Love Yeoh, but I don't want yet ANOTHER, dark/gritty Trek.
Torchwood, as much as I love Captain Jack/John Barrowman (*does the "CALL ME!" hand gesture*), I did not like the grungy TW series, nor the 2006-2010 Dr. Who stuff.
Section 31 is far more damaging to Star Trek than anything written by the creators of Star Trek: Enterprise or Star Trek: Discovery, despite hyperbolic claims to the contrary. Section 31 needs to die in a fire.
Section 31 was created by Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Executive Producer Ira Steven Behr:
Why is Earth a paradise in the twenty-fourth century? Well, maybe it's because there's someone watching over it and doing the nasty stuff that no one wants to think about. Of course it's a very complicated issue. Extremely complicated. And those kinds of covert operations usually are wrong!
See, the people behind the show just could not fathom that the Federation got where they were by hard work and sticking to principles; someone, somewhere just HAD to be extorting, enslaving, torturing and murdering those who opposed the Federation in order for it to exist.
So, Section 31 had existed since the beginning of Starfleet, it was autonomous, having operated for over two centuries with no oversight or accountability whatsoever, even free to kill those it deemed a threat to Federation interests at its own discretion. (DS9: "When It Rains...") Some high-ranking Starfleet admirals and intelligence personnel at times seemed to be vaguely aware that Section 31 existed, though giving them only very broad objectives. (DS9: "Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges") At other times, Section 31 appeared to be an outright puppet master to Starfleet, directing the actions and even overall political policies of the Federation itself. (DS9: "Extreme Measures")
In a nutshell, Section 31 knew far ahead of time if something was going to be a "threat" to the Federation. If they deemed the threat "serious enough", Section 31 would manipulate the situation or intervene directly. That means every time you see Kirk or Picard or Archer engaging in diplomacy, it was because Section 31 either manipulated the situation or felt that the situation "was not a serious threat to the Federation". Most of the achievements of our favorite characters are severely undermined by the existence of Section 31.
The idea that there's a rogue element within the Federation doing dark deeds outside the normal chain of command is certainly a provocative one, I'll grant you, but does it really throw into question 'on a fundamental level...the principled Federation we have known...'? Not yet it doesn't...It's a little early to declare the death of the UFP, folks.
And yet, what Mr Moore fails to realize is that Section 31 has such a broad scope, such poorly defined boundaries that it undermines everything. The concept itself is so incredibly junvenile; hard work and ethics are boring, so let's throw those out the window and create a nebulous, all-powerful organization that peers into every facet of the Federation and does "whatever they deem necessary" to continue the Federation; all the while making a mockery of it's supposed "values and ethics".
One way to look at Star Trek from a metafictional POV is that the reason the story focuses on this ship/space station is that it's one of the most interesting in the Federation. For example, Kirk's 5 year mission, he was the ONLY captain doing that at that time. The others had different objectives.
By the time of TNG/DS9/VOY Starfleet has like 30,000 ships. They can't ALL be doing something else.
Assume the size of the Federation as given in First Contact is correct - that is, the Federation is 8000 lightyears across. That is, admittedly, only a tiny slice of the entire galaxy (some 100,000 ly in diameter, with a thickness ranging from 16,000 ly at the core to basically nothing as you reach the halo), but it's still quite a swath of space. Now, we know that the region it's centered on is around our part of the galaxy, so we can assume it's about 3000 ly thick there. Getting a volume on this is only going to be approximation, of course, because to the best of my knowledge nobody's ever done a 3D projection of the shape of Federation space, but a Fermi approximation will suffice for this discussion, so let's say it's a cylinder with a radius of 4000 ly and a height of 3000.
Using the formula V=pi*r^2*h, we get a value of 1.51*10^11, or some 151 billion cubic light years. A mere thirty thousand ships would be hard-pressed to keep all that policed, particularly given that only a few of them are those huge Galaxy-class warp-drive starbases. The majority of them would be more akin to workhorses like the old Mirandas or antique Excelsiors, or the Kestrel from brian334's stories.
tl;dr - Yes, they can indeed "ALL be doing something else".
Sticking to principles is not the solution to every problem the Federation comes up against.
