NeverarGreat

Krull (1983)

If you like The Dark Crystal, Robin Hood movies, and Surrealist art, you’ll probably like Krull a lot. Needless to say, I quite enjoyed it. It’s astonishing that it took this long to get around to watching it.

One complaint I have is that it is too long. It took three sittings to get though (not really the fault of the movie, it’s just that we kept starting it at my girlfriend’s bedtime), but it could use a fanedit for time. Not that I would do such a thing…

ESB in a nutshell.

Indoraptor

snooker said:

Qui-gon should just carry him everywhere as a hologram.

Possessed said:

Nerf.

(I assume it’s an animal since Han was accused of looking like someone who herds them)

dahmage said:

Hahaha.

Perhaps the nerd Neverar would like to choose out next category?

Very well, ANIMALS
Fictional or real, obscure or well-known.

Pangolin

Possessed said:

Nerd.

dahmage said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

chyron8472 said:

dahmage said:

chyron8472 said:

Sherbet lemon

that feels a bit forced… switching the order. i’ll allow it, but i don’t like it.

A sherbet lemon is the British term for what Americans call a lemon drop.

I learned this from reading the UK version of Harry Potter.

oi mate you got a loicense for that? 'at’s illegal outside the commonwealth.

ALLOL

The translation implies that they are the same thing, but sherbet lemons appear to be substantially different than lemon drops, since a lemon drop doesn’t have a fizzy center and is just hard candy all the way through.

http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Sherbet_lemon

suspiciouscoffee said:

SilverWook said:

It’s one type of animation pretending to look like another type of animation. Why not just hand draw the darn thing? Guess I’ve seen it used on one too many cheap looking shows.

And it’s not impossible to merge 2D and 3D animation, like hand-drawing characters and CG-ing ships. It’s not ideal, but some shows like Netflix’s Voltron reboot have done a great job with it imo.

Voltron is such a good show. Much better than Rebels anyway.

I was stuck without internet the other day and a copy of Restructured on the laptop, so I watched it and had some more ideas, some more baked than others.

First up, the first scene of the movie.
It’s weird how Kylo kills Tekka before knowing that there was someone else who had the information he sought. Kind of an oversight there, and not a good look even for someone as unstable as he is. So I thought, what if Poe shot at Kylo right as he disembarked the shuttle? Then he would say:
‘The old man gave it to you.’
‘It’s just very hard to understand you with all the…’
‘The map to Skywalker. Search him.’
Poe’s carted off and Phasma reminds Kylo about the villagers. Then Tekka (as one of the villagers) is brought forward, and they have their conversation without the aforementioned map line. At ‘I will show you the dark side’, Phasma says ‘On my command’, and the troopers raise their blasters.
‘You may try. But you cannot escape the truth that is your family.’
‘You’re so right’. Tekka dies.
‘Fire’.
Notably, Kylo doesn’t give the order to kill the villagers, so it could be interpreted that he is a prisoner of established First Order barbarity, or that Phasma interpreted his killing of Tekka as the signal to kill all of the villagers.

Second, Rey’s interrogation.
As with the first scene, it might benefit the movie to paint Kylo as far more conflicted than he appears, especially with regards to Han Solo. To that end, when he’s getting rebuffed by Rey in the interrogation, the sounds and images which assault Kylo are of Rey’s memories of Han. It is these which force him into submission.
To drive this point home, in the next scene with Snoke the conversation could go like this:
“The scavenger resisted YOU!?”
“She is strong with the Force. Untrained, but stronger than she knows.”
“There’s something more. Han Solo. Even you, Master of the Knights of Ren, have never faced such a test.”
“Supreme Leader, I can get the map from the girl. I just need your guidance.”
“If what you say about this girl is true, bring her to me.”
So the scene accomplishes several things. We now realize how much even a memory of Han can conflict Kylo, and it foreshadows Snoke’s power in TLJ when he knows the content of Kylo’s mind.

