Where to Start With Star Trek, Part Two: The Movies

My first real foray into Star Trek was watching the movies. My dad used to watch The Next Generation when I was much younger but basically all I remembered from watching some of those episodes with him was the look of the bridge, Geordie’s VISOR and that Captain Picard was played by Sir Patrick Stewart. My entire life I’ve always known about Star Trek through cultural osmosis and the few episodes I watched with my dad but in truth the first bit of Star Trek I actually remember watching is Star Trek V: The Final Frontier. I would watch it about once a year during my teens and as much as I didn’t like the movie over all, I loved some parts of it. Mostly the parts about the crew interacting and how they all seemed a bit too old for the kind of adventure they were having. I wouldn’t see all the other movies until my 20s but once I did, I was more than hooked. For a time I was simply happy to watch and rewatch The Wrath of Khan and First Contact but eventually I wanted more and I watched the rest of the movies, several episodes of The Original Series and finally TNG.

While it might seem unlikely that I eventually became a big fan of the franchise considering my first foray into Star Trek was with the second worst movie, I think it served as a good introduction. The reason being that Star Trek is the kind of series that, at its best, stands proudly with some of the best science fiction stories in any medium, but, at it’s worse, is absolute drivel that isn’t even worth the virtual ink used to write about it. As such, The Final Frontier isn’t the best place to start out with the franchise as it gives us many of the lows and barely enough good moments to keep you interested in the crew of the Enterprise. It never reaches any highs but it’s apparent, even in such a bad movie, that Star Trek could serve as the vehicle to greater stories.

Out of the five TV series I believe there are two series that could act as good introduction points, TOS and TNG. They both have problems which I stated above but really, it’s often hard to find a better starting point than the two series that so greatly influenced the others that followed. As such, it’s hard to beat TOS or TNG. Certainly, any episode of Star Trek could and certainly has served as a starting point for someone but based on the episode and the person watching it, the results can vary. Certainly I would have preferred a number of episodes from later seasons of TNG instead of the sub-par work found in the first season but, at the end of the day, the first season had the same problems as many other television shows have in their first seasons. In short, the show is finding its footing. I would also be remiss to point out that that tie-in media such as Star Trek comics and novels could have served as introduction to some fans but I wouldn’t recommend starting there, mostly because they often act as sequels of sorts to the various television series. According to me, the best way to introduce new fans to the franchise is with the movies. You might immediately disagree with that because the movies don’t accurately reflect what Star Trek television is about. The movies offer something that the television episodes don’t do often: spectacle. The movies can hook you based solely on their imagery. They’re more likely to impress non-fans or new fans because they’re simpler than the TV series and they offer something more familiar to the potential viewers but, it’s still distinctly Star Trek and that should suffice to get them hooked.

The best Star Trek but is it new
viewer friendly?

Star Trek: The Motion Picture to Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country – Surprisingly Good Introduction:

Older versions of the crew from TOS make for a fascinatingly entertaining subject. I love the pathos and the history the characters (and the actors) bring to the screen. You don’t need to know much about Star Trek to be able to enjoy these movies. That’s even true of The Wrath of Khan which I first saw while still being unaware of the existence of “Space Seed”. You can easily pick up on the details you need to enjoy the movies in the movies themselves, even when they act as sequels to other elements introduced in TOS. They’re surprisingly accessible.

Some of the worst and some of the best Star Trek movies are contained in the six TOS films. I would say that the first movie, The Motion Picture, has a lot of slow moments thanks to the extended and far too long camera sweeps of various starships. It’s starship porn, basically, but there is a good message to the movie and it’s well acted but its glacial pace will likely turn away potential fans. What will likely be appealing to new viewers is that it feels very much like a beginning and that’s exactly what it does because it kicks off the movie version of Star Trek. Certainly the movie makes mentions of a previous history between the main characters but it doesn’t require any actual knowledge of that time. As such it works well as an introduction but the slow moments might put off viewers that want more action and less thinking. Really though, if you’re that put off by this movie you’re probably not cut out to be a Trekkie anyway.

