Spoilers Section 31 General Discussion Thread

[The Wormhole]

Thats why it’s patently ridiculous to believe that Hunter’s Pike is the same guy as Mount’s Pike.

Quite the contrary, I've recently been reading TOS novels featuring Pike which were published in the 80s and 90s where the authors for obvious reasons based their depiction of Pike on Jeffrey Hunter. But, these days I find when I read anything featuring Pike, my mind defaults to imagining Anson Mount, and even while reading novels written in the 80s and 90 written with Hunter in mind, I find that it still works perfectly while imagining Mount there instead. The only real incongruity is when they mention Pike's dark hair. Otherwise, Anson Mount fits perfectly.

 

[Dukhat]

Quite the contrary, I've recently been reading TOS novels featuring Pike which were published in the 80s and 90s where the authors for obvious reasons based their depiction of Pike on Jeffrey Hunter. But, these days I find when I read anything featuring Pike, my mind defaults to imagining Anson Mount, and even while reading novels written in the 80s and 90 written with Hunter in mind, I find that it still works perfectly while imagining Mount there instead. The only real incongruity is when they mention Pike's dark hair. Otherwise, Anson Mount fits perfectly.

That’s great, but I was talking about a specific character trait that Pike had on-screen that was not part of any non-canon tie-in literature. I doubt the authors of those novels presented Pike as sexist as The Cage did.

It's obviously Hunter's Pike who is the outlier in terms of established Star Trek attitudes, not Mount. It's a mild retcon I can live with.

Wrong. TOS Kirk, Spock, Scotty, et al could be quite misogynistic at times. That’s something that simply wouldn’t happen with their SNW counterparts. Because the TOS characters are a product of their time, and the SNW characters are a product of their time.

But, yeah, Section 31.

 

[The Wormhole]

That’s great, but I was talking about a specific character trait that Pike had on-screen that was not part of any non-canon tie-in literature. I doubt the authors of those novels presented Pike as sexist as The Cage did.

Well, as already noted in this thread, Pike's sexism doesn't even make sense within the context of just The Cage itself since there is at least one other woman serving on the bridge Pike doesn't seem to have a problem with.

 

[Dukhat]

Well, as already noted in this thread, Pike's sexism doesn't even make sense within the context of just The Cage itself since there is at least one other woman serving on the bridge Pike doesn't seem to have a problem with.

The guy who wrote the script didn’t know that.

 

[fireproof78]

Well, as already noted in this thread, Pike's sexism doesn't even make sense within the context of just The Cage itself since there is at least one other woman serving on the bridge Pike doesn't seem to have a problem with.

Indeed.

Also, people change.

Evolve even.

Or so Star Trek would have us think. Probably just propaganda though.

 

[The Wormhole]

Indeed.

Also, people change.

Evolve even.

Or so Star Trek would have us think. Probably just propaganda though.

I thought changing and evolving went against Star Trek's teachings? Doesn't Star Trek try to makes us believe people's lives and careers remain static for a decade, maybe longer?

 

[Dukhat]

I thought changing and evolving went against Star Trek's teachings? Doesn't Star Trek try to makes us believe people's lives and careers remain static for a decade, maybe longer?

That is correct. Nothing ever changes in Star Trek. The same thing that’s happening in the 22nd century is happening in the 32nd century.

 

[fireproof78]

I thought changing and evolving went against Star Trek's teachings? Doesn't Star Trek try to makes us believe people's lives and careers remain static for a decade, maybe longer?

They make other people change.

They are already perfect.

 

[Tomalak]

Wrong. TOS Kirk, Spock, Scotty, et al could be quite misogynistic at times. That’s something that simply wouldn’t happen with their SNW counterparts. Because the TOS characters are a product of their time, and the SNW characters are a product of their time.

But, yeah, Section 31.

All Star Trek is a product of it's time, that's why continuity differences and visual changes don't bother me any more than 1964 Pike coming off as sexist.