Third, Lowering the Shields
Phasma’s scene here is problematic since she turns into a cowardly traitor. Finn’s plan also hinges on her being such a weak opponent, so it doesn’t reflect well on him either. I wracked my brains trying to figure out a better plan, and came up with something fairly audacious but also potentially better:
Chewie knocks over Phasma, then Finn crows about it. ‘Follow me.’
Next there is footage from the shield control room, altered so it looks like a different location, such as a darkened corner of the hallway.
‘You can’t be so stupid as to think this will be easy.’
‘Do you want me to blast that bucket off your head?’
‘You’re making a big mistake.’
‘Do it.’
(Chewie growls)
‘What do we do with her?’
‘Is there a garbage chute? Trash compactor?’
Cut away to the next scene of Rey or Kylo, then back to the shield control room, unaltered this time:
‘Solo, if this works we’re not going to have a lot of time to find Rey.’
‘Don’t worry kid, we won’t leave here without her.’
Then we see Phasma get up from the control screen as the shield goes down. Yet emanating from the suit is Chewie’s growl of approval.
It’s definitely a funnier scene now, and an ironic inversion of the trooper escapades in ANH. The only problem is that it isn’t spelled out why Chewie needs to impersonate Phasma since we don’t see Chewie bluffing his way into the room. If there’s a way to make this work better, I’m all ears.

yotsuya said:

NeverarGreat said:

yotsuya said:

NeverarGreat said:

djsmokingjam said:

DrDre said:

Here are two links from the same critic. The first discusses weaknesses in RJ’s story, and argues that TLJ’s biggest weakness is, that the story doesn’t go anywhere. There are no consequences.

Short summary:

"In The Last Jedi, a lot happens. But not a lot happens for long. Leia’s sudden and unexpected death only proceeds her jarring return to life.

Kylo Ren’s betrayal of Snoke, which leads to a team-up with Rey and himself against Snoke’s guards, implies his redemption… But it isn’t long lasting as his actions hardly reflect his intentions. After the fight, he has to explain himself to Rey, and how they still aren’t on the same side.

This is a classic break from “show, don’t tell.” Kylo has to tell us his motives for the scene to make sense. He essentially retcons the entire sequence, because it might as well not have happened. The scene ends up telling us nothing new. Kylo Ren is a bad guy. But we were already aware of that. Actions should speak for a character, but in the most powerful scene of the film, they don’t.

Lastly, when Luke finally faces Kylo, there’s a moment where we’re meant to believe this is the end for the Jedi Master. It seems as if Luke has accepted his fate as Kylo runs toward him with his blade drawn. Luke literally tells him something similar to what Ben Kenobi tells Darth Vader: “If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.”

Luke seems fearless. But then, we realize Luke has nothing to fear after all. He’s not even actually there. This scene is meant for us to anticipate Luke’s death, only for it to be revealed he’s fine… Only for it to be revealed a moment later that he dies anyway."

Both these points seem incredibly pedantic and overinflated to me.

In the first instance, “show don’t tell” does not mean either that dialogue is redundant in cinema, or that actions and dialogue always have to be in perfect concert, especially regarding villains (who are often by nature duplicitous or unstable). The entire point of the throne room sequence is to set up an expectation (Kylo will side with Rey) that is then upended; in much the same way as the action at the end of ESB sets up an expectation (Vader wants to kill Luke) that is then contradicted by dialogue (“I am your father”) rather than action.

On the second point, he’s just being incredibly literal. The entire subtext of the dialogue is not that whether Luke will literally be struck down - Luke has already made it clear throughout the film that he does not fear death - but that in opposing him, Kylo ensures Luke’s reputation will echo throughout the galaxy and that thousands will be inspired by his example, which we see happen in the final scene.

To say there are no consequences to the events in the film is absurdly reductive, and frankly typical of the wilfully and uncharitably misreading “criticism” I’ve seen so much of about this film.