Yes, it is.
Doing the right thing is hard. That is what makes the Federation inspiring and somewhat unique; outside of the admirals (who are all insane and evil, for some reason). Most of humanity decided to stop being selfish and work together to make their wold, and the universe a better place. That is hard. Their technology progressed to the point that they did not need to fight over resources.
War is sometimes inevitable. Conflict is sometimes necessary; if you have something of value, there is going to be someone else who wants to take it from you. The Federation's greatest strength is it's diversity. All those different individuals from different cultures and ideologies that have developed a means of communication could certainly come up with an answer to nearly any problem that did not involve extortion, slavery, torture or assassination. Technology and communication can overcome any problem, either through diplomacy or direct conflict. The idea that the Federation MUST slaughter civilians, MUST wipe out indigenous populations, MUST lie or extort their foes is anathema to it's entire existence. The Federation is flat out BETTER than that, and has the resources to BE better. That is the point. It's why Star Trek is a niche within a niche; other science fiction universes refuse to acknowledge the possibility of what the Federation represents or what it can achieve.
The writers of the show itself often fail to recognize it's potential. They just go with "meh... Kirk/Picard/Sisko/Archer are only awesome because the Space Illuminati let them".
No, it isn't, and canon proves you wrong. Watch episodes like "In the Pale Moonlight" again.
You are right. Superman had no other choice but to kill Zod. It was so satisfying to see Superman murder someone. Didn't feel good to see him do that? He needs to do that more often because it's more realistic.
This entire episode is framed that way. Sisko had no choice because the writers gave him NO CHOICE. Funny how that works, and does not, in any way, dispute my point. It's like how Burnham had no choice but to mutiny because her captain simply would not trust her first officer.
In a sense, you are correct in that doing the right thing is hard. However, it is important to note here that the right thing is not always the moral thing to do and sometimes our favorite heroes need to go against every principal they have in order to save the Federation.
There is nothing satisfying watching our heroes do terrible things, especially in Star Trek. Wave your "it's canon!" flag all you want; it's a terrible story written by people who want to show the Federation is a hollow lie, that it only exists because when things are tough, the Federation MUST sacrifice it's principles and it's identity; because those principles are lies. All it does is hammer home how the Federation has no value and is nothing good, great or special.
Lol, Superman has killed Zod every time he fights him. He killed him in Superman II (took away his powers and dropped him in the Artic ocean beneath the fortress), he executed him with kryptonite in the comics one time, and on several other occassions killed him in other ways. People who complain about that know very little about the character.
Does it feel good to see Superman kill someone?
That is the point, regardless of how many times Supes has murdered.
My headcanon had been that "Section 31" was a separate organization, funded by certain politicians and wealthy patrons, that liked to pretend it was the successor to a previous black-ops group.
Whether that headcanon holds up will depend on what happens with the new show, of course.
That was my head canon as well, but giving what we saw on Discovery and in that "Deleted Scene", it seems unlikely that is where they are going.
However, that doesn't mean that they can't write a show about the dangers of this black ops "win at all cost" approach.
I am not sure the writers can pull it off, or are even interested in doing it that way, but you never know.
Personally, I think if one wants to make a Star Trek show about Section 31, it should include a major Section 31 TRIBBLE-up where a more principled stance or some oversight would have perhaps avoided the worst fallout.
(Star Trek Online is actually doing that, but probably unintentional - How many Federation ships get needlessly destroyed because Drake needs a distraction for your Klingon character? That is definitely a major Section 31 TRIBBLE-up, and Drake should stick his smug sense of superiority where the sun doesn't shine.)
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
You are right. Superman had no other choice but to kill Zod.
He had no other choice because we were watching Superman's very first adventure. The older Kal-El would have found a way to subdue Zod nonlethally, but at this stage of his career, young Clark only knew that if he didn't do something, fast, an entire family was going to be killed. He did what had to be done. And sometimes, there is no "satisfying" conclusion.
"In the Pale Moonlight" - Sisko had tried every other option to get the Romulans on board. Their cooperation was necessary, or the Federation would quickly cease to exist. So he asked Garak to help, knowing even as he did so that Garak would almost certainly do something horrible, because Cardassian mores are a bit more... flexible on such matters.