A better movie to start with is Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan but it’s not without its own problems. Newcomers to the franchise might wonder why you’re looking to introduce them to Star Trek with a move that is called Star Trek II. Why not start with the first one? The answer is simple. The Wrath of Khan is nearly unanimously considered the best Star Trek movie and rightfully so. It’s excellent. It can easily be discussed along some of the greatest science fiction movies of all time, regardless of whether or not a conversation includes films that are part of a franchise. This movie, more than any other in the franchise, employs gravitas like it’s nobody’s business. The fight between Kirk and Khan is grounded in the characters’ motivations and their personal beliefs. It’s superbly acted and the characters are given the chance to actually feel emotions on screen. While there is a lot of action it also takes time to establish strong character moments. There isn’t really anything about this movie that gives me reason to complain. I love it unabashedly. It also kicks off an excellent three part movie sequence within the movie franchise and it’s one of the high points of the franchise, in my opinion.

The argument could be made that because The Wrath of Khan is a sequel to the TOS episode titled “Space Seed” that it shouldn’t be used as someone’s first Star Trek viewing experience. I don’t think so at all. There is nothing wrong with starting with the best movie, even if it’s a sequel to an episode. I first watched this movie without the knowledge of “Space Seed” and the movie still works very well. I later took the time to watch “Space Seed” and while that’s a very good episode in its own right, it added depth to the events that take place during The Wrath of Khan. That doesn’t mean that the movie and the episode are dependent of each other. Even if you choose to continue your introduction to Star Trek with the third and fourth films, without taking the time to watch any other movies or episodes in between, an attentive viewer will be able to follow along without any trouble. The powerful story told in the second Star Trek movie is, I believe, one of the best places to start because any way you cut it, the movie grabs you and doesn’t let go. It’s enthralling, majestic and reflective in ways that we rarely get to see on the big screen, especially within a science fiction franchise. It also has a damned good novelization by the great Vonda N. McIntyre.

Star Trek III: The Search for Spock and Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, though very good movies, aren’t new-Trekkie friendly. Not unless you’ve seen The Wrath of Khan, as I briefly mentioned above. These two movies really embrace their roman numerals of III and IV. They are parts of a larger narrative and because they’re not the first part of that larger story they work best when viewed in order, by which I mean after the previous installments. Don’t believe me? The Search for Spock begins by recapping (read: spoiling) the end of The Wrath of Khan. Right out of the gate this movie doesn’t let you ease into the universe of Star Trek and already you’re dealing with continuity. However, if you started with the first and/or second Star Trek movies, I’m confident that the third and fourth movies will help convince to explore even more movies or television episodes.

Please, don't make the same mistake I did.
Stay away from this movie.

I might be the only person in the world that has a bit of a soft spot in their heart for Star Trek V: The Final Frontier. To be blunt, it’s a piece of shit. To be fair, this could still be turned into a good movie but I really don’t see the benefit in trying to do that when you could more easily come up with a better idea for a Star Trek story. While it’s not the absolute worst that Star Trek has to offer (it’s rather sad how true that statement is) it’s far from being an enjoyable film from start to finish. I personally find it difficult to completely dismiss it for reasons stated above but newcomers should absolutely avoid it. This is the kind of movie that could easily turn people away from a franchise and I wouldn’t be surprised to say it has. The few enjoyable moments to be found in this movie simply don’t do much to make it enjoyable in anyway. It shouldn’t just be avoided by people who are new to Star Trek but it should be intentionally skipped when watching the TOS movies. Do not take my introduction to this post as indication that this is a good movie. It’s not. I only rewatch it occasionally because of nostalgia or because I’m too dumb to follow my own advice.

