Spoilers STAR TREK: SECTION 31 - Grading & Discussion

[fireproof78]

You're clearly not a true Trek fan. If you were, you'd know to say there are 47 answers, not 32.

Haven't been a true fan in decades.

 

[TimeIsAPredator]

It is gatekeeping.

Define Star Trek. Ask a dozen fans and you'll get 32 answers.



This.

The lack of maturity I see around Trek circles disturbs me. The wish for harm on Kurtzman and his house is problematic.

If this movie is this bad (doubtful) then ignoring it is the most mature thing to do.

You are the biggest gatekeeper on this site.

Anyone says anything negative at all about Kurtztrek and you paint them as some loser or Doomcock type.

Nothing wrong with watching and discussing something you thought was crap. Nothing wrong with believing large historic IPs have a certain style.

 

[eschaton]

So, here's a question I have: Who was actually in charge for Section 31? Who was calling the shots?

Typically, in TV, the head writer is the showrunner, but in film, the director is the one who has final say/final cut. But as a TV movie, this seems to be a bit of a gray area.

I think that no one was really in charge may be part of why it's allegedly a mess. Good product in filmed media almost always involves one or two creatives given final authority over the story, rather than a committee with a bunch of producers butting into the process.

 

[Phily B]

So, here's a question I have: Who was actually in charge for Section 31? Who was calling the shots?

Typically, in TV, the head writer is the showrunner, but in film, the director is the one who has final say/final cut. But as a TV movie, this seems to be a bit of a gray area.

I think that no one was really in charge may be part of why it's allegedly a mess. Good product in filmed media almost always involves one or two creatives given final authority over the story, rather than a committee with a bunch of producers butting into the process.

An easy target, but Kurtzman has been the one pushing it for years and years and years. Buck stops with him. I'd love to get into the heads of the people who thought this was ever a good idea.

 

[HotRod]

Anyone says anything negative at all about Kurtztrek and you paint them as some loser or Doomcock type.

There's a grand difference between simply not liking something and the levels of vitriol that are commonly thrown at Kurtzman. You'd think he personally spit in someone's face by the way some people speak of him. Like.... for God sake, it's just a TV show.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

I get where fireproof is coming from. He’s been weary of Kurtzman hate since the. JJ Abrams films used to get so much flack from a subset of fans.

 

[fireproof78]

Anyone says anything negative at all about Kurtztrek and you paint them as some loser or Doomcock type.

Show me were I called someone a loser, please.

Nothing wrong with watching and discussing something you thought was crap. Nothing wrong with believing large historic IPs have a certain style.

I agree on the style but just define it. No one seems willing to define what is real Trek.

My confusion is people deciding that it's crap beforehand and watching it anyway. That makes no sense to me. It's confusing and strange and alien to participate in something deemed unenjoyable from the jump.

Seems deeply strange to me. I don't mean to gatekeep by saying go do something you enjoy!

 

[fireproof78]

I get where fireproof is coming from. He’s been weary of Kurtzman hate since the. JJ Abrams films used to get so much flack from a subset of fans.

Thank you.

I've been receiving flack as a fan since I said Iiked Kirk over Picard in the 90s. Yes, it was a small and odd group of friends but that's how it went with us.

Then I get to enjoy Abrams Trek with my wife and family, even my mom who hates sci-fi. Get told it's not real Trek.

It's getting very hard some days to not feel that flack a bit more. I'd rather people enjoy themselves.

 

[Daedalus]

Ok, I've seen a few interesting things here.

I think I'll look at this as a feature-length Short Trek. Comparing and contrasting It to those and probably coming out a lot happier.

 

[Char Kais]

STAR TREK: SECTION 31 Is a Dreary, Unfortunate Misfire — Our Spoiler-Free Review

Spoiler-Free Review: SECTION 31 brings back Michelle Yeoh — but forgets all the STAR TREK — in the dismal new Paramount+ film

blog.trekcore.com

TrekCore(.)com - Alex Perry

Keep that in mind as we report that Star Trek: Section 31 is the Kurtzman-era’s most spectacular miss. It’s a movie with almost nothing to say, one that lacks joy, and — most egregiously — it doesn’t care at any point that it’s a movie connected to the Star Trek franchise’s rich history. On nearly every level, Section 31 is a failure.

If the franchise is to have a third generation of life and cultural relevance, it needs to try new things to appeal to a wider, and younger, audience. The signs of this theory are all over the franchise’s recent decisions about what projects to greenlight, such as Star Trek: Prodigy (aimed at young children) or Star Trek: Starfleet Academy (targeted to young adults).

What Alex Perry is saying here is that Star Trek Discovery, Star Trek Picard and Star Trek Strange New Worlds have failed to appeal to a wider, and younger, audience. So did Prodigy.

capitalizing on the star power of Michelle Yeoh

The glorification of Michelle Yeoh is misplaced. Michelle Yeoh was in plenty of bad movies/shows. For example "Star Trek Discovery" and "The Witcher: Blood Origin". "The Witcher: Blood Origin" failed spectacularly.

