Into Darkness?
Section 31
- Thread starter StarMan
- Start date
Into Darkness?
Oops! I umm was testing everyone on their knowledge of the one with Section 31 in it.
Jason
So I said this in the other thread but it bares repeating; the exchange between Pike, Burnham and Georgiou in the trailer is clearly edited to deliver exposition and I would tend to doubt that it will appear in the show proper in exactly the same format; section 31 might in fact stay much more covert in season two than we might think. This doesn't explain the black badges, which are admittedly a bit dumb for a super secret cabal, but perhaps suggest a more legitimate cover organisation of which 31 is only a more secret part. Pike and Burnham obviously know at some point in season 2 that Georgiou is involved in black ops/intelligence work of some sort, but I wouldn't (at least for the moment) read too much into the trailer as confirming or denying the secrecy or otherwise of section 31. The writing may in the end be incredibly dumb and make section 31 into a household name in-universe but I'll leave it for the show itself to tell me that rather than over-analysing a three second snippet of the trailer 
Having said that, I would like to restate my general displeasure at the concept of section 31 in general and its seemingly increasing presence as part of the star trek brand (since the end of enterprise reintroduced it, through ID and now into discovery). The idea of a shadowy organisation working behind the scenes, pulling the strings of society and committing treason and war crimes (and employing genocidal maniacs at that) for the so-called 'greater good' should not be seen as more 'realistic' than a future of transparent and accountable liberal humanist democratic government - in fact, the notion that it is positioned in just that way (as being 'more realistic') is a complete indictment of a (primarily american) cultural industry and societal discourse that has given up on the ideals of equality and personal freedom that it professes to espouse. The notion of these 'deep state' entities like section 31 have been worming their way into american cultural products for a while now (I can think of House of cards and Scandal as prime examples off the top of my head but there are plenty others).
Without trying to start an argument on which particular side of the aisle you come down on (as far as I'm concerned this should not be a partisan issue) these kind of mythologies of deeply entrenched criminal conspiracies in government (from and against both 'sides' I should say) only act to erode public trust in the accountability of democratic institutions and reinforce an idea that the ideals of equality and personal freedom are an 'unrealistic' fools errand; that we should perhaps just give up and let the 'strong man' rule over us openly. Its also worth noting that the section 31 and other 'deep state' organisations trope is lifted pretty much directly from conspiracy theory literature which, far from being simple trolls on the internet having a good time, are themselves deeply embedded in neo-nazi propaganda regarding the so-called 'international jewish conspiracy' and its various proxies ('international banking' is another one). Its worth noting that Bob Orci, who of course co-wrote Into Darkness with current Discovery show-runner Alex Kurtzman is a noted conspiracy theorist and 9/11 'truther'. That's not to accuse either of these men of being neo-nazis (obviously! I'm sure they're perfectly decent people) but it is, I feel, a worrying intrusion of a particularly grimy discourse into the mainstream and one which I really wish star trek would not touch with a ten foot barge pole. Let alone continue to touch and seemingly rap itself around if the rumours of a section 31 spin off turn out to be true.
I hope that whatever story (or stories) they end up telling involving section 31 are entertaining and that the people who like discovery continue to do so - this is not to say 'don't enjoy the show'. But its worth considering that words and ideas aren't only there for entertainment value, but reflect and shape our own values as a society. Now this is not to argue for a universally rosy star trek future where the crew have no faults and the federation (and by proxy, our own governments) have no room to be critiqued and improved; but the idea of section 31, to me anyway, crosses the line from 'there's things to be improved about ourselves and society' into 'there is fundamentally no hope for society and selfishness and immoral action is the only 'realistic' way of governing' (DS9 I think skirted this line in a way that provided a valuable contrast to TNG, but from there its gone down hill). Lets not forget that mythology and fiction like star trek is how we as a society make our own 'realities' and set what we deem to be acceptably 'realistic'; this is a responsibility beyond simple entertainment or the profit motive of large corporations and shouldn't be dismissed or taken lightly.
I'll get down from the soap box now but tl;dr: the trailer is probably not indicative of the show and; section 31 is a dumb conspiracy theory trope that I wish star trek would forget about.