The sixth and final TOS movie, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, is yet another good movie. It’s also yet another poor place to start your exploration of the franchise, mostly because of the heavy reliance of Klingons as a main story element. That’s not a bad thing for the movie or for Trekkies. I quite like this movie because it makes good use of Klingons (and Shakespeare) but being good isn’t enough to attract or impress new viewers. Not only would I not recommend starting with this movie without watching previous TOS movies, I would also not recommend watching it unless you’ve seen some of the Klingon-centric episodes of TNG. By the time The Undiscovered Country was released, TNG was in its fourth year on the air and some of the elements introduced or further developed in the TV series developed the franchise’s canonical information regarding Klingons beyond what was established in TOS (both the TV series and the movies). That matters because The Undiscovered Country is basically a political thriller with Klingons as main characters. It’s easy to become acquainted with the crew of the Enterprise but Klingons are more of an acquired taste. I find it hard to believe that people who do not like Klingon like this movie. I find it even harder to believe that people who haven’t seen at least a few Klingon-centric episodes of TOS or, preferably, TNG are able to like Klingons. Stay away from this movie when first discovering the greatness of Star Trek. If you’re starting with the other TOS movies make sure to circle back to this one once you’ve familiarized yourself with Klingons and their culture.

Star Trek: Generations to Star Trek: Nemesis – A Mix Bag, But Could Be Effective:

Star Trek: Generations isn’t a terrible movie but it’s not much better. In essence, Generations is fan service which often doesn’t amount to much aside from surface pleasures. The whole point of this movie is to have a passing of the torch between both captains of the Enterprise, Kirk and Picard. It acts as a movie that is unsuccessful and unnecessary at bridging the TOS movies and the TNG movies. In addition to the multiple problems that already plague this movie, the idea of having two series of the franchise come together in one film isn’t something that would appeal to new fans. Consider also that the whole idea of Star Trek is poorly communicated in this movie you have something that you really should keep away from until you’re more familiar with TOS and TNG. It’s hard enough for me to find things to enjoy about this movie that the idea of initiating a non-Trekkie to Generations sounds like a sure way of steering them clear of the franchise for the rest of their life.

Thankfully the second TNG movie, Star Trek: First Contact, is a much better place to start exploring the franchise. The reason why this is a good starting is very simple. It, like Wrath of Khan, is so good in and of itself it will undoubtedly act as an irresistible hook for potential fans. On most days I would consider First Contact to be the second best Star Trek movie. The score by Jerry Goldsmith and his son Joel Goldsmith is enough to make me want to watch the movie. Add to that a strong story, excellent execution and stellar performances by most of the cast and it’s easy to see why it could work so well for newcomers. The only thing really holding this one back, again much like The Wrath of Khan, is that the primary conflict is the result of episodes form the TNG TV series. Specifically, the two part episode “The Best of Both Worlds”.

That leads us to what I think is the best movie for attracting potential Star Trek fans. A couple weeks I wrote about Star Trek: Insurrection at length. In order to avoid repeating myself, I’d suggest you take a read when you’re done with this post. The simplest reason that I consider Insurrection to be the best Star Trek movie to begin with is that of all (so far) twelve instalments in the franchise, it’s the most representative of the entire franchise. It uses humour, character moments, an interesting science fiction idea and uses them all to develop a Star Trek adventure that also has time to linger on fascinating thematic elements. It also has its fair share of action sequences though it’s by no means the most action pact movie. A lot of people have criticized this movie but I personally like it. It’s essentially an extra-long episode with high production values which gives it more spectacle than most television episodes. To top it all off, there isn’t really any need for prior knowledge of TNG specifically or Star Trek as a whole. I might just be a better starting place that most of the TV series as well. It’s incredibly new viewer friend and I can’t recommend it highly enough for being unabashedly Star Trek in its story and its execution.

The Last TNG movie and the last movie in the originally movie series, Star Trek: Nemesis has few if any redeeming qualities. The above list can be boiled down to the idea that the good Star Trek movies will generally serve as good entry points for potential Trekkies and bad movies are best left unwatched or saved for later. The exception to that rule are Star Trek III: The Search for Spock and Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home because of their story closely follows the events of The Wrath of Khan. Still, if someone was to watch them before watching any other Star Trek, I’m sure they’d be entertained and curious to learn more about the franchise. I can’t say the same thing about Nemesis and the rest of the bad Star Trek movies. Nemesis is infamous for putting an end to the movie series due to being a terrible movie. The main problem for new fans isn’t that this story depends on the preceding movies and seven seasons of TNG. More so, it’s that it doesn’t really do anything with that series’ history and it tries to create, out of thin air, a villain worthy of the Enterprise and its crew. There are many reasons why this movie garnered the smallest box office returns of any Star Trek movie and starting your exploration of the franchise here is equal to a warp core failure.

