• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Spoilers Saints of Imperfection and Gene's Vision

Pauln6

Pauln6

Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
I am a few episodes behind and I do enjoy the show but I thought the scene where Cornwell tells Leland and Pike to work together was uncomfortably symbolic.

Firstly, it's a pitch from the writers for the Section 31 show and I'm fine with that.

Secondly, and more troubling, it felt like an uncoupling of Gene's vision of a better future from the Star Trek universe. Pike, the clean-cut poster child for Gene's liberal and hopeful future is an illusion, only able to exist because his cuddly world is underpinned by dirty tricks and ugly 'nation-building'. That the pitch comes from a standard Starfleet Admiral feels like ths is an official stamp.

Do people think this is an olive-branch to try and unite the old and new fans? I'm a fan of the show, but I actually thought this was a step too far for me. I've always loved Trek's, albeit inconsistent, vision of a liberal, optimistic future as the framework against which darker stories could be told. A desire to tell darker stories doesn't mean they should sacrifice the core values that made Star Trek so great. Do spymasters really need to have no ethical boundaries as the default?

Section 31 as spymasters and undercover agents is intriguing. Section 31 as right wing puppetmasters duping the liberals into thinking their cosy ethos actually works feels a bit insulting.
 
Last edited:
Yes, it's symbolic. No, it isn't sacrificing core values. A recurring theme in Discovery seems to be "rediscovering" the core values. Characters being forced into darkness just so they can get back out of it, so to speak. In short, you need to keep watching.
 
Since I don't believe the core values are being sacrificed I don't think they are insulting levels quite yet. However, it will depend greatly on how they wrap up this season and tie things together that great interests me.
 
Pauln6 said:
I am a few episodes behind and I do enjoy the show but I thought the scene where Cornwell tells Leland and Pike to work together was uncomfortably symbolic.

Firstly, it's a pitch from the writers for the Section 31 show and I'm fine with that.

Secondly, and more troubling, it felt like an uncoupling of Gene's vision of a better future from the Star Trek universe. Pike, the clean-cut poster child for Gene's liberal and hopeful future is an illusion, only able to exist because his cuddly world is underpinned by dirty tricks and ugly 'nation-building'. That the pitch comes from a standard Starfleet Admiral feels like ths is an official stamp.

Do people think this is an olive-branch to try and unite the old and new fans? I'm a fan of the show, but I actually thought this was a step too far for me. I've always loved Trek's, albeit inconsistent, vision of a liberal, optimistic future as the framework against which darker stories could be told. A desire to tell darker stories doesn't mean they should sacrifice the core values that made Star Trek so great. Do spymasters really need to have no ethical boundaries as the default?

Section 31 as spymasters and undercover agents is intriguing. Section 31 as right wing puppetmasters duping the liberals into thinking their cosy ethos actually works feels a bit insulting.
Click to expand...
Broadly, I agree with you. I've said my peice in this topic before, but in short, yes I think s31 being presented as official and worse necessary, undermines the core principles of Star Trek that we can actually live by our principles, and that we can be better than we are. I detest the idea presented by Cornwell that Pike only gets to have principles because there's someone doing the dirty work behind the scenes. I wouldn't use the term "Gene's Vision" and sadly that choice of phrasing is probably going to invite more mockery than serious engagement, but I do think Trek has some fairly consistent ideas which it has played around with but rarely broken with so flagrantly.

I was pleased that Pike so openly called it out on the Bridge a couple of episodes later.
 
cultcross said:
Broadly, I agree with you. I've said my peice in this topic before, but in short, yes I think s31 being presented as official and worse necessary, undermines the core principles of Star Trek that we can actually live by our principles, and that we can be better than we are. I detest the idea presented by Cornwell that Pike only gets to have principles because there's someone doing the dirty work behind the scenes. I wouldn't use the term "Gene's Vision" and sadly that choice of phrasing is probably going to invite more mockery than serious engagement, but I do think Trek has some fairly consistent ideas which it has played around with but rarely broken with so flagrantly.

