It doesn't mean they were always so. In Star Trek we have like one or two official intelligence agency stated, both Starfleet agencies. Having more than one that goes rogue is high dramatic potential to me.
Last edited:
Spoilers Section 31 General Discussion Thread
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
Which goes back to my comment that this likely a creative choice which is fine. But originally Section 31 was not there to do Starfleet's bidding. The recent media comments seems to suggest that's how they are phrasing the story. "CIA, James bond, "guardians of the galaxy " etc.. Basically if Starfleet can't do it, let's send in Section 31. Like Mission Impossible.
Could work story wise but not my preference or really in line with the original premise of Section 31 IMO. Section 31 I think was meant to be more surgical and subtle. Both in execution and style. Not in your face with they're methods. It would be like if the Borg started assimilating an individual by way of first knocking them out with Klingon martial arts.
I will will reserve judgment until I se the movie of course.
Last edited:
We shall see because I don't see it like that at all. Section 31 seems to step in when they deem it needed and not before. In this instance, their goals and Stsrfleet's may align.
For sure we will see. I have reservations but it is speculation for now. Having
Rachel Garret
And a good movie/story trumps stylistic preferences. Lets see.
Federation Security strikes me as more a domestic agency, an FBI parallel rather than CIA.
Although, unless you're dealing with someone who is publicly known to be CIA, then often times CIA personnel will claim to be "OGA" when dealing with non-CIA people like civilians, military or even people from other American intelligence services. OGA means Other Government Agency. Granted, that's a bit of a double-edged sword these days, while it allows people to save face and not explicitly admit they're CIA, The fact that OGA basically means CIA is so well known now its purpose is effectively nullified.
I saw this great quote on TrekCore and it perfectly distills the foundational problem of the Section 31 movie.
On top of that you add the execution that makes this movie stylistically into a Suicide Squad style movie.
I find it ironic that now many people are saying that this does not look like Star Trek:
https://trekmovie.com/2024/11/03/me...d-more-star-trek-section-31-movie-characters/
On top of that you add the execution that makes this movie stylistically into a Suicide Squad style movie.
I find it ironic that now many people are saying that this does not look like Star Trek:
https://trekmovie.com/2024/11/03/me...d-more-star-trek-section-31-movie-characters/
Last edited:
Yes, saying something doesn't look like Star Trek is very iconic. Just not in a good way.
I feel no need to root for anyone. So, that point is explicitly moot.
Section 31 is like an organized crime film to me-I have zero interest in criminals winning but the drama is interesting. That's all Section 31.
Trek is not some beacon of light for people or a writ of life to live by. It's a show. And I treat it as such.
This ties back into a problem I see just in general in the film industry lately. In the days of TOS, you had a lot of writers that had backgrounds of serving in the military during WW2 or Korea which grounded the operation of the Enterprise and Starfleet in a way that makes logical sense. Today's Trek writers largely have no military experience to speak of, so a lot of these sort of details of how things work feel shakier and shakier. When the directors and writers use terms like "black ops" and other military terms in interviews or in the scripts themselves, it sounds more like buzzwords they're using based on other shows they've seen. It lacks the authenticity.
Of course, I'm not saying or implying that writers should have that experience. It points more to a lack of researching and/or understanding what they're trying to convey.
I think that the Trek universe is fertile ground to tell so many stories that don't look or sound "like Star Trek".
A new series or movie shouldn't be automatically excluded just for painting outside the lines.
All that said, this movie continues to look like absolute garbage. So far.
I'm interested to see if it is a marketing angle or not.
A new series or movie shouldn't be automatically excluded just for painting outside the lines.
All that said, this movie continues to look like absolute garbage. So far.
I'm interested to see if it is a marketing angle or not.
Marketing is almost always a bullshit angle. Manufactured to generate buzz.
Same here. I'm already predisposed to thinking that this movie is going to suck, but the truth is that I care far less about that than I do about seeing the Lost Era and how they are choosing to depict it.
It nice to see that even though I've been gone awhile, my previous indoctrination of youse guys has stuck.
It nice to see that even though I've been gone awhile, my previous indoctrination of youse guys has stuck.
Welcome back. We all thought something bad happened to you.
Heh ... It did, but not until Tuesday.
<ba-dup-tiss>
Thanks for noticing.
Actually, I was getting burned out and depressed with all the election chat I was engaging in.
Guess my subconscious had an inkling of what might happen and it was warning me ahead of time, cause I wasn't doing much better not being here, and trying to ignore it anyway.
With the crescendo on the 5th, it seems that nothing was going to quiet my inner demons so I'm back on a limited basis.
Mostly to keep track of the new Trek projects coming down the line and a bit of self demonizing.
<shrug>
So remaking DS9 S6 In The Pale Moonlight?
Interview: ‘Star Trek: Section 31’ Cast Opens Up About Their Characters, Backstories, And More
TrekMovie spoke to Kacey Rohl, Omari Hardwick, and Robert Kazinsky at New York Comic Con.
trekmovie.com
Liking it. Seems very collaborative and there is a Trekkie in the room.Interview: ‘Star Trek: Section 31’ Cast Opens Up About Their Characters, Backstories, And More
TrekMovie spoke to Kacey Rohl, Omari Hardwick, and Robert Kazinsky at New York Comic Con.
So when will there be a dedicated Section 31 subforum? January? Will it be in the "Streaming Trek" section or " Star Trek Movies " ?
Personally I would open the forum next month and put in the Steaming Trek section in a new subforum titled "Streaming Movies " and rename the existing Movies section " Star Trek Theatrical Movies. "
I'm no webmaster though
Personally I would open the forum next month and put in the Steaming Trek section in a new subforum titled "Streaming Movies " and rename the existing Movies section " Star Trek Theatrical Movies. "
I'm no webmaster though
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
