Drop the S31 show for a Captain Pike show?

[fireproof78]

Personally, I think you always need a healthy dose of cynicism just to keep TREK grounded in reality and not too pie-in-the-sky "utopian."

Precisely so. The reason I struggle with TNG it is often feels too disconnected from actual real world concerns. Their utopian view is less attainable and more elitism to myself as a viewer.

The other side that I personal struggle with is the idea that Star Trek's optimism is somehow unassailable or cannot withstand any challenge or scrutiny. Well, in my opinion, what's the point if that's the view? Here is this optimistic viewpoint of humanity but we will not tell you how they got there. Sounds supper optimistic if I feel like it's not obtainable.

 

[BillJ]

It isn't so much that cynicism can't be used, it is how they are choosing to use it.

 

[fireproof78]

It isn't so much that cynicism can't be used, it is how they are choosing to use it.

That's completely fair. I think they are using it decently enough, though it could always improve. But, as you are so found of saying, YMMV

 

[Greg Cox]

Precisely so. The reason I struggle with TNG it is often feels too disconnected from actual real world concerns. Their utopian view is less attainable and more elitism to myself as a viewer.

The other side that I personal struggle with is the idea that Star Trek's optimism is somehow unassailable or cannot withstand any challenge or scrutiny. Well, in my opinion, what's the point if that's the view? Here is this optimistic viewpoint of humanity but we will not tell you how they got there. Sounds supper optimistic if I feel like it's not obtainable.

Exactly. If the "evolved-human" utopianism is just asserted as a fiat, then idealism crosses over into escapism.

 

[Alan Roi]

First of all, I think we need to put the notion to rest that a "retool" has to be something inherintly negative, or only take place because something failed. It often happens when people behind the scenes change, want to put their personal spin on it, or simply think another approach would work better.

"Thor: Ragnarok" was a BIG retool of the "Thor" franchise, after "Thorark World" before was more of a refinement of the formula. The same way "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" was a bit retool after the first Captain America, wheras "CA:Civil War" continued on the path of "Winter Soldier". None of these franchise were anywhere close to failing when these happened.

As such, it's undeniable that what happened at the end of season 2 was a major retooling of the series. Bigger than any other retooling any previous Trek series ever had. That's not a judgement, that's just a neutral observation.

Where the personal judgement comes in is - I didn't like the way they did it. It was overly on-the-nose, and felt both very forced and rushed at the same time. And I don't see how it will improve the show, compared to the smaller refinements that happened over the course of season 2, which did improve my personal enjoyment of the show.

But that being said - I also didn't like the way the Enterprise was introduced/shoved in in the final minutes at the end of season 1, and felt that was more distracting/taking away from the show itself. But then very much enjoyed how they actually did handle the whole thing over the course of season 2.

What I'm saying is, I'll try to keep an open mind. But season 2 will have to try to convince me personally to watch it completely anew, whereas if they had stayed in their version of the 23rd century, I would have stayed as a fan of the show as established over the course of season 2.

How many times have people claimed the show was "retooled" since it began? Twice in season 1? Twice again in season 2? We'll probably hear that its being "retooled" in mid-season 3 as well. At a certain point one has to think this whole "retooling" meme is BS, and its just the show moving from story to story wherever it take it.

 

[The Wormhole]

but not at the expense of strong character development and acting which is missing from DSC.

Actually, the actors on Disco are just fine. Yes, even Sonequa Martin-Green. The writing for the characters is at times questionable, but the actors themselves are good at their craft.

 

[BillJ]

The writing for the characters is at times questionable...

Like morning time, noon time, evening time, night time and weekend time. Other than at those times, the writing is fine.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

It’s different when a show is at its core about romanticized optimism and when it’s essentially about antiheroes in shadowy organization, which the Killing Eve and Mission: Impossible comparisons imply. The cynicism on ST was there for Kirk or Picard or the other captains to knock it down with a speech. The premise so far sounds like the Psi Corps episode on B5 turned into a series, or maybe Jack Bauer.

I don’t see how the Captain America example is appropriate since the time jump was an expected part of his backstory going back to the 1960s. Think The New Adventures of Wonder Woman for an actual retooling with a similar setup.

 

[The Wormhole]

I'm going to say it: the "optimism" everyone seems to feel is integral to "True Star Trek" is overrated and tedious.

 

[Alan Roi]

It’s different when a show is at its core about romanticized optimism and when it’s essentially about antiheroes in shadowy organization, which the Killing Eve and Mission: Impossible comparisons imply. The cynicism on ST was there for Kirk or Picard or the other captains to knock it down with a speech. The premise so far sounds like the Psi Corps episode on B5 turned into a series, or maybe Jack Bauer.

