But it profoundly changes what the show has to say about us, humanity, which is the real point.
Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 2x05 - "Saints of Imperfection"
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
But it profoundly changes what the show has to say about us, humanity, which is the real point.
I'd be more optimistic about the possibilities if they weren't so eager to tangle Section 31 up with Eeeeevil Georgiou. Hopefully the storytelling will be more nuanced than the setup is leading me to expect.
Well it makes them naive fools, for one thing. Remember Picard's speech in The First Duty? Looks pretty stupid in light of Starfleet having a secret death squad.
G
Gonzo
Guest
The problem with humanity is we like to think we are better than everyone/everything else and when we are reminded of the truth we don't like it.
A more honest and realistic view of ourselves would do wonders, especially these days as the internet seems to be little more than a competition to see who can signal their virtue the loudest.
G
Gonzo
Guest
I suspect it will be, could be a redemption arc incoming for Georgiou now that she isn't in the MU.
We know it was a do unto those before they do unto you kind of place.
As I recall, one of the points of TOS was that humanity has survived and progressed despite being a half-savage child race with a long way to go.
"We're human beings with the blood of a million savage years on our hands, but we can stop it. We can admit that we're killers, but we're not going to kill today."
Or remember "The Enemy Within": the point of that ep is not that Kirk can evolve beyond his more primitive half and get along fine without it. It's that he needs both his dark and light sides to be whole.
Last edited:
Or, was S31 directing that mission? Of course, it wasn't explicitly mentioned in the episode, but could it be retconned that way?
Not really. And, I just saw that Greg Cox quoted the great line about having the blood of a million savage years. TOS was optimistic but not necessarily naïve about that.
They don't have to -- now they have a secret death squad to do it for them!
That's not how I see. I actually don't remember that speech given that it's been decades since I've seen that story.
Keep in mind that Starfleet just came out of a bad war that was an existential threat. It makes sense that they'd use all the tools at their disposal to survive. Perhaps the war context gave S31 more authority and resources to help the Federation survive? As the war recedes into history, it would be natural for S31 to also fade.
It WAS a self-serving and self-righteous speech for the benefit of a cadet. Hell, Picard doesn't practice what he preaches more often then not:
The whole situation at the end of TNG S4 - "The Wounded" shows Picard was willing to let the 'truth' die because hey, the Admiralty ordered him to "keep the peace":
^^^
Where's Picard's righteous regard for the truth here? he rationalized subverting it for what he saw as a greater good. So, yeah, his speech to Wesly in TNG S5 - "The First Duty" is just another example of Picard being a hypocrite.
(Which he was often - and even moreso when it came to Work and Klingon culture)
The problem with humanity is we like to think we are better than everyone/everything else and when we are reminded of the truth we don't like it.
A more honest and realistic view of ourselves would do wonders, especially these days as the internet seems to be little more than a competition to see who can signal their virtue the loudest.
I see it as the inverse. Since nu-BSG upended the franchise, everyone seems like they want to out grimderp each other. The "remodulation" of Star Trek is pure trend following, not groundbreaking in any way.
Hell, you could argue we've passed peak grimderp. Certainly if you compare MCU movies today with something like The Dark Knight, they're a lot more lighthearted and colorful.
Sure it does. The point is that humanity, as a collective, has recognized its mistakes and is trying to rise above them, to stop being killers instead of continuing to kill.
Continuing to sanction that behavior while cloaking it in fancy platitudes would be worse, not better. It turns Trek into a grim comment on the future of humanity.
Last edited:
Another flat episode.
Pointing out the obvious. Burnham: "We can save her!". Was that for just in case no one was listening to Stamets rather obvious explanation?
Pike's "Starfleet is a promise". Thanks for the pep talk. Instead of speechifying, how about trusting your crew already gets it and just give the order.
Michael's monologue at the end. Just odd, underwhelming and unnecessary. Along with that weird, slow mo walk-on with everyone smiling at each other.
