• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

INS: Oh, those wacky Ba'ku

Vulcan is still a Federation planet, in Federation space. That argument is irrelevant, as it had been established that Federation policy was to honor the wishes of any de-facto governing council of any world that could prove they had a proprietary claim. If the Federation cannot tell the Vulcans(their own history says they are unlikely to be native to Vulcan; TOS episode Return to Tomorrow makes this postulation, by Spock himself) they have to vacate their world because reasons, they can't say it to the Ba'ku either.

The health properties of the particles is entirely dependent on their availability. Destroy the rings/planet to collect them, you have a finite quantity, with no way of replenishing them. Once they run out, they're gone for good. Better to keep the planet around, rings and all, to make certain the particles stick around for a long, long while.

See above and realize - if the idea is to keep the planet/rings intact, the Federation won't allow the Son'a or anyone else to build another collector.

There is much we don't see in Insurrection; however, that has no bearing on whether such unseen events, even though they're non-canon, ever actually occurred. It's likely that Sojef, Anij, and/or several other of the Ba'ku elders that had been there from the beginning were willing to travel to Earth to petition the Federation council in person to leave them alone. Allowing the use the far side of the planet as a spa, so long as they stay on the far side, is easily something the Ba'ku might be willing to go for. Essentially "Leave us alone over here, and you can have anyone you want go over there to take advantage of this place. Just make certain to leave us alone over here."

You keep seeming to forget, the Ba'ku aren't backward, or undeveloped; their Luddites. They have access to 24th century equivalent technology. They just don't want to use it. I for one can see the appeal of living a simpler life. But I also see the appeal of making sure that I don't throw away my ability to defend it where and when necessary. This series of events did much to make the Ba'ku aware of just that necessity, and with their elders being first-hand familiar with the ability to take advantage of it, they're the ones most likely to make certain everyone else knows.
 
A simple scan would have shown that the Baku were different from all the other life on the planet.

In Star Trek, this is far from given, as all lifeforms across the galaxy seem "compatible" in so many ways.

Nothing had changed concerning the health properties of the particles.

Ah, we don't know that. Probably much of the early "research" was biased by Son'a lies. Spending time on the planet keeps people middle-aged, that much is certain - but siphoning off the particles in the rings and using those for medication might not work the way the Son'a claimed.

Timo Saloniemi
 
It does much more than keep them "middle-aged"*. It makes the aged young, and accelerates healing of any number of ills, including many that are seemingly incurable. I agree, though, that the mataphasic radiation in the particles may not work the same outside the Briar Patch. It may even have the reverse effect, causing harm rather than healing.


*More like late-prime, comparable to mid 30s rather than 45 or 50. Of course, for Klingons, it reduces them to adolescence.
 
Yeah, "middle-aged" for the 24th century might mean seventish...

But the effect specifically stops short of making anybody young, by the local definition. It has had all the time it needs to work on Anij and Sojef, and they amply establish they don't meet that definition, treating their actual young with a sort of casual contempt.

Harming rather than healing is an intriguing idea - perhaps there's also a withdrawal effect? Although the sorry state of the Son'a can probably be explained without it. What would the implications be for our heroes? Perhaps the metaphasic adventure is what finally forced LaForge to abandon the VISOR and go for one of those surgical options he so hated, because he was too badly hurt to go on using the original device?

Timo Saloniemi
 
Perhaps the metaphasic adventure is what finally forced LaForge to abandon the VISOR and go for one of those surgical options he so hated
LaForge abandoned the visor prior to First Contact, there no indication that LaForge possessed prosthesis eyes in Nemesis, so the regenerated optic nerves from Insurrection stayed that way.
 
Yeah, insurrection is a badly written movie filled with plot holes.

