That and the actual Section 31 story arc in DS9: peace with the Dominion comes not because Section 31 achieved their goal of wiping out the changeling species, but because Odo, on behalf of the Federation, traded mercy for a Dominion surrender.
And that act of mercy couldn't have happened without Section 31's actions. Had Section 31 not infected the Changelings with the virus in the first place, Odo couldn't have traded the cure for surrender. Meaning the war would have gone on, the Dominion would have sent another fleet through the wormhole, and the alpha and Beta Quadrants would have fallen. Without Section 31's actions, the Federation, quite literally, would not exist post DS9. DS9 literally proved them right in the end.
Not even getting into how the Federation has mandated, and idealized, genocide across itself with the "Prime Directive" garbage. Section 31's actions in that case weren't even against typical Federation law.
Really? Let's think that through. What did the genocide attempt actually effect?
Did it affect the ability of the Female Changeling to command her forces? No, because she never exercised tactical or operational command: when she was healthy, she left that up to Weyoun and to a lesser extent Dukat and Damar. Recall the scene in "Sacrifice of Angels" where Dukat explains his pincer movement to the FC: he would have had no need to if she was actually the senior military commander, because he would've been taking orders from her. During the Battle of Cardassia the virus did affect her judgement, by making her more genocidal, not less: she was prepared to take the population of the entire planet down with her.
Did it affect the Dominion's ability to bring reinforcements from the Gamma Quadrant? No: that was all the doing of the Prophets (and briefly the Pah-wraiths). They can't bring more reinforcements because the Prophets will make them go poof, not because the changelings are sick.
Did it affect the Dominion's ability to manufacture its own reinforcements in the Alpha Quadrant? No: Jem'Hadar and Vorta are cloned at facilities for which the presence or absence of a changeling is irrelevant.
Did it affect the Romulans' joining the Alliance and tipping the numbers in their favor? No: that was Sisko and Garak.
So, according to the evidence, all the genocide attempt did was make the personage of the FC crazier. Without it, everything goes the same way for the Allies up to the siege of Cardassia Prime, at which point a less crazy FC maybe has the sense to surrender once the Allies gain space superiority.
And in fact, that final act of mercy: The Founder herself states that if Odo would return to the Great Link, the would abandon the Alpha Quadrant in a heartbeat.
So it didn't require Odo to try to cure the Founders from the virus - it just required Odo to accept to come back.
Not to mention that Sloane actively worked against Bashir even getting the cure, at the cost of his own life, and you can't play that up as he was just trying "hard to get" to conceal Section 31's motives, because that scheme is too complicated and risky.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Yes. In DS9 Section 31's plans are often not just morally terrible but also just terrible. Again, this is what happens when your project is so secret that only a few people are allowed to know what's going on and they all just start encouraging each other with no-one to tell them "That just doesn't even make sense, you've been reading too many spy stories".
Having them as the protagonists of a series might be a problem because the tradition in Star Trek (and other similar formats, like police shows) is that it's the heroes' place to occasionally defy their superiors and play the maverick and always turn out to be right in the end. Whereas for anything with Section 31 in it not to be totally cringe-making, when Section 31 do something outrageous and illegal on their own initiative they would have to sometimes turn out to be in the wrong. With a normal Captain, there's a limit to how often you can get away with defying your superiors without being busted. But when you add Section 31's "privileged" status to this kind of plot armour, then cringing starts.
Unless it ends up being Mirror Georgiou herself who ends up at loggerheads with some of Section 31 over something they want to do? Now, that would be an interesting/confusing conflict. (I don't know the character except from what you've said about her.)
Or unless the Terran Empire attitude gets along with Section 31's who-watches-the-watchers methods only too well and she leads Section 31 in a bid to take over the Federation and this is actually how Section 31 dies :-D
Carol Marcus and James Kirk are fairly close in age, so at this point in his career Carol would be a tween. That would make Alexander somewhere in his thirties, or Captain rank if he shot up the ladder at each turn at grade. He might possibly be a Commander or even Lieutenant Commander, but he's still a decade at least away from Admiral.
I could see Discovery making use of his character. I could see STO doing it even if he's not used in Disco because he's an established character in the Trekverse with no early career to contradict. And Peter Weller might be willing to do the voice work.
I keep thinking Disco is a decade before Cage, which is a decade before Kirk takes over Enterprise, which would be 20 years before Kirk is 35. My chronological disability is showing.
I keep thinking Disco is a decade before Cage, which is a decade before Kirk takes over Enterprise, which would be 20 years before Kirk is 35. My chronological disability is showing.
I keep thinking Disco is a decade before Cage, which is a decade before Kirk takes over Enterprise, which would be 20 years before Kirk is 35. My chronological disability is showing.
Would be interesting since it would solve a saying I have. Youth is wasted on the young and retirement is wasted on the old. Although, I wonder if it possible to have a universe where time runs backwards. So in their reality, it seems like everything is normal, but their Big Bang happens when our Heat Death happens. So they would be in an extremely old universe that has a few billion years left compared to our relatively young universe if someone decides to visit the other universe.
