Spoilers Section 31 General Discussion Thread
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
Looks like it is a disaster on every single level. Who could have seen that coming?
Certainly not me. I don't get paid millions a year to make these decisions.
Now watch the scene. He's doing the "mansplaining" thing as a joke because that was what was in vogue on social media when it came out.
Certainly not me. I don't get paid millions a year to make these decisions.
Now watch the scene. He's doing the "mansplaining" thing as a joke because that was what was in vogue on social media when it came out.
Where do you think I got the dialogue from? I watched with subtitles on.
Maybe, but he’s also doing the “cocky know it all” that’s been in vogue since….forever.
And usually proven wrong.
Did they? Neither one was setting the world on fire. The main reason seemed to be “they’re on the bridge.”
He dies in a comical fashion while mansplaining to two women. It is set up to be comical. Because the people writing it are stupid and don't like Star Trek.
Well, having watched it. No. There was no comedy. It was played straight. Everyone was deadly serious.
Nhan has such a small part in the scene that one has to wonder why she’s there. The exchanges are mostly between Pike, Burnham and Connelly.
Where in this scene is proof the writers are stupid and don’t like Star Trek? It’s a pretty standard action piece.
Now you're just lying. It's played for laughs. Literally a minute later the two crew members are making stupid comments and going "sure haha we can do it". Can't believe you actually made me check.
Same here. Do not recall the comedy but I do recall the controversy.
And evidence for hatred of Trek?
No, Trek has had quips, inappropriate humor and the like since TOS. TNG dialog makes me cringe more than this exchange.
What are you talking about. Just watched the scene. It's played straight
About?
Watching the scene? No. I watched it to get the dialog.
About the scene being serious? No, that is what I saw on the screen. If you see comedy, that is fine.
About the level of participation of each character? That’s evident from dialog presented.
About is being a standard action piece? That’s evident too. Just watch some war movies.
Where are the lies? And where is the proof that the writers are stupid and don’t like Star Trek?
I guess some people are forgetting about conversations about boob firmness, floatation devices, Klingon zits and other high-cinema concepts from the Berman era. 
First of all, the mansplainer dies in the middle of a mansplaining rant because the talentless hacks who wrote the episode saw it on the news that year. The same clowns who wrote the nazi guy as a pioneer because they saw him on CNN.
Then the two nameless, boring, generic crew members we're supposed to care about get told to do something and start quipping about " haha yeah sure wen can do it" and then do a running commentary on it. Absolute trash.
Which goes back to how this start - adults in Picard S3 actually doing their jobs together and not randomly shouting to create DRAMA.
Section 31 is what we have ended up with because you guys just accept any slop from writers with no background in science fiction led by a guy whose writing credits were mostly Transformer movies which is essentially US military propaganda.
The best thing I can say about Kurtzman's vision of Trek is that it has made me appreciate the older movies more. I thought insurrection was dumb and surface level, but now it looks like art compared to the nonsense he and the talentless writers he worked with has produced.
From a quick google, it looks like the mega brains behind Discovery are now doing this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoey's_Extraordinary_Playlist) show. Explains a lot.
He was mansplaining? I thought he was just an asshole.
It was before we all knew what kinda asshole he really was. I imagine Marvel has the same regrets that Trek does in regards to Musk.
Keyla Detmer and Joann Owosekun.
Gene Roddenberry had no background in Science Fiction.
The biggest forced-for-laughs situation I can think of in the Kurtzman era is DSC, trying to dip their toes in the water of humor after the great success that Orville S1 was, effectively demonstrating that you could write good science fiction and still be funny. That was, at least, before they fucked all that up by embracing the stuffy and insufferable “highly evolved sensibilities” bullshit that eventually made TNG a bit of a finger-wagging bore at times.
When DSC started including slapstick comedy (like Linus sneezing Saurian mucus inside the turbo lift), I instantly knew that they were trying Orville-like humor. Then, in later seasons of DSC, I noticed that Michael was starting to be written very similarly to Beckett Mariner, a lot more wild and free-wheeling and even occasionally acting like a chipmunk on crack (especially when she got dosed with that speed-like substance). DSC was largely a series without its own identity, always reacting to external sources both within and without the franchise.
SNW has definitely (IMO) struck a decent balance between the usual kind of seriousness one might expect from Trek, while still keeping things light and real. None of the characters (with the possible exception of La’an) seem to be walking around with a duranium rod up their asses.
Last I checked, Section 31 is getting roundly dragged in the mud in every corner of the fandom.
Much like your other opinions, they have little to no basis in reality beyond your own biases. How boring and predictable.
I think that sums up how I feel about it. It tried to be everything to everyone, and its not easy to sustain. I wonder, if it had stuck to its guns, would it be seen differently now?
I know fans have mixed feelings over season 1, but much like Section 31, it might've been a rough start to something way more popular. After all, TNG season 1 is not usually the season anyone puts at the top of their favourites.
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