The movie doesn't know whether it wants to be a morally complex moral dilemma story or a simply good vs. evil battle, so they create a bad compromise between these two ideas, that doesn't work at all. The film tries to make Ru'afo into a mustache twirling bad guy, which is not the villain you have in a morally complex film, but the Son'a come off as unintentionally sympathetic, because of all the questions brought up by this thread (like how do we know the Ba'ku were the "good guys" in their conflict with the Son'a, what makes the Ba'ku claim to the planet stronger then the Son'a claim)? If the Son'a were just supposed to evil and that's that, they should have been selfish invaders with no past ties to the Ba'ku, doing all this for simple greed. If the Son'a were not just supposed to be evil villains, they should have kept the connection with the Ba'ku and developed it, making this conflict into a more gray situation.

The whole conflict between the Ba'ku and the Son'a is based on a back story we know little about, so it makes thier conflict and brings up a whole host of questions the film seems to have no intention of answering. A film shouldn't bring up a host of questions and never answer them.
 
I guess I have the exact opposite opinion for the exact same reasons. This is basically the only Star Trek movie with a plot worth mentioning, the only one with any moral dilemmas presented and, while not the only one with a villain representing a good balance between humanly plausible motivations and despicable otherness, one of the most enjoyable in the lot nevertheless. And yes, a movie should definitely bring up a lot of questions and preferably not answer a single one of those!

Timo Saloniemi
 
I guess I have the exact opposite opinion for the exact same reasons. This is basically the only Star Trek movie with a plot worth mentioning, the only one with any moral dilemmas presented and, while not the only one with a villain representing a good balance between humanly plausible motivations and despicable otherness, one of the most enjoyable in the lot nevertheless. And yes, a movie should definitely bring up a lot of questions and preferably not answer a single one of those!

Timo Saloniemi

Well you are entitled to your opinion, but I'm not sure you are getting why a lot of people don't like this film.

I think the questions that are never answered actually undermine the story.

If I know nothing of the conflict that drove the Son'a from the planet and I still don't understand

This why this film is often savaged by reviewers:

http://sfdebris.com/videos/startrek/film9.php

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlV3bsafkq0

Those reviews are good at breaking down everything wrong with this film.

I would like this film if the Ba'ku were more believable, rather the writers trying to make them into a Mary Sue society and making them unintentionally unsympathetic.

The story is filled with so many holes, like when the Ba'ku defeated the Son'a, why didn't they just move to a different part of the planet or how did a bunch of Luddite pacifists defeat a group of violent tech users. The story doesn't make sense and there are several Star Trek movies that are better written then this film.
 
Last edited:
Than.

Sorry. Nitpicking.

If the surviving Son'a, now led by Gallatin, rejoined their parents, as Gallatin himself so humbly and so obviously did, his mother welcoming him home with a big hug, why would the Ba'ku need to move anywhere? As for the defeat, I think the Enterprise helped just a little there. And as for the followers of the Son'a, once Ru'afo was dead, I don't think they needed any prompting to go find themselves. In fact, Federation emissaries were probably dispatched to ease their transition to self-determination.
 
One does wonder how powerful and extensive the "Son'a empire" was, and how it came to be. When Ru'afo and friends left the planet of longevity, did they find a new planet to settle on, and then gradually built this empire of theirs in a couple of hundred years - or did they return to their original "doomed by technology" homeworld and rise to sufficient prominence there to command (-eer?) two warships, a third large vessel and the means to build the collector?

The former alternative poses the problem of how a small subset of 600 people can get started on an empire, no matter how technologically superior they are to the local average. Did the original refugees flee in those mighty warships, allowing the re-refugees to start off strong? The latter alternative begs the question of why the re-refugees were accepted back to the original society; they weren't just deserters, they were the kids of deserters, and double-turncoats of really dubious allegiance.

That's not a "plot hole", though. It's an interesting quirk of the villains of the story...

Timo Saloniemi
 
IDK if anyone else can elaborate more on this, but I remember reading on these boards way back when some notes or a earlier draft of Insurrection written by Michael Piller. The story was the same, but different, including the first act involving Picard and Co. hunting down Data, and it ending in Data's untimely death early on in the film. I can't remember much else of what I read, but it was definitely a different movie from what we got.
 