I recommend an old Heinlein story, "Solution Unsatisfactory". Ignore the fact that the physics were wrong even for the time, just assume the dust weapon would work exactly as advertised. Robert Heinlein, the first Nebula Grand Master of Science Fiction, couldn't find an ending to the story that felt "good", hence the title. Think you can do better?
Sometimes, life presents us with problems whose solution doesn't spark joy. You can't just Kondo all of them.
However, its hard because doing the RIGHT thing often time involves going past your principles and ideals to do things that you otherwise wouldn't. The universe isn't built on ideals and principles, its built on facts and reality. And while ideals and principles are good for general action, there are just some situations where you have to realize the rules don't work for.
This was a thing in Trek long before Section 31 came into being. Almost every single episode involving the Prime directive resulting in the crew breaking the Prime Directive to help a primitive species because they came to the conclusion that it was the right thing to do.
PRetty much. The prime directive, to me, only works on paper.
> @smokebailey said: > Love Yeoh, but I don't want yet ANOTHER, dark/gritty Trek. > > Torchwood, as much as I love Captain Jack/John Barrowman (*does the "CALL ME!" hand gesture*), I did not like the grungy TW series, nor the 2006-2010 Dr. Who stuff.
I think the compromise is that Discovery will get a lot less gritty from now on. In fact I think that is why this show is being made in the first place, to split off the gritty stuff from Discovery and other star trek shows, for those fans who actually like the gritty stuff. Its a reasonable compronise, alot of the gritty, dark stuff is going to be kept to a plot required minium in future seasons of Discovery, Picard, Lower Decks, Short Treks, and kids star trek cartoon.
In exchange Section 31 will be gritty, dark, and adult, maybe even out right depraved hopefully.
See each of these star treks have either own sort of audience and job to do.
Lower Decks will likely be a kind of King of the Hill working class cartoon humour type show, targeted at adults, but something you could watch with your family.
Short Treks are like Dust, but whose job is to fill in the blanks, and do odd jobs, and tell shorter, but fun stories. Maybe in the future test for interest in new star trek series.
Discovery is going to evovle into something more like TNG/Voyager/TOS, but with a dark past.
Picard series is going to be a major Political Drama, the context and set up for it makes that clear.
If they still do the Khan thing its the miniseries.
The newly announced kids cartoon is clearly what it says on the tin, and its job is to make future trekkies, which is a great idea.
Starfleet Academies job is simular, but for teens and young adults, although if the plot is good enough and the female characters hot enough it will pull in older viewers as well.
Section 31 on the other hand is for fans for darker, grittier shows, who want to see the dark underbelly of the star trek universe. Think Game of Thrones, meets 24, meets james bond, meets cannibal space hilter. I'm actually looking forward to it, I also like that its seperate from the rest of the Star Trek series, so that it won't interfer with the rest of them.
Its actually a smart plan, not everything will be for everyone but there will be at least something or multiple somethings for most people. And there is still room to grow.
Oh and I forgot, even though Picard is being shot in LA, I'm betting Section 31 will be shot in Toronto like Discovery and Short Treks, because unlike Picard its a spin off of Discovery, plus Patrick Stewart didn't want to move from LA.
> @lordgyor said: > Oh and I forgot, even though Picard is being shot in LA, I'm betting Section 31 will be shot in Toronto like Discovery and Short Treks, because unlike Picard its a spin off of Discovery, plus Patrick Stewart didn't want to move from LA.
I mean they will want to share resources between all three shows to miniumize costs. Plus Canada is VERY invested in the Success of TRIBBLE and it's spin offs.
> @starkaos said: > lordgyor wrote: » > > > artan42 said: > > I don't get the point. What's the reason behind a whole series on Section 31? 'Kinda makes them somewhat less secret. A series on Starfleet Intelligence, why not? But not S31. > > > > Also the Emperor is a cannibalistic space Naz.i. Lorca was at least redeemable. The Emperor is not. > > Yeah I know, they gave cannibalistic space hilter her own show. Its so twisted it funny. What were they thinking. I'll watch it anyways. > > > > > We have never seen Empress Georgiou eat another human so while she is space hilter and has completely disgusting eating habits, she is not a cannibal. At least, Empress Georgiou is not as disgusting as humans from the 31st Century.
