crew can still learn to take life easier as they help the Ba'ku, but for a different reason. The Ba'ku way of life can be something the crew look forward to after the war is over or how they want to live when they retire.
@@humankirk9196 So, roll over while a vast military power continues to secretly infiltrates the various seats of power within the Federation and Klingon Empires?
Good video, cracked up with the kirk/spock 'romance' joke Always took issue with this film when they wanted to use its radiation to help millions by uprooting 600 inhabitants that didn't originate from the planet, which feel like it would void the PD as they would not be interfering with their natural development. But then I also feel that just asking them to move for the greater good would fix this, they would have to be real jerks to deny the request, but then they go come across and unbearably arrogant so maybe that's why no one asked them.
I've always wondered: if they've been there for 300 years but they haven't aged a day, does it really count as eviction/uprooting? In a crucial sense, they've been there less than one day.
If 600 isn't enough to care, how many would be enough? A thousand? Fifty thousand? A million? How many? Wait, that's just a line from a movie that doesn't have "empathy" or some bullshit like that.
I've only recently found your videos, but I do like hearing you out, even when I disagree, because you always raise valid, and usually well thought out points. That's a breath of fresh air in opinion pieces. I like Insurrection, though I don't think I'd call it my favorite Star Trek movie? I never got "Technology = Bad & Natural = Good" as the core theme of this movie. To me it more hearkened back to the Trail of Tears, the forced relocation of a small group of people is justified because we don't understand their backward ways, and their resources can be used to help millions more. The Baku, unlike Landru's people, were not stagnating in the same way. They were there by choice, and didn't want to leave. The reason that the Sona were exiled was not because they wanted to leave, but because a group of them tried to take over the colony and failed, though they did want a more technological way of life. Why in 100 years could they not have just... you know, settled the other side of the planet? Dunno. But those are my thoughts. Great video as always!
Honestly the worst thing is the lost potential. The movie came out in 1998/1999 right in the middle of the dominion war in ds9. We never got to see what the enterprise was doing in the dominion war but we do get references and books about things like the battle for betazed. Now personally it was never something the production staff intended to do but imagine for a moment that they'd thrown the script for insurrection in the bin and had instead done a film where the crew takes it upon themselves to liberate troi's homeworld from dominion occupation. Would that not have probably been a far better film?
I actually like Nemesis more: I thought Shinzon was a much more interesting character than Mua'fo, I liked the B4 android plot, and the nebula battle was pretty great. It's still a flawed movie but it had plenty of things I liked as well.
I wouldn't say Generations had that much potential. Remember that some cast members got no time off between finishing their shoots for season 7 and starting on the movie; is anything, it's a super depressing epilogue to All Good Things rather than a movie in it's own right.
@Ray Riley Because production was rushed. There was a Trek series still airing and another in pre-production, so... they had to rush a movie out in case people forgot about TNG, I guess?
@@Michael_ORourke There were interesting ideas with Shinzon, but it was ultimately badly executed. He just came off as a really really stupid and incompetent villain.
"But where can warp drive take us except away from here." The message of Insurrection is the exact opposite of the message of This Side of Paradise from the Original Series, where the colonists on Omicron Ceti III learn by the end of the episode that their life on the planet led only to stagnation.
I don't know that I agree with the idea that this is the message of the film. I think there are several messages, actually, but none of them are purely anti-technology. I think when she says that, the point is that this is the life that they have chosen to live, and they should have the right to live that life without other people stealing it from them. Thus, I believe the message of Insurrection is more anti-Eminent Domain than pro-simplicity (or whatever). I'm also not convinced the message of "This Side of Paradise" is as straightforward as you're making it sound. Keeping in mind that TOS was airing in the heart of the Cold War, I think the message is one of anti-Communism, that living a life of subsistence while an outside force cares for all your needs -- that's no life at all.
@@garethspotfur1 They haven't stagnated at all. They're increasing their mental abilities, and they're creating better and better art. That's just the stuff that's directly shown to us in the film.
Gonna be honest, not even just thematically, my biggest gripe with Insurrection is the absolute *missed opportunity* it was. The Dominion War is referenced several times in the film, and there was even a cameo of Quark that didn't make the final cut. So that really begs the question: Why the hell wasn't this the Deep Space Nine/Next Generation crossover movie everyone wanted? Timeline wise, it was the best opportunity they had for it. Even if the DS9 cast's roles had to remain fairly minor, due to production still ongoing on the show-level, they still could have had some bearing on the plot. There were plenty of plot threads they could have traveled without interfering too deeply in DS9's plotline. For example, the Dominion takeover and occupation of Betazed. Something could have been done there!
Unfortunately it was shot down by producers (AKA Berman and the suits he answered to) who didn’t want to scare off casual viewers by referencing things they didn’t know about. Piller had to fight just to get the tiny references they already made. Given how huge cinematic universes with obscure details have become, that’s a remarkably bad idea, but it was the orthodoxy at the time in Hollywood. Tidbits for fans but nothing that would upset reviewers or casual viewers.
@@djangofett4879 quite. It’s ironic, given how casually referencing something they didn’t know about can spur an audience on to seek it out later. But executives tend to assume everybody is scared of being reminded they don’t know everything already.
Blake’s 7 was my entry point into sci-fi. OK the prediction values were very low and some of the acting hammy, but it had a great dystopian concept and hero who was almost as bad as the iconic villain.
The bad production values sort of work in Blake's Seven's favour. Because everything is so cheap and tacky it looks like the Terran Federation is stuck in an endless recession. Also, it SHOULD have been the Daleks.
This would have been absolutely fine as an episode but the only reason this isn’t worse film is Nemesis. They should have done something in the Dominion war setting IMO.
They're both trash but at least Nemesis didn't have a shitty romance and there was something much bigger at stake than 600 selfish Space Amish hogging the cure for death.
Is it the worst Star Trek movie or the worst “Star Trek” movie? I sure cannot agree that Insurrection is “worse” than any of the Kelvin timeline narrative messes. I will never see the use of empathy in a script as a metric for the quality of a Star Trek film. Each and every one of the Kelvin films is a plot hole-filled narrative disaster with little redeeming quality beyond their effects. Disagreeing with the empathetic message or perceived representation of technology vs. nature does not make a film objectively bad. I think it’s clear Picard’s issue is much more about his opposition to forced relocation than it is about “interfering” with evolution.
I totally see where you're coming from here, but, respectfully, I submit that you may be misreading many of the themes and arcs in the film. This is easy to do, as the film IS pretty sloppy in its presentation. Bottom line, I think the film does emphasize the meshing of empathy with technology, that it doesn't actually have an anti-technology message, and that it actually promotes some aspects of Enlightenment philosophy over Romanticism. To address a few points: - While the Bak'u are obviously presented as more sympathetic than the Son'a, they do have their own arc in the film, and most of it does seem to be wrapped up with Data as you observe. I disagree with your statement that Data is simply "told to be more natural." Data's long-established character motivation is to be more human, and his interactions with Artim (the kid) are really just another avenue for him to approach that. Artim is the only one of the Bak'u who actually appears to be afraid of Data, and it's explained (by Picard) that this stems from the kid's upbringing. The others may be wary of him to a point, but they seem to have been willing to help him repair his malfunction from the outset and their own initial wariness of Picard is based on Data's advice. - The Son'a didn't just want to leave their home world and go "do something with their lives," as you put it. We only have dialogue to go on about the events of 300 years earlier (though a listing in the credits for actors who played "Young Ru'afo" and "Young Gallatin" makes me think there may have been a flashback sequence filmed), but all parties seem to agree that Ru'afo and his followers wanted to transform their society to a more technocratic one and tried to take over the colony to do this. This raises a lot of practical questions (as Picard suggests at one point, isn't the planet big enough to support a separate colony?), but they didn't seem to want to just leave. - While it seems at times that the film is promoting an anti-technology stance on the whole, I think it's ultimately just espousing a sense of balance between a fast-paced technological life and stopping to smell the roses as it were. When Anij asks Picard whether he ever wants to slow down the pace of his own life, he simply says "there are days." Meaning he still believes in his technologically-oriented lifestyle. He's just stressed out and overworked at his job (like everyone else in Starfleet after the Dominion War). Industrialized society has its own patterns of leisure, and the danger he sees with the Federation and the Son'a's actions is that they try to force this model on the Bak'u. Which raises the what I think is the central theme of the film, that being... - MORAL AUTONOMY. More than almost any other Picard story, this film expresses his profound belief in moral autonomy (this is why I love it so much despite its flaws). This idea, that individual human beings must have their own ethical agency and sense of inborn duty, is itself a product of Enlightenment philosophy, developed by Immanuel Kant among others. Kant even coined the "motto" of the Enlightenment itself, "Sapere Aude," (Dare to Know), which is more or less synonymous with "Boldly Go." In Insurrection, Picard's objections to the relocation of the Bak'u have nothing to do with their superior lifestyle, they simply have to do with the violation of their personal choice -- their own moral autonomy. He never considers abandoning his technological lifestyle, he just insists that every individual and/or society be able to make their own decision. He expresses his own moral autonomy in the strongest possible way, by defying the orders of his superiors. Sorry for the long comment, and thanks to anyone who read this far. I could say more, but I'll wait to see if anyone cares, lol.
There was a book written based off of the script. I listened to it on audiobook and it explains a lot of what isn't in the movie. Might want to check it out.
It is a complete misreading of the movie, but it's also a complete misreading of Star Trek as a whole. Star Trek has never promoted technological advancement and exploration of the galaxy as the ideal, or sole way of living. There's numerous characters throughout with equally-valid alternative lifestyles, where they don't go anywhere, and even where they reject many of the modern conveniences. The main characters, because the story needs to happen, are explorers. They have to go visit other planets and meet other civilizations because that's the premise of the show, and the only way they can do the various scifi morality tales they were setting out to do. But there's plenty of technologically advanced and expansionistic cultures that are villains, and plenty of characters and societies not interested in those things. Most of the time we meet family members of the crews, they are not in Starfleet. Even family members on the crew itself often reject Starfleet. Wesley Crusher dropped out of Starfleet Academy to go meditate in some sweat lodge and explore his mind, instead. Jake Sisko became a writer using technology no more advanced than we all use in the 21st century, and tried to follow in his father's and grandfather's tradition of cooking real food the old fashioned way instead of replicating it. We had main characters like Beverly Crusher who was very knowledgeable about natural medicine, Jean-Luc Picard who was often tempted to leave Starfleet to go crawl around in caves digging up artifacts, Ben Sisko who specifically planned to retire and become a simple farmer, and Tom Paris who liked flying starships but spent all his free time tinkering with stuff from before many viewers of VOY were even born. Technology on Star Trek was always just a means to an end, a vehicle for storytelling. At its worst, it was a bunch of technobabble to get writers out of difficult binds, and at its best it was simply there to convey the characters to places where they could explore philosophy and try to discover deeper truths about human nature. The most advanced beings in Star Trek use no technology at all. There's beings whose very will moves matter and alters reality as they like, whether that's the Traveler, or Q. The biggest villains in the series are those which are technologically superior to Starfleet, whether that's the Borg, or the Dominion.
If anything, Frankenstein is a prototype "foolish scientist creates rogue AI" story. The monster isn't merely a sympathetic victim, he actually turns out a sociopathic asshole and a murderer, which he explicitly points out himself is entirely _because_ of the Doctor's absolutely shitty treatment of him and society's reaction to him. It's a cautionary tale about playing god for the sake of personal satisfaction rather than having care and forethought about what science is doing. It's that one line from Jeff Goldblum in Jurassic Park. You know the one.
I really enjoyed Insurrection, but I can certainly understand why some found it slow, and even boring at times. I don't think the films message was that technology is necessarily bad, but rather to illustrate what we've lost as a result. Technology has enriched and improved our lives in countless ways, there's no doubt about that, but it hasn't come without consequences, especially in terms of general life happiness and our connections with other people. We've never been so connected as a society, yet we've never been so isolated, so are we really better off? I believe that's the message this film was trying to send. This movie probably appeals more to an older audience, say 35+, who've perhaps had a fast-paced life, living in a big city, working in the tech industry, and would now love to slow it down and savour the important moments.
"But it gets Star Trek right on a thematic level." No....god no. It may get the one element you're focusing on right (and even then I highly debate that). But it gets a dozen others wrong. Like classic Star Trek tone, egalitarianism, drama and messaging. All things Insurrection and Nemesis also got wrong. Dark, angry, action Trek was going on when Insurrection was made. And just got progressively worse with each new movie/series.
I think your reasoning falls down when we consider that the Baku are happy in their situation and just want to be left to it. Not everyone wants to be an intrepid explorer, just as some people are happy without access to TH-cam. The Sona chose to leave, but once out in the galaxy they lost the life extending properties of their home world. Every choice has a cost. Coming back and trying to steal the ionizing radiation reminds me of colonial powers invading other, so-called primitive cultures and exploiting their natural resources. On a more personal level, Anij (Donna Murphy) is unlike the women Picard usually encounters. She's comfortable with who she is, and attractive without trying to be. No wonder Picard falls for her. He comes to love her mind and soul as much as her looks, though it doesn't hurt that she's lovely.
10:28 And yet... the ISS versions always looked pretty darn similar... I really wish that the "Kelvin Universe" was essentially the "Mirror Universe"... but Enterprise the TV Show kinda ruined that idea...
Oh man, I've been really hesitant to ever bring up Blake's 7 here, because it's sadly so damn obscure that I almost never find anyone who recognizes it. Amazing!
Every older scifi fan has a special place in its heart for blakes7😉😂 so don't worry about it😆 Cool ship, good story, great characters, the best AI personalities (Orac and Zen) ever, and actors in disco outfits flying through the galaxy😂 *what's not to love about it* ❤️🤣 ... And don't get me started on the teleporter or the soundtrack😜
My husband, with his usual wit said it was 'Star Trek visits a California commune'. He also commented that it was based on the romanticism craze of the 1800s & Romanticism was a pet peeve of his for decades. (at least it gave us some great operas?) I really despised it and felt it proved that the next Generation was becoming stupid Hollywood propaganda. (I disliked it when they said that warp drive was damaging the fabric of the universe... LOL LOL LOL nutty writers. I stopped paying attention to Star Trek for awhile after that. Anyway, Nature is good, technology is bad, says the most technologically advanced industry in the world. I tend to have a bit of a Romantic streak in me, but I am also very realistic and down to earth how hard life was before modern Technology. I've lived without central heating.
Well there was that one time that William Shatner just had to compare himself to God, face to face, then proceeded to ask him why he needed a starship, row row row your boat and all. Yes Star Trek 5 was the Final Frontier but they had to find a whole new Undiscovered Country to make up for that Dumpster Fire.
"Insurrection flies in the face of pillars Star Trek is built on" Exactly! That is the whole point! Lol, the crew are doing their trekking and this shows them every now and again you need to get off the train and look around before getting back on it. In this case Picard realised he was on the wrong train (metaphor going too far?)
“Insurrection flies in the face of pillars Star Trek is built on” Ironic, as it was written by Michael Piller... Plus in “Journey’s End” Picard was all on board with moving a group of people from their new home for the benefit of the many. If the Native Americans had had a hot woman on Dorvan V he’d have mutinitied to keep them there!
