Section 31

[David cgc]

Oh please had they done that SOMEONE would have said: "WoW! They're ignoring Section 31 from ENT and DS9 = NOT STAR TREK!..."

On second thought, that's a pretty good point! In fact, that's basically, what people who don't think they're using 31 consistently are saying. "WoW! They're ignoring Starfleet Intelligence from TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, and the KT = NOT STAR TREK!"

I really don't understand the choice to use them, beyond name recognition. If their defining trait was that they were a secret conspiracy no one knew about, one that may not even be real and just a self-satisfying justification by the delusional and criminally inclined, how does, "Let's bring them back, but with their own branding and letterhead" come out as the most obvious idea?

 

[BillJ]

They're damned if they do and damned if they don't...

They really aren't. If they had a good story that fit Section 31, great. My gripe isn't about Section 31 in and of itself, but it is just another piece of fanwank to toss on the mountain.

It really is beginning to feel like they have no faith in their collective abilities to do their own version of "Star Trek". They have to keep elbowing us in the ribs with overt references of what came before: "SEE! LOOK! IT IS STAR TREK!".

 

[fireproof78]

I have NEVER seen such a reaction to something not showing up in favour of a new element being introduced - except as a strawman used by people who see any type of criticism - even legitimate one - as a personal attack against themselved.

Where was the outrage of the Romulans not showing up in DIS? The Borg not showing up? By your logic, fanst must have been vivid about that!

Really, that is just one lousy excuse of a long-debunked talking point to silence all legitimate criticism of a show once and for all. You don't like it? Well, you must be the embodiement of toxic fan culture then! No chance the latest iteration just... wasn't that good to begin with, right? The fault must be with the other people!

That wasn't the point. The point is that no matter what they will draw the ire of segments of the fan base. I have seen similar complaints regarding the Kelvin films and what "should" be showing up at that time in canon, alternate timelines be damned. So, yes, I have seen such "logic" (if it can be called such) in fan discussions.

People have been upset about Section 31 since its inception, so Discovery's use of a black ops organization, of any kind, would draw ire.

So, respectfully, I have seen the exact reaction you have claimed to not seen. Different experiences and all that jazz.

 

[DaveyNY]

I'm not sure I understand this...

Section-31 was seen in ENTERPRISE ~100 years before Discovery and also seen in DEEP SPACE-9 ~100 years after Discovery...

Why is it a problem for it to show up During DISCOVERY?

DId it just fall off the ends of the universe and then suddenly pop back up again 200 years later?

 

[BillJ]

Why is it a problem for it to show up During DISCOVERY?

Lack of originality in the show? At least for me, it is just another indication this show has no real creative vision of its own. It is simply selling nostalgia. If that is what one wants, then they will enjoy the show. But I don't think it is good for the overall health of the franchise.

 

[fireproof78]

I'm not sure I understand this...

Section-31 was seen in ENTERPRISE ~100 years before Discovery and also seen in DEEP SPACE-9 ~100 years after Discovery...

Why is it a problem for it to show up During DISCOVERY?

DId it just fall off the ends of the universe and then suddenly pop back up again 200 years later?

I think it is that it is supposed to be a shadow organization that is neither acknowledged nor denied by higher ups. The fact that they have their own black badges kind of puts a problem on the whole "secret" part of the organization.

Now, to me, it simply means that Section 31 has a legitimate front and a non-legitimate one, operating like Starfleet Intelligence when not engaged in the shadow ops. But, that's just me.

Lack of originality in the show? At least for me, it is just another indication this show has no real creative vision of its own. It is simply selling nostalgia. If that is what one wants, then they will enjoy the show. But I don't think it is good for the overall health of the franchise.

What about the Klingons? And Spock? What would be "creative vision" for you to enjoy? Truly curious. ​

 

[DaveyNY]

It seems that many folks dislike DISCOVERY just because of the time period it was chosen to be set in.

Everything else is just "Reasons".

Since none of us have any control over these kind of decisions, why not just go with the flow?
Personally, I find no comfort in watching something I don't enjoy, and then spending an inordinate amount of time tearing it apart to folks who do enjoy it.
Seems like it would be a massive waste of my precious entertainment hours.

 

[BillJ]

What about the Klingons? And Spock? What would be "creative vision" for you to enjoy? Truly curious.