Georgiou likely won't be the only character on the show, and honestly Game of Thrones is filled with D-Bags, like seriously after the Jeffery pin cushioned with crossbow bolts the only likable and relatable character on the show I was rooting for the White Walkers. But its crazy popular anyways. There are other examples.
Section 31 is far more damaging to Star Trek than anything written by the creators of Star Trek: Enterprise or Star Trek: Discovery, despite hyperbolic claims to the contrary. Section 31 needs to die in a fire.
Section 31 was created by Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Executive Producer Ira Steven Behr:
Why is Earth a paradise in the twenty-fourth century? Well, maybe it's because there's someone watching over it and doing the nasty stuff that no one wants to think about. Of course it's a very complicated issue. Extremely complicated. And those kinds of covert operations usually are wrong!
See, the people behind the show just could not fathom that the Federation got where they were by hard work and sticking to principles; someone, somewhere just HAD to be extorting, enslaving, torturing and murdering those who opposed the Federation in order for it to exist.
So, Section 31 had existed since the beginning of Starfleet, it was autonomous, having operated for over two centuries with no oversight or accountability whatsoever, even free to kill those it deemed a threat to Federation interests at its own discretion. (DS9: "When It Rains...") Some high-ranking Starfleet admirals and intelligence personnel at times seemed to be vaguely aware that Section 31 existed, though giving them only very broad objectives. (DS9: "Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges") At other times, Section 31 appeared to be an outright puppet master to Starfleet, directing the actions and even overall political policies of the Federation itself. (DS9: "Extreme Measures")
In a nutshell, Section 31 knew far ahead of time if something was going to be a "threat" to the Federation. If they deemed the threat "serious enough", Section 31 would manipulate the situation or intervene directly. That means every time you see Kirk or Picard or Archer engaging in diplomacy, it was because Section 31 either manipulated the situation or felt that the situation "was not a serious threat to the Federation". Most of the achievements of our favorite characters are severely undermined by the existence of Section 31.
The idea that there's a rogue element within the Federation doing dark deeds outside the normal chain of command is certainly a provocative one, I'll grant you, but does it really throw into question 'on a fundamental level...the principled Federation we have known...'? Not yet it doesn't...It's a little early to declare the death of the UFP, folks.
And yet, what Mr Moore fails to realize is that Section 31 has such a broad scope, such poorly defined boundaries that it undermines everything. The concept itself is so incredibly junvenile; hard work and ethics are boring, so let's throw those out the window and create a nebulous, all-powerful organization that peers into every facet of the Federation and does "whatever they deem necessary" to continue the Federation; all the while making a mockery of it's supposed "values and ethics".
You know, I think if Ron Moore hadn't rage-quit the franchise because the VOY writers turned out to just be there to draw a paycheck, we might have seen a very different continuation series. The man had already challenged Gene Roddenberry directly to create Starfleet Intelligence to do exactly what Ira Steven Behr was talking about: being idealistic doesn't require you to be willfully blind to the fact that you still have enemies. So he literally just kept adding mentions of Starfleet Intelligence to scripts until they stopped trying to stop him. He knows how to do gritty well, and I think he might have gone for a continuation of the "Section 31 as shadow government" angle as a foe to be overcome. As indeed the tail end of DS9 ultimately did, with the protagonists opposing them, and even achieving peace with the Dominion by thwarting their attempt at genocide.
Alas, VOY sucked, he quit, ENT sucked worse, and here we are.
However, its hard because doing the RIGHT thing often time involves going past your principles and ideals to do things that you otherwise wouldn't. The universe isn't built on ideals and principles, its built on facts and reality. And while ideals and principles are good for general action, there are just some situations where you have to realize the rules don't work for.
This was a thing in Trek long before Section 31 came into being. Almost every single episode involving the Prime directive resulting in the crew breaking the Prime Directive to help a primitive species because they came to the conclusion that it was the right thing to do.
PRetty much. The prime directive, to me, only works on paper.