Have you never seen Into Drakness? At least Insurrection has a "Magnificent 7" in space vibe...plus anytime Riker is in command durring a ship fight is fun.
When I first saw this movie, I thought it was a fairly decent feature length episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, and nothing at all more than that. A good Trek *movie*, though, it was not. That said, the scene with Geordi seeing the sunrise was easily the best moment in this film.
Is no one going to mention the god-awful 'Picard and Worf singing Gilbert & Sullivan to Data' scene in the beginning pursuit sequence? Then it becomes a trio...omg.
In regards to Insurrection, I must say that I honestly never interpreted any of it that way. Is it the best? In my opinion, no. Is it the worst (of the TNG movies)? In my opinion, definitely not. I took this movie at sheer face value. Two *different* societies with two *different* value systems - the Federation and the Baku. One valued technology and exploration. One was pretty much the equivalent to the Amish. The Sona, of course, being a third party to drive the plot. Pure entertainment with no real 'this is right or wrong.' The most annoying thing to me, and I'm surprised you did not mention it, is that this movie was taking place during the Dominion War if I am not mistaken (feel free to correct me). *That* would have been a much better plot device than the Sona - the Dominion and the Jem'hadar.
The Dominion War ended in the DS9 finale, which aired in 1999. This movie I think came out in 98, but takes place after the war. I might be mistaken, though. and reading through these comments, I can't help but wonder how good a TNG movie set at a frontline of the Dominion War would have been
Antagonists in earlier drafts were Romulans and classic case of evil Starfleet admiral. Admirals come in Star Trek in three different flavors. Plot devices that give simple orders to get episodes going, criminally incompetent ones and just plain criminals.
I don’t know, technology sure is convenient but I don’t think it’s inherently good or bad. It’s a tool, and what is done with it and for what purpose is ultimately what matters. The motivations of the individual using it are what matter, just like anything.
I think that Deanna’s line from First Contact is one of the defining ones of Star Trek: “[Warp drive] united humanity in a way no one ever thought possible when they realised they’re not alone in the universe”. “Where can warp drive take us but away from here” is just stupid. Threshold stupid. Insurrection was okay to be, but pails in comparison to First Contact. Even I as a kid noticed that for a people that didn’t use technology, they lived a very clean and easy life, yet relied heavily on the Enterprise’s technology to defend them. I’d have let them defend themselves with sticks and stones and see how they got on.
Her comment wasn't a wise pronouncement that anybody else took to heart. It was her expression that there is no place like home. The Star Trek equiv of a farmer who says there is nothing in Paris that is worth leaving the farm for. Does that mean the farmer actually thinks there is nothing interesting in Paris? Probably not. It means they are supremely content where they are. The Star Trek crew are adventurers, not every person they encounter needs to be.
@@chrisransdell8110 Many Star Trek characters explicitly reject Starfleet as a lifestyle, and Starfleet characters often talk about the sorts of things they've given up to be in Starfleet. Starfleet is not an ideal that all humans, all sentient beings of any species, should aspire to. It's just one path, and the one that lets the show go visit strange new worlds and go where no man has gone before. But it is not the only path that Star Trek considers valid. The original Gene Roddenberry pilot had Captain Pike wanting to leave Starfleet to go live a much more simple life away from starships and technology, and then when he was brought back in the show proper, he went to go live a pointless fantasy life created in his head with telepathy. Let's not pretend like Star Trek is holding up Starfleet as the only valid way of life, or that technology is in itself the sole meaning of life. The Borg treat technology and expansion as their primary value system. Star Trek has only ever portrayed them as villains. We've had captains like Sisko wanting to retire and go be a farmer on Bajor. He embraced baseball, and solar sailing, and he liked cooking real food instead of replicating it. Our main depictions of Earth, outside of Starfleet HQ or the Academy, is shown to be a place where people can spend their lives running restaurants, or making wine, all without any fancy newfangled technology. Starfleet characters might tease them a bit for this, but they get a healthy debate for their trouble. Star Trek isn't afraid to pit the main Starfleet characters up against other characters who have chosen other lifestyles, and can convincingly express why their way of life is one that's worth living and how it gives them meaning. And in the utopian Federation, free from having to get a paying job to meet their material needs, people are free to choose those other paths, to be writers, archaeologists, botanists, or whatever other low-tech vocations they feel called to do.
This was the end of Star Trek for me. Coming off the heels of the fantastic First Contact this was a bitter disappointment. This plot had barely enough meat to it to fill out a regular episode of TNG. Just awful. The bad taste lasted to the point where I did not even see Nemesis in the theatre. Yes Final Frontier is about as bad as you get. But Undiscovered Country righted the ship for a fine finale TOS. Insurrection showed a TNG franchise out of gas. Followed by Nemesis which did not right the ship. It sunk it.
In Insurrection, the Enterprise crew grow younger and are healed of their maladies. Heck, Geordie LaForge gets actual organic eyes regrowing. Picard however never grows back a full head of dark hair. Which is harder to regrow--a head of hair or a new pair of eyes? Right then & there I knew the premise of healing that Insurrection had was bunk.
Indeed. Especially when La Forge never had actual working eyes to regenerate in the first place. And what about Picard’s artificial heart? That thing should have come up several times, like when he was assimilated by the Borg. You’d think the Borg in their quest for perfection wouldn’t leave something like that in their most important drone! Also in Insurrection, wouldn’t Picard start to regrow his natural heart forcing the removal of the artificial one?
Interesting take. INS is OKAY at best, it has its moments but I'm having trouble with your thesis. Given the juxtaposition of technology defending these people, I'm not so sure the movie is saying something as simple as technology is bad. Rather, we're just seeing another viewpoint, these Ba'ku are peaceful luddites and just want to be left alone, and Star Trek is just as much about respecting others rights to self determination as it is anything else. So in that sense, the movie is showing us that if a society so chose to do so, it isn't necessarily a bad thing. At the end of the day who are we to judge? The point was that their culture was about to be eradicated by greed and an act of galactic colonialism.. thus Picard's insurrection.
They're a pacifist hippie commune. Obviously they'll get destroyed if not protected by others. But the real message was about if the Federation would hold to its ideals when under existential threat, or become just as bad as the enemies they faced. There's no endorsement of the pacifist hippie commune. In the end, the crew flies away in their spaceship and probably never gives the Ba'ku another second thought. It was a planet-of-the-week. As always, the focus is on how the humans deal with whatever's going on.
Insurrection is my least favorite TNG era movie (though I love the design of the Son'a ships) but Final Frontier is my least favorite for the whole franchise.
Into Darkness can still be enjoyed as "dumb sci-fi action movie" though, it makes no sense but has some entertaining action, Final Frontier makes no sense either but is dull from beginning to end.
At least Insurrection had some decent space battle scenes. Final Frontier is just... sad. When the highlight of the movie is 'land a shuttle at high speed' you've made a real snoozer of an action movie. And Into Darkness wasn't THAT bad. Not good either, but let's be honest - USS Vengeance at least looks cool and the action was mostly alright. It was just let down by a crap plot and questionable writing choices.
I have recently thought about this movie and after watching the original series, this movie is basically a TOS series episode taken in a very TNG skin. Basically any episode of the TOS could happen on this planet.
My problem with Insurrection is that it started the funky malaise Star Trek has been mired in for almost 20 years. All movies since then have had a "dark side of Star Fleet" theme or revenge theme. Or both. Insurrection: elements within Star Fleet conspire against native people Nemesis: revenge plot Star Trek reboot: Revenge plot and failure of elderly Spock Into Darkness: Star Fleet conspiracy and revenge plot Beyond: Revenge plot. Can we do something else? Anything else?
The best thing about ST:I IMO was Donna Murphy as Anij(?). The single most beautiful woman I’ve ever seen. I’d watch her sitting on a couch for two hours.
Nemesis was the worst Star Trek film to me. Insurrection was a like a bigger budgeted episode of TNG and if you watched it, it's probably because you liked TNG.
But it's nothing like TNG, the characters dont act like they did in TNG. Picard was willing to condemn his own people to die under Cardassian rule or force them to relocate in TNG because it was his duty and for the good of the federation, so why would he go Rogue here? In almost the same scenario? Except it's not the same scenario because he knew the Indians would suffer greatly under the Cardassians and did in fact get wiped out in the end. Yet he goes to war to save strangers from the horrible fate of natural aging?? This is NOT the Picard we saw in TNG, can you imagine if Insurrection Picard had been in charge during any number of TNG stories? The third to last TNG episode had Picard actively working against the Marquis resistance movement HE was partially responsible for instigating. Insurrection Picard would have sent the Enterprise in phasers blazing starting a war with the Carsasians. TNG Picard did his damn job, facilitated relations with an unseemly race for the sake of peace and security and if necessary he was willing to sacrifice those resistance fighters and would likely have sacrificed his entire ship before he would have broke ranks. A few episodes earlier Picard was so worked up over the prime directive he argued that Worfs brother should stop his attempts to save an alien race from extinction and is only thwarted by the man actively defying him and bringing the entire civilization onto the ship. Picard from TNG simply isnt the sentimental type to throw everything away just because some hard choices need to be made.
@@DrewLSsix There was also the people from “Homeward” where he allowed an entire planet and a race of people to die off even though there was a chance to save some of them. He refused all because of “the prime directive” and got pissed off when Worf’s brother saved a village of them.
Hmm? Really! With all do respect, I can recite every word of dialogue from every episode of Star Trek TOS and TNG and have been able to do so since I was watching laying on the carpet in front of the Livingroom TV as a kid. Having said that, I have always said since leaving the theatre after watching "Insurrection" the first time, " This was disappointing. It was like watching a two part episode of TNG. Sure, it had Oscar winning F. Murray Abraham but every other actor was a where are they now TV list or soap star. The story was OK for television not epic enough for Big screen. Is it the worst, hell no! That would be Star Trek TMP followed close by Final Frontier and Star Trek Beyond. That's right, I actually like " Nemesis "
Browns and beiges and dark browns and light browns and browns and beeeeeeeeeeeeeiiiiiiiiiiiiige Browns and beiges and dark browns and light browns and browns and beeeeeeeeeeeeeiiiiiiiiiiiiige Browns and beiges and dark browns and light browns and browns and beeeeeeeeeeeeeiiiiiiiiiiiiige Browns and beiges and dark browns and light browns and browns and beeeeeeeeeeeeeiiiiiiiiiiiiige Browns and beiges and dark browns and light browns and browns and beeeeeeeeeeeeeiiiiiiiiiiiiige Browns and beiges and dark browns and light browns and browns and beeeeeeeeeeeeeiiiiiiiiiiiiige Browns and beiges and dark browns and light browns and browns and beeeeeeeeeeeeeiiiiiiiiiiiiige Browns and beiges and dark browns and light browns and browns and beeeeeeeeeeeeeiiiiiiiiiiiiige Browns and beiges and dark browns and light browns and browns and beeeeeeeeeeeeeiiiiiiiiiiiiige
Interesting take on Insurrection. Helps explain why this is the lowest Trek movie re-watch for me. Ironically it was the betrayal of Star Fleet principles that turned me off the story, whereas nowadays I have no issues with the less positive incarnations of Star Trek (Discovery and Picard). This may have more to do with my cynical older age than anything else. And then there is Blake's 7. Quite possibly they best sci-fi show ever to grace our TV screens.
I'm not sure Star Trek: Into Darkness deserves praise, because "getting Star Trek right", at least in that scene, seems accidental. The only reason Scotty had that burst of empathy is because they needed one of the main crew kicked off the ship to drive the plot forward.
To me this movie is just so boring. In fact, Star Trek Nemesis is far better than this movie. Because it has fun moments, the nature vs nurture storyline is engaging and it looks like a theatrical film. I would have declared this my least favourite TNG film if it wasn't for Generations killing off Captain Kirk in a half assed fashion.
7:25 This was another dumb one. She didn't actually have to die. All that was needed was her removal from the time line. Taking her through the time portal to the future could have done that. Sure she might have had trouble adjusting, but she was an intelligent emotionally strong young woman. In the long run she would be okay.
Rowan, I like you, I like your stuff, I always look forward to your new clips, and I consider you pretty knowledgeable and insightful, so please don't take this as trolling. You may wanna look up the stories "pandora's millions" and "mad holiday" by george o. Smith. The first is about the invention of a replicator, and the second is about the effect a replicator has on civilization. In fact it destroys it. Not because people are greedy or shitty or any promethean reason, but rather because when nothing has any worth, when everything, even electricity is free, then nothing, not even human life, has any real value. The story isn't capitalist or right wing, and they do eventually find a way to restore civilization (which the writers of DS9 were *certainly* aware of, and used) I mention this because it's a pretty great couple of stories from the early 1950s, but also because, given the massive, massive, massive differences between TOS (which clearly had no replicators) and TNG (which introduced the concept) I think it's far more likely that replicator technology wrecked civilization, and had to rebuild it in vastly different conceptual ways. I realize this issn't canonical, doesn't fit with roddenberry's vision, yadda yadda yadda, and I'm clearly putting more thought into it than he did, but it's still worth a read. Did they ever say that the federation gave the technology away for free, or is that an assumption? Because, as Smith pointed out, once you have one replicator, you have all of them one can be used to create more, someone gives one to a friend, who gives one to a friend, and in a few months literally everyone has one. I would love hearing your thoughts on the stories if you ever find time to read em. Thanks for your time.
TOS had synthesizers, that conceptually seemed to work similarly to replicators though with some presumed limitations for the earlier technology. In fact, one of the often complained about issues from Discovery neatly fits within established canon as synthesizers from TOS are known to at the least replicate organics at a pretty sophisticated level. And uniforms of that era Ccording to TAS are cultivated from organic materials for specific properties, so the synthesized uniforms shown in DSC are in fact entirely canon friendly. The computers dialogue even says "synthesis complete" . This makes more sense than other ideas about TOS synthesizers when you consider scenes like the still in this video shows. Synthesized food being delivered within a container. Some claim that the machine simply spits out a pre existing bowl for the given item like a vending machine then fills it with the synthesized food. While it makes infinitely more sense to synthesize a container for the food at the same time and simply make is a suitable organic compound. Many plastics are in fact organic and could presumably be as easily synthesized as the various food products we have seen. And lastly, even replicators as shown in trek are not capable of reducing goods to no value. We mostly see them used casually in an environment that makes perfect sense for their use, space travel. These ships warp the very fabric of space and time at a whim to hurtle across the galaxy. Compared to the energy demands of that along with the many other systems in use replicators are likely a minor power draw and preferable to hauling around years of preserved food and other goods. But we know it's an energy intensive process, that it's not at all free. If for example you are looking at a decades long journey without guaranteed resources in a ship not well suited to the task rationing replicators and resorting to growing food is shown to be necessary. It's likely that most food on earth and other planets is sourced along the old fashioned ways, because energy matter transformation to supply food for some 11 billion people three times a day plus snacks and other goods is likely to be to great a cost in energy. The stories you mention must also assume some form of perpetual energy, and that would be the real economic killer. But as prosperous as the fed8is they obviously do not enjoy free energy and still engage in mining farming and other jobs familiar to us.
