Nostalgia Critic : Star Trek Insurrection

[SolkaTruesilver]

I am not sure if any of you is familiar with Nostalgia Critic, from ThatGuyWithTheGlasses.com. He's known for reviewing a lot of movies from the 80s and 90s (and early 2000s at time). Pretty funny, and in January, he made it his Star Trek Review Month, doing all odd-numbered movies (because he's usually reviewing bad stuff).

Here is the Insurrection review

That specific video was made in crossover with the website's biggest Star Trek fan, Linkara. So it means the review has a lot more details right regarding continuity, etc... If you feel curious, go and watch the other reviews (or hell, his entire review archives. TheStar Wars Holiday Special review is hilarious!)

Obviously, there are gonna be some quirks moment for you non-initiates. Like the guy at the beginning is a new crew member on the website. Not sure exactly why he is in the video, but to make a few jokes. But don't worry, you don't need to see the entire backstory of TGWTG to appreciate good humor!


Now, I really liked Linkara's point about how Star Trek Insurrection's morals went DIAMETRICALLY opposed to the very essence of Star Trek, on so many levels. This movie teach us that:

- Technology is an evil to be rejected
- That we should stay home and never go beyond
- That the needs of the few outweights the need of the many

When you think about it, it's a spit in the face of everything Star Trek ever stood for!

[katefan]

I like how The Nostalgia Critic and Linkara both point out how a society that rejects machinery certainly does seem to use a lot of it; an irrigation system, an advanced dam, some sort of highly effective means to makes clothes, etc. Everyone is clean shave and has stylized hair so they must use at the very least very sharp steel to effectively groom themselves. And look at those buildings! How were those made?

Just a horrid movie with no redeeming features.

[Captain Seafort]

Just a horrid movie with no redeeming features.

I wouldn't go that far - Geordi watching the sunrise is one of the great moments of Star Trek, let alone TNG.

[Mikey]

Indeed, the film had some redeeming features; and further, Katefan, your premise isn't entirely accurate. The Ba'ku never claimed to have rejected machinery. As we all know, wheels, ramps, levers, and pulleys are all machines. They said they had rejected modern (from a late 24th-cent. POV) technology. Even a modern Amish man in Pennsyltucky uses machines, he just doesn't use the latest technology. You may decide to gloss over the difference for the sake of making your argument, but the difference is still clearly extant.

[SolkaTruesilver]

Indeed, the film had some redeeming features; and further, Katefan, your premise isn't entirely accurate. The Ba'ku never claimed to have rejected machinery. As we all know, wheels, ramps, levers, and pulleys are all machines. They said they had rejected modern (from a late 24th-cent. POV) technology. Even a modern Amish man in Pennsyltucky uses machines, he just doesn't use the latest technology. You may decide to gloss over the difference for the sake of making your argument, but the difference is still clearly extant.

I am wondering, where do they draw the line? How do they decide what's acceptable, what isn't?

In the 2200s, will they be starting to accept 19th century tech?

[Captain Seafort]

The Ba'ku never claimed to have rejected machinery.

Yes they did. "We believe when you create a machine to do the work of a man, you take something away from the man." Nothing about modern technology specifically, simply a generic statement about "machines". Typically idiotic and hypocritical luddites.

[Mikey]

COnsidering their obvious use of things like wheels and axles, etc., it's pretty clear that the reference you cited was to advanced machinery, i.e. modern technology.

[Captain Seafort]

Define modern. Warp drive? Nuclear reactors? Steam engines? Water wheels?

Besides which, the statement was absolute, and applies to wheel and axles as much as warp drive. As the exchange goes:

Two men were watching a mechanical digger digging a trench
"If it wasn't for that digger, twelve men with shovels could be doing that job."
"Yes, and if weren't for your twelve shovels, two hundred men with teaspoons could be doing the job."

[Tsukiyumi]

Two men were watching a mechanical digger digging a trench
"If it wasn't for that digger, twelve men with shovels could be doing that job."
"Yes, and if weren't for your twelve shovels, two hundred men with teaspoons could be doing the job."

That is an awesome quote.

[Mikey]

And a doughnut without a hole is a danish. Doesn't change matters much. If you and I were having a conversation about how I avoid modern transportation technology, and I then got into my ICE car and drove away, you would know that my comment must refer to some transportation technology subsequent to IC technology. To claim otherwise in this case is merely being obstinate to try and artificially bolster a point.

I'm not the enemy here; if you mean to simply say that INS has plot holes through which Stevie Wonder could pilot a battleship, then I agree. If you mean to further say that the Ba'ku's cultural reversal on their stance on technology is unsupported and seemingly ridiculous, then I'm still on board. If you are going to talk specifically about the fact of that bit of colloquial speech referring to something which is plainly deemed to be understood to be excluded from such a reference, then I will tell you that there is enough about which to pick apart INS than grasping at such a straw.

[mwhittington]

None of the Ba'ku machines I saw in the movie were electrical, they looked like they would be right at home on an Amish farm. Besides, they had 300 yrs. to build their community. And as for their tapestries and crafts, again they have a very long time to master their skills. Picard mentioned the craftsmanship in a particular weaving was extraordinary, to which Whats-her-name replied it was the work of students, and the students would take their place among the artisans in another 40 yrs.

[Captain Seafort]

If you and I were having a conversation about how I avoid modern transportation technology, and I then got into my ICE car and drove away, you would know that my comment must refer to some transportation technology subsequent to IC technology.

No, I'd simply consider you a hypocrite, just as I consider the Baku hypocrites.

If you are going to talk specifically about the fact of that bit of colloquial speech referring to something which is plainly deemed to be understood to be excluded from such a reference

It's a pretty absolute statement. I interpret it as simple hypocrisy: they'll use technology whenever they consider it too inconvenient not to, but they'll continue pedalling their luddite drivel.

[SolkaTruesilver]

If you are going to talk specifically about the fact of that bit of colloquial speech referring to something which is plainly deemed to be understood to be excluded from such a reference

It's a pretty absolute statement. I interpret it as simple hypocrisy: they'll use technology whenever they consider it too inconvenient not to, but they'll continue pedalling their luddite drivel.

Well, if the quote is "we reject technologies", it could be interpreted as "any technologies" or "some technologies".

If they say "any technology", it's darn absolute. If they say "modern technologies", it's pretty relative.

Which one was it?

[Captain Seafort]

They said exactly what I said they said.

[SolkaTruesilver]

Nothing else? Eh. Then it's one big crappy generic statement aimed at sounding stupidly idealistic. Kinda like some of Star Trek's gospel when you think about it.