I don’t see how the Captain America example is appropriate since the time jump was an expected part of his backstory going back to the 1960s. Think The New Adventures of Wonder Woman for an actual retooling with a similar setup.

There was lots of cynicism in the use of numerous cautionary tales in Star Trek where one of the Enterprises jobs is to run around putting out fires that federation citizens or alien races stoked. Many such stories did not come to the romantic conclusions you seem to think Star Trek should only ever have. Sounds like you skipped a lot of eps.

 

[Greg Cox]

As I like to point out, TOS was actually very suspicious of utopias. Whenever Kirk and Co. ran into a planet that seemed too perfect and peaceful, there was always a fly in the ointment: insane computer gods, alien spores, etc. Remember "This Side of Paradise," where Kirk is relieved to find out that people are losing their tempers and getting into fights like normal human beings?

And speaking of cynical, pretty much every time Kirk got to meet one of his heroes or mentors or a leading light of the Federation, chances were they were insane, unstable, or corrupt. See Tristan Adams, Dr. Daystrom, John Gill, etc.

TOS was optimistic, sure, when it come to depicting a future one would actually want to live in, but, like McCoy, it maintained a healthy degree of skepticism about human nature as well.

 

[fireproof78]

The cynicism on ST was there for Kirk or Picard or the other captains to knock it down with a speech.

To my mind, this is no longer sufficient in today's day and age, where speeches are prevalent but not actions to not back them up.

I want to see the challenges to the values and principles that might be antithetical to Star Trek's humanity but allow the possibility of seeing their appeal. I don't want simplified answers, and I certainly want to see them challenging different ideas. And, finally, I don't want to be spoon fed answers. According to the Internet Star Trek is more cerebral so I don't need it laid out for me in black and white.

 

[Greg Cox]

I'm going to say it: the "optimism" everyone seems to feel is integral to "True Star Trek" is overrated and tedious.

It can be argued that some folks have gotten carried away with the idea that Trek has to be optimistic at all times.

I swear, if "City on the Edge of Forever" debuted today, half the internet would be in an uproar, insisting that it was spitting all over Roddenberry's utopian vision:

"What kinda depressing, grimdark shit is this? Where is the hope, the optimism? The REAL Jim Kirk didn't believe in no-win scenarios. He'd never throw an innocent woman under the bus to save the future. Roddenberry must be rolling over in his grave."

 

[Rahul]

I think it's not that an optimistic vision of Star Trek clashes with S31. It's that S31 specifically is the worst possible choice to center a series - any series - around.

And let me get this straight: I'm a sucker for grim spy stuff! From John Le Carré to James Bond - I love that shit. The more layered, the more grey, the better. And I absolutely love exploring the edges of when exactly doing bad things for the greater good becomes bad itself, or when it's necessary, or when it's a bit of both. I never was a fan of the straight up charming good-guy Roger Moore Bond. I love James Bond the most when he's kind of an effective, evil asshole. And exploring these themes with a spy show in Star Trek is IMO an actually great idea.

But that being said: This is not what Section 31 is.
Section 31 is an evil Cabal. An organization without gouvernment sanction, without oversight, a black-ops mission of lunatics that go around and murder people. But not even that - they are giving the keys to their organization to tyrants, people that commited genocide, cannibals - (Georgiou, Khan). Not "using them" as effecctive tools. No, actually letting them dictate the fate of the entire Federation. They are the Nazi version of Hydra, even more vile and disgusting.

They are also the dumbest motherfuckers in the universe. Out of all the spy agencies in the galaxy, they are the only ones that got overtaken by their own(!) computer. They are the ONLY ones that almost destroyed all organic life in the galaxy. They frankly suck at their job. Wherever they get involved, you can be sure they will be the reason everything's going to get fucked up.

They are not just cannibalistic genocidal Nazis. They are incredibly DUMB cannibalistic genocidal Nazis. As an organisation, they got the midas-touch, but with shit.

 

[Rahul]

It can be argued that some folks have gotten carried away with the idea that Trek has to be optimistic at all times.

I swear, if "City on the Edge of Forever" debuted today, half the internet would be in an uproar, insisting that it was spitting all over Roddenberry's utopian vision:

"What kinda depressing, grimdark shit is this? Where is the hope, the optimism? The REAL Jim Kirk didn't believe in no-win scenarios. He'd never throw an innocent woman under the bus to save the future. Roddenberry must be rolling over in his grave."

I don't think so. Star Trek has quite often been about doing extremely hard choices and grim consequences for following up your ideals. Hell, even ENT ended with a suicide in "Cogenitor", and people praised that as one of the best episodes of season 2.