Cut the Spock and Red Angel tease. That story line has barely moved beyond establishing the angels are real. If the story didn't have enough meat for a full season they ought to have reconsidered their approach.
Section 31. Yikes. They seemed relative consistent in the 22nd and 24th centuries. What the hell happened in the 23rd? Sick of operating in the shadows and wanted some of the limelight? They've retconned 31 from an uber-secret organisation akin to The X-Files shadowy Syndicate to Starfleet's version of the CIA.
It's a pity. For all the amazing cinematic effects it can't make up for a lack of connection to the characters.
Pointing out the obvious. Burnham: "We can save her!". Was that for just in case no one was listening to Stamets rather obvious explanation?
Pike's "Starfleet is a promise". Thanks for the pep talk. Instead of speechifying, how about trusting your crew already gets it and just give the order.
Michael's monologue at the end. Just odd, underwhelming and unnecessary. Along with that weird, slow mo walk-on with everyone smiling at each other.
Cut the Spock and Red Angel tease. That story line has barely moved beyond establishing the angels are real. If the story didn't have enough meat for a full season they ought to have reconsidered their approach.
Section 31. Yikes. They seemed relative consistent in the 22nd and 24th centuries. What the hell happened in the 23rd? Sick of operating in the shadows and wanted some of the limelight? They've retconned 31 from an uber-secret organisation akin to The X-Files shadowy Syndicate to Starfleet's version of the CIA.
It's a pity. For all the amazing cinematic effects it can't make up for a lack of connection to the characters.
Star Trek's optimism is very much why it has endured, however, not to Pollyannaish extremes as that is how it loses relevance. The context of TOS was very much that of a wild frontier, and TNG portrayed a much more gentile. There is a hierarchy to things and high ideals is not number one on the list, survival is!
Agreed. Unilateralism is not a sound approach to crisis and with all the bad moves the UFP has made a S31 organization was vital to its survival.
Kirk's motivation was one of self-interest - he didn't want the planet to ally itself with the Klingons. I would argue a war by proxy is, strictly speaking, highly unethical and, in light of the prime directive, hypocritical. Both the Klingons and Federation were willfully using the folks of Neural, a pre-first contact world, as fodder.
I would say Picard did the absolute wrong thing. In fact, upon first viewing that episode way back when, I believe Riker should have taken command and summarily executed Jean-Luc. It is never right, in my view, to chose extinction over survival. Especially considering the UFP is not the aggressor and had continually sought a negotiated end to conflict. When all else is stripped away and your back is to the wall with your species very existence at stake you damn well have the moral authority to do whatever it takes to survival.
Or Kirk punching Jesus in the face.
Conwell or Corntrol?
Amen. That's actually a very clear and concise way to put it. To me, STAR TREK is optimistic because it's set in a future one would actually want to live in, where we didn't blow ourselves up or get enslaved by computers or whatever. It's a future that works, warts and all, even if there's still plenty of danger and conflict and messy moral dilemmas out on the Final Frontier . . .
To address another post: Do I want to see Picard sexually harass somebody? Of course not. Do I think that sexual harassment is a suitable topic for a STAR TREK show? Absolutely. A utopian "vision" that doesn't keep one foot grounded in the uglier realities of human nature is just escapism. IMHO.
That wasn't the situation - there was no immediate threat, there was just the opportunity to commit a horrendous act of genocide to prevent the possibility of future conflict that they might lose. When presented with an immediate threat, Picard has shown no qualms over using weapons at his disposal to neutralise it. But this was different. To draw a contemporary slightly less hyperbolic analogy, Picard was faced with torturing the terrorist and chose not to. It is plainly obvious our world could still do with that lesson.
Edited to add: while I happen to agree with Picard's actions, the fact that I think he was right is not actually my point: the show thought he was. It was presented as so many TOS and TNG stories were as a moral dilemma cum morality play, and Trek was setting out its philosophical stall very prominently. Those themes continued throughout, and while DS9 moved away from moralising to leaving open ended debates for the viewer to consider, it certainly had its share of people who thought like Section 31 coming to a sticky end.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