I think what the critic was trying to get at is that the story does its best to deflate its own most interesting ideas. There are obviously consequences and character progression, it’s just that these moments are ultimately not as consequential as we are first led to believe.

Leia is blown out into space, presumably to her death! But wait, she’s using the Force in a way we’ve never seen from her before! Has she had substantial training in those thirty years? Has the Force suddenly ‘awakened’ in her as well, making her the ‘new hope’ for the galaxy that Luke suggested in ROTJ?

No, sorry. It was just an instinctual reaction to her impending death and her Force powers will not be a big factor in the rest of the movie.

Kylo kills Snoke! Now he’s teaming up with Rey against the goofy red guards! Will he really turn to Rey’s side and will they strike out together in a new direction in order to prevent a repeat of Rebels vs Empire that we got in the previous trilogy?

No, sorry. Kylo’s still a bad egg and Rey still has a deep loyalty to the Jedi ideals (despite her teachers hating them) and the Resistance (despite knowing them for maybe a day at most). And it will be a Rebels vs Empire situation quite explicitly until the end of the movie.

You get the idea. The movie goes in some interesting directions, but it seems to make a point of teasing these truly interesting directions and pulling it back to something much more tame.

No, one of the points of this film is that anyone can use the force. Not everyone is powerful enough, but people who are powerful enough can come from anywhere. This is implicit in the PT Jedi code - attachment is forbidden and by extrapolations, so is procreation. That means that none of the powerful Jedi we see came from a long line of Jedi in the family. So if being powerful only runs in the blood, where did all the PT Jedi come from?

I don’t see what this has to do with my point. I don’t really care about Leia’s Force powers, since they don’t really affect the story, but the movie spends its time showing this impressive feat with sweeping wide shots and powerful music as if it has totally changed the game in terms of Leia’s role in the story, only to drop that and have nobody speak of it again. Cut from the bridge explosion to Leia unconscious and nothing is lost from a story perspective.

The movie does go in many interesting directions, but this is the middle chapter and we did not see a resolution to any of them. This lack of resolution leads to this erroneous conclusion that this movie did not further the story. It furthered the characters and changed them. It tackled grander things than the Resistance/Republic/First Order conflict, which it left mostly in limbo.

Are you mistakenly talking about ESB, where the larger war was in limbo? Because in TFA, the First Order was treated as a sort of terrorist fringe organization, whereas in TLJ it all-but rules the galaxy.
Besides, this is again missing the point. The critic is saying that we are first given a very interesting direction which is quickly undermined in favor of a far less interesting direction. It would be like Vader saying ‘I am your father!’ and Yoda later saying ‘Messing with you, Vader was. Your father, he definitely isn’t’ and that being that.

And we know from ROTJ that Leia is strong in the force and like her brother in TESB (who grabbed his light saber with no known training of doing that) she grabbed a ship and in keeping with the laws of physics, she moved not the ship. Rey, Leia, and the boy at the end show us that anyone can use the force, from a Skywalker to a stable boy.

That’s all very nice, but again, what does it have to do with anything? We already assumed that Leia had the capability of doing what Luke could do (even if it was left undeveloped). Why would Rian bother to show us what we already assume unless these powers are called upon later in the movie? Luke and his lightsaber is a set up for the duel with Vader, where he is now able to pull himself up out of the Carbonite pit. It shows the progression of his skills. Leia’s ability is one-and-done.

My point, which you seem to have missed and which is in answer to your previous post is that this movie is showing us that you don’t have to be trained to use the force. And it only makes sense. I an a galaxy of trillions of beings, no every force sensitive will end up being a Jedi. In ROTJ Leia recognizes she is too old (she already has her calling - one that if you look at it closely relies on the force). Now she is even older but when the need arises, she is able to tap into that power. She does something she must have seen Luke (and maybe Kylo) do hundreds of times. The main thrust of the saga has been the Skywalker line, but this movie gets back to showing the wider picture. If anyone can be strong enough to be a Jedi, and if basic training doesn’t take that long, it won’t take generations to rebuild the Jedi order. While Leia using the force doesn’t impact her story, it has a huge impact on the greater story, as does Rey and the stable boy.