Star Trek has always been about harsh, realistic consequences when a moral worldview collides with reality.
It just gets critizised when it's doing it really dumb, and try to dip it's toes needlessly into grimdark territory. Stuff that even tanked the entire Stargate franchise with "Stargate:Universe", when it constantly tried to be "dark" and "edgy", not realising that SG-1 and Atlantis did even the "realistic" dark better.

 

[Alan Roi]

I think it's not that an optimistic vision of Star Trek clashes with S31. It's that S31 specifically is the worst possible choice to center a series - any series - around.

And let me get this straight: I'm a sucker for grim spy stuff! From John Le Carré to James Bond - I love that shit. The more layered, the more grey, the better. And I absolutely love exploring the edges of when exactly doing bad things for the greater good becomes bad itself, or when it's necessary, or when it's a bit of both. I never was a fan of the straight up charming good-guy Roger Moore Bond. I love James Bond the most when he's kind of an effective, evil asshole. And exploring these themes with a spy show in Star Trek is IMO an actually great idea.

But that being said: This is not what Section 31 is.
Section 31 is an evil Cabal. An organization without gouvernment sanction, without oversight, a black-ops mission of lunatics that go around and murder people. But not even that - they are giving the keys to their organization to tyrants, people that commited genocide, cannibals - (Georgiou, Khan). Not "using them" as effecctive tools. No, actually letting them dictate the fate of the entire Federation. They are the Nazi version of Hydra, even more vile and disgusting.

They are also the dumbest motherfuckers in the universe. Out of all the spy agencies in the galaxy, they are the only ones that got overtaken by their own(!) computer. They are the ONLY ones that almost destroyed all organic life in the galaxy. They frankly suck at their job. Wherever they get involved, you can be sure they will be the reason everything's going to get fucked up.

They are not just cannibalistic genocidal Nazis. They are incredibly DUMB cannibalistic genocidal Nazis. As an organisation, they got the midas-touch, but with shit.

Come on, tell us what you really feel.

 

[fireproof78]

They are not just cannibalistic genocidal Nazis.

No, they are not.

 

[Rahul]

No, they are not.

Well, they have no problem serving under their command. That makes them ones by association. Also that isn't even new (well, except the "cannibal" part) - they were trying to dish out genocide since back during DS9.

So yes, they absolutely are. And some of the dumbest one at that as well. The last time a S31-plot actually turned out to work was in "Inter Arma Enim Silent Legis". Since then - every single thing they got their stupid hands on - turned into shit. Hell, I don't remember DS9 that well - but there might even be a possible argument the Founders waged such total war because of the attempted genocide, whereas otherwise they were more about "ruling" and "order".

Section 31 is probably the organization with the single most death toll after the Borg (depending on the timeline more) - and not even out of malice, but out of sheer, unbelievable incompetence and dumbness.

 

[Alan Roi]

I don't think so. Star Trek has quite often been about doing extremely hard choices and grim consequences for following up your ideals. Hell, even ENT ended with a suicide in "Cogenitor", and people praised that as one of the best episodes of season 2.

Star Trek has always been about harsh, realistic consequences when a moral worldview collides with reality.
It just gets critizised when it's doing it really dumb, and try to dip it's toes needlessly into grimdark territory. Stuff that even tanked the entire Stargate franchise with "Stargate:Universe", when it constantly tried to be "dark" and "edgy", not realising that SG-1 and Atlantis did even the "realistic" dark better.

That didn't kill Stargate. Universe had reasonable ratings. It was SyFy's decision to move to becoming a wrestling channel and putting the money there that was the culprit. And they have a habit of cancelling their high rated shows for no apparent reason. Defiance and Dominion had higher ratings than anything they have on the air today and was cancelled after just 3 and 2 seasons. Seems like every time someone new takes over there, the last guy's biggest shows get cancelled.

 

[Alan Roi]

Well, they have no problem serving under their command. That makes them ones by association. Also that isn't even new (well, except the "cannibal" part) - they were trying to dish out genocide since back during DS9.

So yes, they absolutely are. And some of the dumbest one at that as well. The last time a S31-plot actually turned out to work was in "Inter Arma Enim Silent Legis". Since then - every single thing they got their stupid hands on - turned into shit. Hell, I don't remember DS9 that well - but there might even be a possible argument the Founders waged such total war because of the attempted genocide, whereas otherwise they were more about "ruling" and "order".

Section 31 is probably the organization with the single most death toll after the Borg (depending on the timeline more) - and not even out of malice, but out of sheer, unbelievable incompetence and dumbness.

Yeah. You don't remember DS9 that well.