• 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 Star Trek: Strange New Worlds 2x08 - "Under the Cloak of War"

Hit it!

  • Total voters
    222
I think the disconnect is that in DISCO Section 31 is presented as a legitimate agency. It could have become one after ENT, and isn't by DS9, so I'm ok with the explanation of it's legitimacy being removed after the Control fiasco, which is why it's even more underground and nebulous 120 years later.

Nerys Myk said:
This is Star Trek. Cameras are needs of the plot. Most "mystery" episodes would be over by act one, if they had cameras where they should. :lol:
Click to expand...
Yeah, having laughably lax security measures isn't exactly new to this episode. But as others have mentioned above, Sickbay seems like the most likely place not to be heavily monitored.
 
We can endlessly debate this episode (and that ending) on an intellectual level and that's what great Star Trek should ultimately aim for.

So hopefully more like this from S3 onwards.

This is the closest SNW has come to DS9's "Duet," (I believe that's the closest episode for comparison regarding a war criminal and the questions of war crimes).

Though, for me, "Duet" is a perfect 10/10. Not only great Star Trek, but great television. One of the most compelling guest performances in the franchise;

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
I think "Under the Cloak of War" and "Duet" are doing very different things, though. "Duet" is about the possibility of genuine reconciliation if the culprits take responsibility for their crimes. "Under the Cloak of War" is about the impossibility of genuine reconciliation as long as the culprits try to get away with their crimes. They're like mirror opposites of each other.
 
drt said:
I think the disconnect is that in DISCO Section 31 is presented as a legitimate agency. It could have become one after ENT, and isn't by DS9, so I'm ok with the explanation of it's legitimacy being removed after the Control fiasco, which is why it's even more underground and nebulous 120 years later.
Click to expand...
In order to function they have to have a legitimate front. I never had an issue with Discovery. Discovery treated it as a function of war but not a positive one.

I felt it was in line with DS9.
 
Search4 said:
Amazing no cameras in sickbay. Stretches the imagination.
Click to expand...

That's 100% consistent with TOS, where there are no security cameras in engineering, the transporter room, you name it. And where people are constantly sneaking around the ship, up to no good, with no security cameras in evidence.

I admit I struggle with this when writing TOS books these days. Back in the sixties, before security cameras became ubiquitous, viewers wouldn't worry about this. But what about readers in the 21st century? Is this going to seem like a glaring omission? Or do I need to stick with how things were depicted on the actual TV show?

The challenges of revisiting a 1960s vision of the future in 2023. Not sure what the answer is.
 
Markonian said:
Ensconced in my bubble, I totally missed an interpretation of the episode.
But I just saw M'Benga trending on Twitter.
Tweet link: https://twitter.com/Lyrical_Girafe/status/1685326376583516160

I had failed to consider the fact who the war criminal in the crew is. Who suddenly may have become a murderer because of his feelings? The black man.

Ouch.
Click to expand...

I mean... I think the narrative is extremely sympathetic to Joseph. He's not depicted as any sort of savage monster or morally inferior person. And if he's a war criminal, then Christine, who is just about the whitest person on the ship, is his accomplice.

I don't want to be insensitive to this concern because I do agree American popular media have a habit of reverting to depicting black people as violent. And I also agree that there's probably a need for more representation of peaceful, benevolent black men in our media.

But I also think what "Under the Cloak of War" is doing is asking really good questions and asking us to be very favorable to Joseph even if what he did was wrong.
 
Good episode.

the dudes worrying about SNW becoming too goofy should be happy with this.

always good to see Clint Howard in a Star Trek episode. Balok has grown up.

Also always good to see Andorians. Maybe the best Andorian makup yet, but I wish the antennae were moving (like the ENT andorians).

the actor playing the Klingon was really good.
 
Last edited:
Cyrus said:
Also always good to see Andorians. Maybe the best Andorian makup yet, but I wish the antennae were moving (like the ENT andorians).
Click to expand...

The Andorian makeup was good, but I think the ENT-era Andorian makeup will always be my favorite version of them. Just a dash of forehead bumps to hide the antennae motors, and articulating antennae to express moods.
 