We see Leia use the force in ROTJ, and again in TFA. We know she has that ability. The issue is that this scene takes screentime away from Rey (who is an actual nobody using the Force and is a main character) and Finn. Cut the scene out and nothing is lost. That’s the issue.

And the First Order is far from just a terrorist organization in TFA. It is shown to be a large and formidable threat.

You can say that it’s a large and formidible threat, but when Poe first looks at the First Order destroyer in TFA he is very clearly surprised at their power. We are given almost no details about how large this organization is in TFA beyond having a few Star Destroyers and a base that gets blown up at the end.

That threat comes to the forefront when they use the weapon to destroy the Hosnian system. That is not a random terrorist attack, but a targeted first salvo in a war aimed at takeover. On the First Order side, this movie starts off being a simple mission to wipe out the Resistance base and they first loose the Dreadnaught and then Snoke’s ship (not to mention Snoke himself). Then Kylo has a very embarassing encounter with Luke. But the larger invasion plan is not furthered at all, just like in TESB the Rebellion’s cause is not furthered at all. And what Kylo told Rey about her parents is a very key part of the story. How he told it isn’t, but the details are. He used it to put her down and then try to lure her to the dark side. But the essence of what he said is that a anybody can be a Jedi. It is a reminder that the Old Republic Jedi were nobodies. All pulled from their families as children and raised in the order to be a Jedi. None born to it. No great Jedi families. Just nobodies. Rey doesn’t have to be a Skywalker or Kenobi or anything else. Who were these other student’s of Luke’s? They were not Skywalkers, just Ben. So an underlying message of TLJ is that you don’t have to be a Skywalker to be a Jedi and you don’t have to be a Jedi to use the force. Leia’s use of the force is part of that. The rest of her story isn’t impacted, but the greater story is.

Again, we know this. Everyone in the galaxy should know this, since they lived it for a thousand generations. Furthermore, the audience knows this. That’s one reason (beyond the execution) that the Leia scene and the Casino planet rankles some people I expect - these are things we already know and are on board with, delivered in so slipshod a way as to actually do harm to the narrative and make the audience question their acceptance of these things.

DominicCobb said:

chyron8472 said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

You betrayed me! You’re not good. You-you’re just a chicken. Chip-chip-chip-chip-cheep-cheep.

Put that cookie down. Now!

How is this “popular”?

You’d be surprised how often I manage to find applicable context to use this in real life.

yotsuya said:

NeverarGreat said:

djsmokingjam said:

DrDre said:

Here are two links from the same critic. The first discusses weaknesses in RJ’s story, and argues that TLJ’s biggest weakness is, that the story doesn’t go anywhere. There are no consequences.

Short summary:

"In The Last Jedi, a lot happens. But not a lot happens for long. Leia’s sudden and unexpected death only proceeds her jarring return to life.

Kylo Ren’s betrayal of Snoke, which leads to a team-up with Rey and himself against Snoke’s guards, implies his redemption… But it isn’t long lasting as his actions hardly reflect his intentions. After the fight, he has to explain himself to Rey, and how they still aren’t on the same side.

This is a classic break from “show, don’t tell.” Kylo has to tell us his motives for the scene to make sense. He essentially retcons the entire sequence, because it might as well not have happened. The scene ends up telling us nothing new. Kylo Ren is a bad guy. But we were already aware of that. Actions should speak for a character, but in the most powerful scene of the film, they don’t.