Star Trek (2009) and Star Trek Into Darkness (2013) – Flashy Star Trek with Little Thought:

The best thing that can be said about the rebooted Star Trek movies is that they’ve brought the franchise back into the public’s consciousness after the end of the less than stellar Enterprise series. The problem is that Star Trek (2009) and Into Darkness, more than any of the other movies, are poor examples of what Star Trek is really about. It lacks the inherent optimism of the franchise and the characters are exaggerated characters of the TOS crew. They’re not different but they’re warped to the extent of being unrecognizable as the same characters. They’re caricatures of the TOS incarnations of the characters. Action and unnecessary melodramatic additions dilute the powerful themes that the series often had. It focuses on flash over substance but I would be remiss to ignore that Star Trek (2009) helped to make the series exciting again.

There was one other good aspect about the movies and it’s that they established their continuity in an alternate universe, allowing the rest of the franchise to continue existing without any canonical conflict. While the idea of canon isn’t supremely important to me, it often is to many fans of any given franchise. Interestingly, this idea opened up the franchise to tell unique stories without being limited by roughly 45 years of Star Trek presence. They had to go fuck it all up by rehashing and ruining one of the best TOS movie by making Into Darkness. The lack of originality and the poor handling of the story were bad enough but the movie seems to go out of its way to insult the audience’s intelligence and destroy the main premise of the franchise: exploration on a starship. The movie does this by increasing the capabilities of transporters which allows some of the characters to teleport huge distances, including from one planet to another. Interestingly enough, it’s an idea that Roddenberry considered for TNG. I’m extremely pleased that it was eventually abandoned for the show but to have the idea resurface in the movie is unfortunate as it proved just how bad an idea it is. It should have stayed buried with only a hope of being found by Trekkie trivia junkies.

There you have it, my recommendations on the best entry points for new fans or aspiring Star Trek fans. Even though we live in a time where binge watching television is common practice I’ve suggested ways to speed up your viewing of some of the series in order to put you or your friends on a fast track to some of the best that the series has to offer. Truly though, if you’re interested in the series you can basically start anywhere and the franchise will eventually take shape in your head but I wanted to offer something that present the best possible way to fall in love with one of the most beloved franchise of them all.

Do you think thing I missed something? Chime in the comments if you know of a better introduction point to Star Trek that I didn’t mention above.

Star Trek: Insurrection (1998): Odd(-numbered), but Good

There are many thoughts about the Star Trek movies floating around online. Many people will tell you that the movies that are numbered with even numbers are the best (Wrath of Khan, The Voyage Home, The Undiscovered Country, First Contact). Star Trek: Nemesis is usually excluded from this rule and if we’re sticking to it, I would also include Intro Darkness (it being the twelfth installment) as an exception since it is utter shit. I’ve never been a big fan of that theory, not only because it’s a gross generalization but also because there are too many exceptions. It also leaves out The Motion Picture, Generations and Insurrection. While those three movies have their issues I consider them to be good movies. At the very least, they occupy the space between the better movies and the worst movies on the quality measuring stick.

Regular contributor at Tor.com, Ryan Britt, presents his own theory in his article “Forget Odds Vs. Evens: Bad Star Trek Can Be Detected By Their Subtitles”. In his interesting article, he posits that all Star Trek movies are problematic to a degree and that they don’t compare favourably against their televised counterparts on the small screen. He then offers his own explanation as to why we continue to have Star Trek movies and asks what they should be about? “The answer is: they should be about something specific.” His proceeds to write about each movie in turn passing judgement on vague titles and praising those that dared be accurate. It’s a fun take on the idea on the categorization methods of Star Trek movies based on their quality.