I disagree. As originally written, the Prime Directive is actually a very good principle: "leave well enough alone" applied to international politics (it's pretty blatantly stated in TOS and TNG to be a reaction to Euro-American colonialism). The problem is when it gets twisted into an excuse to avoid thinking critically about the actual potential harm of intervening in a particular situation, and how such an intervention could be done to minimize collateral damage (or worse, gets used to justify eugenics *cough* Phlox *cough cough*). Hell, in TOS, even Spock said it was "logical" that letting a people know they weren't alone in the universe was preferable to preventable extinction. One thing DSC got very right was to toss all that nonsense out the window in the first episode: Burnham and Georgiou intervene covertly to prevent an extinction event in the prologue.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
My problem with grimdark Trek and with Section 31 in particular is that it shows that we as a species have not evolved.
The whole point of Trek was that humanity could be better. Only, now, we're not. We're going to bring the same stupidity that ruined Earth out into the stars and totally TRIBBLE up any other species' ability to achieve enlightenment.
There is no hopeful future in which mankind tries to become better than what we were. Only one in which the puppet-masters are better at concealing their strings as they manipulate us into repeating the atrocities which defined us all throughout history.
At that point, it's no longer Trek. It's generic Sci-fi. In fact, such stories could be told better in non-Trek settings because they don't carry the baggage of the dream Roddenberry planted in the minds of fans five decades ago.
Writing stories where the hero lives or dies but sticks to his principles is hard. It may also not be popular today, primarily because so many stories seem to center around exposing such characters as hypocrites. Trek has a chance to be different. Only the writers, producers, and owners don't know how to do that. They only know to copy what stands out in the last hit show without ever understanding why those things worked in that show.
The Prime Directive only makes sense for when everything is going smoothly. After all, some races need a good smack to the head to get on the right track without alien interference. I doubt we would have had the Federation in Star Trek if humans didn't suffer from World War III. Any Prime Directive should have certain criteria for it to be ignored like other alien races already TRIBBLE up the planet or imminent destruction to the planet either from an asteroid or a nuclear war. If those situations are not happening, then non-interference is necessary for a race to naturally develop until they want to join the galactic club.
"On Earth there is no crime, no poverty, no war. You look out the window and you see paradise. Well it's easy to be a Saint in paradise."
Even in TOS it is made abundantly clear to us that outside of Earth, humanity still has the same struggles as it always has done. We see mining colonists buying concubines (for lack of a better term), the use of currency, criminal smuggling (Harry Mudd, anyone?), etc. Heck, in TNG Tasha came from a planet which was so fracked up it seceded from the Federation and devolved into a state of gang warfare so intense it makes our failed states look stable by comparison. And that's in the Roddenberry era.
Any Prime Directive should have certain criteria for it to be ignored like other alien races already TRIBBLE up the planet or imminent destruction to the planet either from an asteroid or a nuclear war.
This is actually an exception to the Prime Directive. In TOS, Kirk and Spock are more or less permitted to accelerate the technological development of rural tribespeople on a planet because the Klingons were arming the urban population with flintlocks. Then in TNG, Starfleet is able to blockade the Romulan-Klingon Border to prevent the Romulans getting involved in the Klingon Civil War (the implication being Romulan intervention would justify Federation intervention).
In TOS, the Prime Directive forbade interference in the normal development of a viable pre-space-travel civilization, with the individual starship captains getting pretty wide latitude in determining what exactly is "normal" and "viable". In "The Apple", Kirk got to decide that having a humanoid species kept in constant childhood by an overbearing master computer posing as a god wasn't "viable", nor was the sterile version of war practiced in the Eminiar system. And of course what was happening on Neural wasn't the normal development - technological development on one side of a conflict had been dramatically accelerated by the Klingons already.
It was TNG that turned it into a straitjacket preventing starship captains from taking virtually any action whatsoever, even when such inaction would lead to the preventable extinction of an entire species. Can't say I think much of that version.
Comments
Torchwood, as much as I love Captain Jack/John Barrowman (*does the "CALL ME!" hand gesture*), I did not like the grungy TW series, nor the 2006-2010 Dr. Who stuff.