DrewLSsix well, TAS isn't canon, and Discovery isn't any good, so.... :) joking! Joking! Objectively, each Trek show is a product of its own time and all the baggage that goes along with that. So each show is effectively a retcon of the previous shows, even the prequels are retcons of all the shows made before them. TOS was a product of 1960s optimism, and while the future was obviously far better than the present, it's not utopian. The Enterprise could synthesize some things, but the context of it seems to be industrial or chemical, such as when Kirk talks about how the ship could crank out gems if they wanted. Those particular things, he says, are pretty much valueless. However they do say that dilithium is incredibly valuable. They talk of buying and selling. We see them using credit cards, effectively. There is no specific mention of food synthesizers that i can remember, and i'm pretty sure the food slots were intended to be basically a futuristic automat. We're told there is an actual kitchen, that much of their food is synthetic - but again in context that seems to mean something along the lines of tofu burgers and stuff. Crappy simulations of real things, and since they resupply at several points, well, you get my point. Now, obviously if you have a transporter, you've got a replicator, but the people making the show hadn't thought that up yet. TNG was a product of a much older, much more dogmatic Roddenberry, who felt the need to make utopian statements about the future. Which is fine, technology changes over time. DS9 found this limiting and came up with the concept that earth and the core sysstems are utopia, but the rest of the universe isn't, and re-introduced value in the form of gold-pressed latinum, a material that can not be replicated (which is the same solution Mad Holiday used) There's no indication that replicators aren't universal on earth, and a lot of indication otherwise. Sisko's dad cooks real food by hand, which is considered quite the novelty. Pulaski mentions that they've kind of lost the bonding effects of cooking food together, that sort of thing. Energy costs are mentioned so rarely, and so inconsistently that there's no real sense to it. It's a plot device when it comes up at all. This is fun! Thanks for commenting!
@@DrewLSsix The no free energy one always bugged me though. Any planet that has a replicator and light speed ships can have tremendous amounts of free energy, after a small intial set up cost. You just replicate billions of solar panels and mirrors and place them all around the star.
This reminds me of a recent Voyager novel. Voyager, having returned to the Delta quadrant on a mission of exploration, encounter a planetary confederation that seem to be almost at the federation's level of development, except they have replicator or transporter technology. At first Janeway and chakotay are, like, hey maybe we can deal with these people. Gradually, the truth comes out: the confederation's marketing consortium HAS encountered replicator technology, but chose not to introduce it because it would destroy their powerbase. Instead, whole planets are overfarmed to produce foodstuffs, and drugs are produced in such limited supply that they never get to the low income areas who really need them. The confederation might have the wherewithal to do it, but they lack the empathy of the federation.
You may have inspired the first video on my channel. (Which is not yet a thing, so don't bother looking for it.) Thank you! Now, hopefully not spoiling the reaction video I intend to make... I think the part about the premise that your case overlooks is that the opposition of technology and empathy is integral to the story being told. It's not that this idea runs counter to all of Trek; it's that this idea challenges our main cast's beliefs - and therein lies the heart of the film. Picard is a man who both reveres history and embraces technology (see his family arc in the series and movies regarding the Picard family line and his choice to join Starfleet) and is still tempted in this film to reject all of that in favor of a simpler way of life. The line "where can warp drive take us, except away from here" is not antithetical to Trek, it's just stating that when you know where you belong, technology whose sole purpose is to take you elsewhere is useless. While I agree that Insurrection is the worst of the TNG films, the core theme is worth exploring - and is all the more relevant as time goes on and technology becomes ever more pervasive. (He said, typing this on his phone is the wee hours of the morning when most sensible folks are sleeping.)
A few questions.... Why would picard go Rogue in this scenario? He has already shown more than once he is willing to do the difficult thing for the federation. He could have gone Rogue to save the Indians from the Cardassians and the Federation under arguable less just circumstances. But he chose to put the federation first and effectively in that episode doomed that entire budding civilization to death. A slow violent death! And these were more or less his own people, yet he breaks character to save strangers from aging?? Why did they need or want to strip this planet to begin with? The Son'a just wanted to heal their condition. But chose not to simply land somewhere on this vastly underpopulated planet and chill? What is the fed supposed to do with this magic healing stuff? They mentioned the war, but we know they have the ability to resurrect people relat8easily from battle related wounds and nothing shown in the film suggests this stuff will be an improvement. The Baku dont exactly seem like they could grow an arm or head back. Unless the Founders new superweapon is based on making boobs slightly less firm I dont see how it's supposed to help the crew of a ship who's antimatter containment failed in the middle of combat. They stopped the stuff away from it's apparently naturally replenishing source and believe this will destroy the phenomena permanently. Meaning they now will have a single ship load of nonrenewable healing stuff who's main perk was long term general health.... used to any extent the stuff will be gone long before even short lived humans get to enjoy much of a benefit form the stuff. They literally ruined the one good use there was for the stuff. Why did anything happen in this movie? Why did anybody do what they did?? Even the characters with no established prior traits make nonsensical decisions that fly in the face of their own supposed goals. And the character's that do have established traits behave more like their mirror universe counterparts!
@@DrewLSsix I'll go point by point: Insurrection had a few good callbacks to decisions in TNG, like his betrayal of the colonists to the Cardassians, which ended with Picard knowing he'd helped prevent a war with the Cardassians at the sacrifice of his own ethics. In Insurrection, the benefits would have been a temporary boost to aid in the war. Metaphasics were superior to normal healing as, even in tiny amounts, it cured La Forge's blindness and, as you say, could even regrow lost organs and limbs; there was even a comment made about Picard's heart. The effects were said to take years to heal the Son'a and many of them wouldn't last that long. That was Dougherty's response when Picard suggested they set up a Son'a colony, which I suspect was s thin justification that he latched onto. The Son'a had the technology to harvest and deplete the radiation and use it in a concentrated form, to provide instant healing to even fatal wounds. It would be limited use, but the ability to heal grievous wounds would have been a massive boon in a war.
I saw this movie as being more of a question of whether the ends justify the means. Does Starfleet have the right to steal a planet from those currently occupying it in order to extend everyone else's life? For the record, my answer to this question has changed over the years. I once was of the perspective that what's best for humanity supersedes the needs of a small group. I no longer hold this position.
Linkata approves of this video. Also would really recombed SFDebris' review, he doesn't wuite go as far to call it the 'worst' but covers many of tbe issues mentioned here. He also brought up how the film 'feels' like an episode of the shiw. This was such a vindication to me as I remember feeling that way all tbose years ago as a not-too-critical child.
Weren't they also fighting the Dominion during this movie? I'm sure a discovery like this would have helped in their efforts, in fighting a war of survival
It was the part where Picard learns learns that their weavers are students for decades and then apprentices for god knows how long. Do they live forever or does it just feel that way? I'd shoot myself. My pet peeve is Picard starts romancing Donna Murphy (who wouldn't?) but I never heard anyone actually say she's the guys sister. I thought she was his wife.
The weavers scene specifically demonstrates how the society has not stagnated. They are in a constant process of cultural and artistic advancement, working for centuries to perfect their works.
The Baku are not IMO anti-technological. What they are against (ISTM), is the development of technology beyond a certain point. Not because they are “opposed to technology” as such, but because they are *in favour of* something else: a life (relatively) “close to nature”, and *therefore* (relatively) free of “advanced” technology. STM that is a much more nuanced, defencible, balanced & humane position than some criticisms of the film allow. I liked a lot of it. I think it is much more watchable than ST5.
They don't want to live decadent, easy lives, and they prefer peace over the sort of war the Federation is currently experiencing, and has many multiple times in its very recent history. Their pacifism is naive, but their desire to do something meaningful each day instead of being lazy slobs (the reality of the Federation if not for extremely unrealistic levels of optimism by showrunners) is admirable. We see in the movie that they are really just artisans, striving to improve over centuries in their chosen vocations. It's no different than what the Federation claims to be. It's no different than Joseph Sisko running a restaurant and cooking real food instead of replicating it. It's no different than Robert Picard with his vineyard (and also not using a replicator). The only difference is the Ba'ku live for hundreds of years or more, and can spend that entire lifetime honing their skills in peace and not worry about some arrogant Starfleet captain is going to play chicken with Q and cause the Borg to come to their planet.
Great video. I love the bit on Romanticism and how you explain the technology vs. empathy relation - this would have never occurred to me so thank you for that. This even makes me reconsider Discovery and Picard as they, despite all their flaws and missed opportunities, are true to that formula.
As others noted, it felt like a long-ago tossed TNG script that's been recycled---and from the crappy kind made all too often in TNG, when the Enterprise-----the flagship of the fleet----is sent on some errand to some colony of humanoids, like to deliver medical supplies or shuttle some scientists to their Big Project somewhere---the kind of stuff smaller ships should be doing. Sure, it's more of an emergency with the Data thing, but it still feels like one of those boring episodes, when races we've never heard of, with very small prostheses on their faces to convey "alien" as cheaply as possible, are feuding or something.
The downside of technology is a common theme in Star Trek. This Side of Paradise and The Paradise Syndrome seem to say the same thing. Both Kirk and Spock were at their happiest when they were living a more simple life. One of Kirk's biggest regrets was that he would have to introduce technology into a "paradise" "A private little war" Nature good, tech bad. Or "the inner light" The borg, they go without saying as what happens to us when technology runs amok. There was nothing new in Insurrection
Exactly. And there's plenty of characters who reject Starfleet. Captain Sisko's father and son both chose much different, more simpler lives, and he himself plans to retire and be a farmer. Wesley Crusher leaves the Academy to go meditate in a sweat lodge and explore his mind for who knows how long. Picard's brother and his wife are happy tending to a Vineyard. Most family members of the main crews are not in Starfleet and don't want to be, and more than a few of them have some words to say about their relatives who did join up and sacrifice many other things in life that seem to matter more. Many of the captains express some regrets at what they've given up to have their careers, Star Trek has never shied away from that. In Gene Roddenbery's original pilot, it opens with Captain Pike wanting to quit and be a rancher. In order to have a show at all, the main cast has to by-and-large be in Starfleet, and remain in their careers, but that's a storytelling requirement, not a value judgement by Star Trek itself.
I dont know, frontier gets a pass based on just being old at this point. Like an ugly car from the 50s, it's just cool to see one around. I actually like nemesis, so does my wife but then she has the concerning obsession with Tom Hardy, she probably would leave me in a heartbeat if she had half a chance to jump that guy. I think the movie is structurally more sound than insurrection and the characters are more in line with their established continuity. Having Picard go Rogue to save the Baku after deciding the surviving native americans really did need another thorough fucking a few years earlier just comes out of nowhere. The plot elements of nemesis make way more sense, Pocard and crew would of course take the opportunity to make progress with the Romulans, even if it was a tactically stupid thing to fly the flagship straight to Romulus based on a single suspicious phonecall. All the characters did what you could believe they would do as the situations unfolded, and Shinzon was believable as a man on the fringes of madness, someone smart and capable enough to win battles yet frail enough to mess things up at the endgame. Insurrection honestly feels like a pre existing script hastily rewritten to be a vaguely star trek like script. Characters do what the plot required them to do no matter what their established patterns are. The entire core plot concept simply ignores several possible alternate and preferable resolutions, like why haven't the Son'a just landed somewhere else on this entire planet to cure their condition? The Baku all live together in a single tiny village and have no means to detect trespassers let alone enforce some banishment. Why even involve the federation? They alone in the starfaring galaxy seem to know about this miracle planet, but once the fleet is in on the scheme and hidden ships and outposts are so damn easy then the whole idea of just setting up thousands of these places across the planet to accommodate the sick and wounded is surely the more logical solution. But rather than tapping into a seemingly replenishing natural resource they choose to strip it away and turn it into a single ship load of non renewable healing spooge ??
I always understood Picard's reason for going rogue to be about the forced relocation of the Baku, not about their "natural course of evolution". It's not the first directive that makes it wrong, it's the fact that a whole people is relocated without their consent. Whether or not they are originally from the planet is irrelevant.
Hallelujah! I kept saying this was my least favourite Star Trek film for years and everyone just shrugged. Thank you for finally stepping up for all of us tired of the damn Baku.
@@RowanJColeman question.... the Baku number a few hundred, live together in a single village, have no active technology, are utterly unaware of the holographically cloaked outpost and agents literally leaving mysterious booted footprints through their town, and missed the arrival of a starship in their own lake. Theres literally an entire planet for the taking everywhere over the local horizon and the conspirators have free access to it. The topography shows us the radiation is based in the rings and apparently effects the whole planet... The question of course is some combination of why dont the conspirators together or alone just land their fucking ships anywhere that's not this village and enjoy a long weekend of healing before taking off again? Presumably that duckblind was staffed with supernaturally healthy workers. Also, followup question, why does Starfleet NEED a super healing planet? Picard him self has died no less than three times only to be revived by existing technology. He is ran through the heart as a cadet and is saved, recieved a deadly wound to his replacement heart and is saved by medical technology again. He is also shot through the chest by an arrow and doesnt even take the rest of the shift off to recover! Yareena, an alien who dies of an alien poison is revived by a doctor that must have been improvising half of the procedure and it's not even noted as being a big deal to the crew. Healing of serious problems via transporter is a known thing. My point is, who exactly were they hoping to heal with this stuff that couldn't already be healed by known medicine?? They mention the war, were they going to gather atomized crewmen from the void and reconstitute them?? The process is shown to be relatively gradual also, not really an instant resuscitation so much as a general long term revitalization. I doubt the Baku would survive a spiked club to the face, something that another already known planet of miraculous healing seems entirely capable of! This is right up there with Scotty, the engineer of a warp capable starship getting all hot and bothered by seeing another ship with ion drive..... it's almost like trek writers have never had much of a grasp on technology lol.
4:00 I think you got the "Monster" slightly wrong. (I use the term "Monster" (Capital M) here only because that is the only name he gets from the author) He started out with a good nature. He wanted to help others. When he figures out the farmer can't harvest his crop because the ground has frozen early, he spends the night using his extreme strength, so when the farmer wakes he finds his crop harvested and neatly stack ready for shipping. The family decide they have a "good fairy" helping them. But when the finally encounter the "fairy" they react in terror and flee. When he gets a look at himself he understands the people's fears. He knows he can never live with humans. He finally learns how he came to be and who left him alone in that state. His is filled with a black, all consuming rage and it is that which makes him evil. Fueled by his rage he seeks out the one who made him and destroys his life, and his own in the end. The story has more than one moral. There is, of course, don't judge a book by it's cover. But also, don't let rage consume you. I think we need the second lesson now more than ever. Over the last several decades we have seen a black rage spreading like a cancer through society world wide. It is scary and sad, really.