Oh that was Fade In, Michael Piller's excellent book about Insurrection that was never published. I had it downloaded and read it a couple of times. It was a fascinating look at the development process of a script, and how good ideas were killed off by actor's egos and other wonderful problems along the way.

From what I remember, the film started off with one of Picard's old Starfleet friends being the one who was acting insubordinate, but the fountain of youth idea was there. I believe there was a flashback to him and Picard at the academy, but when they meet up with him in the present, he is the same age that he was during the flashback. The Romulans were also present in the first two drafts of this version. This was then changed to Data being killed off instead, to make the stakes more personal in this Star Trek take on Heart of Darkness.

Now I don't think the script at this point was some sort of Oscar contender that the franchise missed out on, but Patrick Stewart as an associate producer on this film was concerned about it being too much like First Contact, and ultimately wanted something lighter. There is also a wonderful bit about Ira Steven Behr reading the script and not liking it, when he took his sunglasses off to give feedback, which is something he never does according to Piller.

Ultimately that was where the script development took a wrong turn, and they moved away from the Heart of Darkness idea, and the Romulans, and more towards the weird mish-mash of 'comedy' and 'drama' that we ended up with. Then of course Brent Spiner had to weigh in on the script, by which point I just thought the actors should have stayed away.

Oh and of course, the original ending that was filmed had to be redone when it didn't test well with the audience at the first screening.

So, letting the actors have a major say in what they want to do became a problem for Insurrection (and later Nemesis). I think a lack of a strong voice really screwed the film over, so I wonder about Berman being in charge of the TNG films, being as he also released the underwhelming Generations.

Now Leornard Nimoy did a good job back in the day, but I think he was a better quality all-rounder, and had a better working relationship with the likes of Harve Bennett and Nicholas Meyer. Instead it's William Shatner that is the perfect example of allowing ego to rule over a film and ultimately ruin it.
 
Ba'ku are basically jerks for their treatment of the So'na:
Ru'afo makes a fair point. They tried to take over the colony (no suggestion this attempt was violent), and in response were given a literal death sentence. To exile them off-world when there are no more than 600 humanoids on the entire planet seems unreasonable.

I think both the text and delivery of the line and the rest of the film suggest it was a violent attempt. If it wasn't Ru'afo would have emphasized that rather than just complain about the punishment; dying slowly is what normal people do so Ru'afo's line seems pretty overdramatized.

Again, it's a big planet with a population of 600. What's stopping the So'na from setting up their own colony elsewhere on the planet, and enjoying that sweet sweet immortality with the Ba'ku none the wiser? Unless the space hippies have advanced satellites in orbit to warn them of such an incursion, and the tech to capture and exile them again...

The Ba'ku would indeed be very unreasonable to prevent more settlement on the planet; according to Dougherty the So'na want to get the benefits of immortality without living there and most other people would feel likewise.
 
I think it was meant to be obvious that it was violent, but the violence was something that Ru'afo was deliberately not saying about it. Whether the audience actually got that, probably depends on who you ask.
 
Yeah, "middle-aged" for the 24th century might mean seventish...

But the effect specifically stops short of making anybody young, by the local definition. It has had all the time it needs to work on Anij and Sojef, and they amply establish they don't meet that definition, treating their actual young with a sort of casual contempt.

Harming rather than healing is an intriguing idea - perhaps there's also a withdrawal effect? Although the sorry state of the Son'a can probably be explained without it. What would the implications be for our heroes? Perhaps the metaphasic adventure is what finally forced LaForge to abandon the VISOR and go for one of those surgical options he so hated, because he was too badly hurt to go on using the original device?

Timo Saloniemi

Was it this film or the backwards time hole thing that made Ogawa lose a baby in one of the stories?
 
Oh that was Fade In, Michael Piller's excellent book about Insurrection that was never published. I had it downloaded and read it a couple of times. It was a fascinating look at the development process of a script, and how good ideas were killed off by actor's egos and other wonderful problems along the way.