Those are just two of the many theories out there. While researching a bit online I found a page at TV Tropes titled “Star Trek Movie Curse” which list several other ways that people have figured out to categorize the good Star Trek movies from the bad. The most interesting one here states that any movie that has a main character singing is a bad one. That’s kind of ridiculous, isn’t it? Still, it made me chuckle that someone not only pointed it out the pattern but argued that it is a legitimate way to distinguish good movies from the bad.

Aside from being fun conversation starters, I find these classifications of Star Trek movies to be pretty useless. I’d go so far as to say they focus they steer the conversation towards the bad movies or, more generally, the negative aspects of the franchise. When I think of Star Trek I think about the good, I celebrate it and I try to convert some of my friends to the world of Star Trek fandom. I do this simply because I like Star Trek and I think it’s a better investment of my time than nitpicking every little thing I don’t like about the nearly 50 year old franchise. When people tell me that there is only one good The Next Generation movie or that Star Trek: Insurrection is an atrocious movie without telling me why; I can’t help but feel defensive. It’s actually quite good. It’s not only the second best TNG movie, it’s better than some of The Original Series movies.

The plot of the movie is actually quite simple. The crew of the Enterprise-E uncover a suspicious alliance between the Federation and an alien group called the Son’a. They are observing a peaceful people call the Ba’ku. Captain Jean-Luc Picard and his crew are initially asked to intervene in a secret mission after Lieutenant Commander Data malfunctions. Upon further investigation it is discovered that the Son’a and Admiral Matthew Dougherty are planning to deport all 600 Ba’ku in order to populate their homeworld. Due to radiation from the planet’s rings, the Ba’ku people become for all intents and purposes immortal after becoming permanent residents of the planet. It is because of the promise of immortality that the Son’a and Admiral Dougherty want to take control of the planet. Picard and his crew become the only line of defence for the Ba’ku and for preserving the moral integrity of the United Federation of Planets.

More than any other Star Trek movie, Insurrection has oft been criticized for too closely resembling an episode of the TV series on which the movies are based. I’ve always found this to be an odd accusation as I believe it’s that resemblance to TNG that makes this such an enjoyable movie.

One of the main contributing factors to this movie being structured more like a long television episode rather than a summer blockbuster is that significant members of the production crew also worked extensively on TNG during its run. Jonathan Frakes who, aside from portraying Commander Riker, also directed such episodes as “The Offspring”, “Reunion”, and “Cause and Effect”. He also directed the spectacular eight film Star Trek: First Contact. His inclusion in the director’s chair likely had an impact on the inclusion of humour and the smaller character moments in the movie. Two other important crew members include producer Rick Berman who work as executive producer not only on TNG but also for Deep Space Nine and Voyager and many of the movies. With Insurrection scriptwriter and showrunner for TNG, Michael Piller, writes his first Star Trek movie script based on a story idea he had with Berman. Piller even had help from Ira Steven Behr on the first draft of the script. Behr is yet another important figure of Star Trek television as he served as executive producer, showrunner and scriptwriter for Deep Space Nine. It’s hard to argue that the difference in tone between this movie and most of the other Star Trek movies has nothing to do with the above mentioned crewmembers.  

While I disagree that Insurrection lacks scope, the comments that it resembles a long episode of TNG are valid. I personally don’t see anything wrong with that. How many episode of Star Trek have fallen flat because of a lack of breathing room or because of unsatisfactory or low-budget special effects? It’s a joy for fans to have a movie that doesn’t take itself too seriously and that doesn’t try to make Star Trek fit the blockbuster movie formula. There are several elements from TNG runs on the small screen that are included in this film, not least of them humour and (how dare they?) an intellectually stimulating plot with the added bonus of themes. I can’t forget to mention that the characters themselves are equally important to the movie’s overall enjoyable tone. They’re not simply cookie-cutter action heroes at play.