You spend 11 minutes explaining how bad Star Trek Picard is and how it doesn't fit in the Star Trek universe and then you go, "See? Star Trek Picard is just like all the other Star Treks but better!" I literally felt an aneurysm when you dropped that little twist. So, to boil this down: you don't like Insurrection because of your perceived belief of political messaging in the film, i.e. environmentalism? Regard for a simpler lifestyle over a technologically advanced one? So, you're allowed to not like a Star Trek movie because of your personal political beliefs and/or because _you_ perceive a political agenda behind it, but those of us who don't like the new Trek(s) because they break canon and because there *IS* a stated, factual 'social justice' push behind them, well, we're just a bunch of basement-dwelling, incel snowflakes. H y p o c r i t e
@@RowanJColeman Alright. I'll watch it again and give another response. My first impression is that you didn't like it because you perceived the movie as, what, hating on technology? Before I comment again would you like to state the point of your video for me?
1.) I never saw this movie as one trying to say technology is bad or staying with nature is good and I've seen this movie many times. The point was that this was a decision that the Baku made(for whatever reason) and Starfleet violated their own prime directive by trying to move them. Picard and the rest of the crew trying to stay true to the prime directive is classic TNG. 2.) The Sona weren't banished because they wanted to explore the galaxy. They were banished because they tried to take over the colony. 3.) The motion picture is hands down the worse Star Trek movie. None of the others come close. The only gripe I have is after First Contact, it would have made more sense to do a story about the Dominion war. It was the major event occupying the federation at the time and having the most advanced starship in the fleet doing diplomatic stuff just isn't as interesting on the big screen as a full scale war. It's not a bad movie, just not as good as First Contact.
I despise the whole "appeal to nature" thing. It has no place in optimistic sci-fi. Things are better because of science and technology trumping over nature's challenges. If anything, Starfleet should pop a space station in orbit of the planet to study this mysterious healing radiation and attempt to duplicate it for medical use. That would be faaaaar more Star Trek than this movie was.
Yes, but as Spock said in The Apple, "whatever you call it, it works for them" who are we to judge how they live their lives, they are happy and the system works for them.
isn't this dichotomy of technology and empathy between the Son'a and the Ba'ku somewhat leveled by the Federation? Each Son'a and Ba'ku only have one. But Picard and the crew have both.
I don't think that Insurrection is the worst Star Trek movie. It's one of the worst but not guite the worst. I personally put the three reboot movies and The Motion Picture lower than Insurrection.
When I saw this in the Theater on opening night, I will admit I was disappointed. I hated the manual steering column. I hated that the Flagship of the Federation was doing diplomacy and not on the front lines of the Dominion War. We do know that the Sona was working with the Doninion according to DS9. After time however I feel that Insurrection was in fact underrated. Now i still hate the manual joystick but the concept of Star Trek meets Little House on the Prairie did in my opinion age well over time. I accepted that the Enterprise was doing Diplomacy during the Dominion War was due to the fact that The Enterprise was like a Designed Survivor. And finally from what I am reading regarding Star Trek: Picard seasons 2 and 3, this movie may be very important.
I disagree with the video's thesis. Technology is but a tool that serves a purpose, and can be discarded when no longer needed (or until another cycle of evolution begins). Polynesians were navigators in search of their home until they finally settled (like in New Zealand, among others). Modern Polynesians now travel by ships and planes, but it came as a natural evolution of modernity. You cannot say Star Trek isn't alluding to Romanticism. What else is the Holodeck for? Time and again they always go back to periods in the past where they could no longer do in the present. The Prime Directive shouldn't just apply to "primitive" civilizations, but to civilizations that want to be left alone as well. What this video espouses is some form of Imperialism, where in the guise of "uplifting a civilization" hides an ulterior motive of harnessing resources.
I think the point is not that less technology is supposed to be better for all, but that It seems ot be better for these people. Either way It's not up to starfleet to decide anything about this culture. It was ultimately about the forced relocation of a small group of people. It very much did feel like a long episode of tng, and I take it as that.
There is a hint of the nature versus tech interplay in the movie to be sure, but I never got the sense that it was supposed to be the central theme. The central theme I picked up on wasn't that the Ba'ku way of life is necessarily better, but rather, it's the way of life they have chosen, and the Federation has no business sticking their nose in and uprooting them against their will. I think that theme is better supported by the narrative than any attempt to argue that one way of life is necessarily better than another, which in the end is left more or less unresolved. I did like your points about Into Darkness, though. They do go a way toward supporting the themes of that train-wreck.
Star Trek Picrap is a TNG episode that started as a two-part, then trimmed to one episode, then tossed in the trash--all in the freelance writer's home.
Okay - here's my essay on Insurrection as well as the state of things around that time about 2000-2001: TNG S7-E20 "Journey's End" is where Starfleet mandates the removal of this Native American looking race and indeed forces the Enterprise to do it but Wesley (Irritating but making his point and resigning over it) stands up saying it wrong. Well, flip this scenario totally around and you've got... Insurrection. Its the SAME DAMN THING except this time it's Picard telling Starfleet it's wrong. Add that to all the things you've already mentioned. When I saw the movie, I couldn't believe myself but here I was saying, "They CAN'T be doing the same damn thing!" But I re-watched upon getting home and YES - they sure as hell did. So... who's in the right? Needs of the Many outweigh the Needs of the Few? First Contact was so good... but this was when Star Trek started to flush itself down the toilet. Voyager was getting tiring but honestly I think should have been more like 'Enterprise'. Very Desperate Times as well as Very Desperate Matters.. this is when Janeway should have played more loosely with things, as not everyone had a fancy ship like the Intrepid-Class!! How about Having a Nova Class ("The Equinox") or similar to an Oberth class ship?? NOW what will the great Captain Janeway DO in order to get through things?? You TRY to do the right thing.. You TRY but you prepare to do what is needed .. and to honor that promise to get everyone home?? You also have Plan C which is worst of the worst but you find a way to survive. (Time-Travel is cheap AND cheating! Enough of that as it was!!) So you always have a Back-Up plan and an Emergency Back-up OF your Back-up, which includes doing WHATEVER IS NECESSARY to save your ship and people? Even if it comes to stealing and gray-area morality. Later, when you have the resources and you've tried everything, then perhaps you try to pay them back with interest and help later on but for the short-term... do what's needed. If nothing else, Janeway turns herself in to Starfleet once they return with the ultimate "I'm sorry, but my crew tried every other way first, and their lives had to come first... as you can see its holding itself together with bailing wire. My only defense... is they followed my orders. And I did the best I could." THAT would have been remembered. What a way to end a series! I just felt Voyager just was never in any real danger. Ship always looked in good condition and returned as good as the day she left after countless battles and hardships. As they reached the Alpha Quadrant, the respective Chiefs had a meeting behind closed doors but we never knew what it was. Then we learn... all the data they have is transferred, the highest in command that followed Janeway took responsibility with her, and they either all turn themselves in OR they destroy the ship to defeat the Nexus-Warp-Gates. Atoning for their sins with auto-destruct, new tech and data transmitted to HQ, the crew made it home safe and made sure this heavily modified (now an advanced warship) named Voyager reaped what it had sown. It wasn't a Federation ship after that. Nor Maqui. It was just a Starship with the best chances for survival; Part Starfleet, Part Maqui, Part Borg, Part other Alien... How do you top all of that?? Each season its repaired and rebuilt to look different and use other technology on-top of what they already had. Use of all that and build on top of each other to become the DELTA STAR SHIP - DSS VOYAGER. Just my two cents and then some - as Quark used to say, (Paraphrase) "Homans are happy with their bellies full and warm, sonic showers, but take them away from that, and they are just as malice and craft mean as any Klingon!" (It doesn't take away from Star-Fleet, it just goes to show what one group and leader would be willing to do for others!)
Insurrection is just fine. Probably right in the middle for me. It's significantly better than Final Frontier and Nemesis, better than Into Darkness, TMP and Generations...right at Search for Spock level for me.
Hmm. Not sure I agree with your interpretation, Rowan, cause to me having the movie portrait a group of people rejecting technology and arguing that way doesn't make the movie itself taking that same stance. Hence, I don't see it contradicting Star Trek canon. I do believe it rather attempts to show how technology itself is a mere tool, which can be misused, and how even Starfleet needs to be aware of that. I do have issues with the movie, which include having Picard go rogue in order to create a more hands-on adventure, instead of making him aim for a more elegant (and way more plausible) solution, but I do believe it actually underlies Star Trek's philosophy, while also adding a bit of depth to it.
I love your channel and would like to hear your thoughts on why ppl don’t like Discovery or Picard cuz I want to watch both series but I’ve seen lots of negative reviews saying “it’s destroyed Star Trek” so I’ve been watching The Orville instead
I don't want to say any blanket statements about why some people don't like new Trek instalments. I think there are lots of stupid reasons, but I won't paint everyone with the same brush. My advice is to simply watch it yourself and decide for yourself.
I think Star Trek Insurrection is my second favourite Next Generation movie after the Borg one (although they pretty badly messed up Star Trek canon by stepping all over the original The Metamorphosis. Reading the James Blish adaptation you find out that Zephram Cochran is actually from Alpha Centauri. That sounds like a small piece, but hell, if you're rewriting how Earth got its FTL abilities, that's a pretty large rewrite). Generations is my most hated The Next Generation. It's uninspired and other than the crashing the Enterprise is not even exciting or interesting. Insurrection struck me as really a really excellent two-parter television episode. It didn't work well as a movie, but as a made for TV feature it would work well.
Okay I gotta ask, what's so bad about the manual steering column? I see so many people complaining about it, but I don't get it. I guess it's pretty oddly designed, but wouldn't it make sense to have a form of manual helm control? Especially in Star Trek where consoles are constantly exploding in space battles.
While I don't especially have a problem with the thrustmaster on the bridge we've constantly seen that any computer console can be reconfigured so a front console get blown off the bridge someone just goes over to science 1 and says computer I need to drive the ship from here, they don't necessarily need to keep looking up at the viewscreen as we've seen from other bridge layouts
It's an off-the-shelf prop that many of Star Trek's core demographic actually owned at the time. It pulls you out if the film when you see your own joystick on the Enterprise.
There's nothing wrong with the idea, but the prop they used was lazy. They just bought an off-the-shelf joystick available at many stores at the time, and stuck it on the Enterprise bridge. They didn't even bother to repaint the joystick so it matches the rest of the look of the Enterprise-E bridge. Very lazy execution.
It was horrible because I had the same one sitting on my desk at home on the PC. Played Mechwarrior with it! THAT...was the worst thing about the movie. The rest of it was ok. I asked Jonathan Frakes about it, and he thinks it was done by the producer to get the attention of the gaming crowd at the time. Regardless, we may complain about that scene, but in MANY modern movies we see the X52 and X55 joystick setups. So nothing has changed there really.
It would need to be quite a bit more comprehensive manual control system than a single stick.
Insurrection felt like a 2 part episode of TNG just with a bigger budget.
My thoughts exactly. I don’t mind Insurrection. I love almost everything Star Trek
Which is why it's great
That’s exactly the feeling I got from it, it’s very understated.
It's just "Journey's end" with white people instead of native Americans
Well it was directed by Jonathan Frakes, so it was produced like a made-for-TV movie and it looks it.
I actually liked Insurrection. A change of pace from the depressing doom that was First Contact - that's what the producers of Insurrection said. And First Contact is my favorite Star Trek movie.
I dont blame you, First contact is quite cool :0
My fav is between First Contact and Nemesis. I dont know but to me Shinzon is very interesting as a concept. An exiled clone that rejects its humanity, very unique to me
Leaving the cinema I was quite satisfied it was a very Star Trek story (perhaps current Star Trek writers should have a viewing), leaving the cinema after Nemesis I was thinking what the hell did I just sit through & how can I get my money back
I like it too.
I agree The Baku (pretty much LOTR elves) are irritating but that doesn't spoil the movie for me
its the closest out of any of the films to an episode of the show. but it's not very good.
@@marccamp6376 That would be a case of nurture over nature.
To me Generations, Insurrection and Nemesis felt like their scripts where just written as episodes of TNG, good stories for 2 part episodes for season finales of the series but not for films. First Contact was the only one that felt like an actual film because it followed up on a story from the TNG series like Star Trek 2 followed up on Space Seed from the original show.
I dont know why Jonathan Frakes Work is allways been hated i think he did a good job on all 3 movies.
@@serienupload5831 He only directed FC and INS. And he did do a good job, FC is loved, he didn't have as much to work with Script wise for INS.
@@gorbachevdhali4952 Oh i meant his whole work as actor and ....
@@serienupload5831 Oh sorry, gotcha.
Eh, nemesis and first contact feel like movies. Generations apart from the crossover aspect doesn't feel cinematic
STAR TREK VI: The Undiscovered Country is the best Star Trek movie, in my opinion
It's almost a perfect translation of the TV series to film, with a great narrative, just the right amount of action, mystery, political intrigue and cheesiness
In fact I actually think that the Director's Cut of Undiscovered Country is even better, because it adds about 10% more cheese.
What's your favorite Star Trek movie? Do you agree with me? Would love to hear your thoughts in a video!
This
Search for Spock
Undiscoved Country is my second fav after Wrath of Kahn. It mirrored the end of the US/USSR cold war and the Federation/Kingon War so well. It felt like a fitting end to the entire original crew on screen.
6:42 "But where can warp drive take us, except from here?" is not a dumb thing. Consider the freedom a man uses to explore & find his soulmate, & now, after finding that life partner, he decides to renounce (some of) that freedom & now hopes to live peaceable in his new found environment, & while this may not be everyone's preference (or yours), Star Trek is also about respecting the freedom & self-determination of others.
I think the entire video is generally written from a very individualistic and "western" point of view, where peaceful life is equated with stagnation, and therefore failure, while "achievement" and "progress" are automatically assumed as correct and right. I disagree with this view strongly, as different people choose their way of life differently. Who are we to impose our definition of success on others? This is what Star Trek is about. Adopting this view to an episode like "Journey's End" would basically say "fuck your life, get on with the times." Ironically, this video does the very thing that it accuses "Insurrection" of doing, just in the reverse.
@@maciejduda5257 Yeah, I was thoroughly unconvinced by this video.
you're totally right, the video absolutely misses that point.
Since Insurrection took place during the Dominion War, and even mentioned in the movie, they could have easily change the theme of this movie to the classic Trek theme of the needs of the many vs needs of the few. Instead of tech vs nature, the story theme would be protecting the innocent at a time of strife. Only lines by Starfleet characters needs to be changed, none of the lines and motivations of the Ba'ku and Son'a characters need to change at all. You can even have Worf be for taking the healing power of the planet at first because he has fought the Dominion before he finds this is a dishonorable action. What if the plot-radiation can negate the Polaron bleeding effect of Jem'hadar weapons? Is it right to conquer a planet to save millions lives in a war the thousands of inhabitants have no part in? Picard and crew can still learn to take life easier as they help the Ba'ku, but for a different reason. The Ba'ku way of life can be something the crew look forward to after the war is over or how they want to live when they retire.
Great idea.
It's sad how The Dominion War has been ignored in later Trek iterations.
The Dominion War was such a stupid idea. It's called Star Trek not Star War(s).
In Guinan's words: "This isn't a ship of war, this is a ship of peace"
It can't be just technology vs nature because it's made by things found in nature by things found by nature?
@@humankirk9196 it's Star Wars done to Star Trek standards. Not unlike the claim modern Star Trek was done using Star Wars standards?