Lastly, when Luke finally faces Kylo, there’s a moment where we’re meant to believe this is the end for the Jedi Master. It seems as if Luke has accepted his fate as Kylo runs toward him with his blade drawn. Luke literally tells him something similar to what Ben Kenobi tells Darth Vader: “If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.”

Luke seems fearless. But then, we realize Luke has nothing to fear after all. He’s not even actually there. This scene is meant for us to anticipate Luke’s death, only for it to be revealed he’s fine… Only for it to be revealed a moment later that he dies anyway."

Both these points seem incredibly pedantic and overinflated to me.

In the first instance, “show don’t tell” does not mean either that dialogue is redundant in cinema, or that actions and dialogue always have to be in perfect concert, especially regarding villains (who are often by nature duplicitous or unstable). The entire point of the throne room sequence is to set up an expectation (Kylo will side with Rey) that is then upended; in much the same way as the action at the end of ESB sets up an expectation (Vader wants to kill Luke) that is then contradicted by dialogue (“I am your father”) rather than action.

On the second point, he’s just being incredibly literal. The entire subtext of the dialogue is not that whether Luke will literally be struck down - Luke has already made it clear throughout the film that he does not fear death - but that in opposing him, Kylo ensures Luke’s reputation will echo throughout the galaxy and that thousands will be inspired by his example, which we see happen in the final scene.

To say there are no consequences to the events in the film is absurdly reductive, and frankly typical of the wilfully and uncharitably misreading “criticism” I’ve seen so much of about this film.

I think what the critic was trying to get at is that the story does its best to deflate its own most interesting ideas. There are obviously consequences and character progression, it’s just that these moments are ultimately not as consequential as we are first led to believe.

Leia is blown out into space, presumably to her death! But wait, she’s using the Force in a way we’ve never seen from her before! Has she had substantial training in those thirty years? Has the Force suddenly ‘awakened’ in her as well, making her the ‘new hope’ for the galaxy that Luke suggested in ROTJ?

No, sorry. It was just an instinctual reaction to her impending death and her Force powers will not be a big factor in the rest of the movie.

Kylo kills Snoke! Now he’s teaming up with Rey against the goofy red guards! Will he really turn to Rey’s side and will they strike out together in a new direction in order to prevent a repeat of Rebels vs Empire that we got in the previous trilogy?

No, sorry. Kylo’s still a bad egg and Rey still has a deep loyalty to the Jedi ideals (despite her teachers hating them) and the Resistance (despite knowing them for maybe a day at most). And it will be a Rebels vs Empire situation quite explicitly until the end of the movie.

You get the idea. The movie goes in some interesting directions, but it seems to make a point of teasing these truly interesting directions and pulling it back to something much more tame.

No, one of the points of this film is that anyone can use the force. Not everyone is powerful enough, but people who are powerful enough can come from anywhere. This is implicit in the PT Jedi code - attachment is forbidden and by extrapolations, so is procreation. That means that none of the powerful Jedi we see came from a long line of Jedi in the family. So if being powerful only runs in the blood, where did all the PT Jedi come from?

I don’t see what this has to do with my point. I don’t really care about Leia’s Force powers, since they don’t really affect the story, but the movie spends its time showing this impressive feat with sweeping wide shots and powerful music as if it has totally changed the game in terms of Leia’s role in the story, only to drop that and have nobody speak of it again. Cut from the bridge explosion to Leia unconscious and nothing is lost from a story perspective.

The movie does go in many interesting directions, but this is the middle chapter and we did not see a resolution to any of them. This lack of resolution leads to this erroneous conclusion that this movie did not further the story. It furthered the characters and changed them. It tackled grander things than the Resistance/Republic/First Order conflict, which it left mostly in limbo.

Are you mistakenly talking about ESB, where the larger war was in limbo? Because in TFA, the First Order was treated as a sort of terrorist fringe organization, whereas in TLJ it all-but rules the galaxy.
Besides, this is again missing the point. The critic is saying that we are first given a very interesting direction which is quickly undermined in favor of a far less interesting direction. It would be like Vader saying ‘I am your father!’ and Yoda later saying ‘Messing with you, Vader was. Your father, he definitely isn’t’ and that being that.