Markonian said:
I had failed to consider the fact who the war criminal in the crew is. Who suddenly may have become a murderer because of his feelings? The black man.
Click to expand...
I suppose it could have been Christine. Diverse cast means your options in this case are limited. Pike, Chin-Riley, or Chapel. (Spock?)

Also: Who suddenly was pushed into violence, (probably) acted in self defense, and is being assumed to be the instigator?
 
Yeah, if we're gonna start saying Joseph is a war criminal -- which I don't accept; I think those Klingon commanders were completely legitimate targets -- then by definition Christine would have to be his accomplice. He told her of his plan and she encouraged it. And if Joseph assaulted Dak'Rah rather than acting in self-defense, Christine helped him cover it up.
 
Thinking more about this, I do want to come back to this point:

I absolutely reject the idea that Joseph is a war criminal for his actions of J'Gal.

General Gra'val, Commander Kiff, and Captain Ruh'lis were all legitimate military targets. Joseph had every right to kill them as part of the ongoing war. That's not a war crime.
 
Sci said:
Yeah, if we're gonna start saying Joseph is a war criminal -- which I don't accept; I think those Klingon commanders were completely legitimate targets -- then by definition Christine would have to be his accomplice. He told her of his plan and she encouraged it. And if Joseph assaulted Dak'Rah rather than acting in self-defense, Christine helped him cover it up.
Click to expand...
Jospeh isn't a war criminal, period.

What kind of man tells Dak'Rah to go away many times?

Not somebody who is a assaulter.
 
KamenRiderBlade said:
Jospeh isn't a war criminal, period.

What kind of man tells Dak'Rah to go away many times?

Not somebody who is a assaulter.
Click to expand...

I agree. Even if Joseph assaulted Dah'Rak -- and I am not convinced that he did; I think there's a very strong change that Dah'Rak assaulted Joseph and that Joseph killed him in legitimate self-defense -- this would not constitute a war crime. And I flat-out reject the idea that his attack on the Klingon commanders on J'Gal was a war crime; they were legitimate military targets and he had every right to kill them as long as the war was ongoing.
 
Now in fairness, specifying that Joseph is not a war criminal doesn't address La Girafe's main point, which was that they find it problematic when entertainment media depict a black man as engaging in violence because they feel it feeds into the stereotype that black men are violent and dangerous -- a stereotype that has deadly real-life consequences for black men, who are victims of disproportionate police aggression as a result of this stereotype influencing police behavior.

Which, I do hear that concern. I don't think it's invalid. But I'm not convinced that "Under the Cloak of War" wants us to think of Joseph as violent or dangerous, even in the most unfavorable interpretation of the finale. Now, does that mean it won't inadvertently contribute to the stereotype just because of the finale? I don't know. I will say that I think there's a need to balance concerns about the real-life consequences of the imagery an artist creates with the need to tell the particular story that seems most truthful to the artist.

I didn't watch that finale feeling scared of Joseph or alienated from him. I watched it feeling like there's a strong chance I would have done the same thing. I don't think the episode wants us to feel alienated from or superior to Joseph at all. To me, that felt truthful.
 
Sci said:
I agree. Even if Joseph assaulted Dah'Rak -- and I am not convinced that he did; I think there's a very strong change that Dah'Rak assaulted Joseph and that Joseph killed him in legitimate self-defense -- this would not constitute a war crime. And I flat-out reject the idea that his attack on the Klingon commanders on J'Gal was a war crime; they were legitimate military targets and he had every right to kill them as long as the war was ongoing.
Click to expand...
There's no "if". Dah'Rak was worried that he was about to be exposed by M'Benga, so he wanted to either silence or coerce him into co-operating with his narative. If Dah'Rak didn't get his way, he would be RUINED.
WlgMtIC.jpg
This isn't the actions or face of a "Assaulter".

It's the face of a man wracked with guilt over having to become a monster to stop the actions of a War Criminal, one who he never caught until many years later after the war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Commander Richard
  • Poll
Spoilers Star Trek: Prodigy 2x08 - "Is There in Beauty No Truth?"
2
Replies
23
Views
3K
aquova
aquova
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top