@@humankirk9196 So, roll over while a vast military power continues to secretly infiltrates the various seats of power within the Federation and Klingon Empires?
Good video, cracked up with the kirk/spock 'romance' joke
Always took issue with this film when they wanted to use its radiation to help millions by uprooting 600 inhabitants that didn't originate from the planet, which feel like it would void the PD as they would not be interfering with their natural development. But then I also feel that just asking them to move for the greater good would fix this, they would have to be real jerks to deny the request, but then they go come across and unbearably arrogant so maybe that's why no one asked them.
I agree billions dead over 500 squatters who don’t belong there.
I've always wondered: if they've been there for 300 years but they haven't aged a day, does it really count as eviction/uprooting? In a crucial sense, they've been there less than one day.
Alex Daniel
Agreed an they’re pacifist so no violence would happen from them.
if you ever wondered how they justified colonisation,thats how they did it.
If 600 isn't enough to care, how many would be enough? A thousand? Fifty thousand? A million? How many?
Wait, that's just a line from a movie that doesn't have "empathy" or some bullshit like that.
Ehh, I'll see your "Insurrection" and raise you a "Final Frontier" anyday.
Heh, I'll see your " Final Frontier" and raise you "Nemesis".
I am Sybok, the gayest Vulcan in the universe!
Zach Quinto's Spock: Hold my Romulan Ale.
@@dsewtz3139, out of danger?
:::Slowly slams down 'The Motion Picture' onto the table:::
Into Darkness is by far the worst. Much more than Nemesis, Insurrection, or even Final Frontier.
I've only recently found your videos, but I do like hearing you out, even when I disagree, because you always raise valid, and usually well thought out points. That's a breath of fresh air in opinion pieces. I like Insurrection, though I don't think I'd call it my favorite Star Trek movie? I never got "Technology = Bad & Natural = Good" as the core theme of this movie. To me it more hearkened back to the Trail of Tears, the forced relocation of a small group of people is justified because we don't understand their backward ways, and their resources can be used to help millions more. The Baku, unlike Landru's people, were not stagnating in the same way. They were there by choice, and didn't want to leave. The reason that the Sona were exiled was not because they wanted to leave, but because a group of them tried to take over the colony and failed, though they did want a more technological way of life. Why in 100 years could they not have just... you know, settled the other side of the planet? Dunno. But those are my thoughts. Great video as always!
Honestly the worst thing is the lost potential. The movie came out in 1998/1999 right in the middle of the dominion war in ds9. We never got to see what the enterprise was doing in the dominion war but we do get references and books about things like the battle for betazed. Now personally it was never something the production staff intended to do but imagine for a moment that they'd thrown the script for insurrection in the bin and had instead done a film where the crew takes it upon themselves to liberate troi's homeworld from dominion occupation. Would that not have probably been a far better film?
I liked some bits of Insurrection. More than Nemesis and five. But it still Isn't the best. Generations wasted more potential.
I actually like Nemesis more: I thought Shinzon was a much more interesting character than Mua'fo, I liked the B4 android plot, and the nebula battle was pretty great. It's still a flawed movie but it had plenty of things I liked as well.
I wouldn't say Generations had that much potential. Remember that some cast members got no time off between finishing their shoots for season 7 and starting on the movie; is anything, it's a super depressing epilogue to All Good Things rather than a movie in it's own right.
@Ray Riley Because production was rushed. There was a Trek series still airing and another in pre-production, so... they had to rush a movie out in case people forgot about TNG, I guess?
@@Michael_ORourke There were interesting ideas with Shinzon, but it was ultimately badly executed. He just came off as a really really stupid and incompetent villain.
Nemesis was the first time the writers of Star Trek tried to copy a video game (Halo).
Now they are doing the same with Picard (Mass Effect)
"But where can warp drive take us except away from here." The message of Insurrection is the exact opposite of the message of This Side of Paradise from the Original Series, where the colonists on Omicron Ceti III learn by the end of the episode that their life on the planet led only to stagnation.
yes, thank you. immortality changed the baku from explorers to socially stagnated, holier than thou, elves.
I don't know that I agree with the idea that this is the message of the film. I think there are several messages, actually, but none of them are purely anti-technology. I think when she says that, the point is that this is the life that they have chosen to live, and they should have the right to live that life without other people stealing it from them. Thus, I believe the message of Insurrection is more anti-Eminent Domain than pro-simplicity (or whatever).
I'm also not convinced the message of "This Side of Paradise" is as straightforward as you're making it sound. Keeping in mind that TOS was airing in the heart of the Cold War, I think the message is one of anti-Communism, that living a life of subsistence while an outside force cares for all your needs -- that's no life at all.
@@sm5574 It makes me wonder if they were inspired by Invasion of the Body Snatchers when writing the episode, only without the pods.
@@garethspotfur1 They haven't stagnated at all. They're increasing their mental abilities, and they're creating better and better art. That's just the stuff that's directly shown to us in the film.
@@fakecubed but they keep it all to themselves. they're not supermen, they're freaking snooty elves.
Gonna be honest, not even just thematically, my biggest gripe with Insurrection is the absolute *missed opportunity* it was. The Dominion War is referenced several times in the film, and there was even a cameo of Quark that didn't make the final cut. So that really begs the question: Why the hell wasn't this the Deep Space Nine/Next Generation crossover movie everyone wanted?
Timeline wise, it was the best opportunity they had for it. Even if the DS9 cast's roles had to remain fairly minor, due to production still ongoing on the show-level, they still could have had some bearing on the plot. There were plenty of plot threads they could have traveled without interfering too deeply in DS9's plotline. For example, the Dominion takeover and occupation of Betazed. Something could have been done there!
Unfortunately it was shot down by producers (AKA Berman and the suits he answered to) who didn’t want to scare off casual viewers by referencing things they didn’t know about. Piller had to fight just to get the tiny references they already made. Given how huge cinematic universes with obscure details have become, that’s a remarkably bad idea, but it was the orthodoxy at the time in Hollywood. Tidbits for fans but nothing that would upset reviewers or casual viewers.
they blew it
@@kaitlyn__L Berman always wanted to play it safe. as safe as possible. thats why we got that unwatchable trash heap Star Trek: Voyager.
@@djangofett4879 quite. It’s ironic, given how casually referencing something they didn’t know about can spur an audience on to seek it out later. But executives tend to assume everybody is scared of being reminded they don’t know everything already.
Blake’s 7 was my entry point into sci-fi. OK the prediction values were very low and some of the acting hammy, but it had a great dystopian concept and hero who was almost as bad as the iconic villain.
Avon was my hero. I wanted to be Avon. I wanted an Orac. I still do.
Blake's 7 was always better when Blake was not in it. Avon was the man.
Epic themesong also💖
The storyline I loved. Some episodes left a lasting impression in my brain😂
The bad production values sort of work in Blake's Seven's favour. Because everything is so cheap and tacky it looks like the Terran Federation is stuck in an endless recession.
Also, it SHOULD have been the Daleks.
@@hastekulvaati9681 Never liked the Daleks. The Daleks were aliens on the cheap.
This would have been absolutely fine as an episode but the only reason this isn’t worse film is Nemesis. They should have done something in the Dominion war setting IMO.
They're both trash but at least Nemesis didn't have a shitty romance and there was something much bigger at stake than 600 selfish Space Amish hogging the cure for death.
insurrection just bored me in a different way
Is it the worst Star Trek movie or the worst “Star Trek” movie? I sure cannot agree that Insurrection is “worse” than any of the Kelvin timeline narrative messes. I will never see the use of empathy in a script as a metric for the quality of a Star Trek film. Each and every one of the Kelvin films is a plot hole-filled narrative disaster with little redeeming quality beyond their effects. Disagreeing with the empathetic message or perceived representation of technology vs. nature does not make a film objectively bad.
I think it’s clear Picard’s issue is much more about his opposition to forced relocation than it is about “interfering” with evolution.
I totally see where you're coming from here, but, respectfully, I submit that you may be misreading many of the themes and arcs in the film. This is easy to do, as the film IS pretty sloppy in its presentation. Bottom line, I think the film does emphasize the meshing of empathy with technology, that it doesn't actually have an anti-technology message, and that it actually promotes some aspects of Enlightenment philosophy over Romanticism. To address a few points:
- While the Bak'u are obviously presented as more sympathetic than the Son'a, they do have their own arc in the film, and most of it does seem to be wrapped up with Data as you observe. I disagree with your statement that Data is simply "told to be more natural." Data's long-established character motivation is to be more human, and his interactions with Artim (the kid) are really just another avenue for him to approach that. Artim is the only one of the Bak'u who actually appears to be afraid of Data, and it's explained (by Picard) that this stems from the kid's upbringing. The others may be wary of him to a point, but they seem to have been willing to help him repair his malfunction from the outset and their own initial wariness of Picard is based on Data's advice.
- The Son'a didn't just want to leave their home world and go "do something with their lives," as you put it. We only have dialogue to go on about the events of 300 years earlier (though a listing in the credits for actors who played "Young Ru'afo" and "Young Gallatin" makes me think there may have been a flashback sequence filmed), but all parties seem to agree that Ru'afo and his followers wanted to transform their society to a more technocratic one and tried to take over the colony to do this. This raises a lot of practical questions (as Picard suggests at one point, isn't the planet big enough to support a separate colony?), but they didn't seem to want to just leave.
- While it seems at times that the film is promoting an anti-technology stance on the whole, I think it's ultimately just espousing a sense of balance between a fast-paced technological life and stopping to smell the roses as it were. When Anij asks Picard whether he ever wants to slow down the pace of his own life, he simply says "there are days." Meaning he still believes in his technologically-oriented lifestyle. He's just stressed out and overworked at his job (like everyone else in Starfleet after the Dominion War). Industrialized society has its own patterns of leisure, and the danger he sees with the Federation and the Son'a's actions is that they try to force this model on the Bak'u. Which raises the what I think is the central theme of the film, that being...
- MORAL AUTONOMY. More than almost any other Picard story, this film expresses his profound belief in moral autonomy (this is why I love it so much despite its flaws). This idea, that individual human beings must have their own ethical agency and sense of inborn duty, is itself a product of Enlightenment philosophy, developed by Immanuel Kant among others. Kant even coined the "motto" of the Enlightenment itself, "Sapere Aude," (Dare to Know), which is more or less synonymous with "Boldly Go." In Insurrection, Picard's objections to the relocation of the Bak'u have nothing to do with their superior lifestyle, they simply have to do with the violation of their personal choice -- their own moral autonomy. He never considers abandoning his technological lifestyle, he just insists that every individual and/or society be able to make their own decision. He expresses his own moral autonomy in the strongest possible way, by defying the orders of his superiors.
Sorry for the long comment, and thanks to anyone who read this far. I could say more, but I'll wait to see if anyone cares, lol.
Wow! You've made very thoughtful counterpoints. Sorry for the year late response, I've only come across these videos recently. lol
There was a book written based off of the script. I listened to it on audiobook and it explains a lot of what isn't in the movie. Might want to check it out.
It is a complete misreading of the movie, but it's also a complete misreading of Star Trek as a whole. Star Trek has never promoted technological advancement and exploration of the galaxy as the ideal, or sole way of living. There's numerous characters throughout with equally-valid alternative lifestyles, where they don't go anywhere, and even where they reject many of the modern conveniences. The main characters, because the story needs to happen, are explorers. They have to go visit other planets and meet other civilizations because that's the premise of the show, and the only way they can do the various scifi morality tales they were setting out to do. But there's plenty of technologically advanced and expansionistic cultures that are villains, and plenty of characters and societies not interested in those things. Most of the time we meet family members of the crews, they are not in Starfleet. Even family members on the crew itself often reject Starfleet. Wesley Crusher dropped out of Starfleet Academy to go meditate in some sweat lodge and explore his mind, instead. Jake Sisko became a writer using technology no more advanced than we all use in the 21st century, and tried to follow in his father's and grandfather's tradition of cooking real food the old fashioned way instead of replicating it. We had main characters like Beverly Crusher who was very knowledgeable about natural medicine, Jean-Luc Picard who was often tempted to leave Starfleet to go crawl around in caves digging up artifacts, Ben Sisko who specifically planned to retire and become a simple farmer, and Tom Paris who liked flying starships but spent all his free time tinkering with stuff from before many viewers of VOY were even born.
Technology on Star Trek was always just a means to an end, a vehicle for storytelling. At its worst, it was a bunch of technobabble to get writers out of difficult binds, and at its best it was simply there to convey the characters to places where they could explore philosophy and try to discover deeper truths about human nature. The most advanced beings in Star Trek use no technology at all. There's beings whose very will moves matter and alters reality as they like, whether that's the Traveler, or Q. The biggest villains in the series are those which are technologically superior to Starfleet, whether that's the Borg, or the Dominion.
If anything, Frankenstein is a prototype "foolish scientist creates rogue AI" story. The monster isn't merely a sympathetic victim, he actually turns out a sociopathic asshole and a murderer, which he explicitly points out himself is entirely _because_ of the Doctor's absolutely shitty treatment of him and society's reaction to him. It's a cautionary tale about playing god for the sake of personal satisfaction rather than having care and forethought about what science is doing.
It's that one line from Jeff Goldblum in Jurassic Park. You know the one.
I really enjoyed Insurrection, but I can certainly understand why some found it slow, and even boring at times. I don't think the films message was that technology is necessarily bad, but rather to illustrate what we've lost as a result.
Technology has enriched and improved our lives in countless ways, there's no doubt about that, but it hasn't come without consequences, especially in terms of general life happiness and our connections with other people. We've never been so connected as a society, yet we've never been so isolated, so are we really better off? I believe that's the message this film was trying to send.
This movie probably appeals more to an older audience, say 35+, who've perhaps had a fast-paced life, living in a big city, working in the tech industry, and would now love to slow it down and savour the important moments.
"But it gets Star Trek right on a thematic level." No....god no. It may get the one element you're focusing on right (and even then I highly debate that). But it gets a dozen others wrong. Like classic Star Trek tone, egalitarianism, drama and messaging. All things Insurrection and Nemesis also got wrong. Dark, angry, action Trek was going on when Insurrection was made. And just got progressively worse with each new movie/series.
I think your reasoning falls down when we consider that the Baku are happy in their situation and just want to be left to it. Not everyone wants to be an intrepid explorer, just as some people are happy without access to TH-cam. The Sona chose to leave, but once out in the galaxy they lost the life extending properties of their home world. Every choice has a cost. Coming back and trying to steal the ionizing radiation reminds me of colonial powers invading other, so-called primitive cultures and exploiting their natural resources.
On a more personal level, Anij (Donna Murphy) is unlike the women Picard usually encounters. She's comfortable with who she is, and attractive without trying to be. No wonder Picard falls for her. He comes to love her mind and soul as much as her looks, though it doesn't hurt that she's lovely.
10:28 And yet... the ISS versions always looked pretty darn similar... I really wish that the "Kelvin Universe" was essentially the "Mirror Universe"... but Enterprise the TV Show kinda ruined that idea...
Oh man, I've been really hesitant to ever bring up Blake's 7 here, because it's sadly so damn obscure that I almost never find anyone who recognizes it. Amazing!