Section 31 was created by Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Executive Producer Ira Steven Behr:
See, the people behind the show just could not fathom that the Federation got where they were by hard work and sticking to principles; someone, somewhere just HAD to be extorting, enslaving, torturing and murdering those who opposed the Federation in order for it to exist.
So, Section 31 had existed since the beginning of Starfleet, it was autonomous, having operated for over two centuries with no oversight or accountability whatsoever, even free to kill those it deemed a threat to Federation interests at its own discretion. (DS9: "When It Rains...") Some high-ranking Starfleet admirals and intelligence personnel at times seemed to be vaguely aware that Section 31 existed, though giving them only very broad objectives. (DS9: "Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges") At other times, Section 31 appeared to be an outright puppet master to Starfleet, directing the actions and even overall political policies of the Federation itself. (DS9: "Extreme Measures")
In a nutshell, Section 31 knew far ahead of time if something was going to be a "threat" to the Federation. If they deemed the threat "serious enough", Section 31 would manipulate the situation or intervene directly. That means every time you see Kirk or Picard or Archer engaging in diplomacy, it was because Section 31 either manipulated the situation or felt that the situation "was not a serious threat to the Federation". Most of the achievements of our favorite characters are severely undermined by the existence of Section 31.
And yet, what Mr Moore fails to realize is that Section 31 has such a broad scope, such poorly defined boundaries that it undermines everything. The concept itself is so incredibly junvenile; hard work and ethics are boring, so let's throw those out the window and create a nebulous, all-powerful organization that peers into every facet of the Federation and does "whatever they deem necessary" to continue the Federation; all the while making a mockery of it's supposed "values and ethics".
Using the formula V=pi*r^2*h, we get a value of 1.51*10^11, or some 151 billion cubic light years. A mere thirty thousand ships would be hard-pressed to keep all that policed, particularly given that only a few of them are those huge Galaxy-class warp-drive starbases. The majority of them would be more akin to workhorses like the old Mirandas or antique Excelsiors, or the Kestrel from brian334's stories.
tl;dr - Yes, they can indeed "ALL be doing something else".
Doing the right thing is hard. That is what makes the Federation inspiring and somewhat unique; outside of the admirals (who are all insane and evil, for some reason). Most of humanity decided to stop being selfish and work together to make their wold, and the universe a better place. That is hard. Their technology progressed to the point that they did not need to fight over resources.
War is sometimes inevitable. Conflict is sometimes necessary; if you have something of value, there is going to be someone else who wants to take it from you. The Federation's greatest strength is it's diversity. All those different individuals from different cultures and ideologies that have developed a means of communication could certainly come up with an answer to nearly any problem that did not involve extortion, slavery, torture or assassination. Technology and communication can overcome any problem, either through diplomacy or direct conflict. The idea that the Federation MUST slaughter civilians, MUST wipe out indigenous populations, MUST lie or extort their foes is anathema to it's entire existence. The Federation is flat out BETTER than that, and has the resources to BE better. That is the point. It's why Star Trek is a niche within a niche; other science fiction universes refuse to acknowledge the possibility of what the Federation represents or what it can achieve.
The writers of the show itself often fail to recognize it's potential. They just go with "meh... Kirk/Picard/Sisko/Archer are only awesome because the Space Illuminati let them".
This entire episode is framed that way. Sisko had no choice because the writers gave him NO CHOICE. Funny how that works, and does not, in any way, dispute my point. It's like how Burnham had no choice but to mutiny because her captain simply would not trust her first officer.
There is nothing satisfying watching our heroes do terrible things, especially in Star Trek. Wave your "it's canon!" flag all you want; it's a terrible story written by people who want to show the Federation is a hollow lie, that it only exists because when things are tough, the Federation MUST sacrifice it's principles and it's identity; because those principles are lies. All it does is hammer home how the Federation has no value and is nothing good, great or special.
That is the point, regardless of how many times Supes has murdered.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
That was my head canon as well, but giving what we saw on Discovery and in that "Deleted Scene", it seems unlikely that is where they are going.
However, that doesn't mean that they can't write a show about the dangers of this black ops "win at all cost" approach.