Which takes us right back to Section 31, which I'll happily judge on its own merits in 2024, not because of any preconceived notions of the organisation as depicted in a completely different show 25 years ago.

 

[Dukhat]

All Star Trek is a product of it's time, that's why continuity differences and visual changes don't bother me any more than 1964 Pike coming off as sexist.

Which takes us right back to Section 31, which I'll happily judge on its own merits in 2024, not because of any preconceived notions of the organisation as depicted in a completely different show 25 years ago.

I’m not saying it bothers me. I’m saying that I find characters from a 2020s production playing characters from a 1960s production (and being told that the former are meant to seamlessly devolve evolve into the latter) to be patently absurd. YMMV.

 

[fireproof78]

All Star Trek is a product of it's time, that's why continuity differences and visual changes don't bother me any more than 1964 Pike coming off as sexist.

Which takes us right back to Section 31, which I'll happily judge on its own merits in 2024, not because of any preconceived notions of the organisation as depicted in a completely different show 25 years ago.

Indeed yes.

 

[The Wormhole]

That is correct. Nothing ever changes in Star Trek. The same thing that’s happening in the 22nd century is happening in the 32nd century.

Except for warp nacelles. They float in the 32nd century.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I'm sure people will enjoy it. But to me this just smacks of weird desperation cause Yeoh got an Oscar.

Space genocide organisation with space Hitler as the premise of the movie does not really interest me as a Star Trek show.

It was in works long before Yeoh got her Oscar. That it got made afterwards probably means Yeoh was fond of the project or the contract was iron tight.

 

[Noname Given]

In DSC, Section 31 was not a secret. Pike knew about it. Spock knew about it. Even the low-level Discovery bridge crew whose total amount of character development consisted of them having names, knew about it.

Fast-forward 100 years. Sisko has never heard of it. Bashir has never heard of it. Dax (and how old is Dax again?) never heard of it. Etc, etc. Yet there are even former Starfleet officers who are still alive and even had direct contact with Section 31 (i.e. Spock) who would have known of its existence. So why is everyone in the 24th century acting like they know zero about this organization (even its name) when it was common knowledge only a century before? (Other than my usual stock answer of ‘because DSC isn’t in the same continuity as previous Trek,’ which isn’t the intent of the people producing DSC)

Remember that the USS Discovery was a ship commissioned by Section 31, so any crew assigned to her would know about section 31.

And just because a recently promoted Captain Sisko didn't know about Section 31 doesn't mean there aren't captains who do know about section 31 in the 24th century.

But to question the fact that the crew of the ship commissioned by Section 31 somehow still shouldn't know about the organization?

 

[fireproof78]

But to question the fact that the crew of the ship commissioned by Section 31 somehow still shouldn't know about the organization?

Well, that obviously indicates that all members of Starfleet must know all about it, and it's mission and existence.

That's just how Starfleet works.

 

[Tosk]

Remember that the USS Discovery was a ship commissioned by Section 31

When did they establish that?

 

[Dukhat]

Remember that the USS Discovery was a ship commissioned by Section 31, so any crew assigned to her would know about section 31.

And just because a recently promoted Captain Sisko didn't know about Section 31 doesn't mean there aren't captains who do know about section 31 in the 24th century.

But to question the fact that the crew of the ship commissioned by Section 31 somehow still shouldn't know about the organization?

It wasn’t commissioned by Section 31.

 

[Noname Given]

It wasn’t commissioned by Section 31.

You need to rewatch the first couple of episodes my friend.

 

[Tosk]

You need to rewatch the first couple of episodes my friend.

Or you could just tell us exactly when they said that.

 

[Dukhat]

You need to rewatch the first couple of episodes my friend.

Or you could just tell us exactly when they said that.

Yes, by all means please let us know the relevant quotes. Because I don’t recall Section 31 even being a thing until season 2.