I was pleased that Pike so openly called it out on the Bridge a couple of episodes later.
Click to expand...
Agreed about "Gene's Vision"........usually when I see that phrase I tune out immediately. It's a myth that was invented after the fact. Gene was trying to make a living.
 
Gene's "vision" is not the reality of the show which has developed over the decades. The best parts of TOS were mostly due to Gene Coon's leadership. GR was out for a quick buck and had a revolving casting couch. Some of his ideas were just plain ridiculous, let's face it.

For me, it's more interesting to see how the people of Trek managed to overcome the obstacles which stood in the way of a better, more perfect Federation society. As Sisko says, "it's easy to be a saint in paradise." It's more affirming, I think, to see our main characters tested. To see them struggle to stick to their ideals in the face of impossible odds and yet somehow through sheer grit, determination and ingenuity, manage to prevail. It's the journey, the striving towards building that better world and being that better person that's more important, in my opinion.

I also think it helps to make the show seem less about benevolent Imperialism. TNG (as much as I loved it) sort of suffered from this air of smug superiority where Picard was constantly lecturing aliens and insisting that the Federation (and humanity in particular) had evolved more than the rest of the Galaxy. Evolution isn't linear, for one thing.

I think Discovery is actually more of a spiritual successor to TOS than TNG ever was in terms of its sense of adventure and the terrifying strangeness of space. But, of course, one's mileage may vary greatly. :beer:
 
Outside of the "Gene's vision" stuff, I'm not a fan of Section 31 because it isn't what I watch Star Trek for. If I wanted to watch black ops spies with dubious moral compasses, I'd watch the litany of shows with that on TV right now.

Discovery has shown it has great potential, but it keeps bringing in the worst ideas of Star Trek past (Mirror Universe, Section 31). Even the use of Pike and Spock seem like name dropping to get old Trek fans interested when, if the series was set post Voyager, Anson Mount still would've made a kick ass captain and Burnham could still have a Vulcan foster sibling to drive this storyline along.
 
Pauln6 said:
That the pitch comes from a standard Starfleet Admiral feels like ths is an official stamp.
Click to expand...
Considering this is the same Starfleet Admiral who issued orders to commit genocide, I don't see why it's so surprising she'd consider Section 31 a necessity.
Pauln6 said:
Section 31 as right wing puppetmasters duping the liberals into thinking their cosy ethos actually works feels a bit insulting.
Click to expand...
But that's basically what Section 31 has been all about ever since they were first introduced on DS9.
 
cultcross said:
Broadly, I agree with you. I've said my peice in this topic before, but in short, yes I think s31 being presented as official and worse necessary, undermines the core principles of Star Trek that we can actually live by our principles, and that we can be better than we are. I detest the idea presented by Cornwell that Pike only gets to have principles because there's someone doing the dirty work behind the scenes. I wouldn't use the term "Gene's Vision" and sadly that choice of phrasing is probably going to invite more mockery than serious engagement, but I do think Trek has some fairly consistent ideas which it has played around with but rarely broken with so flagrantly.

I was pleased that Pike so openly called it out on the Bridge a couple of episodes later.
Click to expand...
I've always viewed Section 31 as voicing that particular "philosophy", through word or deed, while simultaneously presenting an opportunity for others to show it isn't really the case. In execution, this "argument" is not always well done, but I think its presence is, ultimately, a rebuttal of the "necessary dirty work" rather than an endorsement of it.
 
All very interesting points. I wouldn't mind S31 being more like Mission Impossible. No reason they need to have no moral compass whatsoever .
 
Pauln6 said:
All very interesting points. I wouldn't mind S31 being more like Mission Impossible. No reason they need to have no moral compass whatsoever .
Click to expand...
The organization literally names itself after a part of the Starfleet Charter authorizing the complete and total abandonment of any and all Starfleet regulations under emergencies. I don't think a moral compass is high on their priorities. At all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top