And we know from ROTJ that Leia is strong in the force and like her brother in TESB (who grabbed his light saber with no known training of doing that) she grabbed a ship and in keeping with the laws of physics, she moved not the ship. Rey, Leia, and the boy at the end show us that anyone can use the force, from a Skywalker to a stable boy.

That’s all very nice, but again, what does it have to do with anything? We already assumed that Leia had the capability of doing what Luke could do (even if it was left undeveloped). Why would Rian bother to show us what we already assume unless these powers are called upon later in the movie? Luke and his lightsaber is a set up for the duel with Vader, where he is now able to pull himself up out of the Carbonite pit. It shows the progression of his skills. Leia’s ability is one-and-done.

He might be okay.

djsmokingjam said:

DrDre said:

Here are two links from the same critic. The first discusses weaknesses in RJ’s story, and argues that TLJ’s biggest weakness is, that the story doesn’t go anywhere. There are no consequences.

Short summary:

"In The Last Jedi, a lot happens. But not a lot happens for long. Leia’s sudden and unexpected death only proceeds her jarring return to life.

Kylo Ren’s betrayal of Snoke, which leads to a team-up with Rey and himself against Snoke’s guards, implies his redemption… But it isn’t long lasting as his actions hardly reflect his intentions. After the fight, he has to explain himself to Rey, and how they still aren’t on the same side.

This is a classic break from “show, don’t tell.” Kylo has to tell us his motives for the scene to make sense. He essentially retcons the entire sequence, because it might as well not have happened. The scene ends up telling us nothing new. Kylo Ren is a bad guy. But we were already aware of that. Actions should speak for a character, but in the most powerful scene of the film, they don’t.

Lastly, when Luke finally faces Kylo, there’s a moment where we’re meant to believe this is the end for the Jedi Master. It seems as if Luke has accepted his fate as Kylo runs toward him with his blade drawn. Luke literally tells him something similar to what Ben Kenobi tells Darth Vader: “If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.”

Luke seems fearless. But then, we realize Luke has nothing to fear after all. He’s not even actually there. This scene is meant for us to anticipate Luke’s death, only for it to be revealed he’s fine… Only for it to be revealed a moment later that he dies anyway."

Both these points seem incredibly pedantic and overinflated to me.

In the first instance, “show don’t tell” does not mean either that dialogue is redundant in cinema, or that actions and dialogue always have to be in perfect concert, especially regarding villains (who are often by nature duplicitous or unstable). The entire point of the throne room sequence is to set up an expectation (Kylo will side with Rey) that is then upended; in much the same way as the action at the end of ESB sets up an expectation (Vader wants to kill Luke) that is then contradicted by dialogue (“I am your father”) rather than action.

On the second point, he’s just being incredibly literal. The entire subtext of the dialogue is not that whether Luke will literally be struck down - Luke has already made it clear throughout the film that he does not fear death - but that in opposing him, Kylo ensures Luke’s reputation will echo throughout the galaxy and that thousands will be inspired by his example, which we see happen in the final scene.

To say there are no consequences to the events in the film is absurdly reductive, and frankly typical of the wilfully and uncharitably misreading “criticism” I’ve seen so much of about this film.

I think what the critic was trying to get at is that the story does its best to deflate its own most interesting ideas. There are obviously consequences and character progression, it’s just that these moments are ultimately not as consequential as we are first led to believe.

Leia is blown out into space, presumably to her death! But wait, she’s using the Force in a way we’ve never seen from her before! Has she had substantial training in those thirty years? Has the Force suddenly ‘awakened’ in her as well, making her the ‘new hope’ for the galaxy that Luke suggested in ROTJ?

