Section 31

[Cyke101]

Section 31 only worked because DS9 was a vehicle to examine/deconstruct the Federation and Starfleet, something that TOS and TNG didn't have to do. Enterprise took the idea because the show dealt with the origins of the Federation. But the Abramsverse doesn't need to be concerned with such things as they've got plenty to explore anyway, and the Federation was already founded well before the events of the movie.

I say no to Section 31 for now. In extended media? Sure, but not here.

 

[trampledamage]

I have a fan-fiction planned where the barfly in the Kirk/Uhura meetup scene is a member of Section 31...

 

[Jayson]

Section 31 only worked because DS9 was a vehicle to examine/deconstruct the Federation and Starfleet, something that TOS and TNG didn't have to do. Enterprise took the idea because the show dealt with the origins of the Federation. But the Abramsverse doesn't need to be concerned with such things as they've got plenty to explore anyway, and the Federation was already founded well before the events of the movie.

I say no to Section 31 for now. In extended media? Sure, but not here.

How can you say no though when we don't know what they want to do for the next movie? What if they want to explore the darker nature of Starfleet in the movie? Instead of saying no, I think we should all wait and see what they want to do in the next movie before we starting tossing out Trek elements or adding Trek elements that should be used in the movie.

Jason

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

I would love it if there was something not-quite-right going on and at some point it was subtly revealed that some of those involved were with S31. It could be included only in a briefly seen exchange and not be integral to the resolution of the story but be an "OMG" moment for those who know what S31 is.

But I would also like to see Daniels walk past in one scene, that's all, just a stroll.. to keep the fans thinking. There are ways of telling a big story on screen but leaving traces of there being an untold story that is left to us to speculate on.

 

[Cyke101]

Section 31 only worked because DS9 was a vehicle to examine/deconstruct the Federation and Starfleet, something that TOS and TNG didn't have to do. Enterprise took the idea because the show dealt with the origins of the Federation. But the Abramsverse doesn't need to be concerned with such things as they've got plenty to explore anyway, and the Federation was already founded well before the events of the movie.

I say no to Section 31 for now. In extended media? Sure, but not here.

How can you say no though when we don't know what they want to do for the next movie? What if they want to explore the darker nature of Starfleet in the movie? Instead of saying no, I think we should all wait and see what they want to do in the next movie before we starting tossing out Trek elements or adding Trek elements that should be used in the movie.

Jason

Because the one thing DS9 had over every other piece of Trek was that they could afford to take risks that could lead to darkness (that would inevitably lead to light), compared to Abrams' Trek which had its own risks to take but didn't lead to a dark movie.

Even on a superficial level, we have DS9, a place that's dark both inside and out, lots and lots of characters, and complex issues abound. On the other hand, we have Abrams' movie, which has a brightly lit bridge, a quirky and eclectic if small cast, and a simple story about optimism and potential. That doesn't make one better than the other, just different, and it's pretty clear how Abrams wants to take his movie(s), down a more optimistic TOS source. And even then, that's not to say we should forget TOS' share of gloomy stories either... even TOS' most pessimistic stories were brighter and more hopeful than the average DS9 story, and that's fine.

I even think that if the next movie goes down a darker route, it's still going to be bright and cheery compared to DS9. I'm a firm believer that there's a scale. Making the movie a touch darker doesn't mean turning it into a Chris Nolan film, maybe more like Iron Man instead. Spending 2 hours on introspection the way DS9 did (which had the luxury of time) wouldn't work very well in a Trek narrative.

 

[The Wormhole]

My understanding is the events of Enterprise still ocurred in this alternate timeline, the same as in the prime timeline. Therefore, since Section 31 was around in Enterprise (they were featured in the Affliction/Divergence and the Demons/Terra Prime stories) they are obviously part of this timeline's Starfleet.

Not that they're really that effective. They did nothing about a Space Octopus from the future for 25 years.