There are many elements that make Insurrection work and one of them is that it actually takes the time to focus on characters. For the most part it’s allowing them to be affected by the advancement of the plot and other times it’s simply to let them be, well, characters. This is done by showing off their unique attributes and letting them interact with each other. It works well for this kind of movie based on a long-running TV series.

After eight Star Trek movies and hundreds of episodes it might not seem like a big deal but TNG has a large cast. While the movies and episodes tend to focus on a few characters more than others it’s important to actually take stock of just how many main characters headline this movie. Just looking at the Enterprise’s officers this movie already has an ensemble cast. Throw in important Ba’ku characters and couple of villains and it almost feels bloated. Not every main character appeared in every single TNG episode and while it works well for television to have certain characters highlighted in individual-centric episode, it would be a disappointment to exclude a main crewmember. It doesn’t truly matter if their time in the spotlight is a crucial part of the plot, what’s important is that they get some screen time. There have been many episodes that felt rushed or weren’t able to play with certain ideas in a satisfying way. Insurrection has room to breathe and it’s welcoming to see the cast and the crew take advantage of that.

I particularly like seeing that the workaholic crewmembers occasionally let loose and have a good time, mostly because it gives the movie a sense of realism (who doesn’t goof off at work, even occasionally?) and infuses it with humour. It doesn’t all work well. Worf in particular kind of gets the short end of the stick and so does Dr. Crusher with her boob humour but the fact that it’s there is important. Even the tacky moments avoid being gratuitous because it makes sense to have a character like Worf present on the Ba’ku planet. Even if you don’t like the idea of Klingon acne you can at still appreciate the writer’s attempt to show the effects of the Ba’ku planet on different characters, especially those of different physiology.

There are many humorous elements to enjoy in this movie and it’s refreshing to see so many because the TV series was regularly infused with humour. The quality of that humour is another issue altogether but it was part of the show’s bread and butter. Just to name a few, this movie includes jokes regarding Worf’s regression to adolescence, the rise of Picard’s libido, Troi and Riker’s flirtation. Certainly, your mileage may vary based on your sense of humour but I appreciate the effort to bring some levity to the movie as it not only prevents it from being taken too seriously but it’s indicative of its lack of concern for being perceived as edgy or badass. If there is one unattractive feature to long-lasting franchises it’s an identity crisis and Star Trek has certainly had its fair share. Luckily, Insurrection avoids it for the most part by sticking to its television roots and using many recurring and important elements of TNG.

In short, these characters are truly unique. They’re not the same characters wearing different coloured uniforms and performing the same tasks. They have different insight into the world. It makes sense that Data and Picard are those that are most affected by the Ba’ku; Data because of his wide-eyes curiosity and Picard for his romanticism and staunch moral values. That’s not to say the other characters aren’t affected by the events and the movie justifiably shows that.

Another reason some people don’t like the film is that the villain feels underwhelming. That’s a silly criticism for Star Trek. Even if Insurrection has long been mistaken as a blockbuster film, Star Trek has never solely been a villain-of-the-week kind of television show. It could more accurately be described as the-strange-happening-of-the-week or even the-encounter-of-the-week. That makes sense considering the show’s initial precise of exploration, research and discovery. The problem is that when you transpose that to the big screen, there is a sense of obligation to also introduce a major villain in each film. This is particularly true of all Star Trek films following The Wrath of Khan. I would hope that after seeing the tenth film, Star Trek: Nemesis, that fans would have given Insurrection a bit more slack on this point but negative comments towards Ahdar Ru’afo (played by F. Murray Abraham) have persisted.

The thing about Star Trek is that the antagonisms in its stories can be a wide range of things. Evil individuals are but one of many other options. As it’s often been the case during TNG’s television run, the crew of the Enterprise are battling against an action that has immediate consequences for a specific group but that same action could lead to further consequences for an increasingly large population of the planet or even the galaxy.

