Spoilers Alan Van Sprang officially joins Season 2 as...
- Thread starter Dijeirusan
- Start date
Their weapon is surprise. Surprise and fear. Fear and surprise. Their TWO weapons are fear and surprise and an almost fanatical devotion to the Federation. Ah...amongst their weaponry are such diverse elements as fear, surprise, an almost fanatical devotion to the Federation, and black leather uniforms...I'll come in again.
why? I think it's quite normal that it exists in such a dangerous galaxy
A
Amaris
Guest
I find them regressive, and unnecessary. They indicate that humans only get what they want if they're willing to take up practices that destroy the lives of others. More so, that they're justified in what they do as long as it means the Federation and Starfleet comes out on top. It's Manifest Destiny, a disease that we still suffer from here in the United States, but on a galactic scale, and I find it vile that it ends up in a show that is supposed to be about how humans have evolved beyond the need for war and the acquisition of wealth at all costs.
Oh, and the stupid black badges. Way to keep your secret organization secret. I guess it wouldn't be the same if you simply didn't tell anyone, but gotta have the cool decoder ring to make it official.
section 31 is a defensive organization, they seek to protect the federation not galactic conquest and enslave and plunder other civilizations.
But, human nature is constantly struggling against the darker aspects of our nature. It is regresssive, sure, but the whole point is that they on't win out in the end. That Starfleet can embrace its principles and reject S31 and the "victory at any cost" principles they espouse. People can lambast Star Trek Into Darkness all they want but Kirk's speech at the end, his sacrfice, that part stuck with me and the dark mirror Admiral Marcus served to reflect responding to Klingon aggression with more aggression.
If history has taught me anything, it is that human beings need the same lesson multiple times before it sticks.
Indeed. It's much the same reason that Aliens3 lost me in the first five minutes: it ruthlessly undermined everything Ripley achieved in the (beloved) previous film.
Well, relatively. It seems like a much darker universe than what we remember from TOS. (Both literally and figuratively.)Thank GOD Discovery leaves the Star Trek universe narratively in a better shape!
About the only word I agree with there is "organization".
Defense? Protect? Section 31 is neither of these.
Save for "The Cage" and Captain Pike's rather dour outlook, as well as the Kelvin which preceeds the DISCO by ten years or so. Not saying DISCO is perfect in its storytelling by any means (despite accusations to the contrary) but there are hints of optimism in DISCO, even if they are not perfectly clear.
Pike's outlook in "The Cage" was emotionally exhausted, yes, but I never got the impression he was meant to be that dour on a regular basis. Nothing about the Kelvin scene in ST09 struck me as especially dark or cynical, thematically speaking (and it was 24 years before DSC, assuming the Kelvin ever existed at all in this timeline, which is debatable). Certainly TOS also had its moments when Starfleet, or the characters, or the situations they found themselves in, seemed discouraging as well... that's the essence of drama... but they always bounced back.
DSC thus far seems consistently darker, "hints" to the contrary notwithstanding. Perhaps it's just that Burnham is not a particularly convincing mouthpiece for Federation ideals?...
DSC thus far seems consistently darker, "hints" to the contrary notwithstanding. Perhaps it's just that Burnham is not a particularly convincing mouthpiece for Federation ideals?...
Not really. I don't see the need to be upset by the New Republic being destroyed, any more than I was upset about it being destroyed in the EU.I think, the true answer is: It depends.
For "Force Awakens" as a stand-alone movie, the New Republic REALLY doesn't matter. In fact so little, that her being mentioned in the opening credits is even detrimental (they take no place in the plot, except being the victims of "random evil act #3", so why mention them so prominently and prop them up as a major player in the first place?)
For the whole franchise: It does. It's not a classic "plot hole" per se. It's just a middle finger to the audience. They have esentially reset the entire worldbuilding - everything is back to the 1977. Only to tell the very exact story again, but not calling itself "reboot". Basically everything that was achieved in the OT is now invalidated. So much so, the fact how the New Republic and our old heroes and Luke's school fell is basically EVEN MORE tragic than Vaders story and the fall of the old Republic. Yet it is treated as if it doesn't matter. Because for the new writers it didn't. They wanted to do a reboot. But also wanted to have the old actors in it. So they basically reset everything - destroying everything they ever achieved, destroying their children, marriages, goals, EVERYTHING - and not even treating that as a big thing, just something to gloss over. Only to tell EXACTLY by-the-numbers the same story these old heroes experienced before.
It's not exactly a plot hole. But enough to be upset about.
Thank GOD Discovery leaves the Star Trek universe narratively in a better shape!
The Big 3 never had the "happily ever after" that we would like them to have.
A
Amaris
Guest
They tried to commit genocide on the changelings, and they don't have to conquer to engage in expansionism. The U.S. didn't enslave or conquer, as an official rule (though it did happen) when expanding westward, but we did claim to come in the name of friendship, only to offer smallpox infected blankets to the natives. No more pesky people around to claim the land as their own. They were a threat you know, those savages.
When we torture people to extract information, I have no doubt the man pouring water over his captive's face believes he is working to protect and defend his country. So much evil can be done under the guise of "defense," and "protection."
Except we live in a world where the idea of a Section 31 is not only embraced, but championed. Look at shows like 24, or movies like American Sniper. We glorify these acts of violence as being necessary to protect our country, where the ultimate patriot is willing to murder entire groups of people in the name of freedom™.
Exactly. They exist as a militant arm which engages in tactics that destabilize and destroy as a method of maintaining dominance. They've been shown willing to do whatever it takes to ensure the supremacy of their way of life.
Whereas Aliens is the LAST of that franchise’s films I reach for (I don’t include the AVP films—never seen one) AND Alien3 is my second favourite, as even a significantly flawed Finscher film is quite a bit more interesting than anything Cameron has done. YMMV, etc.
It does indeed vary. 
Aliens is the only one I actually enjoy — an action movie done right. The original Alien is somewhat interesting for its design aesthetic but IMHO an otherwise forgettable horror story, and A3 and A4 are among the (very) lesser works of Fincher and Whedon respectively. (And the less said about Prometheus, the better — an idiot plot through and through.)
Aliens is the only one I actually enjoy — an action movie done right. The original Alien is somewhat interesting for its design aesthetic but IMHO an otherwise forgettable horror story, and A3 and A4 are among the (very) lesser works of Fincher and Whedon respectively. (And the less said about Prometheus, the better — an idiot plot through and through.)
Except their methods and actions were never to achieve dominance, merely the continued independent existence of the Federation.
the expansionism of the United States was plundering, genocide and slavery.
the United Federation of Planets is not America in the nineteenth century
So, why shouldn't a show like Star Trek explore that and deal with such an organization but reject that idea and embrace another path?
I don't understand why Star Trek can't address it head on?
A
Amaris
Guest
True, it's not, it's the United States in the 20th and 21st centuries.
Will they address it head on? Or will they pull a 24 and make Section 31 the last line of defense against the invading horde?
Only if Jack...is back.
A
Amaris
Guest
I just despise that show so much. It reinforces the notion that police, and military, are justified when they engage in the use of excessive force, in denying people their rights, in the assumption that the accused is automatically guilty. It makes the abuser look like the hero, and I don't like the idea of Star Trek going "yeah, that sounds good, let's do that."
Similar threads
