The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum (http://www.startrekmovie.com/forums/index.php)
-   Movies (I - X) (http://www.startrekmovie.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=17)
-   -   Most pointless and baffling aspects of the Trek films (http://www.startrekmovie.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9375)

Kukalaka 08-22-2009 03:21 PM

Most pointless and baffling aspects of the Trek films
 
Troi driving the Enterprise. One of the main problems with the TNG films; too many characters with nothing to do. Why does the ship's counselar get to helm what, the most valuable Federation starship asset? Character development, my ***. This is also the Batazed who gets the character development of getting mind-raped for a plot element in Nemesis that felt shoehorned on.

"God". Take it or leave it, Star Trek V may have been a favourable for some Kirk/Spock/McCoy love, but the plot (and special effects) resembles a bad TOS episode.

The plastic surgery bad guys from Insurrection. What the hell? No seriously, what the hell was that all about? Maybe an allegory to Hollywood's obsession with staying young, but it sure as heck wasn't Star Trek. Insurrection's main idea about a conspiracy inside Starfleet and a forced re-location is actually a pretty good movie treatment. Unfortunately this is probably the weirdest film enemy the Trek crew have ever had. I've never felt uncomfortable or weird watching Star Trek until the enemies in Insurrection got some screen time.

Feel free to add your own :D

jla1987 08-22-2009 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kukalaka (Post 250246)
Troi driving the Enterprise. One of the main problems with the TNG films; too many characters with nothing to do. Why does the ship's counselar get to helm what, the most valuable Federation starship asset? Character development, my ***. This is also the Batazed who gets the character development of getting mind-raped for a plot element in Nemesis that felt shoehorned on.

"God". Take it or leave it, Star Trek V may have been a favourable for some Kirk/Spock/McCoy love, but the plot (and special effects) resembles a bad TOS episode.

The plastic surgery bad guys from Insurrection. What the hell? No seriously, what the hell was that all about? Maybe an allegory to Hollywood's obsession with staying young, but it sure as heck wasn't Star Trek. Insurrection's main idea about a conspiracy inside Starfleet and a forced re-location is actually a pretty good movie treatment. Unfortunately this is probably the weirdest film enemy the Trek crew have ever had. I've never felt uncomfortable or weird watching Star Trek until the enemies in Insurrection got some screen time.

Feel free to add your own :D

I pretty much agree with you on all of that and don't have much to add.

Insurrection's villains really were an EPIC FAIL in all aspects, which only contributed to the snoozefest nature of the film.

horatio 08-22-2009 09:52 PM

I disagree. Throughout all off TNG, the helm did not seem like a very demanding bridge position (Geordi, Wesley, all those ensigns). Unlike in the other series which featured Sulu, Paris and Mayweather, piloting never seemed like a specialty but rather like something every officer aboard could do.
Troi just fits in there, a basic Academy course suffices to pilot the ship, and GEN showed that this comes in handy in emergencies.

The plot of STXI also resembles a typical goofy TOS episode. The search for god is perhaps not as good as e.g. accidentally meeting Greek gods like in "Who Mourns for Adonais?" but I consider the idea still to be fine.

I know that I am probably the only living Trekkie who loves INS, but the Sona and Baku were interesting IMO. It was a typical Shakespearean pattern, a private conflict among a small people gets interwoven with a larger political conflict. I could not care less about superficialities like the Sona makeup.

kevin 08-23-2009 02:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kukalaka (Post 250246)
Troi driving the Enterprise. One of the main problems with the TNG films; too many characters with nothing to do. Why does the ship's counselar get to helm what, the most valuable Federation starship asset? Character development, my ***. This is also the Batazed who gets the character development of getting mind-raped for a plot element in Nemesis that felt shoehorned on.

That's also a problem with the TOS films IMO.

I don't think it falls under character development, true - but in both scenarios the bridge has been trashed in battle and it seems replacement crew was thin on the ground.

Troi underwent command training in the series, so she was qualified to be in command by the time of the movies and instead of hiring an extra that has to be called up, why not have Sirtis (whose likely costing a lot more anyway) step in.

Quote:

"God".
Quote:

Take it or leave it, Star Trek V may have been a favourable for some Kirk/Spock/McCoy love, but the plot (and special effects) resembles a bad TOS episode.
Can't really disagree with any of that. Except I'd like more umbrage taken with the bad science about the Galactic Core. It evens up the Supernove thing from the new film.

