Originally Posted by kevin
I would have been happier with a story that really looked at the notion of forced relocation of a small group for potentially greater good. At the ethics and morals that perhaps it can be justified vs the notion it never is in a manner that would let the viewer decide rather than be told.
That isn't quite how it went.
Of course it's also hard to argue for Insurrection when the main villain descends into someone just out to get back at his people for being kicked out for misbehaviour. One can't complain about Nero when the primary villain of something like INS is as thinly motivated and executed.
The issue in INS was not eminent domain, a conflict of interest inside of a society, it was plain theft, taking land and resources from another people. There is no ethical dilemma.
And once again we are at how much people care about the background of Trek, Federation principles and so on, and how this informs their preferences concerning single Trek stories.
Originally Posted by Captain Tom Coughlin
Ah, but Dougherty was a criminal. What he was doing was not simply a ying to Picard's yang on some point of logic as Nechayev was. He was willing to pull the trigger, so to speak.
But again, they didn't have the courage to really explore that.
Dougherty might have lied to the Council but it approved murder and theft. What INS failed at was that it did not delve into how the Federation became ready to do such things during the Dominion War, how all the soul-searching happened in the background ... yet this isn't possible for the dramatic reasons I explored above and as the Dominion War is something you can hardly use unless you wanna make a niche movie for fans.