Having said that, I would like to restate my general displeasure at the concept of section 31 in general and its seemingly increasing presence as part of the star trek brand (since the end of enterprise reintroduced it, through ID and now into discovery). The idea of a shadowy organisation working behind the scenes, pulling the strings of society and committing treason and war crimes (and employing genocidal maniacs at that) for the so-called 'greater good' should not be seen as more 'realistic' than a future of transparent and accountable liberal humanist democratic government - in fact, the notion that it is positioned in just that way (as being 'more realistic') is a complete indictment of a (primarily american) cultural industry and societal discourse that has given up on the ideals of equality and personal freedom that it professes to espouse. The notion of these 'deep state' entities like section 31 have been worming their way into american cultural products for a while now (I can think of House of cards and Scandal as prime examples off the top of my head but there are plenty others).
Without trying to start an argument on which particular side of the aisle you come down on (as far as I'm concerned this should not be a partisan issue) these kind of mythologies of deeply entrenched criminal conspiracies in government (from and against both 'sides' I should say) only act to erode public trust in the accountability of democratic institutions and reinforce an idea that the ideals of equality and personal freedom are an 'unrealistic' fools errand; that we should perhaps just give up and let the 'strong man' rule over us openly. Its also worth noting that the section 31 and other 'deep state' organisations trope is lifted pretty much directly from conspiracy theory literature which, far from being simple trolls on the internet having a good time, are themselves deeply embedded in neo-nazi propaganda regarding the so-called 'international jewish conspiracy' and its various proxies ('international banking' is another one). Its worth noting that Bob Orci, who of course co-wrote Into Darkness with current Discovery show-runner Alex Kurtzman is a noted conspiracy theorist and 9/11 'truther'. That's not to accuse either of these men of being neo-nazis (obviously! I'm sure they're perfectly decent people) but it is, I feel, a worrying intrusion of a particularly grimy discourse into the mainstream and one which I really wish star trek would not touch with a ten foot barge pole. Let alone continue to touch and seemingly rap itself around if the rumours of a section 31 spin off turn out to be true.
I hope that whatever story (or stories) they end up telling involving section 31 are entertaining and that the people who like discovery continue to do so - this is not to say 'don't enjoy the show'. But its worth considering that words and ideas aren't only there for entertainment value, but reflect and shape our own values as a society. Now this is not to argue for a universally rosy star trek future where the crew have no faults and the federation (and by proxy, our own governments) have no room to be critiqued and improved; but the idea of section 31, to me anyway, crosses the line from 'there's things to be improved about ourselves and society' into 'there is fundamentally no hope for society and selfishness and immoral action is the only 'realistic' way of governing' (DS9 I think skirted this line in a way that provided a valuable contrast to TNG, but from there its gone down hill). Lets not forget that mythology and fiction like star trek is how we as a society make our own 'realities' and set what we deem to be acceptably 'realistic'; this is a responsibility beyond simple entertainment or the profit motive of large corporations and shouldn't be dismissed or taken lightly.
I'll get down from the soap box now
but tl;dr: the trailer is probably not indicative of the show and; section 31 is a dumb conspiracy theory trope that I wish star trek would forget about.
They are everywhere. And, it is easy, unimaginative drama.
I'd rather the Federation/Starfleet be the good guys (with the occasional misstep), but I think that train has left the station.
If you have an obviously not secret organization doing bad things of your behalf, then you are no longer the "good guys". Not to mention the Federation was ready to commit genocide at the end of season one.
The majority of Star fleet doesn’t know what’s going on.
Consistent with how admirals have been portrayed before.
I don't ever remember a TOS Admiral ever contemplating genocide.
Consistant with the ending of DS9
Most of the main characters in DS9 were abhored of what S31 was doing. That’s hardly portraying them as good.
Not sure what case you are making there? I didn't find the DS9 war arc particularly good Star Trek.
I’m just saying it’s consistent with what the franchise has done before. It’s not out of place.
Do the movies count?
Also, not sure why Discovery must be one to one exactly how Starfleet was in TOS, given the change in time...
Regardless, Starfleet leadership has rarely been portrayed in the best light, either jumping to conclusions, being a bureaucratic blockade to Kirk's action, incompetent on a starship, and that's off the top of my head. The people who are demonstrated to have their heads on straight is Kirk and company. And that's it.
That doesn't make something a good idea.
That’s not my point
So? We're talking about consistency. "Good" is subjective in terms of enjoyment of the story.
One-to-one? No. But, at the same time, I want good guys that I can root for. And, honestly, "government is evil" is some of the laziest drama a show can pull. Especially from a franchise that is supposed to be about an optimistic future.