Exploring. Giving us things that haven't already appeared in umpteen episodes of the franchise. Things that the franchise hasn't already beaten to death. They had an interesting idea in the Spore Drive, but it was just a gateway to more fanwank.

It seems that many folks dislike DISCOVERY just because of the time period it was chosen to be set in.

I dislike it because it is watching-paint-dry-on-the-wall dull.

 

[DaveyNY]

Exploring. Giving us things that haven't already appeared in umpteen episodes of the franchise. Things that the franchise hasn't already beaten to death. They had an interesting idea in the Spore Drive, but it was just a gateway to more fanwank.



I dislike it because it is watching-paint-dry-on-the-wall dull.

Then I guess you wouldn't be one of the "many folks" I was talking about.

 

[Tuskin38]

But we saw black badges in s01e03... Was there some state of indeterminism where black badges meant something else other than Section 31, until they were labeled as such in the youtube clip that is not canon?

That clip is canon.

 

[Vger23]

The more and more I read interactions between Star Trek fans, the more I discover why I'm rare in agreement with the "classic / stereotypical" franchise fan.

There is so much arguing and anxiety over "what is REAL Star Trek" or what "FEELS like Star Trek" that I've come to realize that I actually appreciate changing, different, "took a risk and succeeded/failed" Star Trek far more than I appreciate the same old stuff. So, I guess that means that I actually like Star Trek when it doesn't FEEL like Star Trek.

 

[Vger23]

I think it is that it is supposed to be a shadow organization that is neither acknowledged nor denied by higher ups. The fact that they have their own black badges kind of puts a problem on the whole "secret" part of the organization.

Now, to me, it simply means that Section 31 has a legitimate front and a non-legitimate one, operating like Starfleet Intelligence when not engaged in the shadow ops. But, that's just me.

What about the Klingons? And Spock? What would be "creative vision" for you to enjoy? Truly curious. ​

How DARE you create such a normal, calm, well-grounded rationale when people are trying desperately to justify and rationalize their distaste of the series???!!!

 

[Jayson1]

They really aren't. If they had a good story that fit Section 31, great. My gripe isn't about Section 31 in and of itself, but it is just another piece of fanwank to toss on the mountain.

It really is beginning to feel like they have no faith in their collective abilities to do their own version of "Star Trek". They have to keep elbowing us in the ribs with overt references of what came before: "SEE! LOOK! IT IS STAR TREK!".

To me fanwank is only fanwank if your using something old in the most traditional way. If though your talking something old and finding a new way to use it or say something new about it then that means your just adding depth to this long established concept. The fact that Section 31 is something of a modern concept, not being conceived until season 6 of "DS9" means you still have unknown area's of it that you can explore. Which is different from lets say the Klingons were it feels like we know that culture inside and out by this time. As much issues as I have with the "Discovery" Klingons because of the lousy look I did kind of like the idea of making them more tribal. It wasn't done well but the idea was sound IMO.

Jason

 

[shapeshifter]

For better or worse, I am looking forward to S31 finally getting fleshed out in more detail. That should have occured, imo, during Enterprise but they ran out of time.

Here's to whatever they have created not sucking!

 

[Noname Given]

I have NEVER seen such a reaction to something not showing up in favour of a new element being introduced - except as a strawman used by people who see any type of criticism - even legitimate one - as a personal attack against themselved.

Where was the outrage of the Romulans not showing up in DIS? The Borg not showing up? By your logic, fanst must have been vivid about that!

Really, that is just one lousy excuse of a long-debunked talking point to silence all legitimate criticism of a show once and for all. You don't like it? Well, you must be the embodiement of toxic fan culture then! No chance the latest iteration just... wasn't that good to begin with, right? The fault must be with the other people!

Oh please there's a whole segment of Star Trek fandom decrying the 'fanwank' of ST: D (IE OMG! They're doing stuff related to 'Spock' and 'Sarek'...it's so 'small universe', and any other TOS references they make.)

And if they weren't doing any references, these same people would cry: "See, 50 years of Star Trek and they use NONE of it in ST: D..."

It's not a 'strawman excuse' when for an entire fan segment, any call back or use of previously existing characters is considered 'fanwank' or 'unoriginal'.

Again damned if they do, damned if they don't.

 

[Noname Given]

I think it is that it is supposed to be a shadow organization that is neither acknowledged nor denied by higher ups. The fact that they have their own black badges kind of puts a problem on the whole "secret" part of the organization.