Every older scifi fan has a special place in its heart for blakes7😉😂 so don't worry about it😆
Cool ship, good story, great characters, the best AI personalities (Orac and Zen) ever, and actors in disco outfits flying through the galaxy😂
*what's not to love about it* ❤️🤣
... And don't get me started on the teleporter or the soundtrack😜
I haven't see much of Blake's 7, but I DO remember it, the little bit I know about it is it had interesting themes in at least some of its episodes
Sean McGrath *cough* search TH-cam *cough*
Paul Darrow as Kerr Avon...
'Nuff said
😁😅💖
Blake’s 7 was and still is awesome. I built a model of the Liberator to celebrate it!
My husband, with his usual wit said it was 'Star Trek visits a California commune'. He also commented that it was based on the romanticism craze of the 1800s & Romanticism was a pet peeve of his for decades. (at least it gave us some great operas?)
I really despised it and felt it proved that the next Generation was becoming stupid Hollywood propaganda. (I disliked it when they said that warp drive was damaging the fabric of the universe... LOL LOL LOL nutty writers. I stopped paying attention to Star Trek for awhile after that.
Anyway, Nature is good, technology is bad, says the most technologically advanced industry in the world.
I tend to have a bit of a Romantic streak in me, but I am also very realistic and down to earth how hard life was before modern Technology. I've lived without central heating.
Avon Calling has a completely different meaning for those that loved Blake's 7.
Avon calling to the faraway stars...
Well there was that one time that William Shatner just had to compare himself to God, face to face, then proceeded to ask him why he needed a starship, row row row your boat and all. Yes Star Trek 5 was the Final Frontier but they had to find a whole new Undiscovered Country to make up for that Dumpster Fire.
yeah star trek 5 is still the worst Star Trek movie
"Insurrection flies in the face of pillars Star Trek is built on"
Exactly! That is the whole point! Lol, the crew are doing their trekking and this shows them every now and again you need to get off the train and look around before getting back on it. In this case Picard realised he was on the wrong train (metaphor going too far?)
@@dsewtz3139 It was also allowed the extinction of many races like it almost did in “Pen pals” and “Homeward”.
@@brandonlyon730 cheers Brandon, was having a blank on episode names to be honest.
“Insurrection flies in the face of pillars Star Trek is built on”
Ironic, as it was written by Michael Piller...
Plus in “Journey’s End” Picard was all on board with moving a group of people from their new home for the benefit of the many. If the Native Americans had had a hot woman on Dorvan V he’d have mutinitied to keep them there!
@@mb2000
Shhhhh don't tell everyone 🤫😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Yes he needs to retaired and attended is viniare
Have you never seen Into Drakness? At least Insurrection has a "Magnificent 7" in space vibe...plus anytime Riker is in command durring a ship fight is fun.
When I first saw this movie, I thought it was a fairly decent feature length episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, and nothing at all more than that. A good Trek *movie*, though, it was not.
That said, the scene with Geordi seeing the sunrise was easily the best moment in this film.
Is no one going to mention the god-awful 'Picard and Worf singing Gilbert & Sullivan to Data' scene in the beginning pursuit sequence? Then it becomes a trio...omg.
In regards to Insurrection, I must say that I honestly never interpreted any of it that way. Is it the best? In my opinion, no. Is it the worst (of the TNG movies)? In my opinion, definitely not.
I took this movie at sheer face value. Two *different* societies with two *different* value systems - the Federation and the Baku. One valued technology and exploration. One was pretty much the equivalent to the Amish. The Sona, of course, being a third party to drive the plot. Pure entertainment with no real 'this is right or wrong.'
The most annoying thing to me, and I'm surprised you did not mention it, is that this movie was taking place during the Dominion War if I am not mistaken (feel free to correct me). *That* would have been a much better plot device than the Sona - the Dominion and the Jem'hadar.
The Dominion War ended in the DS9 finale, which aired in 1999. This movie I think came out in 98, but takes place after the war. I might be mistaken, though. and reading through these comments, I can't help but wonder how good a TNG movie set at a frontline of the Dominion War would have been
Antagonists in earlier drafts were Romulans and classic case of evil Starfleet admiral. Admirals come in Star Trek in three different flavors. Plot devices that give simple orders to get episodes going, criminally incompetent ones and just plain criminals.
@@696190 there's the line about Worf being dropped off on DS9 at the end.
Insurrection is my favourite TNG movie.
Admittedly the bar is low.
star trek became a series of missed/wasted opportunities.
The entire series of Voyager was a total wasted opportunity.
I don’t know, technology sure is convenient but I don’t think it’s inherently good or bad. It’s a tool, and what is done with it and for what purpose is ultimately what matters. The motivations of the individual using it are what matter, just like anything.
See: the Borg.
This is the only film in my 46 years that I went from highly disliking when I saw it at the theater to actually really liking the more times I saw it.
I love Star Trek: Insurrection its philosophical and has plenty of action. Its brilliant and I will fight you on this if you disagree
I think that Deanna’s line from First Contact is one of the defining ones of Star Trek: “[Warp drive] united humanity in a way no one ever thought possible when they realised they’re not alone in the universe”.
“Where can warp drive take us but away from here” is just stupid. Threshold stupid.
Insurrection was okay to be, but pails in comparison to First Contact. Even I as a kid noticed that for a people that didn’t use technology, they lived a very clean and easy life, yet relied heavily on the Enterprise’s technology to defend them. I’d have let them defend themselves with sticks and stones and see how they got on.
Her comment wasn't a wise pronouncement that anybody else took to heart. It was her expression that there is no place like home. The Star Trek equiv of a farmer who says there is nothing in Paris that is worth leaving the farm for. Does that mean the farmer actually thinks there is nothing interesting in Paris? Probably not. It means they are supremely content where they are. The Star Trek crew are adventurers, not every person they encounter needs to be.
@@chrisransdell8110 Many Star Trek characters explicitly reject Starfleet as a lifestyle, and Starfleet characters often talk about the sorts of things they've given up to be in Starfleet. Starfleet is not an ideal that all humans, all sentient beings of any species, should aspire to. It's just one path, and the one that lets the show go visit strange new worlds and go where no man has gone before. But it is not the only path that Star Trek considers valid. The original Gene Roddenberry pilot had Captain Pike wanting to leave Starfleet to go live a much more simple life away from starships and technology, and then when he was brought back in the show proper, he went to go live a pointless fantasy life created in his head with telepathy. Let's not pretend like Star Trek is holding up Starfleet as the only valid way of life, or that technology is in itself the sole meaning of life. The Borg treat technology and expansion as their primary value system. Star Trek has only ever portrayed them as villains. We've had captains like Sisko wanting to retire and go be a farmer on Bajor. He embraced baseball, and solar sailing, and he liked cooking real food instead of replicating it. Our main depictions of Earth, outside of Starfleet HQ or the Academy, is shown to be a place where people can spend their lives running restaurants, or making wine, all without any fancy newfangled technology. Starfleet characters might tease them a bit for this, but they get a healthy debate for their trouble. Star Trek isn't afraid to pit the main Starfleet characters up against other characters who have chosen other lifestyles, and can convincingly express why their way of life is one that's worth living and how it gives them meaning. And in the utopian Federation, free from having to get a paying job to meet their material needs, people are free to choose those other paths, to be writers, archaeologists, botanists, or whatever other low-tech vocations they feel called to do.
Data fires his phaser into the bakuu mountain and suddenly a large futuristic desktop appears from the mountain lol.
Insurrection and Nemesis are extremely long tv episodes, while Discovery and Picard are extremely long movies.
Picrap is extremely long garbage.
This was the end of Star Trek for me. Coming off the heels of the fantastic First Contact this was a bitter disappointment. This plot had barely enough meat to it to fill out a regular episode of TNG. Just awful. The bad taste lasted to the point where I did not even see Nemesis in the theatre. Yes Final Frontier is about as bad as you get. But Undiscovered Country righted the ship for a fine finale TOS. Insurrection showed a TNG franchise out of gas. Followed by Nemesis which did not right the ship. It sunk it.
In Insurrection, the Enterprise crew grow younger and are healed of their maladies. Heck, Geordie LaForge gets actual organic eyes regrowing. Picard however never grows back a full head of dark hair. Which is harder to regrow--a head of hair or a new pair of eyes? Right then & there I knew the premise of healing that Insurrection had was bunk.
Indeed. Especially when La Forge never had actual working eyes to regenerate in the first place. And what about Picard’s artificial heart? That thing should have come up several times, like when he was assimilated by the Borg. You’d think the Borg in their quest for perfection wouldn’t leave something like that in their most important drone! Also in Insurrection, wouldn’t Picard start to regrow his natural heart forcing the removal of the artificial one?
I would say Nemesis is worse. The Final Frontier has a bunch of memorable moments but I would have to rate it worse as well.
This is one of the “put on in the background” Trek films. I find it harmless and fun. Albeit very very flawed in its themes and storytelling.
Is it fun, though? To me its aggressively boring. It bores you even if you ignore it. Just thinking about this movies existence bores me to death.
Interesting take. INS is OKAY at best, it has its moments but I'm having trouble with your thesis. Given the juxtaposition of technology defending these people, I'm not so sure the movie is saying something as simple as technology is bad. Rather, we're just seeing another viewpoint, these Ba'ku are peaceful luddites and just want to be left alone, and Star Trek is just as much about respecting others rights to self determination as it is anything else. So in that sense, the movie is showing us that if a society so chose to do so, it isn't necessarily a bad thing. At the end of the day who are we to judge? The point was that their culture was about to be eradicated by greed and an act of galactic colonialism.. thus Picard's insurrection.
They're a pacifist hippie commune. Obviously they'll get destroyed if not protected by others. But the real message was about if the Federation would hold to its ideals when under existential threat, or become just as bad as the enemies they faced. There's no endorsement of the pacifist hippie commune. In the end, the crew flies away in their spaceship and probably never gives the Ba'ku another second thought. It was a planet-of-the-week. As always, the focus is on how the humans deal with whatever's going on.
Insurrection is my least favorite TNG era movie (though I love the design of the Son'a ships) but Final Frontier is my least favorite for the whole franchise.
Final frontier is gold next to Into Darkness
Into Darkness can still be enjoyed as "dumb sci-fi action movie" though, it makes no sense but has some entertaining action, Final Frontier makes no sense either but is dull from beginning to end.
At least Insurrection had some decent space battle scenes.
Final Frontier is just... sad. When the highlight of the movie is 'land a shuttle at high speed' you've made a real snoozer of an action movie.
And Into Darkness wasn't THAT bad. Not good either, but let's be honest - USS Vengeance at least looks cool and the action was mostly alright. It was just let down by a crap plot and questionable writing choices.
Into Darkness makes Insurrection looks like a masterpiece.
Thats a different saga series not comparable to the prior movies.
Sure, but it’s not Star Trek. It’s...some...other...thing.
Ffs I'd rather watch star trek 5 than into darkness
i have to agree the new star trek movies are shit with being compared to the old movies.
Seriously???
I have recently thought about this movie and after watching the original series, this movie is basically a TOS series episode taken in a very TNG skin.
Basically any episode of the TOS could happen on this planet.
It's not very good but by no means the worst, just an episode strung out into a movie, nothing is as bad as The Final Frontier.
I actually liked ST V back in the day (still do, once in a while) but it is terrible indeed...
My problem with Insurrection is that it started the funky malaise Star Trek has been mired in for almost 20 years. All movies since then have had a "dark side of Star Fleet" theme or revenge theme. Or both.
Insurrection: elements within Star Fleet conspire against native people
Nemesis: revenge plot
Star Trek reboot: Revenge plot and failure of elderly Spock
Into Darkness: Star Fleet conspiracy and revenge plot
Beyond: Revenge plot.
Can we do something else? Anything else?
That admiral seems to get his face exploded regularly - like in James Bond:Licence to Kill ;)
The best thing about ST:I IMO was Donna Murphy as Anij(?). The single most beautiful woman I’ve ever seen. I’d watch her sitting on a couch for two hours.
Nemesis was the worst Star Trek film to me. Insurrection was a like a bigger budgeted episode of TNG and if you watched it, it's probably because you liked TNG.
But it's nothing like TNG, the characters dont act like they did in TNG.
Picard was willing to condemn his own people to die under Cardassian rule or force them to relocate in TNG because it was his duty and for the good of the federation, so why would he go Rogue here? In almost the same scenario? Except it's not the same scenario because he knew the Indians would suffer greatly under the Cardassians and did in fact get wiped out in the end. Yet he goes to war to save strangers from the horrible fate of natural aging??
This is NOT the Picard we saw in TNG, can you imagine if Insurrection Picard had been in charge during any number of TNG stories? The third to last TNG episode had Picard actively working against the Marquis resistance movement HE was partially responsible for instigating. Insurrection Picard would have sent the Enterprise in phasers blazing starting a war with the Carsasians. TNG Picard did his damn job, facilitated relations with an unseemly race for the sake of peace and security and if necessary he was willing to sacrifice those resistance fighters and would likely have sacrificed his entire ship before he would have broke ranks.
A few episodes earlier Picard was so worked up over the prime directive he argued that Worfs brother should stop his attempts to save an alien race from extinction and is only thwarted by the man actively defying him and bringing the entire civilization onto the ship.
Picard from TNG simply isnt the sentimental type to throw everything away just because some hard choices need to be made.
@@DrewLSsix There was also the people from “Homeward” where he allowed an entire planet and a race of people to die off even though there was a chance to save some of them. He refused all because of “the prime directive” and got pissed off when Worf’s brother saved a village of them.
@@DrewLSsix Becoming the enemy to defeat the enemy isn't the Starfleet way.
Hmm? Really! With all do respect, I can recite every word of dialogue from every episode of Star Trek TOS and TNG and have been able to do so since I was watching laying on the carpet in front of the Livingroom TV as a kid. Having said that, I have always said since leaving the theatre after watching "Insurrection" the first time, " This was disappointing. It was like watching a two part episode of TNG. Sure, it had Oscar winning F. Murray Abraham but every other actor was a where are they now TV list or soap star. The story was OK for television not epic enough for Big screen. Is it the worst, hell no! That would be Star Trek TMP followed close by Final Frontier and Star Trek Beyond. That's right, I actually like " Nemesis "
Earthtones, The most exciting colors
Browns and beiiiigggggggeee!
Ey, they brought us through 7 seasons of TNG!
Thank you Mr Plinkett
Browns and beiges and dark browns and light browns and browns and beeeeeeeeeeeeeiiiiiiiiiiiiige Browns and beiges and dark browns and light browns and browns and beeeeeeeeeeeeeiiiiiiiiiiiiige Browns and beiges and dark browns and light browns and browns and beeeeeeeeeeeeeiiiiiiiiiiiiige Browns and beiges and dark browns and light browns and browns and beeeeeeeeeeeeeiiiiiiiiiiiiige Browns and beiges and dark browns and light browns and browns and beeeeeeeeeeeeeiiiiiiiiiiiiige Browns and beiges and dark browns and light browns and browns and beeeeeeeeeeeeeiiiiiiiiiiiiige Browns and beiges and dark browns and light browns and browns and beeeeeeeeeeeeeiiiiiiiiiiiiige Browns and beiges and dark browns and light browns and browns and beeeeeeeeeeeeeiiiiiiiiiiiiige Browns and beiges and dark browns and light browns and browns and beeeeeeeeeeeeeiiiiiiiiiiiiige
I haven't watched this movie in years but oh my god does the CG not hold up at all, it looks like hell compared to First Contact
Insurrection wasn’t bad, it was just like a 2hr Star Trek episode, nothing special about it at all.