I am not sure the writers can pull it off, or are even interested in doing it that way, but you never know.
Personally, I think if one wants to make a Star Trek show about Section 31, it should include a major Section 31 TRIBBLE-up where a more principled stance or some oversight would have perhaps avoided the worst fallout.
(Star Trek Online is actually doing that, but probably unintentional - How many Federation ships get needlessly destroyed because Drake needs a distraction for your Klingon character? That is definitely a major Section 31 TRIBBLE-up, and Drake should stick his smug sense of superiority where the sun doesn't shine.)
"In the Pale Moonlight" - Sisko had tried every other option to get the Romulans on board. Their cooperation was necessary, or the Federation would quickly cease to exist. So he asked Garak to help, knowing even as he did so that Garak would almost certainly do something horrible, because Cardassian mores are a bit more... flexible on such matters.
I recommend an old Heinlein story, "Solution Unsatisfactory". Ignore the fact that the physics were wrong even for the time, just assume the dust weapon would work exactly as advertised. Robert Heinlein, the first Nebula Grand Master of Science Fiction, couldn't find an ending to the story that felt "good", hence the title. Think you can do better?
Sometimes, life presents us with problems whose solution doesn't spark joy. You can't just Kondo all of them.
PRetty much. The prime directive, to me, only works on paper.
> Love Yeoh, but I don't want yet ANOTHER, dark/gritty Trek.
>
> Torchwood, as much as I love Captain Jack/John Barrowman (*does the "CALL ME!" hand gesture*), I did not like the grungy TW series, nor the 2006-2010 Dr. Who stuff.
I think the compromise is that Discovery will get a lot less gritty from now on. In fact I think that is why this show is being made in the first place, to split off the gritty stuff from Discovery and other star trek shows, for those fans who actually like the gritty stuff. Its a reasonable compronise, alot of the gritty, dark stuff is going to be kept to a plot required minium in future seasons of Discovery, Picard, Lower Decks, Short Treks, and kids star trek cartoon.
In exchange Section 31 will be gritty, dark, and adult, maybe even out right depraved hopefully.
See each of these star treks have either own sort of audience and job to do.
Lower Decks will likely be a kind of King of the Hill working class cartoon humour type show, targeted at adults, but something you could watch with your family.
Short Treks are like Dust, but whose job is to fill in the blanks, and do odd jobs, and tell shorter, but fun stories. Maybe in the future test for interest in new star trek series.
Discovery is going to evovle into something more like TNG/Voyager/TOS, but with a dark past.
Picard series is going to be a major Political Drama, the context and set up for it makes that clear.
If they still do the Khan thing its the miniseries.
The newly announced kids cartoon is clearly what it says on the tin, and its job is to make future trekkies, which is a great idea.
Starfleet Academies job is simular, but for teens and young adults, although if the plot is good enough and the female characters hot enough it will pull in older viewers as well.
Section 31 on the other hand is for fans for darker, grittier shows, who want to see the dark underbelly of the star trek universe. Think Game of Thrones, meets 24, meets james bond, meets cannibal space hilter. I'm actually looking forward to it, I also like that its seperate from the rest of the Star Trek series, so that it won't interfer with the rest of them.
Its actually a smart plan, not everything will be for everyone but there will be at least something or multiple somethings for most people. And there is still room to grow.
https://redshirtsalwaysdie.com/2019/01/09/7-star-trek-series-2020/
By 2020 there will be 7 current shows and 6 old ones, for a total of 13 shows. Even CSI can't be that number.
I mean seriously, at that point why not just change the name to Star Trek All Access.
> Oh and I forgot, even though Picard is being shot in LA, I'm betting Section 31 will be shot in Toronto like Discovery and Short Treks, because unlike Picard its a spin off of Discovery, plus Patrick Stewart didn't want to move from LA.
I mean they will want to share resources between all three shows to miniumize costs. Plus Canada is VERY invested in the Success of TRIBBLE and it's spin offs.
> lordgyor wrote: »
>
> > artan42 said:
> > I don't get the point. What's the reason behind a whole series on Section 31? 'Kinda makes them somewhat less secret. A series on Starfleet Intelligence, why not? But not S31.