Now, to me, it simply means that Section 31 has a legitimate front and a non-legitimate one, operating like Starfleet Intelligence when not engaged in the shadow ops. But, that's just me.

What about the Klingons? And Spock? What would be "creative vision" for you to enjoy? Truly curious. ​

Then I guess you despised DS9 when they shows Admiral Ross and other High ranking Admirals working for and with Section 31 is DS9 (S7) - "Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges"?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

and think DS9 "isn't Trek"?

 

[Timo]

In the 200 or so years we follow the hilarious hijinks of S31, there's room for that snake to shed its skin multiple times over. Might have been a shadowy cabal in the 2150s, a covert ops organization in the 2250s, a long-forgotten piece of much-despised history in the 2350s, and then comes tis crazy guy Sloane and starts pretending the Section still exists, kidnapping and "drafting" people and creating holographic colleagues and nonexistent operations and imaginary threats. Easy for him to do, what with him being ex-SF Intel and all...

Not that it'd need to be that linear and simple. At any given time, there could be five to thirteen organizations or gentlemen's clubs or one-member conspiracies calling themselves Section 31, each encouraging the others for "creating the perfect cover" for their own hugely important and extremely real operations.

I don't need to see all of that in order to believe in it. I can just opt to Want to Believe. But each century showing us a different S31 is IMHO superior to all of them showing the same-o.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[fireproof78]

Exploring. Giving us things that haven't already appeared in umpteen episodes of the franchise. Things that the franchise hasn't already beaten to death. They had an interesting idea in the Spore Drive, but it was just a gateway to more fanwank.

Like what? What types of things would you like to see explored that hasn't been touched on too much to constitute "beaten to death?"

I'm not trying to hammer on you, but you always are comparing Star Trek to shows I have not seen, so I think you have a broader experience to share what would be entertaining in today's market, at least from your perspective.

Then I guess you despised DS9 when they shows Admiral Ross and other High ranking Admirals working for and with Section 31 is DS9 (S7) - "Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges"?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

and think DS9 "isn't Trek"?

Well, I do think that DS9 isn't Trek but that's a whole other discussion

 

[Rahul]

Oh please there's a whole segment of Star Trek fandom decrying the 'fanwank' of ST: D (IE OMG! They're doing stuff related to 'Spock' and 'Sarek'...it's so 'small universe', and any other TOS references they make.)

And if they weren't doing any references, these same people would cry: "See, 50 years of Star Trek and they use NONE of it in ST: D..."

It's not a 'strawman excuse' when for an entire fan segment, any call back or use of previously existing characters is considered 'fanwank' or 'unoriginal'.

Again damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Here is the thing though: You're over-generalizing, where in reality it depends on the context of each case:

To give a non-controversial Star Wars example:
Say you make a new series set in the timeframe between the original and the prequel-trilogy (aka between Episode III and Episode IV). There are certain things expected to appear, and other where it's clearly fanwank.

For example: In this time period, it should absolutely be expected that "The Empire" is a large political player, when it shows up they're often using Star Destroyers and TIE fighters, and that Stormtroopers appear on many different planets. These elements SHOULD appear, because they are a large factor in the worldbuilding of said time period. But if, say, a young Boba Fett, a young Han Solo, an early Death Star and Obi Wan all appear one after another seemingly at random - that's fanwank. Because these elements are supposed to be super rare in this time period.

See? It's pretty easy.

A positive example for DISCO is the appereance of Andorians and Tellarites: They are big players in the Federation, especially at this time, so it's great to see them! Also the appereance of Sarek alone is not the issue - he's a famous ambassador, it makes sense for him to be involved in the big political situation of the time.

It's just the other times where DISCO fails that test when it's called out: Burnham being Spocks long lost sibling, also independantly stumbling upon the Mirror Universe, Harry Mudd etc. - each of these should be a singular, unique, rare event. Having them all together stretches disbelief.

 

[Jayson1]

One thing we should also point out with Section 31 and how they were used in ""In The Heart of Darkness" is that we are talking about a altered timeline. A timeline that's alterations if you track the various visits we have seen people time travel to in Trek means the timeline would have been altered as far back as the Big Bang. Section 31 in that universe could have played out in a completely different way than it does in the Prime Universe.

Jason