But that’s where the second element of a great Star Trek project comes into play: this movie has nothing to say.

Does this movie grapple with the moral questions about the existence of Section 31? Nope. It doesn’t even try to — it doesn’t care to. In Section 31, working for Section 31 is cool. Why spend time thinking about it, when there’s another supremely dull action set piece to rush to? So the movie has nothing to say about Section 31 as a concept.

It also has nothing to say about Phillipa Georgiou, beyond re-treading exactly the same plot points that were already explored during her time in Star Trek: Discovery. A lot of fans have had issue with the elevation of a character who has committed all manner of very serious crimes back in the Terran Empire: genocide, slavery, and murder, just to name a few.

But murder, torture, all manner of other crimes? Those are still cool and okay, because they make for a cool action space movie. Phillipa Georgiou is a deplorable protagonist, but the movie doesn’t care to explore that in any way.

Section 31’s moral core is rotten, the movie has nothing worthwhile to say that is designed to make you think or consider a moral dilemma — despite having a huge amount of material to work with — and you would be hard pressed to recognize this as a Star Trek movie if the words “Star Trek” were not in the title.

To read from TrekCore / Alex Perry that modern Star Trek has nothing to say and that it's morally rotten is almost like a small miracle.

Signs and wonders. Signs and wonders.

 

[James Cole]

So, here's a question I have: Who was actually in charge for Section 31? Who was calling the shots?

Whomever was giving Craig Sweeney notes that caused the thing to be revised multiple times. It's been in development since 2019.

Consider PICARD season 2. Someone signed off on the nine scripts that were "too Star Trek" then thrown out by the next executive regime. Then another regime came in around episode 205 and insisted on several different changes.

SECTION 31 has probably been through at least five executives, each of which added further notes as money kept being spent on development. Classic example of design by committee and pathway dependency.

At least for Sweeney's sake, he was given a CBS primetime procedural to showrun afterwards. The money's still in that.

 

[TimeIsAPredator]

There's a grand difference between simply not liking something and the levels of vitriol that are commonly thrown at Kurtzman. You'd think he personally spit in someone's face by the way some people speak of him. Like.... for God sake, it's just a TV show.

I know it was a problem here once but who is doing that now ?

The criticism is mostly measured and polite but Fireproof still has to insult people.

 

[Phily B]

People like their TV shows a lot. I can't imagine Section 31 was cheaper to produce and market than another season or two of Lower Decks.

 

[TimeIsAPredator]

Show me were I called someone a loser, please.


I agree on the style but just define it. No one seems willing to define what is real Trek.

My confusion is people deciding that it's crap beforehand and watching it anyway. That makes no sense to me. It's confusing and strange and alien to participate in something deemed unenjoyable from the jump.

Seems deeply strange to me. I don't mean to gatekeep by saying go do something you enjoy!

And yet you have decided it's good before watching it.

And your constant constant comments about being (fake) confused as to why people who might not like it are "wasting their time" or should just ignore it are designed to make those posters sound stupid.

 

[fireproof78]

And yet you have decided it's good before watching

Nope. Haven't decided anything.

Not enough information.

And your constant constant comments about being (fake) confused as to why people who might not like it are "wasting their time" or should just ignore it are designed to make those posters sound stupid.

Again no.

I'm genuinely confused. I don't think they are stupid at all. I think they have a different perspective than I and I wish to learn more as to the why. No, they don't have to explain themselves but I'll express the question regardless.

And answer like Makeshift Python's is illustrative of a perspective I had not considered so I learned something and thank @MakeshiftPython for it.

 

[Judith Sisko]

Not a fan of his directing/camera/lighting/editing style at ALL!

I'll be honest, I've never particularly liked Osunsanmi's directing style. It's seldom been bad enough to ruin otherwise good material*, but I have been taken out of the moment multiple times thanks to it.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Osunsanmi definitely hasn’t been one of my favorites, and I’m glad he hasn’t been involved in SNW. He does have a tendency to try to make every shot “showy” with crazy crane shots going up down sideways without any dramatic motivation beyond “make it look cool”.

Looking up his resume, I realized I had already seen one of his theatrical films: THE FOURTH KIND, and I did not like that.

 

[WarpFactorZ]

Spoiler

Assuming stardates were reset to 0 in 2323, a 1XXX stardate could mean this takes place in 2324.

Spoiler

Why were stardates reset? I've never heard this. Is it to make the TNG dates make sense? (though no one really knows how long a stardate is).

 

[David cgc]

Spoiler

Why were stardates reset? I've never heard this. Is it to make the TNG dates make sense? (though no one really knows how long a stardate is).

I think this is far enough afield to not need a spoiler tag.

They more-or-less regularized the stardates in TNG, with 1000 stardates equaling about one Earth year. If you take the stardate and calander dates we have from TNG/DS9/VGR/et al. and count backwards, they zero out (or, potentially, the unspoken sixth digit rolled over) around 2323.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

A fair and balanced and largely positive review from Kertrats

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