Some problems are too complex to simply be tossed aside and Insurrection gives us at least two very good antagonists for Picard and his officers. The first, of course, is the leader of the Son’a, Ru’afo, and the second is corruption within the organization of the Federation. The movie’s true villains aren’t individuals; they just act as figureheads to more abstract ideals that cause the characters and the viewers to think about the causality of our actions and the difficulties of dealing with other species and cultures. One of Star Trek’s biggest strengths is to entertain while also stimulating intellectual discussions. It’s because of that reason, more than any other, that I consider Star Trek: Insurrection to be a good film.

After two large-scale stories, Insurrection provides an equally interesting story but the conflict is moral and immediate instead of physical and temporal like the previous two TNG movies. Insurrection actually spends most of its time in service of story and the development of thematic elements that feel true to the characters of TNG as well as Star Trek as a whole. The movie swerves into the territory of generic blockbusters toward the end but the rest of the movie makes up for it by focusing on story rather than the size of its explosions.

Some of the themes include aging, eternal live, the value of life and the importance of stopping to smell the roses. All of these themes are very relative today and will likely endure as our culture seems to continue celebrating the successes of youth while ignoring the contributions of our elders. Technological advancements have made it so that we’re constantly bombarded with information and we’ve become increasingly preoccupied with quantity instead of quality. Thanks to the internet we experience a much wider variety of things but we do so only on the surface by acquiring information in summarized or condensed forms instead of fully experiencing the originals. We’re attracted by things that are new and we forget about everything that occurred even days prior. It’s not just our entertainment, we’ve become a culture of consumers and our interests lie in information gathering, not in acquiring experience, understanding or appreciation for the world around us. It’s also true of how we deal with people.

There is also a theme of technophobia. One of the differences between the Ba’ku and the Son’a is that the Ba’ku have relinquished their dependences on technology while the Son’a has grown increasingly dependent on it. Throw in the Federation and their use of technology and the commentary you can take from it is that the Federation more closely resembles the Son’a which makes me think that Admiral Dougherty’s alliance with them isn’t coincidental. Technology, in this case, can be seen as the harbinger of the erosion of values and the degradation of interpersonal relationships.

Ba’ku and Son’a have the same origins but there are differences in the way they act and the lessons that they’re taught. The result is the development of two very distinct cultures. Sure, it’s a little heavy-handed but it gets the message across. More importantly, Michael Piller remembers that this is a Star Trek movie and so he takes the theme of technophobia and makes it a positive one. It’s nurture, not nature that makes the Ba’ku and their way of life so enticing and attractive. Certainly their incredibly long  life span helped them achieve their peaceful existence but they still achieved inner peace and understanding on their own. Even after relinquishing their daily use of technology they are discovered that there are many lessons to be learned and anyone can do it, all we need is a little patience, a desire to learn and the ability to listen to our surroundings. This is clearly demonstrated during Picard’s time on the planet. More

Regardless of whether or not you agree with any of the various Star Trek movies curses or generalizations, one thing is clear. It’s kind of a bad habit to frequently discuss one or more of the movie curses. It’s a bad habit I hope will eventually fall by the wayside as fandom steps up and starts looking at the movies based on their individual merits instead of dismissing them because of their subtitles, numbering or the inclusion of a singing cast member. You might disagree with me that Insurrection is a good movie and that’s fine, as long as you don’t start telling me it’s impossible for it to be a good movie because it’s the ninth instalment in the franchise and that it’s numbering equates it to a bad movie. Give me something less vague, something that shows you’ve actually put some thought into it and that you’re not just repeating the tired and uninformative Odds vs. Evens classification. I’m starting to sound grumpier and more serious than I want to but I still sound less ridiculous than fans who are adamant about telling me The Search for Spock is a terrible movie “because the curse”! At least Ryan Britt is having fun in his article and doesn’t take himself too seriously.

I concede to defending only one of the bad Star Trek movies in this article but I think I make my point clear by defending it without employing either an established Star Trek movie classification or introducing a new one. For me, Star Trek: Insurrection will always be a good movie. It might not be the best but the good far outweighs the bad and that’s all I need from the humble instalment in the Star Trek franchise. Ok, I’m stepping off my soapbox.