Interesting take on Insurrection. Helps explain why this is the lowest Trek movie re-watch for me. Ironically it was the betrayal of Star Fleet principles that turned me off the story, whereas nowadays I have no issues with the less positive incarnations of Star Trek (Discovery and Picard). This may have more to do with my cynical older age than anything else. And then there is Blake's 7. Quite possibly they best sci-fi show ever to grace our TV screens.
I'm not sure Star Trek: Into Darkness deserves praise, because "getting Star Trek right", at least in that scene, seems accidental. The only reason Scotty had that burst of empathy is because they needed one of the main crew kicked off the ship to drive the plot forward.
I agree with pretty much everything you say, except I think Nemesis is a far worse movie, on several levels.
Insurrection is my favorite TNG movie. It's like a long movie-ized TNG episode.
To me this movie is just so boring. In fact, Star Trek Nemesis is far better than this movie. Because it has fun moments, the nature vs nurture storyline is engaging and it looks like a theatrical film. I would have declared this my least favourite TNG film if it wasn't for Generations killing off Captain Kirk in a half assed fashion.
I totally disagree. I think you're way off on this. Star Trek into Darkness is still definitely the worst, no matter what
7:25 This was another dumb one. She didn't actually have to die. All that was needed was her removal from the time line. Taking her through the time portal to the future could have done that.
Sure she might have had trouble adjusting, but she was an intelligent emotionally strong young woman. In the long run she would be okay.
Rowan, I like you, I like your stuff, I always look forward to your new clips, and I consider you pretty knowledgeable and insightful, so please don't take this as trolling.
You may wanna look up the stories "pandora's millions" and "mad holiday" by george o. Smith. The first is about the invention of a replicator, and the second is about the effect a replicator has on civilization. In fact it destroys it. Not because people are greedy or shitty or any promethean reason, but rather because when nothing has any worth, when everything, even electricity is free, then nothing, not even human life, has any real value. The story isn't capitalist or right wing, and they do eventually find a way to restore civilization (which the writers of DS9 were *certainly* aware of, and used) I mention this because it's a pretty great couple of stories from the early 1950s, but also because, given the massive, massive, massive differences between TOS (which clearly had no replicators) and TNG (which introduced the concept) I think it's far more likely that replicator technology wrecked civilization, and had to rebuild it in vastly different conceptual ways. I realize this issn't canonical, doesn't fit with roddenberry's vision, yadda yadda yadda, and I'm clearly putting more thought into it than he did, but it's still worth a read. Did they ever say that the federation gave the technology away for free, or is that an assumption? Because, as Smith pointed out, once you have one replicator, you have all of them one can be used to create more, someone gives one to a friend, who gives one to a friend, and in a few months literally everyone has one. I would love hearing your thoughts on the stories if you ever find time to read em. Thanks for your time.
TOS had synthesizers, that conceptually seemed to work similarly to replicators though with some presumed limitations for the earlier technology. In fact, one of the often complained about issues from Discovery neatly fits within established canon as synthesizers from TOS are known to at the least replicate organics at a pretty sophisticated level. And uniforms of that era Ccording to TAS are cultivated from organic materials for specific properties, so the synthesized uniforms shown in DSC are in fact entirely canon friendly. The computers dialogue even says "synthesis complete" .
This makes more sense than other ideas about TOS synthesizers when you consider scenes like the still in this video shows. Synthesized food being delivered within a container. Some claim that the machine simply spits out a pre existing bowl for the given item like a vending machine then fills it with the synthesized food. While it makes infinitely more sense to synthesize a container for the food at the same time and simply make is a suitable organic compound. Many plastics are in fact organic and could presumably be as easily synthesized as the various food products we have seen.
And lastly, even replicators as shown in trek are not capable of reducing goods to no value.
We mostly see them used casually in an environment that makes perfect sense for their use, space travel. These ships warp the very fabric of space and time at a whim to hurtle across the galaxy. Compared to the energy demands of that along with the many other systems in use replicators are likely a minor power draw and preferable to hauling around years of preserved food and other goods.
But we know it's an energy intensive process, that it's not at all free.
If for example you are looking at a decades long journey without guaranteed resources in a ship not well suited to the task rationing replicators and resorting to growing food is shown to be necessary.
It's likely that most food on earth and other planets is sourced along the old fashioned ways, because energy matter transformation to supply food for some 11 billion people three times a day plus snacks and other goods is likely to be to great a cost in energy.
The stories you mention must also assume some form of perpetual energy, and that would be the real economic killer. But as prosperous as the fed8is they obviously do not enjoy free energy and still engage in mining farming and other jobs familiar to us.
DrewLSsix well, TAS isn't canon, and Discovery isn't any good, so.... :) joking! Joking! Objectively, each Trek show is a product of its own time and all the baggage that goes along with that. So each show is effectively a retcon of the previous shows, even the prequels are retcons of all the shows made before them. TOS was a product of 1960s optimism, and while the future was obviously far better than the present, it's not utopian. The Enterprise could synthesize some things, but the context of it seems to be industrial or chemical, such as when Kirk talks about how the ship could crank out gems if they wanted. Those particular things, he says, are pretty much valueless. However they do say that dilithium is incredibly valuable. They talk of buying and selling. We see them using credit cards, effectively. There is no specific mention of food synthesizers that i can remember, and i'm pretty sure the food slots were intended to be basically a futuristic automat. We're told there is an actual kitchen, that much of their food is synthetic - but again in context that seems to mean something along the lines of tofu burgers and stuff. Crappy simulations of real things, and since they resupply at several points, well, you get my point.
Now, obviously if you have a transporter, you've got a replicator, but the people making the show hadn't thought that up yet.
TNG was a product of a much older, much more dogmatic Roddenberry, who felt the need to make utopian statements about the future. Which is fine, technology changes over time. DS9 found this limiting and came up with the concept that earth and the core sysstems are utopia, but the rest of the universe isn't, and re-introduced value in the form of gold-pressed latinum, a material that can not be replicated (which is the same solution Mad Holiday used)
There's no indication that replicators aren't universal on earth, and a lot of indication otherwise. Sisko's dad cooks real food by hand, which is considered quite the novelty. Pulaski mentions that they've kind of lost the bonding effects of cooking food together, that sort of thing.
Energy costs are mentioned so rarely, and so inconsistently that there's no real sense to it. It's a plot device when it comes up at all.
This is fun! Thanks for commenting!
@@DrewLSsix The no free energy one always bugged me though. Any planet that has a replicator and light speed ships can have tremendous amounts of free energy, after a small intial set up cost. You just replicate billions of solar panels and mirrors and place them all around the star.
There was, however, a SMOKING hot love interest...
This reminds me of a recent Voyager novel. Voyager, having returned to the Delta quadrant on a mission of exploration, encounter a planetary confederation that seem to be almost at the federation's level of development, except they have replicator or transporter technology. At first Janeway and chakotay are, like, hey maybe we can deal with these people. Gradually, the truth comes out: the confederation's marketing consortium HAS encountered replicator technology, but chose not to introduce it because it would destroy their powerbase. Instead, whole planets are overfarmed to produce foodstuffs, and drugs are produced in such limited supply that they never get to the low income areas who really need them. The confederation might have the wherewithal to do it, but they lack the empathy of the federation.
You may have inspired the first video on my channel. (Which is not yet a thing, so don't bother looking for it.) Thank you! Now, hopefully not spoiling the reaction video I intend to make...
I think the part about the premise that your case overlooks is that the opposition of technology and empathy is integral to the story being told. It's not that this idea runs counter to all of Trek; it's that this idea challenges our main cast's beliefs - and therein lies the heart of the film. Picard is a man who both reveres history and embraces technology (see his family arc in the series and movies regarding the Picard family line and his choice to join Starfleet) and is still tempted in this film to reject all of that in favor of a simpler way of life. The line "where can warp drive take us, except away from here" is not antithetical to Trek, it's just stating that when you know where you belong, technology whose sole purpose is to take you elsewhere is useless.
While I agree that Insurrection is the worst of the TNG films, the core theme is worth exploring - and is all the more relevant as time goes on and technology becomes ever more pervasive. (He said, typing this on his phone is the wee hours of the morning when most sensible folks are sleeping.)
I adore Insurrection. Easily my favourite Trek movie.
Hate you a little bit for dumping on it but, damnit, I respect your passion.
A few questions....
Why would picard go Rogue in this scenario? He has already shown more than once he is willing to do the difficult thing for the federation. He could have gone Rogue to save the Indians from the Cardassians and the Federation under arguable less just circumstances. But he chose to put the federation first and effectively in that episode doomed that entire budding civilization to death. A slow violent death! And these were more or less his own people, yet he breaks character to save strangers from aging??
Why did they need or want to strip this planet to begin with? The Son'a just wanted to heal their condition. But chose not to simply land somewhere on this vastly underpopulated planet and chill?
What is the fed supposed to do with this magic healing stuff? They mentioned the war, but we know they have the ability to resurrect people relat8easily from battle related wounds and nothing shown in the film suggests this stuff will be an improvement. The Baku dont exactly seem like they could grow an arm or head back. Unless the Founders new superweapon is based on making boobs slightly less firm I dont see how it's supposed to help the crew of a ship who's antimatter containment failed in the middle of combat.
They stopped the stuff away from it's apparently naturally replenishing source and believe this will destroy the phenomena permanently. Meaning they now will have a single ship load of nonrenewable healing stuff who's main perk was long term general health.... used to any extent the stuff will be gone long before even short lived humans get to enjoy much of a benefit form the stuff. They literally ruined the one good use there was for the stuff.
Why did anything happen in this movie? Why did anybody do what they did?? Even the characters with no established prior traits make nonsensical decisions that fly in the face of their own supposed goals. And the character's that do have established traits behave more like their mirror universe counterparts!
@@DrewLSsix
I'll go point by point:
Insurrection had a few good callbacks to decisions in TNG, like his betrayal of the colonists to the Cardassians, which ended with Picard knowing he'd helped prevent a war with the Cardassians at the sacrifice of his own ethics. In Insurrection, the benefits would have been a temporary boost to aid in the war.
Metaphasics were superior to normal healing as, even in tiny amounts, it cured La Forge's blindness and, as you say, could even regrow lost organs and limbs; there was even a comment made about Picard's heart.
The effects were said to take years to heal the Son'a and many of them wouldn't last that long. That was Dougherty's response when Picard suggested they set up a Son'a colony, which I suspect was s thin justification that he latched onto.
The Son'a had the technology to harvest and deplete the radiation and use it in a concentrated form, to provide instant healing to even fatal wounds. It would be limited use, but the ability to heal grievous wounds would have been a massive boon in a war.
I saw this movie as being more of a question of whether the ends justify the means. Does Starfleet have the right to steal a planet from those currently occupying it in order to extend everyone else's life? For the record, my answer to this question has changed over the years. I once was of the perspective that what's best for humanity supersedes the needs of a small group. I no longer hold this position.
Linkata approves of this video.
Also would really recombed SFDebris' review, he doesn't wuite go as far to call it the 'worst' but covers many of tbe issues mentioned here. He also brought up how the film 'feels' like an episode of the shiw. This was such a vindication to me as I remember feeling that way all tbose years ago as a not-too-critical child.
oh I wish I'd seen this endorsement before I watched the video. I'd have disliked and bailed purely on your proximity.
Weren't they also fighting the Dominion during this movie? I'm sure a discovery like this would have helped in their efforts, in fighting a war of survival
It was the part where Picard learns learns that their weavers are students for decades and then apprentices for god knows how long. Do they live forever or does it just feel that way? I'd shoot myself.
My pet peeve is Picard starts romancing Donna Murphy (who wouldn't?) but I never heard anyone actually say she's the guys sister. I thought she was his wife.
The weavers scene specifically demonstrates how the society has not stagnated. They are in a constant process of cultural and artistic advancement, working for centuries to perfect their works.
The Baku are not IMO anti-technological. What they are against (ISTM), is the development of technology beyond a certain point. Not because they are “opposed to technology” as such, but because they are *in favour of* something else: a life (relatively) “close to nature”, and *therefore* (relatively) free of “advanced” technology. STM that is a much more nuanced, defencible, balanced & humane position than some criticisms of the film allow.
I liked a lot of it. I think it is much more watchable than ST5.
They don't want to live decadent, easy lives, and they prefer peace over the sort of war the Federation is currently experiencing, and has many multiple times in its very recent history. Their pacifism is naive, but their desire to do something meaningful each day instead of being lazy slobs (the reality of the Federation if not for extremely unrealistic levels of optimism by showrunners) is admirable. We see in the movie that they are really just artisans, striving to improve over centuries in their chosen vocations. It's no different than what the Federation claims to be. It's no different than Joseph Sisko running a restaurant and cooking real food instead of replicating it. It's no different than Robert Picard with his vineyard (and also not using a replicator). The only difference is the Ba'ku live for hundreds of years or more, and can spend that entire lifetime honing their skills in peace and not worry about some arrogant Starfleet captain is going to play chicken with Q and cause the Borg to come to their planet.
Great video. I love the bit on Romanticism and how you explain the technology vs. empathy relation - this would have never occurred to me so thank you for that. This even makes me reconsider Discovery and Picard as they, despite all their flaws and missed opportunities, are true to that formula.
As others noted, it felt like a long-ago tossed TNG script that's been recycled---and from the crappy kind made all too often in TNG, when the Enterprise-----the flagship of the fleet----is sent on some errand to some colony of humanoids, like to deliver medical supplies or shuttle some scientists to their Big Project somewhere---the kind of stuff smaller ships should be doing. Sure, it's more of an emergency with the Data thing, but it still feels like one of those boring episodes, when races we've never heard of, with very small prostheses on their faces to convey "alien" as cheaply as possible, are feuding or something.
The first rule of _Blake's 7_ is that you never talk about _Blake's 7,_ every fan understands this.
The downside of technology is a common theme in Star Trek. This Side of Paradise and The Paradise Syndrome seem to say the same thing. Both Kirk and Spock were at their happiest when they were living a more simple life. One of Kirk's biggest regrets was that he would have to introduce technology into a "paradise" "A private little war" Nature good, tech bad. Or "the inner light" The borg, they go without saying as what happens to us when technology runs amok. There was nothing new in Insurrection
Exactly. And there's plenty of characters who reject Starfleet. Captain Sisko's father and son both chose much different, more simpler lives, and he himself plans to retire and be a farmer. Wesley Crusher leaves the Academy to go meditate in a sweat lodge and explore his mind for who knows how long. Picard's brother and his wife are happy tending to a Vineyard. Most family members of the main crews are not in Starfleet and don't want to be, and more than a few of them have some words to say about their relatives who did join up and sacrifice many other things in life that seem to matter more. Many of the captains express some regrets at what they've given up to have their careers, Star Trek has never shied away from that. In Gene Roddenbery's original pilot, it opens with Captain Pike wanting to quit and be a rancher. In order to have a show at all, the main cast has to by-and-large be in Starfleet, and remain in their careers, but that's a storytelling requirement, not a value judgement by Star Trek itself.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with insurrection I love it the final frontier and nemesis are so much worse
I dont know, frontier gets a pass based on just being old at this point. Like an ugly car from the 50s, it's just cool to see one around.