Quote:

The plastic surgery bad guys from Insurrection.
Quote:

What the hell? No seriously, what the hell was that all about? Maybe an allegory to Hollywood's obsession with staying young, but it sure as heck wasn't Star Trek. Insurrection's main idea about a conspiracy inside Starfleet and a forced re-location is actually a pretty good movie treatment. Unfortunately this is probably the weirdest film enemy the Trek crew have ever had. I've never felt uncomfortable or weird watching Star Trek until the enemies in Insurrection got some screen time.
Yeah, the 'I just want to be pretty and young' thing was very lame. The forced relocation aspects could have been interesting but had been dealt with in TNG (The Cardassian DMZ) and we knew the answer already.

Yes, the Federation would screw a group of people if it decided it was worth it. That same thing has happened several times in real Earth history so they were up a creek without a paddle trying to sell that one.

Especially when Picard went along with the DMZ decision and enforced it for Starfleet in the latter episodes of TNG.

horatio 08-23-2009 02:34 AM

The difference between the Baku incident and the peace treaty with the Cardassians is that the former involves a third party while the latter is an internal Federation problem.
Resettling the Baku is a violation of the Prime Directive and probably plenty of other UFP laws whereas giving up some territories is inevitable if you want peace with the Cardassians.

To be blunt, the colonists who remained in Cardassian space are dumb, the ones who later joined the Maquis are criminal.

kevin 08-23-2009 02:39 AM

Depend on your perspective I guess - The point remains that the Federation will disadvantage a group of people to suit themselves.

Essentially those who stayed indeed made a choice - the same way the Federation chose to move a boundary that put them under another power against their will.

Just as they've broken the PD before, and agreed with Starfleet Captains who have done so.

I see it as one of those things where the PD gets held up or thrown down on the whim of the writers - so the INS plot remains pointless. It's like a PR excecise to remind us of what the PD was intended to be, but was not always shown as in practice thanks to several violations of it over the years.

horatio 08-23-2009 02:54 AM

Whenever a Starfleet captain bended the PD, he or she had ample reason to do because the case was ambiguous. Guys like Captain Merik or Admiral Dougherty on the other hand would have been court martialed for clear violations of rule number one.
The Federation citizens who are forced to move after the Federation-Cardassian peace treaty can protest against the decision, gather support in the Federation and influence the decision process. When you make democratic decisions there are always winners and losers, yet this cannot be compared to outright criminal behaviour. One might consider the price for peace to be too high, but giving up land for peace is anything but criminal.

The viewers who don't accept Picard's perspective are free to side with Dougherty, but I like to point out that he ended up on the face-stretch-bank. :D

kevin 08-23-2009 03:01 AM

Yes it does seem that when the Federation had a larger strategic objective to achieve - it was happy to suspend the PD in 'Errand of Mercy' in order to achieve a military objective. Same as they offered up a few planets in the DMZ to appease the Cardassians. They also used the PD as a reason not to help the Bajorans when under the rule of the Cardassians, yet swamped in when the Cardassians left and spent the next 7 years setting themselves up as the friends of Bajor.

So it probably is perspective.

I tend to think the PD is just the Federation talking a good game about itself, but as it's been proven it gets paid lip service when needed, or merely inconsistently used and termed, I just have over the years developed less interest in characters grand speeches about how marvelous it is.

horatio 08-23-2009 03:11 AM

In this case, either the Federation or the Klingons would have controlled the planet. The (seemingly) simple civilisation cannot remain neutral ... so is this really a PD case?

I am no PD hawk, if there are important goals or emergencies I consider it perfectly fine to ignore rule #1, but in INS the Federation decided to relocate people to get some thugs as allies. This is anything but a sound strategy and the behaviour of the Sona showed what should have been obvious before all that mess happened.

kevin 08-23-2009 03:19 AM

It's interference in a non-civilised pre-warp culture for their own aims. Is not such interference prohibited by the terms of the PD?

Also a Starship Captain is supposed to die with his ship before violating the PD yet Kirk violates it in order to save the ship in 'A Taste of Armageddon'. That would appear to be contradicting the terms for the pursuit of staying alive.

There are other instances in which it happens.

In fact, again depending on perspective, the PD is violated in the very first TOS episode it gets mentioned in.

So if it's a rule that can get bent to suit the moment - it can't be the most important one, can it? Because if you do break your no.1 rule to suit - what does that say about your regard for it? That it's optional?

However, what was more intriguing (as I've said IMO forced relocation wasn't to me a compelling plot aspect because it's happened in real history plenty of times) was what you alluded to about bad alliances.

In INS there's a little subtext that the effects of the Dominion war has ravaged the Federation so much that it's in a corner and reduced to having to put aside it's core values and principles in order to get any new allies to come onboard in their side of the war. Simply because it's in a far weaker position than a few years earlier, when they probably wouldn't have touched the Sona with a barge-pole.

I believe Troi or Riker has a line to the effect of 'why are we dealing with these people?' in the film. That side of the sinking of the Federation's principles debate was far more intriguing than the relocation one the film actually went down.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:44 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.