 

[Islander]

Section 31 only worked because DS9 was a vehicle to examine/deconstruct the Federation and Starfleet, something that TOS and TNG didn't have to do. Enterprise took the idea because the show dealt with the origins of the Federation. But the Abramsverse doesn't need to be concerned with such things as they've got plenty to explore anyway, and the Federation was already founded well before the events of the movie.

I say no to Section 31 for now. In extended media? Sure, but not here.

How can you say no though when we don't know what they want to do for the next movie? What if they want to explore the darker nature of Starfleet in the movie? Instead of saying no, I think we should all wait and see what they want to do in the next movie before we starting tossing out Trek elements or adding Trek elements that should be used in the movie.

Jason

Because the one thing DS9 had over every other piece of Trek was that they could afford to take risks that could lead to darkness (that would inevitably lead to light), compared to Abrams' Trek which had its own risks to take but didn't lead to a dark movie.

Even on a superficial level, we have DS9, a place that's dark both inside and out, lots and lots of characters, and complex issues abound. On the other hand, we have Abrams' movie, which has a brightly lit bridge, a quirky and eclectic if small cast, and a simple story about optimism and potential. That doesn't make one better than the other, just different, and it's pretty clear how Abrams wants to take his movie(s), down a more optimistic TOS source. And even then, that's not to say we should forget TOS' share of gloomy stories either... even TOS' most pessimistic stories were brighter and more hopeful than the average DS9 story, and that's fine.

I even think that if the next movie goes down a darker route, it's still going to be bright and cheery compared to DS9. I'm a firm believer that there's a scale. Making the movie a touch darker doesn't mean turning it into a Chris Nolan film, maybe more like Iron Man instead. Spending 2 hours on introspection the way DS9 did (which had the luxury of time) wouldn't work very well in a Trek narrative.

Even if the outcome is optimistic the story talks of pain and suffering (the destruction of Vulcan) but this is use as a dramatic impact to futher develop the characters. I think it is well balance in emotion and brings the story closer to reality while keeping hope of a better future (something Trek didn't generally do before).

In fact, I beleive this story is a tribute to New York in the 9/11 events. Major hit to the Federation's ego and to a very imporant part of it but ultimately only serve to bring the whole galaxy togheter. I can only imagine a sequel in the same lines, and a major political crisis bringing civil war can do that do. As long as they lived happy ever after, obviously.

 

[Jayson]

While I agree that DS9 explored Section 31 in away that proably wouldn't or shouldn't be explored in a movie. I don't see Section 31 as one of those type of things that will kill the tone of your movie. If Kirk goes and rapes a women then you just killed your movie's tone. If Section 31 is in the movie it simply gives the movie a little more edge but not to the point of nihilism. That would sort of like saying "Star Trek' is dark and unlenting because of the destruction of Vulcan. The movie still has a sense of fun even if it has some dark or sad moments in it. I don't see Section 31 being so dark that you can still have fun in the movie.

Jason

 

[All Seeing Eye]

Having section 31 in the movie and then having Kirk and co prevail over them isn't lowering the tone of the franchise or movie it's doing the exact opposite. It's reinforcing what Trek is really all about.

 

[Cyke101]

How can you say no though when we don't know what they want to do for the next movie? What if they want to explore the darker nature of Starfleet in the movie? Instead of saying no, I think we should all wait and see what they want to do in the next movie before we starting tossing out Trek elements or adding Trek elements that should be used in the movie.

Jason

Because the one thing DS9 had over every other piece of Trek was that they could afford to take risks that could lead to darkness (that would inevitably lead to light), compared to Abrams' Trek which had its own risks to take but didn't lead to a dark movie.

Even on a superficial level, we have DS9, a place that's dark both inside and out, lots and lots of characters, and complex issues abound. On the other hand, we have Abrams' movie, which has a brightly lit bridge, a quirky and eclectic if small cast, and a simple story about optimism and potential. That doesn't make one better than the other, just different, and it's pretty clear how Abrams wants to take his movie(s), down a more optimistic TOS source. And even then, that's not to say we should forget TOS' share of gloomy stories either... even TOS' most pessimistic stories were brighter and more hopeful than the average DS9 story, and that's fine.

