Spoilers Section 31 General Discussion Thread

[Dukhat]

My issue with this show is that whether Section 31 is a covert organization or a legitimate department of Starfleet, there’s really nothing inherently likable about them, IMHO. So the show’s premise is either going to be a) they’re going to try to make Section 31 likable, or b) they’re going to show Section 31 the way it’s always been presented: a bunch of assholes who have no oversight and do nasty things in the name of “Federation security.” That’s not really a show I have any interest in watching.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I mean, there was speculation about a Khan series. That's not exactly a heroic protagonist.

More than speculation, Nick Meyer actually wrote it for CBS as a 3 part miniseries, but it seems they weren't crazy about what he came up with.

 

[fireproof78]

My issue with this show is that whether Section 31 is a covert organization or a legitimate department of Starfleet, there’s really nothing inherently likable about them, IMHO. So the show’s premise is either going to be a) they’re going to try to make Section 31 likable, or b) they’re going to show Section 31 the way it’s always been presented: a bunch of assholes who have no oversight and do nasty things in the name of “Federation security.” That’s not really a show I have any interest in watching.

It's not really one I'm interested watching either, but I think there is room in the Trek world for such a show.

That's all I'm sayin'

 

[F. King Daniel]

If Section 31 was the only Trek series going, it would be a catastrophic decision. But as part of a slate of 5 series' all with different although recognizably Trekkish identities, they can try something totally bonkers and perhaps absorb the loss should it be unsuccessful and die a swift death.

 

[BillJ]

I'm not a fan of the idea. I think the attempt at normalization of a character that is seen to be a mass murderer is a poor way to go.

 

[antinoos]

Redemption ≠ Normalization

 

[fireproof78]

If Section 31 was the only Trek series going, it would be a catastrophic decision. But as part of a slate of 5 series' all with different although recognizably Trekkish identities, they can try something totally bonkers and perhaps absorb the loss should it be unsuccessful and die a swift death.

I think that's the point. Kind of like comic books of old they have the opportunity to try different ideas without sinking the franchise. It is neither a poor nor an offensive idea.

I'm not a fan of the idea. I think the attempt at normalization of a character that is seen to be a mass murderer is a poor way to go.

I don't see how this is normalized. I'm sorry, I don't. Again, my argument would be similar for a Khan miniseries, or a Garak one. These are characters who are not good people, but I would never contend that they are the norm in the Star Trek world.

But, Star Trek isn't about the norm is it? It's about boldly going, exploring ideas and worlds and cultures. This is the same show that gave us this gem about Nazi Germany:

KIRK: But why Nazi Germany? You studied history. You knew what the Nazis were.
GILL: Most efficient state Earth ever knew.
SPOCK: Quite true, Captain. That tiny country, beaten, bankrupt, defeated, rose in a few years to stand only one step away from global domination.

But, I doubt that colony was the norm for the Federation.

Star Trek isn't about the norm, and I would be hardpressed to argue that Section 31 would represent "the norm" any more than any other leading crew has done in past shows. And it can fit in just fine, even if it isn't for everyone. And no one hear is required to watch it.

 

[NCC-73515]

I mean, there was speculation about a Khan series. That's not exactly a heroic protagonist.

Again, my argument would be similar for a Khan miniseries, or a Garak one. These are characters who are not good people, but I would never contend that they are the norm in the Star Trek world.

Khan:
"He was the best of the tyrants and the most dangerous."
"There were no massacres under his rule…"
"No wars until he was attacked…"

Garak was a spy, and most of his victims were killed to carry out the mission or to protect himself or others. His interrogations also served Cardassian interests and were not simply for sadistic reasons. We actually see him as a kind, fair, funny person as well, in addition to his dark layers. He regretted much of his actions later, but still found them necessary.

None of them even got close to multiple planetary genocide, massive torture of whoever they didn't like or wanted to punish, eating sentient people for fun, keeping slaves, and being as racist and xenophobic as possible.

 

[Lord Garth]

Fuck this. I'm done. We're never getting out of this circle. Don't bother responding to this post as I won't be reading the responses. In the future, I'm sticking to Picard when I post on TrekBBS. Maybe Discovery. Depends on how the bashers are when S3 starts.

For the rest of you who are actually looking forward to discussing the Section 31 Series, I wish you the best of luck in attempting to do so. But it's going to keep looking like this. And it's going to be like smashing your head against the wall. There are better and more interesting ways to waste my time.

Over and out. See you guys on the Picard end of things.

 

[fireproof78]

Khan:
"He was the best of the tyrants and the most dangerous."
"There were no massacres under his rule…"
"No wars until he was attacked…"

Garak was a spy, and most of his victims were killed to carry out the mission or to protect himself or others. His interrogations also served Cardassian interests and were not simply for sadistic reasons. We actually see him as a kind, fair, funny person as well, in addition to his dark layers. He regretted much of his actions later, but still found them necessary.

None of them even got close to multiple planetary genocide, massive torture of whoever they didn't like or wanted to punish, eating sentient people for fun, keeping slaves, and being as racist and xenophobic as possible.

No massacres is highly technical language. Doesn't mean people didn't die. Doesn't make him a morally good person.

Garak served Cardassian interests? Isn't that what the Terran Empire does? Isn't that what Section 31 does? Serve their government's or organizations' interests? Garak has dark layers? Oh, ok. As long as the character is layered then it's ok for them to be evil?

Finally, I am speaking about a Section 31 show in general, not just about the former Empress Georgiou. And, as I have stated before, Star Trek is a show predicated on the concept of humanity becoming better. But, apparently, there is a bar that must be met in order to start that evolution. How optimistic.