The math does support the idea of an opposite universe coming out of the Big Bang. It may be that time in that universe ran backwards and it collapsed from a massive universe of infinite galaxies to a single point, at which point our universe began to expand, and the kicker would be these events are happening at the same instant in time.
But that is a thread of its own.
I want to be clear here: I'm not a hater. Whatever the form this spin-off takes, I want it to be successful. I reserve the right to like or dislike it based on its merits, though as I won't subscribe to a TV station which is supported by advertisement, I don't anticipate being able to see it until it comes out in reruns on some UHF station, (with ads.)
My issue is with the premise of the show as I currently understand it. Many of you are far too young to understand the world as it was in 1970. Star Trek was a ray of hope. Modern Trek seems to be going back to the world of 1970 again, with dystopias everywhere and fascism being hailed as a great way to deal with all those hated 'other guys' who won't listen to your perfectly reasonable demands.
We need Trek again, like we've never needed it before. We need a beacon from the future which shines through the dark years to come, letting us know that on the other side there is hope for better. It's been a while since that was Trek's message. It has been too long.
Yes, the version of Trek I recall is one in which horrible things happened, but it is also one in which the goal is to improve, rather than repeat the mistakes of the past.
I don't care about Roddenberry or his personal motives. It is irrelevant. And I'm not dreaming of a perfect trek that never was. As for the dystopias of the 1970's, there was one staring us in the face every day. Race riots and war, political corruption and gas lines, and the ever-present certainty that one day some jerk was going to push The Button and it would all be over.
I do recall the 60's and 70's quite well, and for all the flower children and Woodstocks you could give me I wouldn't want to go back. TV and movies gave us window into a romanticized past that never was and toward many futures that could never be. Look at Planet of the Apes, or Logan's Run, or Battlestar Galactica for examples of what many thought humanity's future would be like.
If you look at the media of the day, you'll be hard pressed to find a future world outside of Trek that held out any hope for mankind in the long run. sort of like today, in that. With all its flaws, Trek was the shining exception.
Lol wut? The original BSG was far more like Star Trek in tone compared to the recent one.
What medications have you been taking lately? And can I have some?
The original BSG was a cheesefest Star Wars ripoff, notable mostly because its creator, Glen Larson, was able to slip Mormon theology into the backstory without the network noticing. It certainly wasn't notable for its acting, writing, costuming, or special effects.
Lol wut? The original BSG was far more like Star Trek in tone compared to the recent one.
What medications have you been taking lately? And can I have some?
The original BSG was a cheesefest Star Wars ripoff, notable mostly because its creator, Glen Larson, was able to slip Mormon theology into the backstory without the network noticing. It certainly wasn't notable for its acting, writing, costuming, or special effects.
The VFX were notable enough for Lucasfilm to try and sue 'em.
Lol wut? The original BSG was far more like Star Trek in tone compared to the recent one.
What medications have you been taking lately? And can I have some?
The original BSG was a cheesefest Star Wars ripoff, notable mostly because its creator, Glen Larson, was able to slip Mormon theology into the backstory without the network noticing. It certainly wasn't notable for its acting, writing, costuming, or special effects.
I think he's referring to aspects like characterization, the society being shown Jon. OBSG was an ensemble setting, without a designated 'Chosen hero' that bends reality to fit her needs, problems often had to be solved by out-thinking, rather than gadget-of-the-technobabble or raw power, and they at least made an effort to keep the creator's personal biases off the screen.
the tech and special effects were Star Wars based, but the writing and the episodic format was heavily influenced by...well...Star Trek.
in that sense, it's more Trek than Discovery. It's a tangent relationship, but it's there, whereas Discovery owes more to Star Wars fanfictions than to Star Trek except in the names of things shoveled in to try and make connections.
Sort of.... I was more thinking of how the Nu-BSG just feels more depressing than the original. It has the same sort of looming threat, but the overall tone is different.
Let's just say that as someone who watched oBSG every week (there wasn't any other scifi on TV at the time), I strongly disagree, and leave it at that.
Let's just say that as someone who watched oBSG every week (there wasn't any other scifi on TV at the time), I strongly disagree, and leave it at that.
Well, I watched the new one THEN the old one, but not a huge amount of the old one.
Remember, though, that Hollywood builds on itself. Without TOS, what was done in All In the Family probably wouldn't have flown. And The Jeffersons was a spinoff of All In the Family, so again that's something that might not have been able to happen without its precursor.
And the NCIS:LA and DSC episodes you cite extend even from that basis. People have to be gently led into the future; when suddenly thrust, they tend to become reactionaries. We're working on improving as a species. It's going to be slow, because even by the 23rd Century we're still going to have the same biology, with the same mix of animal instinct and sapient thought sloshing around in our braincases. We're going to keep striving, and yes there are going to be setbacks, but hopefully we'll overcome them (just as the crew of the Discovery did when presented with the opportunity to destroy Qo'noS). And when we do, it'll be because we're building on what we've done in the past, not because we've somehow magically "evolved" to become "better people" in a mere 300-400 years.