I even think that if the next movie goes down a darker route, it's still going to be bright and cheery compared to DS9. I'm a firm believer that there's a scale. Making the movie a touch darker doesn't mean turning it into a Chris Nolan film, maybe more like Iron Man instead. Spending 2 hours on introspection the way DS9 did (which had the luxury of time) wouldn't work very well in a Trek narrative.

Even if the outcome is optimistic the story talks of pain and suffering (the destruction of Vulcan) but this is use as a dramatic impact to futher develop the characters. I think it is well balance in emotion and brings the story closer to reality while keeping hope of a better future (something Trek didn't generally do before).

I'd argue that despite the war and death and destruction and backstabbing politics in DS9, the outcome itself was pretty optimistic. You have three of the biggest rivals from TOS/TNG coming together in an unprecedented way, spiritual realization for some of the heroes, and others finding their careers advancing very rapidly. Ultimately, a big sigh of relief. But the route to get to an optimistic outcome is what's hugely different between Abrams and DS9, I think.

In fact, I beleive this story is a tribute to New York in the 9/11 events. Major hit to the Federation's ego and to a very imporant part of it but ultimately only serve to bring the whole galaxy togheter. I can only imagine a sequel in the same lines, and a major political crisis bringing civil war can do that do. As long as they lived happy ever after, obviously.

I never thought of it that way, and that's pretty insightful. A sequel along those lines would be great, but I'm still convinced that it wouldn't be as dark as some would make it out to be (America certainly wasn't all doom and gloom after 9/11; likewise, a planet getting destroyed in TOS was a certainly big deal but no reason for our main heroes remained dedicated to the job).

 

[xman]

Only if their agent is named Herbert George Walker Bush!

X

 

[The Wormhole]

So I've been wondering, not much has been established about Section 31 canonically speaking. The organization is long-lasting, and therefore has been around in the 23rd century. And since Abrams and his cohorts are saying they'd like to provide various links to the other Trek series, this could be a perfect link to DS9. Have a scene where Kirk and Spock enter an alien night club in search of Nero. While they're looking around, they pass by Section 31 agents. You know what would make this scene even better? Have the agents wearing sombreros. The potential is awe-inspiringly awesome.

Discuss.

 

[Lumen]

Abrams is good at the spy stuff, so if he wanted to go this angle, he certainly could. It'd afford some good opportunities for Kirk and Spock to pontificate about morality, which they loved doing in TOS. Can't say I think Abrams wants to do that.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

The more i'm hearing about section 31 the more i'm starting to like the idea of having them as the next major bad guys, they have great potential and if written right could be sooo much better than they were in DS9.
Of course the movie would end with Kirk and co bringing the organisation down, I would hope for nothing less. This wouldn't break canon since it's a new timeline.

 

[borgfan8of5]

I think that including Section 31 in the new universe would be a great idea simply b/c they are an enemy that cannot be stopped and has ultimate authority in the Federation.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

they are an enemy that cannot be stopped and has ultimate authority in the Federation.

Imagine if several members of the Enterprise crew turned out to be Section 31 agents and Spock ended up neck pinching them and mind melding with them. Awesome! We'd find out plenty of delicious details about the organisation.

 

[Cyke101]

While I agree that DS9 explored Section 31 in away that proably wouldn't or shouldn't be explored in a movie. I don't see Section 31 as one of those type of things that will kill the tone of your movie. If Kirk goes and rapes a women then you just killed your movie's tone. If Section 31 is in the movie it simply gives the movie a little more edge but not to the point of nihilism. That would sort of like saying "Star Trek' is dark and unlenting because of the destruction of Vulcan. The movie still has a sense of fun even if it has some dark or sad moments in it. I don't see Section 31 being so dark that you can still have fun in the movie.