I actually like nemesis, so does my wife but then she has the concerning obsession with Tom Hardy, she probably would leave me in a heartbeat if she had half a chance to jump that guy. I think the movie is structurally more sound than insurrection and the characters are more in line with their established continuity. Having Picard go Rogue to save the Baku after deciding the surviving native americans really did need another thorough fucking a few years earlier just comes out of nowhere.
The plot elements of nemesis make way more sense, Pocard and crew would of course take the opportunity to make progress with the Romulans, even if it was a tactically stupid thing to fly the flagship straight to Romulus based on a single suspicious phonecall. All the characters did what you could believe they would do as the situations unfolded, and Shinzon was believable as a man on the fringes of madness, someone smart and capable enough to win battles yet frail enough to mess things up at the endgame.
Insurrection honestly feels like a pre existing script hastily rewritten to be a vaguely star trek like script. Characters do what the plot required them to do no matter what their established patterns are. The entire core plot concept simply ignores several possible alternate and preferable resolutions, like why haven't the Son'a just landed somewhere else on this entire planet to cure their condition? The Baku all live together in a single tiny village and have no means to detect trespassers let alone enforce some banishment. Why even involve the federation? They alone in the starfaring galaxy seem to know about this miracle planet, but once the fleet is in on the scheme and hidden ships and outposts are so damn easy then the whole idea of just setting up thousands of these places across the planet to accommodate the sick and wounded is surely the more logical solution. But rather than tapping into a seemingly replenishing natural resource they choose to strip it away and turn it into a single ship load of non renewable healing spooge ??
I always understood Picard's reason for going rogue to be about the forced relocation of the Baku, not about their "natural course of evolution". It's not the first directive that makes it wrong, it's the fact that a whole people is relocated without their consent. Whether or not they are originally from the planet is irrelevant.
Hallelujah! I kept saying this was my least favourite Star Trek film for years and everyone just shrugged. Thank you for finally stepping up for all of us tired of the damn Baku.
The Baku are unbelievably boring characters
@@RowanJColeman question.... the Baku number a few hundred, live together in a single village, have no active technology, are utterly unaware of the holographically cloaked outpost and agents literally leaving mysterious booted footprints through their town, and missed the arrival of a starship in their own lake.
Theres literally an entire planet for the taking everywhere over the local horizon and the conspirators have free access to it. The topography shows us the radiation is based in the rings and apparently effects the whole planet...
The question of course is some combination of why dont the conspirators together or alone just land their fucking ships anywhere that's not this village and enjoy a long weekend of healing before taking off again? Presumably that duckblind was staffed with supernaturally healthy workers.
Also, followup question, why does Starfleet NEED a super healing planet?
Picard him self has died no less than three times only to be revived by existing technology. He is ran through the heart as a cadet and is saved, recieved a deadly wound to his replacement heart and is saved by medical technology again. He is also shot through the chest by an arrow and doesnt even take the rest of the shift off to recover! Yareena, an alien who dies of an alien poison is revived by a doctor that must have been improvising half of the procedure and it's not even noted as being a big deal to the crew.
Healing of serious problems via transporter is a known thing.
My point is, who exactly were they hoping to heal with this stuff that couldn't already be healed by known medicine?? They mention the war, were they going to gather atomized crewmen from the void and reconstitute them??
The process is shown to be relatively gradual also, not really an instant resuscitation so much as a general long term revitalization. I doubt the Baku would survive a spiked club to the face, something that another already known planet of miraculous healing seems entirely capable of!
This is right up there with Scotty, the engineer of a warp capable starship getting all hot and bothered by seeing another ship with ion drive..... it's almost like trek writers have never had much of a grasp on technology lol.
4:00 I think you got the "Monster" slightly wrong. (I use the term "Monster" (Capital M) here only because that is the only name he gets from the author) He started out with a good nature. He wanted to help others. When he figures out the farmer can't harvest his crop because the ground has frozen early, he spends the night using his extreme strength, so when the farmer wakes he finds his crop harvested and neatly stack ready for shipping.
The family decide they have a "good fairy" helping them. But when the finally encounter the "fairy" they react in terror and flee. When he gets a look at himself he understands the people's fears. He knows he can never live with humans.
He finally learns how he came to be and who left him alone in that state. His is filled with a black, all consuming rage and it is that which makes him evil. Fueled by his rage he seeks out the one who made him and destroys his life, and his own in the end.
The story has more than one moral. There is, of course, don't judge a book by it's cover. But also, don't let rage consume you.
I think we need the second lesson now more than ever. Over the last several decades we have seen a black rage spreading like a cancer through society world wide. It is scary and sad, really.
You spend 11 minutes explaining how bad Star Trek Picard is and how it doesn't fit in the Star Trek universe and then you go, "See? Star Trek Picard is just like all the other Star Treks but better!"
I literally felt an aneurysm when you dropped that little twist.
So, to boil this down: you don't like Insurrection because of your perceived belief of political messaging in the film, i.e. environmentalism? Regard for a simpler lifestyle over a technologically advanced one?
So, you're allowed to not like a Star Trek movie because of your personal political beliefs and/or because _you_ perceive a political agenda behind it, but those of us who don't like the new Trek(s) because they break canon and because there *IS* a stated, factual 'social justice' push behind them, well, we're just a bunch of basement-dwelling, incel snowflakes.
H y p o c r i t e
You completely missed the point of my video. I mentioned nothing to do with politics at all.
@@RowanJColeman
Alright. I'll watch it again and give another response. My first impression is that you didn't like it because you perceived the movie as, what, hating on technology?
Before I comment again would you like to state the point of your video for me?
1.) I never saw this movie as one trying to say technology is bad or staying with nature is good and I've seen this movie many times. The point was that this was a decision that the Baku made(for whatever reason) and Starfleet violated their own prime directive by trying to move them. Picard and the rest of the crew trying to stay true to the prime directive is classic TNG.
2.) The Sona weren't banished because they wanted to explore the galaxy. They were banished because they tried to take over the colony.
3.) The motion picture is hands down the worse Star Trek movie. None of the others come close.
The only gripe I have is after First Contact, it would have made more sense to do a story about the Dominion war. It was the major event occupying the federation at the time and having the most advanced starship in the fleet doing diplomatic stuff just isn't as interesting on the big screen as a full scale war. It's not a bad movie, just not as good as First Contact.
I despise the whole "appeal to nature" thing. It has no place in optimistic sci-fi. Things are better because of science and technology trumping over nature's challenges. If anything, Starfleet should pop a space station in orbit of the planet to study this mysterious healing radiation and attempt to duplicate it for medical use. That would be faaaaar more Star Trek than this movie was.
Perhaps the radiation from the Brier Patch itself might be causing issues with proper readings?
Yes, but as Spock said in The Apple, "whatever you call it, it works for them" who are we to judge how they live their lives, they are happy and the system works for them.
isn't this dichotomy of technology and empathy between the Son'a and the Ba'ku somewhat leveled by the Federation?
Each Son'a and Ba'ku only have one. But Picard and the crew have both.
I don't think that Insurrection is the worst Star Trek movie. It's one of the worst but not guite the worst. I personally put the three reboot movies and The Motion Picture lower than Insurrection.
When I saw this in the Theater on opening night, I will admit I was disappointed. I hated the manual steering column. I hated that the Flagship of the Federation was doing diplomacy and not on the front lines of the Dominion War. We do know that the Sona was working with the Doninion according to DS9. After time however I feel that Insurrection was in fact underrated. Now i still hate the manual joystick but the concept of Star Trek meets Little House on the Prairie did in my opinion age well over time. I accepted that the Enterprise was doing Diplomacy during the Dominion War was due to the fact that The Enterprise was like a Designed Survivor. And finally from what I am reading regarding Star Trek: Picard seasons 2 and 3, this movie may be very important.
The Dominion War was a franchise mistake that Michael Piller was very astute to avoid entirely with this movie.
I disagree with the video's thesis. Technology is but a tool that serves a purpose, and can be discarded when no longer needed (or until another cycle of evolution begins).
Polynesians were navigators in search of their home until they finally settled (like in New Zealand, among others). Modern Polynesians now travel by ships and planes, but it came as a natural evolution of modernity.
You cannot say Star Trek isn't alluding to Romanticism. What else is the Holodeck for? Time and again they always go back to periods in the past where they could no longer do in the present.
The Prime Directive shouldn't just apply to "primitive" civilizations, but to civilizations that want to be left alone as well.
What this video espouses is some form of Imperialism, where in the guise of "uplifting a civilization" hides an ulterior motive of harnessing resources.
I think the point is not that less technology is supposed to be better for all, but that It seems ot be better for these people. Either way It's not up to starfleet to decide anything about this culture. It was ultimately about the forced relocation of a small group of people. It very much did feel like a long episode of tng, and I take it as that.
I am so happy right now! You mentioned Red Letter Media. I love when my favorite channels of TH-cam mention another. Good show! I love your channel!
There is a hint of the nature versus tech interplay in the movie to be sure, but I never got the sense that it was supposed to be the central theme. The central theme I picked up on wasn't that the Ba'ku way of life is necessarily better, but rather, it's the way of life they have chosen, and the Federation has no business sticking their nose in and uprooting them against their will. I think that theme is better supported by the narrative than any attempt to argue that one way of life is necessarily better than another, which in the end is left more or less unresolved. I did like your points about Into Darkness, though. They do go a way toward supporting the themes of that train-wreck.
Star Trek Picrap is a TNG episode that started as a two-part, then trimmed to one episode, then tossed in the trash--all in the freelance writer's home.
Okay - here's my essay on Insurrection as well as the state of things around that time about 2000-2001:
TNG S7-E20 "Journey's End" is where Starfleet mandates the removal of this Native American looking race and indeed forces the Enterprise to do it but Wesley (Irritating but making his point and resigning over it) stands up saying it wrong. Well, flip this scenario totally around and you've got... Insurrection. Its the SAME DAMN THING except this time it's Picard telling Starfleet it's wrong. Add that to all the things you've already mentioned. When I saw the movie, I couldn't believe myself but here I was saying, "They CAN'T be doing the same damn thing!" But I re-watched upon getting home and YES - they sure as hell did. So... who's in the right? Needs of the Many outweigh the Needs of the Few? First Contact was so good... but this was when Star Trek started to flush itself down the toilet.
Voyager was getting tiring but honestly I think should have been more like 'Enterprise'. Very Desperate Times as well as Very Desperate Matters.. this is when Janeway should have played more loosely with things, as not everyone had a fancy ship like the Intrepid-Class!! How about Having a Nova Class ("The Equinox") or similar to an Oberth class ship?? NOW what will the great Captain Janeway DO in order to get through things?? You TRY to do the right thing.. You TRY but you prepare to do what is needed .. and to honor that promise to get everyone home?? You also have Plan C which is worst of the worst but you find a way to survive. (Time-Travel is cheap AND cheating! Enough of that as it was!!) So you always have a Back-Up plan and an Emergency Back-up OF your Back-up, which includes doing WHATEVER IS NECESSARY to save your ship and people? Even if it comes to stealing and gray-area morality.
Later, when you have the resources and you've tried everything, then perhaps you try to pay them back with interest and help later on but for the short-term... do what's needed. If nothing else, Janeway turns herself in to Starfleet once they return with the ultimate "I'm sorry, but my crew tried every other way first, and their lives had to come first... as you can see its holding itself together with bailing wire. My only defense... is they followed my orders. And I did the best I could." THAT would have been remembered. What a way to end a series!
I just felt Voyager just was never in any real danger. Ship always looked in good condition and returned as good as the day she left after countless battles and hardships. As they reached the Alpha Quadrant, the respective Chiefs had a meeting behind closed doors but we never knew what it was. Then we learn... all the data they have is transferred, the highest in command that followed Janeway took responsibility with her, and they either all turn themselves in OR they destroy the ship to defeat the Nexus-Warp-Gates. Atoning for their sins with auto-destruct, new tech and data transmitted to HQ, the crew made it home safe and made sure this heavily modified (now an advanced warship) named Voyager reaped what it had sown. It wasn't a Federation ship after that. Nor Maqui. It was just a Starship with the best chances for survival; Part Starfleet, Part Maqui, Part Borg, Part other Alien... How do you top all of that?? Each season its repaired and rebuilt to look different and use other technology on-top of what they already had. Use of all that and build on top of each other to become the DELTA STAR SHIP - DSS VOYAGER.
Just my two cents and then some - as Quark used to say, (Paraphrase) "Homans are happy with their bellies full and warm, sonic showers, but take them away from that, and they are just as malice and craft mean as any Klingon!"
(It doesn't take away from Star-Fleet, it just goes to show what one group and leader would be willing to do for others!)
Insurrection is just fine. Probably right in the middle for me. It's significantly better than Final Frontier and Nemesis, better than Into Darkness, TMP and Generations...right at Search for Spock level for me.
Ehhh, its bad, just not as bad as Star Trek V, personally. I agree with the rest of what you said tho. But STV is unwatchable for me.
Hmm. Not sure I agree with your interpretation, Rowan, cause to me having the movie portrait a group of people rejecting technology and arguing that way doesn't make the movie itself taking that same stance. Hence, I don't see it contradicting Star Trek canon. I do believe it rather attempts to show how technology itself is a mere tool, which can be misused, and how even Starfleet needs to be aware of that. I do have issues with the movie, which include having Picard go rogue in order to create a more hands-on adventure, instead of making him aim for a more elegant (and way more plausible) solution, but I do believe it actually underlies Star Trek's philosophy, while also adding a bit of depth to it.
I love your channel and would like to hear your thoughts on why ppl don’t like Discovery or Picard cuz I want to watch both series but I’ve seen lots of negative reviews saying “it’s destroyed Star Trek” so I’ve been watching The Orville instead
I don't want to say any blanket statements about why some people don't like new Trek instalments. I think there are lots of stupid reasons, but I won't paint everyone with the same brush. My advice is to simply watch it yourself and decide for yourself.
Rowan J Coleman Thanks for the advice keep up the good work my friends
I think Star Trek Insurrection is my second favourite Next Generation movie after the Borg one (although they pretty badly messed up Star Trek canon by stepping all over the original The Metamorphosis. Reading the James Blish adaptation you find out that Zephram Cochran is actually from Alpha Centauri. That sounds like a small piece, but hell, if you're rewriting how Earth got its FTL abilities, that's a pretty large rewrite).
Generations is my most hated The Next Generation. It's uninspired and other than the crashing the Enterprise is not even exciting or interesting.
Insurrection struck me as really a really excellent two-parter television episode. It didn't work well as a movie, but as a made for TV feature it would work well.
The Son'aa ships were so gorgeous, though.