 

[thribs]

As long as the Discovery people stay well away from it. Bring back the DS9 writers. Their interpretation of it is way more interesting than Discovery’s.

 

[NCC-73515]

No massacres is highly technical language. Doesn't mean people didn't die. Doesn't make him a morally good person.

Massacres = many people die at once in the same place at the hand of the same murderers. Numbers and density make a difference. Reasons do as well.
There is a gradient from "good" to "bad", and both Khan and Garak are far away from the maximum bad that the Terran Emperor occupies.

Garak served Cardassian interests? Isn't that what the Terran Empire does? Isn't that what Section 31 does? Serve their government's or organizations' interests? Garak has dark layers? Oh, ok. As long as the character is layered then it's ok for them to be evil?

It does not serve Terran interests to torture or eat people, they do that only because they enjoy it. Again, Garak is by far not as evil as the Emperor. Garak has some good sides and some bad sides. The Emperor is ~100% bad. Name some good sides of Garak and some good sides of the Emperor

Finally, I am speaking about a Section 31 show in general, not just about the former Empress Georgiou. And, as I have stated before, Star Trek is a show predicated on the concept of humanity becoming better. But, apparently, there is a bar that must be met in order to start that evolution. How optimistic.

And I would be fine with such a show if the Emperor is not the main character, or not even in it at all. Her becoming an angel would be totally unbelievable.

 

[fireproof78]

Massacres = many people die at once in the same place at the hand of the same murderers. Numbers and density make a difference. Reasons do as well.
There is a gradient from "good" to "bad", and both Khan and Garak are far away from the maximum bad that the Terran Emperor occupies.

It does not serve Terran interests to torture or eat people, they do that only because they enjoy it. Again, Garak is by far not as evil as the Emperor. Garak has some good sides and some bad sides. The Emperor is ~100% bad. Name some good sides of Garak and some good sides of the Emperor

And I would be fine with such a show if the Emperor is not the main character, or not even in it at all. Her becoming an angel would be totally unbelievable.

Who said anything about making her an angel? This hyperbolic rage against the Emperor is tiresome. Apparently humans cannot evolve at all, even though the Emperor was likely never shown a better way. Khan and Garak we at least knew what morality they grew up with. The Mirror Universe is not one that operates within the same morality we know, and it's ridiculous to have that expectation.

Also, as I stated, I am discussing the Section 31 show and not just the Terran Emperor.

 

[NCC-73515]

You do realize that she went from the mirror universe, where her crimes are acceptable and perhaps required for her position, to the prime universe, where she, the most evil character in the franchise's history, is supposed to lead a new show... that's my problem.

 

[fireproof78]

You do realize that she went from the mirror universe, where her crimes are acceptable and perhaps required for her position, to the prime universe, where she, the most evil character in the franchise's history, is supposed to lead a new show... that's my problem.

I do realize that. I do also realize that Trek is about humans evolving pass their evil ways and base impulses. Evolution must start somewhere.

Never mind the fact that the Klingons were known for torturing, and taking slaves, and eating their enemies. I'm sure that they are far different than the Terrans.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Khan:
"He was the best of the tyrants and the most dangerous."
"There were no massacres under his rule…"

SPOCK: Which, as I understand it, involved the mass genocide of anyone you considered to be less than superior.


Yes Into Darkness is an alternate universe, but it's the one Disco's Section 31 was copypasted from and was co-written by the Star Trek Universe showrunner.

 

[NCC-73515]

khan or kol should also not lead a section 31 show, but garak could

 

[BillJ]

The Mirror Universe is not one that operates within the same morality we know...

That isn't necessarily true. There were plenty of people who seemed to know right from wrong in the Mirror universe. Just like there are plenty of people who don't know it in every other timeline.

Emperor Georgiou, is the equivalent of Josef Stalin. We even see her kill her own advisors to protect her power. I'm not someone that would be up for a show about Stalin working for the CIA or FBI. The other problematic piece is one that you can already see in Discovery, where they are softening who she is. Something they have to do to have her as the lead of a show. Coochie-coochie-coo. The difference between Georgiou and Garak is that the DS9 writers never let us forget who Garak was.

Then there is the "redemption" angle. Sorry. Some folks are simply beyond redemption. What about "redemption" for the millions who died and were tortured during her rule?

 

[BillJ]

For the rest of you who are actually looking forward to discussing the Section 31 Series, I wish you the best of luck in attempting to do so.

Seems it is being discussed. You want to blame anyone for what's being discussed, blame the Discovery writers that gave us this train wreck, not the folks pointing out the poor taste and illogic of it all.

Besides, what else are we supposed to be discussing? We have less than a bare bones idea of what the show is actually going to be about, and know of only one character...

 

[fireproof78]

Emperor Georgiou, is the equivalent of Josef Stalin. We even see her kill her own advisors to protect her power. I'm not someone that would be up for a show about Stalin working for the CIA or FBI. The other problematic piece is one that you can already see in Discovery, where they are softening who she is. Something they have to do to have her as the lead of a show. Coochie-coochie-coo. The difference between Georgiou and Garak is that the DS9 writers never let us forget who Garak was.

You have a point, of course. However, at this point, for me, it is a curiosity. The Emperor did not have the opportunity to become better in her position-she lived in a survival of the fittest, Spartan-esque, type world. Of course, I would expect their to be softening because she is having the opportunity to be different, to make different choices.

Then there is the "redemption" angle. Sorry. Some folks are simply beyond redemption. What about "redemption" for the millions who died and were tortured during her rule?

Again, I don't know. I'm willing to explore the idea of a person trying to become better. We had that with Kor and the rest of the Klingons. It's a thought experiment of how does humanity become better and move on from its most evil of past sins? Because all of us, as humans, are capable of great evil.