I always assumed eras where it was more and less known, so this wasn't the first or last in my estimation.
Spoilers Section 31 General Discussion Thread
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
Personally, I've always been fascinated by the "irredeemable" character trying to do better. It's why I preferred Xena to Hercules. Maybe it's my Catholic upbringing - the idea that anyone can change. It doesn't change what they did, but they can change what they do now.
Plus, there's the "if someone who was that bad can try to do better, than so can I."
Plus, there's the "if someone who was that bad can try to do better, than so can I."
Seems like the usual amount these days, Each production company involved has a set of EPs. Sweeney is the writer and Osunsami is the director . Both are veteran DISCO producer/writer/directors. I assume they well be the actual hands on producers.
Indeed. Well put. I grow fatigued of the whole "This person is too bad for Star Trek." Ok, then toss humanity out then. Stop the optimistic bullshit of Star Trek because we are not redeemable as a species because, as Kirk put it, we have thousands of years of bloodshed on our hands, but we also have choices. Georgiou had limited choices before; now she can choose to be better.
If that isn't Trek's optimism in a nutshell I honestly don't know what is. People don't have to like Section 31 but that's not the appeal; the appeal is the evolution of a person becoming or attempting to become better.
I think some interview somewhere with someone called it "Guardians of the Galaxy meets Mission Impossible" so yeah.
I'm not going to judge the movie before they've even filmed it, but "Guardians of the Galaxy meets Mission Impossible" sounds like a fun idea. It also sounds like a phrase that should never be used anywhere near a Section 31 film. I don't want to see a fun Section 31 film, I want to be horrified by what they do, because they've got no business doing anything that I'm ultimately happy with in the Star Trek universe.
Being entertained doesn't make Section 31 moral.
Now Section 32 on the other hand...
Now Section 32 on the other hand...
Last edited:
We don't talk about Section 32.
Wow, yes that seems about right.
This thing might solve my conflicting feelings about the immidiate future and this idea. I have never seen Georgiou in S31 as the thing that might carry the longer show but I would be disappointed if it just died out completely. And this might also mean we will finally get pretty creative movie!
EDIT: I know it might be too much Guardians of the galaxy-esque but I hope one of her comrades is Racccaccoonie!
EDIT: I know it might be too much Guardians of the galaxy-esque but I hope one of her comrades is Racccaccoonie!
Last edited:
Why do I have the feeling that the Section 31 movie will be set to the 25th century
I mean besides the character of Georgiou the producers probably want to include one or two legacy characters( and actors) to draw in the audience & Trekkies.
I 100% expect Worf and Bashir to be part of it. Since Voq is all genetically modified, they could even have 150 year old Ash Tyler if they really wanted to.
Why do I have the feeling that the Section 31 movie will be set to the 25th century
I mean besides the character of Georgiou the producers probably want to include one or two legacy characters( and actors) to draw in the audience & Trekkies.
Do we know where she landed? I did not think so.
What have they done that we should be happy with?
Georgiou is a different person. She is not the same even from when she went to the 32nd century. There's value in her work in Section 31 because she knows, first hand, the path that there actions could take and how she can make a difference.
I was rewatching Season 3 because the Terra Firma episodes are still my favorite and I saw a quote from Stargate that quite well sums up how Georgiou can be handled as a character:
Teal'c: Nothing I have done since turning against the Goa'uld will make up for the atrocities I once committed in their name. Somewhere deep inside you you knew it was wrong, a voice you did not recognize screamed for you to stop. You saw no way out, it was the way things were, they could not be changed. You're trying to convince yourself the people you're hurting deserved it. You became numb to their pain and suffering, you learned to shut out the voice speaking against it.
Tomin: There's always a choice.
Teal'c: Indeed there is.
Tomin: I chose to ignore it.
Teal'c: Yet you sit here now.
Tomin: I sit here, and I cannot imagine the day when I will forgive myself.
Teal'c: Because it will never come. One day others may try to convince you they have forgiven you, that is more about them than you. For them, imparting forgiveness is a blessing.
Tomin: How do you go on?
Teal'c: It is simple. You will never forgive yourself. Accept it. You hurt others, many others, that cannot be undone. You will never find personal retribution, but your life does not have to end. That which is right, just and true can still prevail. If you do not fight for what you believe in all may be lost for everyone else. But do not fight for yourself, fight for others, others that may be saved through your effort. That is the least you can do. (Emphasis added. From Ark of Truth).
Vadar. Teal'c. I got no problem with it.
There shouldn't be, eh? Ok, wasn't aware we only make series based on morally upright institutions...
So, you would have an issue with a Klingon Empire series? Cause that's what they did.
ETA: And to clarify I am not trying to be a dick or get a "Gotcha" moment. I'm genuinely curious to were the line is, because we have seen people and institutions in Trek use torture without much concern down the road. The Klingons being the most notable institutionalized example.
I know Mr Awe has declined to directly answer due to his own feelings about such organizations and depictions of torture, so I don't mean to speak for him, but for me I am not opposed to the existence of an evil character or evil organization in Trek (I am much more open to bad organizations, characters, or actions in fiction in general because other fictional properties don't necessarily have an ethos of positivity, humanism, virtue, etc.). What I am opposed to, in Trek, is how the larger narrative treats that character or organization. For individual "evil" actions, if there is a strong story reason for the inclusion of the "bad" material, then that is more acceptable than being presented gratuitously. The severity of the depiction matters too; darker, more extensive depictions require stronger story reasons for their inclusion. For examples, I think the Icheb eye-gouging in "Stardust City Rag" is not needed by the story as presented and is gratuitous; Garak's torture of Odo in "The Die is Cast" is less visceral and also more appropriate to the story. For the inclusion of an evil character or evil organization in Trek (like S31), I feel it should only be included if the narrative itself treats the person/organization appropriately. The show can present the organization's appearance or methods as "cool" or "advanced" or "cutting edge", whatever serves the interests of the modern TV viewer, but the story should present (and in particular the protagonists we follow should consider) the organization as bad. The organization might be on the path to reform or not, it might survive or not, but until it is fixed or terminated, a Trek show should properly treat that organization (and its methods) as bad.
I know the "marketing" scripts can be exaggerations and for the widest audiences and not necessarily reflective of the actual content/tone of the material, but this makes it sound like the movie/tone is about the "cool" Section 31 and not the villainous 31 that I believe it should be portrayed as. Though there is still wiggle room: maybe Georgiou recruits other Section 31 castoffs to burgle S31 HQ to bring down the org...one can always hope.
Last edited:
And if it doesn't?
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
