Or Bele was a goer. wink wink nudge nudge
News Star Trek: Section 31 Movie with Michelle Yeoh Announced!
- Thread starter Romulan_spy
- Start date
Frank Gorshin did have big mack daddy energy.
Last edited:
Kirk: That's in the southernmost part of the galaxy, in an uncharted quarter.
They could have had colonies. Their technological capabilities and abilities would indicate such a possibility.
Several posters in this thread. I believe most are on Earth.
Adventure in space, about the nature of humanity. That's what Trek talks about, not just the good stuff.
I think it has the potential to be very interesting about human ability to evolve.
She's seems to be a temp and not in charge.
Rachel Garrett and the others might not even know she's a Mirror Universe dictator and war criminal, or only a few of them might.
Starship Troopers is an adventure in space too.
And an excellent book.
Star Trek, especially TOS, was not always about the happy side of humanity.
You just reminded me that Rachael Garrett is seemingly a S31 agent now lol
I'm not sure if its this movies fault or the wider problem of how P+ Trek has decided to make Section 31 a thing in the Federation that operates openly. Section 31 is nothing but a rogue, illegal, completely antithesis to what the Federation should stand for organization.
Then again it is 2024, maybe its a sign of the times.
She doesn't appear to be a part of it from now. There is the line in the trailer that the member of the Section 31 seems to be recruiting her. Georgiou seems more willing to be removed from the action, for whatever reason.She's seems to be a temp and not in charge.
To me, after "Terra Firma" we see that Georgiou was not the same woman as she was as the empress. She was changed enough to not even be as effective as a Terran leader, though a better leader for a rebellion. It was interesting shift.
The plot from the trailer actually seems to tie back to her time as empress, so be curious to see her dealing with memories.
No.
She's their handler to ensure they stay in check.
We don't know that it is rogue or illegal. Enterprise added more color, and Sisko simply states that they neither confirm nor deny. That doesn't establish legality. It might be antithetical to the Federation values, but we see people act against the values a lot as well, including leadership. So, not sure why Section 31 is considered out of step?
It doesn't have to be. You've had classic episodes where every captain has acted irrationally and made some very unwise choices.
But it was about being morally consistent, you fight the fight as a last resort.
And this doesn't exactly shout itself as a serious deconstruction of anything or anyone, it looks like they've shot a comedy script from ten years ago where people were already getting tired of MCU dialogue.
Because, in order to have discussion it must be serious?
I don't get this attitude at all. I've examined many pop culture things from an analytic point of view to make a point of culture, ethics, and philosophical or moral belief. Not sure why it needs to be serious?
Ok. That's good. But sometimes we see leaders who are not morally consistent. And their story isn't interesting to explore? That's part of the human adventure. We are not perfectly good, we are not evolved and we have an evil side, per TOS.
It was a rogue organisation and it is an illegal organisation due to the genocide thing, no one knew about it but people at the very highest levels. Section 31, in general, is a terrible idea. They have ratcheted that terribleness up a dozen or so times and now they're possibly making the dumbest, worst possible interpretation of it.
You can do it from a comedy perspective if you're a supremely talented film maker and scriptwriter ala Paul Verhoeven. This ain't that and has shown no aspects of that. It has so far shown itself as an embarrassing knock of Guardians that is largely being negatively received across every platform I can see
"The Space CIA but with an unlimited budget and led by Hitler with no rules to follow is good, actually" is not an interesting premise. Or something that belongs in Star Trek.
But hey, they might bring in a few new eyes while losing even more who never came back after Discovery.
Rather certain opinion for having not seen it.
You'll forgive me if I don't agree.
As for genocide, Kirk could do that in TOS. Sisko rendered a planet uninhabitable to humans.
Star Trek has played some rather terrible ideas at times. This strikes me as about the middle of the ground.
Good thing that's not it.
They're loss. Star Trek shouldn't be just comfort food.
Who's embarrassed? And why should they be? It's art, not a writ on life. If it doesn't work, then it goes with other failed art projects. Too bad, so sad, no harm, no foul.
He didn't kill anyone. He had no intent to kill anyone. Not a good genocide. He was still wrong, but that isn't the same thing.
As an side, it's absolutely insane to me that they had a supremely talented actress like Yeoh, who would have brought much needed gravitas to the role, as a side character in Discovery for so many years and we could have had her as a series lead instead of a petulant child like Burnham.
Rendering a planet uninhabitable seems to be pretty terrible thing.
I blame Fuller.
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