No, sorry. It was just an instinctual reaction to her impending death and her Force powers will not be a big factor in the rest of the movie.

Kylo kills Snoke! Now he’s teaming up with Rey against the goofy red guards! Will he really turn to Rey’s side and will they strike out together in a new direction in order to prevent a repeat of Rebels vs Empire that we got in the previous trilogy?

No, sorry. Kylo’s still a bad egg and Rey still has a deep loyalty to the Jedi ideals (despite her teachers hating them) and the Resistance (despite knowing them for maybe a day at most). And it will be a Rebels vs Empire situation quite explicitly until the end of the movie.

You get the idea. The movie goes in some interesting directions, but it seems to make a point of teasing these truly interesting directions and pulling it back to something much more tame.

dahmage said:

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

No good! I’ve known too many Spaniards.

EXPECTO PATRONUM!

yotsuya said:

I find TFA to be the odd movie.

Episode 7 was always going to be odd.

Get to the CHOPPA

Almost anything Trump or his administration says comes pre-slanted or is an outright lie. So when the media simply repeats these things without immediately fact-checking them, they are perpetuating the lie.

Possessed said:

Nemoidians

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

Exar Kun

Nemoidians

DuracellEnergizer said:

I don’t even know what game we’re playing anymore. Hungry Hungry Hippos?

This version maybe

Owen Lars

moviefreakedmind said:

chyron8472 said:

Mrebo said:

The idea that civil society is done and there’s a whole bunch of Hitlerites running around that need punching is not supported by the facts.

It’s really just an extension of how divisive and polarized American society has become. Both the left and the right so demonize each other, that to the right the left are filled with crazy oversensitive hippy tree-hugging [gay expletive]s; and to the left the right is filled with hate-mongering flag-worshiping gun-toting racist misogynist ignorant hillbillies.

One of those is significantly worse than the other.

A more up-to-date vision of the left from the right is that of violent masked members of Antifa roving the country, supported by the sinister Hollywood elite and SJWs. But yes, caricatures all around.

That’s vile. But it’s unfortunately the case now that this sort of toxicity has been emboldened, online and off. From personal experience, they seem to be hyper-focused on denigrating people’s masculinity (or sexuality in general).

chyron8472 said:

pittrek said:

Warbler said:

pittrek said:

ChainsawAsh said:

I liked Insurrection…

Me too. It feels like a long TNG episode, which for many people is a problem, and it contradicts an episode of TNG, but compared to Nemesis it’s a masterpiece.

Which episode did Insurrection contradict?

I don’t remember the English titles of the episodes, but there was the last episode with Wesley, I think season 7 - the situation was similar - the Federation has decided to forcefully remove a colony of American Indians because somebody else wanted it. Picard’s attitude was “I don’t like it, but it’s an order”. In Insurrection the situation is very similar, but now for some reason Picard decides to do a small insurrection to defend them.

Wil Wheaton has a cameo at Troi and Riker’s wedding, in a starfleet dress uniform. It contradicts Wesley leaving Starfleet to follow the Traveler. (The episode is called Journey’s End.)

Insurrection doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, especially considering that the people living on the planet were not originally from there. And this is not even the second time the Enterprise has been told to move colonists. The colonists in Journey’s End are among those who form the Maquis, due to the borders between the Federation and Cardassian territories being redrawn—but also there was The Ensigns of Command, where Data alone has to convince a large colony to move rather than be exterminated by the Sheliak.

So Picard’s decision to defy Starfleet in Insurrection does indeed seem really arbitrary.

In both Ensigns of Command and Journey’s End, the situation is of a Federation species in Non-Federation space, which in both cases may be destroyed if they are not evacuated. The situation in Insurrection is very different, since the colony is not under imminent threat of destruction from a non-Federation force.

The argument that the colonists aren’t originally from that planet is sort of a non-sequitur, since the same situation applies in Journey’s End and Picard recognizes that their new home is just as legitimate as Earth.