> >
> > Also the Emperor is a cannibalistic space Naz.i. Lorca was at least redeemable. The Emperor is not.
>
> Yeah I know, they gave cannibalistic space hilter her own show. Its so twisted it funny. What were they thinking. I'll watch it anyways.
>
>
>
>
> We have never seen Empress Georgiou eat another human so while she is space hilter and has completely disgusting eating habits, she is not a cannibal. At least, Empress Georgiou is not as disgusting as humans from the 31st Century.
Georgiou likely won't be the only character on the show, and honestly Game of Thrones is filled with D-Bags, like seriously after the Jeffery pin cushioned with crossbow bolts the only likable and relatable character on the show I was rooting for the White Walkers. But its crazy popular anyways. There are other examples.
You know, I think if Ron Moore hadn't rage-quit the franchise because the VOY writers turned out to just be there to draw a paycheck, we might have seen a very different continuation series. The man had already challenged Gene Roddenberry directly to create Starfleet Intelligence to do exactly what Ira Steven Behr was talking about: being idealistic doesn't require you to be willfully blind to the fact that you still have enemies. So he literally just kept adding mentions of Starfleet Intelligence to scripts until they stopped trying to stop him. He knows how to do gritty well, and I think he might have gone for a continuation of the "Section 31 as shadow government" angle as a foe to be overcome. As indeed the tail end of DS9 ultimately did, with the protagonists opposing them, and even achieving peace with the Dominion by thwarting their attempt at genocide.
Alas, VOY sucked, he quit, ENT sucked worse, and here we are.
I disagree. As originally written, the Prime Directive is actually a very good principle: "leave well enough alone" applied to international politics (it's pretty blatantly stated in TOS and TNG to be a reaction to Euro-American colonialism). The problem is when it gets twisted into an excuse to avoid thinking critically about the actual potential harm of intervening in a particular situation, and how such an intervention could be done to minimize collateral damage (or worse, gets used to justify eugenics *cough* Phlox *cough cough*). Hell, in TOS, even Spock said it was "logical" that letting a people know they weren't alone in the universe was preferable to preventable extinction. One thing DSC got very right was to toss all that nonsense out the window in the first episode: Burnham and Georgiou intervene covertly to prevent an extinction event in the prologue.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
The whole point of Trek was that humanity could be better. Only, now, we're not. We're going to bring the same stupidity that ruined Earth out into the stars and totally TRIBBLE up any other species' ability to achieve enlightenment.
There is no hopeful future in which mankind tries to become better than what we were. Only one in which the puppet-masters are better at concealing their strings as they manipulate us into repeating the atrocities which defined us all throughout history.
At that point, it's no longer Trek. It's generic Sci-fi. In fact, such stories could be told better in non-Trek settings because they don't carry the baggage of the dream Roddenberry planted in the minds of fans five decades ago.
Writing stories where the hero lives or dies but sticks to his principles is hard. It may also not be popular today, primarily because so many stories seem to center around exposing such characters as hypocrites. Trek has a chance to be different. Only the writers, producers, and owners don't know how to do that. They only know to copy what stands out in the last hit show without ever understanding why those things worked in that show.
Even in TOS it is made abundantly clear to us that outside of Earth, humanity still has the same struggles as it always has done. We see mining colonists buying concubines (for lack of a better term), the use of currency, criminal smuggling (Harry Mudd, anyone?), etc. Heck, in TNG Tasha came from a planet which was so fracked up it seceded from the Federation and devolved into a state of gang warfare so intense it makes our failed states look stable by comparison. And that's in the Roddenberry era.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
This is actually an exception to the Prime Directive. In TOS, Kirk and Spock are more or less permitted to accelerate the technological development of rural tribespeople on a planet because the Klingons were arming the urban population with flintlocks. Then in TNG, Starfleet is able to blockade the Romulan-Klingon Border to prevent the Romulans getting involved in the Klingon Civil War (the implication being Romulan intervention would justify Federation intervention).
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
It was TNG that turned it into a straitjacket preventing starship captains from taking virtually any action whatsoever, even when such inaction would lead to the preventable extinction of an entire species. Can't say I think much of that version.