From what I remember, the film started off with one of Picard's old Starfleet friends being the one who was acting insubordinate, but the fountain of youth idea was there. I believe there was a flashback to him and Picard at the academy, but when they meet up with him in the present, he is the same age that he was during the flashback. The Romulans were also present in the first two drafts of this version. This was then changed to Data being killed off instead, to make the stakes more personal in this Star Trek take on Heart of Darkness.

Now I don't think the script at this point was some sort of Oscar contender that the franchise missed out on, but Patrick Stewart as an associate producer on this film was concerned about it being too much like First Contact, and ultimately wanted something lighter. There is also a wonderful bit about Ira Steven Behr reading the script and not liking it, when he took his sunglasses off to give feedback, which is something he never does according to Piller.

Ultimately that was where the script development took a wrong turn, and they moved away from the Heart of Darkness idea, and the Romulans, and more towards the weird mish-mash of 'comedy' and 'drama' that we ended up with. Then of course Brent Spiner had to weigh in on the script, by which point I just thought the actors should have stayed away.

Oh and of course, the original ending that was filmed had to be redone when it didn't test well with the audience at the first screening.

So, letting the actors have a major say in what they want to do became a problem for Insurrection (and later Nemesis). I think a lack of a strong voice really screwed the film over, so I wonder about Berman being in charge of the TNG films, being as he also released the underwhelming Generations.

Now Leornard Nimoy did a good job back in the day, but I think he was a better quality all-rounder, and had a better working relationship with the likes of Harve Bennett and Nicholas Meyer. Instead it's William Shatner that is the perfect example of allowing ego to rule over a film and ultimately ruin it.


That book was excellent, shame Paramount got it yanked. And yeah, it really shows that Patrick Stewart should have been let go. And going by Nemesis, Brent Spiner too (whoever thought the director was a good idea, should probably be let go over a pit. The fact they didn't make the intended second half to that film, or just many of the bad ideas in it, are a testament to people not having a clue sometimes.)
I don't think Shatners ego is any more of a concern in V than Nimoy. I think Shatner had a run of bad luck on V, and it's in many ways only because of Shatner that Nimoy comes back to the films, and only because of Nimoy having an ego that Shatner ends up in charge of V.
 
Was it this film or the backwards time hole thing that made Ogawa lose a baby in one of the stories?

That happened in the final TNG episode "All Good Things..", but it could certainly have happened (to Ogawa or somebody else) in this movie, too... It just wouldn't be the same baby, as the "All Good Things.." miscarriage took place in 2370, while ST:INS was in or around'ish 2375.

Timo Saloniemi
 
That happened in the final TNG episode "All Good Things..", but it could certainly have happened (to Ogawa or somebody else) in this movie, too... It just wouldn't be the same baby, as the "All Good Things.." miscarriage took place in 2370, while ST:INS was in or around'ish 2375.

Timo Saloniemi

Thanks. Knew it was one of those. Whereas George turning around after seeing a sunset was Ins? I guess crusher popped out the implants, then in again as the radiation effects decreased.
 
Yup. We know LaForge went to Crusher to complain about his eye pains - but we don't know whether it takes a doctor to remove the "implants". They could be contact lenses for all we know.

LaForge's vision problem isn't with his eyes anyway. On several occasions, it has been said that he could have either a variety of compact futuro-cameras or perfectly natural biological eyes installed in there, replacing his born-with white orbs and costing nothing more than the loss of the full VISOR range of abilities. It's his optical nerves that fail to work correctly - and his eyes could bypass those by various tricks, one being the sockets in his temples that the VISOR uses but another perhaps being some sort of a wireless tech that would allow for contact lens type eyes.

Did his eyes lose sight after ST:INS? Or did he simply hate the limits of "normal" vision so much that he put the contacts on again to enjoy a more comprehensive view of the world, despite having healthy eyes beneath now? We don't know for sure.

Timo Saloniemi
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top