Nothing More Complicated than Perception... STAR TREK INSURRECTION

“...Our own civilization routinely kills legions of people in wars large and small for reasons of ideology, territory, religion, or geography. Would we contemplate removing 600 people from their native environment in order to grant immortality to everyone alive? In a flash. It would be difficult, indeed, to fashion
a philosophical objection to such a move, which would result in the greatest good for the greatest number of people..." Roger Ebert (RIP)


"...the point of the movie was exactly that. If we found the fountain of youth today, I have no doubt that we’d steal it from whomever it rightfully belonged and very likely destroy them if they fought back. But it might be nice to consider the moral implications of our actions." Michael Piller (RIP)


If you haven't, do yourself a favor and read Michael Piller's (still unpublished) Fade in: The Writing of Star Trek Insurrection. It is an exhaustive (260+ page) work explaining the process of getting the movie pitched, outlined, written and produced. It's the most fascinating thing you will ever read involving the evolution of a story. It's also a little heart-breaking when you read some the original outlines of what could have been. Epic space battles with Romulans, a bigger conspiracy within the Federation, Worf in some sweet hand-to-hand combat, flashbacks to the academy days, Boothby(!), a Buddhist (whoa, religion in Star Trek??) all originally tied to the fountain of youth story. It was changed because Rick Berman thought it was too political and that he couldn't pitch a story about "getting younger" to Patrick Stewart. So it was changed. And then Patrick hated it. So it was changed again. The fountain of youth came back (Patrick actually loved the idea). And then Brent Spiner didn't like it, so it was changed again. It was produced, and then chopped down for length and budget. Is it still good? Many people debate...

Keep note of the water level during this scene...

What I liked:
This is a movie that's about something. As Piller responded to Ebert's remarks, I think the morality play is slightly misunderstood. In some of the original outlines, the people were tied to the planet, so if they were moved, they would quickly age and die. Maybe this is still implied. If Piller would have put more emphasis on the Ba'ku connectedness to the planet, the morality play would have been clearer and stronger...and, well, Avatar. I mean, isn't it kind of the same? We're talking about taking the natural resources of a planet to help a vast number of people (engulfed in war), but at the expense of the planet and every living thing on it (including all the cute fuzzy animals). I think the morality play actually works even better here. And while Avatar made billions, this movie made not much over 100 million worldwide, which isn't bad considering the small budgets these films were given at the time. Also written in the original script was a "clutter-arc" for Picard. It is still kind of in the final version, but just barely. His life has become so full of clutter, the Ba'ku planet is the first time in a long time he is able to slow down and take a breath of fresh air. As far as the other characters go, I also like the Riker-Troi relationship rekindling. Love it or not, you could say it led to what happened next in Nemesis. Data is basically Data from the series, which was intentional by the production, since they didn't think newcomers to the movies have actually seen what our characters used to be like.

Also, let's talk about the song. Look, I thought this was okay. This isn't Row Row Row your Boat. There was purpose here. Data is, after all, still a machine. The point was to show Picard using alternative methods to reach Data outside of violence. If he could access something in Data, then he could distract him enough to deactivate him. It made me smile. As for the rest of the humor...

The late 90's: An awkward time for visual effects.

What I didn't like:
I know the point was to have a lighter movie here, but a lot of the humor didn't work (though some did). They also didn't give the other characters much to do. Poor Beverly. They should have given her some awesome martial arts scene or something. That would have been a shock. Also, in original drafts, Worf DID have an explanation for coming to the Enterprise (expert on Romulan strategies apparently). Not here though. Oh and speaking of him: Not one mention of Jadzia Dax. Berman didn't want it because those darn new viewers wouldn't get it. Bad call I think. I mean they mention DS9 in the movie, what do new viewers think of that? Though, you could tell Worf was still depressed slightly when he talked to Riker and Troi at the end of the movie. At least they allowed THAT. Back to DS9, I know they mention the Dominion war a lot, but....we have a movie budget here (sort of) and not one battle? I like big picture movies and they really could have given this one greater context by SEEING the Dominion war. Perhaps, Worf loses the Defiant at the beginning and, distraught, takes an assignment that crosses paths with the Enterprise. Boom, there's your explanation.

A decent "red" movie

In the end, I get it. These aren't villains we've seen before. How do you out-do the Borg? By introducing something new. After all, if the mission is to explore strange NEW worlds...well this is the only movie to do that! Interesting, no?

Also: I think that kid was a precursor to the play 60 movement!

Starbase out.