Jason

Having section 31 in the movie and then having Kirk and co prevail over them isn't lowering the tone of the franchise or movie it's doing the exact opposite. It's reinforcing what Trek is really all about.

As mentioned above, Vulcan's destruction elicited emotion sure, but it wasn't the end all, as our heroes pushed on. They didn't dwell on it, even though they used it as a major motivator to do some good. Section 31 is different in that they're willing to compromise their values (something our heroes never had to do in order to avenge Vulcan).

I sort of disagree with the notion of using Section 31 as villains, too. TOS and the TOS movies were almost always about humanity banding together in some form or way for the greater good. Section 31 works against that idea (and in DS9, where they were explored and given depth, they were still very much the villain).

And even then, sure TOS had the occasional evil human or mad scientist, but to have an entire long-lived organization as the anti-Federation just seems suspect. Just the act of covertly assassinating a government official by poisoning his food is in stark contrast to the emotion felt with Vulcan dying.

To wit, I'm all for Abrams updating Trek lore to a more modern sensibility (Space hippies date the product like no other, after all), and some of nuKirk's attitude and Spock's growth from emotional to stoic could only come from an evolved sense of writing. But I also feel that something that's purposely as dark and ominous as Section 31 won't mesh well with a future storyline. They're supposed to be nihilistic, they're supposed to be clandestine, they're supposed to be sadistic, and they're supposed to be human. Because of those foundations, I don't see how they could be scaled back in such a way that makes them live up to the name/brand of Section 31 and maintain a TOS modern sensibility at the same time. The two concepts are almost mutually exclusive, in my humble opinion as a writer. You can morph one or the other and still call it Star Trek, but to maintain both at the levels we know them? Hmm...

I suppose the closest analogy I can think of is the Borg Vs. Voyager. It was impossible to maintain one's reputation as unstoppable forces of nature if the other had to survive from episode to episode.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

You're assuming Kirk and co won't be able to take the moral high ground to defeat them when they would. Section 31 is like a cancer on the Federation, it's immoral to the core which is why Kirk and co who are the epitome of morality will be able to defeat them, cure the Federation of it's cancer and bring the Federation back to what it should be.
It is the perfect "hidden meaning" which is what Trek is all about.
Just look at all this going on in the world today, especially all these torture videos coming out etc and look at how it was kept hidden and secret and the truth finally came out, an anti-torture law was brought out. This kind of film would be perfect for what's happening in the world now. Secrecy, illegal activity and corruption will not prevail. That is the msg.

 

[Cyke101]

You're assuming Kirk and co won't be able to take the moral high ground to defeat them when they would. Section 31 is like a cancer on the Federation, it's immoral to the core which is why Kirk and co who are the epitome of morality will be able to defeat them, cure the Federation of it's cancer and bring the Federation back to what it should be.

Actually, I would assume as such from Kirk and Co. as they always do (heck, Bashir and O'Brien defeated Sloane through the power of FRIENDSHIP! Care bear stare at 95%!).

The thing is, it's been assumed that the Federation wouldn't have that cancer in the first place, an assumption that DS9 played to masterful effect. It's just that in order to show Section 31 as uncompromisingly insidious and Kirk & Co. as uncompromisingly heroic in such a setting will give way. I would expect Section 31's justification of "We did it for the Federation" to be amplified to an almost cartoon-like degree, narratively speaking.

 

[Jayson]

The problem though is that Section 31 isn't a evil organzation in the sense that they want to do evil things out of cruelity or rule the world. There is enough shades of grey to their motives to make them fit within the boundries of Trek sensibilities. All you really need to sell them is a character that is sympathetic to degree like Sloan. If people like a character they will forgive just about any sins when it comes to fiction IMO. If your Section 31 agents are carboard villians then it might feel wierd but carboard villians will destroy any type of villians you use.

Jason