Comments
So it didn't require Odo to try to cure the Founders from the virus - it just required Odo to accept to come back.
Not to mention that Sloane actively worked against Bashir even getting the cure, at the cost of his own life, and you can't play that up as he was just trying "hard to get" to conceal Section 31's motives, because that scheme is too complicated and risky.
Having them as the protagonists of a series might be a problem because the tradition in Star Trek (and other similar formats, like police shows) is that it's the heroes' place to occasionally defy their superiors and play the maverick and always turn out to be right in the end. Whereas for anything with Section 31 in it not to be totally cringe-making, when Section 31 do something outrageous and illegal on their own initiative they would have to sometimes turn out to be in the wrong. With a normal Captain, there's a limit to how often you can get away with defying your superiors without being busted. But when you add Section 31's "privileged" status to this kind of plot armour, then cringing starts.
Unless it ends up being Mirror Georgiou herself who ends up at loggerheads with some of Section 31 over something they want to do? Now, that would be an interesting/confusing conflict. (I don't know the character except from what you've said about her.)
Or unless the Terran Empire attitude gets along with Section 31's who-watches-the-watchers methods only too well and she leads Section 31 in a bid to take over the Federation and this is actually how Section 31 dies :-D
Me too.... I have high hopes for something delicious with super sweet eye candy!
ingame: @.Spartan
Original Cryptic Forum Name: Spartan (member #124)
The Glorious, Kirk’s Protegè
I could see Discovery making use of his character. I could see STO doing it even if he's not used in Disco because he's an established character in the Trekverse with no early career to contradict. And Peter Weller might be willing to do the voice work.
My character Tsin'xing
Would be interesting since it would solve a saying I have. Youth is wasted on the young and retirement is wasted on the old. Although, I wonder if it possible to have a universe where time runs backwards. So in their reality, it seems like everything is normal, but their Big Bang happens when our Heat Death happens. So they would be in an extremely old universe that has a few billion years left compared to our relatively young universe if someone decides to visit the other universe.
But that is a thread of its own.
I want to be clear here: I'm not a hater. Whatever the form this spin-off takes, I want it to be successful. I reserve the right to like or dislike it based on its merits, though as I won't subscribe to a TV station which is supported by advertisement, I don't anticipate being able to see it until it comes out in reruns on some UHF station, (with ads.)
My issue is with the premise of the show as I currently understand it. Many of you are far too young to understand the world as it was in 1970. Star Trek was a ray of hope. Modern Trek seems to be going back to the world of 1970 again, with dystopias everywhere and fascism being hailed as a great way to deal with all those hated 'other guys' who won't listen to your perfectly reasonable demands.
We need Trek again, like we've never needed it before. We need a beacon from the future which shines through the dark years to come, letting us know that on the other side there is hope for better. It's been a while since that was Trek's message. It has been too long.
I don't care about Roddenberry or his personal motives. It is irrelevant. And I'm not dreaming of a perfect trek that never was. As for the dystopias of the 1970's, there was one staring us in the face every day. Race riots and war, political corruption and gas lines, and the ever-present certainty that one day some jerk was going to push The Button and it would all be over.
I do recall the 60's and 70's quite well, and for all the flower children and Woodstocks you could give me I wouldn't want to go back. TV and movies gave us window into a romanticized past that never was and toward many futures that could never be. Look at Planet of the Apes, or Logan's Run, or Battlestar Galactica for examples of what many thought humanity's future would be like.
If you look at the media of the day, you'll be hard pressed to find a future world outside of Trek that held out any hope for mankind in the long run. sort of like today, in that. With all its flaws, Trek was the shining exception.
My character Tsin'xing
The original BSG was a cheesefest Star Wars ripoff, notable mostly because its creator, Glen Larson, was able to slip Mormon theology into the backstory without the network noticing. It certainly wasn't notable for its acting, writing, costuming, or special effects.
The VFX were notable enough for Lucasfilm to try and sue 'em.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
My character Tsin'xing
My character Tsin'xing
And the NCIS:LA and DSC episodes you cite extend even from that basis. People have to be gently led into the future; when suddenly thrust, they tend to become reactionaries. We're working on improving as a species. It's going to be slow, because even by the 23rd Century we're still going to have the same biology, with the same mix of animal instinct and sapient thought sloshing around in our braincases. We're going to keep striving, and yes there are going to be setbacks, but hopefully we'll overcome them (just as the crew of the Discovery did when presented with the opportunity to destroy Qo'noS). And when we do, it'll be because we're building on what we've done in the past, not because we've somehow magically "evolved" to become "better people" in a mere 300-400 years.