Isn't that part of Trek's appeal is that it is shades of gray? Do we really want black and white moralizing?
Drop the S31 show for a Captain Pike show?
- Thread starter Tom
- Start date
Given some of the comment concerning S31, it would seem that some only want the 'white.' With a complete absence of either grey or black.
Sums up my thoughts exactly. Showing the journey to try and get there is what’s compelling drama\entertainment.
Again couldn’t agree more. That statement is what DS9 fans would point to as what made that show so appealing to them.
In A Taste of Armageddon, once Kirk disarmed the guards and was in control of the senior council there was no need to destroy the war making computers, the ship was no longer in danger.
He and the landing party could have just beamed up and the ship departed. Instead Kirk and Spock destroyed the computers.
Which truly makes me wonder what Star Trek people have been watching?
And, in so doing, completely altered the course of a culture. Which makes me all the more concerned that somehow this is more acceptable as Star Trek when the heroes of the story are making choices that have huge implications without even a comment. same thing with Picard and the planet of clones. He was content to just walk away and let them destroy themselves since they refused (at first) to change.
That's all ok? Selective outrage it seems to me.
It's not for everyone. Just because it isn't for everyone doesn't mean it can't be included.
Sounds like a "you" problem.
I think many people overestimate just how well-known 23rd century Section 31 actually is. Alright, they have badges. Does that automatically mean that the general public knows about Section 31 and they are completely okay with their existence? The civilian prisoner in Context is for Kings definitely didn't know what the badges stood for. And I think even if Starfleet personnel know who they are, they don't necessarily know anything other than they are our dedicated counter-espionage outfit and anything more specific is possibly on a need-to-know basis.
I don't feel that the existence of Section 31 would make the entire Federation and humanity as a whole complicit in all their crimes or at the very least morally compromised by tolerating their existence. Chances are the average folks don't even know they exist and even if they do, they have no idea what they're doing.
I don't feel that the existence of Section 31 would make the entire Federation and humanity as a whole complicit in all their crimes or at the very least morally compromised by tolerating their existence. Chances are the average folks don't even know they exist and even if they do, they have no idea what they're doing.
Exactly.
Yet, some how, the mere existence of Section 31 makes the Federation a lie and the "utopian" (I use quotes because what that word means to me doesn't track with others and their definition). I don't follow with this logic.
Really? You don't think they had other security forces on the planet that would eventually come to free their leaders from a small force that occupied the main council chamber. IDK how you can believe they were "no longer in danger" as during the episode Kirk had the tables turned on him when he tried to change Anon-7's mind (admittedly at gunpoint) in Anon-7's office. The ONLY way to make sure he and his crew would be safe was to give the entire planet more to worry about.
No matter what - IF Anon-7 (and Eminiar 7 as a whole )j ust let Kirk and Co, go; that might be seen as a worse abrogation of the agreement since 50 years earlier they WERE also to bring a Federation starship down and follow the existing agreement. <--- So that might have led to Vendicar deciding to go back to waging real war; which was why Anon-7 was doing everything he could think of to bring the 1701 and her crew into compliance.
That said, to be fair - IF Anon-7 had called Vendicar and explained (including security footage, etc.); he may have found them to be receptive of just restoring the old 'status quo' as well. It was a bit pat to assume that Vendicar would automatically also want to go to a real war footing.
Last edited:
I mean, if you buy "grimdark" as something other than a superficial and indulgent posture at this point...well, that's fairly certainly a "you" problem, yeah.
Man, if only I saw grimdark somewhere... 
Who wants some shish-kabob? Right off the grill.
It's completely unrealistic to think that a society as diverse and massive as The United Federation of Planets as just generic utopian "good guys" across the board. In fact, it's absolutely ludicrous.
And Star Trek is a drama. Good drama is based on conflict and tension. Drama about an idealized society particularly needs to be about the challenges and threats to that society and to the principles of those who live within it. Otherwise, who honestly gives a shit? What is interesting about a wonderful society if we don't see the sacrifices and conflicts it takes to maintain it sometimes? Nothing is EARNED unless you show that....and that's boring and ultimately ineffective (talking to you, TNG) otherwise.
S31, while not my favorite concept, brings that realism and appreciation for what the Federation ultimately represents. It doesn't detract from it, it enhances it. And, if done right, could be a great addition as a result.
Last edited:
Ah, I think we have the misunderstanding here. This isn't good drama. This is Star Trek drama. I trust you to figure out the difference
Hey, Trek can't always be the masterpiece of Tin Man, that's for sure...lol.
I don't know...have you written a script for a Star Trek episode that was actually filmed? And if so, just how much of a 'masterpiece' was it?
Similar threads
