Pelia would have been a pretty good perspective on Starfleet vs Empire and would have shut Beto down.
Spoilers Star Trek: Strange New Worlds 3x07 - "What Is Starfleet?"
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
Pelia would have been a pretty good perspective on Starfleet vs Empire and would have shut Beto down.
Wow, did this one ever collapse on rewatch.
First time I liked it with reservations, second time, it's a total failure. The only truly bad episode so far this season. I wish I could change my score!
The moral dilemma of the Jikaru doesn't take off, because unfurling it as a mystery in a documentary format witholds too much context from us. We just don't have enough information about the conflict between the aliens to judge what's going on here.
And it was so ineffective as a documentary. They didn't crack how to make that device work for them. The way the character arc for Beto was structured made no sense within this documentary format.
I do still think the director did exceptional work. The script failed, but I don't see any better way to have executed it.
First time I liked it with reservations, second time, it's a total failure. The only truly bad episode so far this season. I wish I could change my score!
The moral dilemma of the Jikaru doesn't take off, because unfurling it as a mystery in a documentary format witholds too much context from us. We just don't have enough information about the conflict between the aliens to judge what's going on here.
And it was so ineffective as a documentary. They didn't crack how to make that device work for them. The way the character arc for Beto was structured made no sense within this documentary format.
I do still think the director did exceptional work. The script failed, but I don't see any better way to have executed it.
And Beto would point out that it's highly likely that at some point in her life, Pelia kept slaves, took illicit drugs (the trailer and her line about being a roadie point to this) and so forth, dig up her skeletons, and throw them in her face. In fact, someone as old as Pelia has literal millennia of skeletons in her closet and it would make sense that she skipped town the moment Beto was running around with that camera. She has no idea what he may have already dug up about her.
Ultimately I don't think the writers cared about the political situation surrounding the creature; the whole plot just there as a faintly-drawn hook to carry the documentary framing and to contribute toward the real point of the episode (which is everyone giving a gushing emotional speech to camera to reassure viewers that Star Trek is a show about hope and love and whatnot).
I don't want to labour the point but it's so weird, it's the cultural signifiers of Star Trek regurgitated with little context, which seems to have the aim of just endlessly signalling to the subset of Star Trek fans who Goldsman et al identified as the target audience of SNW that this is the show they asked for.
It'd be like if a new showrunner took over the Simpsons and said "we hear the fans, you liked that the Simpsons was funny and satirical, we're going back to those roots", and then released various episodes in which Homer repeatedly says "my life is funny and satirical" but without any real jokes to back it up.
I found my attention drifting during this episode. My heart sank a bit in the opening minutes when I realised it was a documentary-style format - Stargate SG-1 tackled a similar concept brilliantly, so this had a lot to live up to.
There were some lovely ideas, especially the exploration of “What is Starfleet?” - a question that’s long been debated by fans and is certainly worth visiting in-universe. That said, the episode ultimately delivered the expected “Star Trek” answer, without adding much new to the conversation. Anyone who dared question the SF military angle was summarily dismissed without much nuance. The rejection of the military argument on the basis that "Starfleet took your sister away from you and she almost died so you're cranky" was a weak write-off of what could have been a real exploration of Starfleet's flaws, strengths, and the people behind the uniforms.
The alien creature was beautifully designed and its story was genuinely moving. However, I felt the documentary format limited the space available to fully explore that narrative. It deserved to be the central focus of the episode. There was enough depth there to let the story breathe as the focus of the episode, which could have made the ending even more powerful.
In short, Stargate did this kind of episode better. It didn’t bring anything fresh to the broader philosophical debate about what Starfleet is/isn't, and I think the alien’s story was a missed opportunity. Without the documentary gimmick, it could have been a classic Star Trek morality tale - especially if it had leaned into the ethical dilemma of allowing the creature to choose death.
Another "format" episode - in a short run, I do yearn for more classic ST-style storytelling without a gimmick/device driving it. IMO, the best episodes this show has offered have been the ones without a "Star Trek does Musical, Star Trek does Doc, Star Trek does Rom Com, Star Trek does murder mystery" gimmick driving the story-telling every week. Feels to me like the quest for "big swings" has actually limited the potential of the show to just do ST with modern production and moral values, in that they're always on the look-out to bung in a quirk, or a gimmick to frame everything. That incessant need has made it veer into feeling like ST parody territory at times. A bit of fun with formats is fine, but in a 10 episode season there just isn't enough to strike the right balance of tonal flips and narrative structures.
There were some lovely ideas, especially the exploration of “What is Starfleet?” - a question that’s long been debated by fans and is certainly worth visiting in-universe. That said, the episode ultimately delivered the expected “Star Trek” answer, without adding much new to the conversation. Anyone who dared question the SF military angle was summarily dismissed without much nuance. The rejection of the military argument on the basis that "Starfleet took your sister away from you and she almost died so you're cranky" was a weak write-off of what could have been a real exploration of Starfleet's flaws, strengths, and the people behind the uniforms.
The alien creature was beautifully designed and its story was genuinely moving. However, I felt the documentary format limited the space available to fully explore that narrative. It deserved to be the central focus of the episode. There was enough depth there to let the story breathe as the focus of the episode, which could have made the ending even more powerful.
In short, Stargate did this kind of episode better. It didn’t bring anything fresh to the broader philosophical debate about what Starfleet is/isn't, and I think the alien’s story was a missed opportunity. Without the documentary gimmick, it could have been a classic Star Trek morality tale - especially if it had leaned into the ethical dilemma of allowing the creature to choose death.
Another "format" episode - in a short run, I do yearn for more classic ST-style storytelling without a gimmick/device driving it. IMO, the best episodes this show has offered have been the ones without a "Star Trek does Musical, Star Trek does Doc, Star Trek does Rom Com, Star Trek does murder mystery" gimmick driving the story-telling every week. Feels to me like the quest for "big swings" has actually limited the potential of the show to just do ST with modern production and moral values, in that they're always on the look-out to bung in a quirk, or a gimmick to frame everything. That incessant need has made it veer into feeling like ST parody territory at times. A bit of fun with formats is fine, but in a 10 episode season there just isn't enough to strike the right balance of tonal flips and narrative structures.
Last edited:
It's possible she actually agrees with Beto's takes. Pelia is, after all, the only character in the entire Trek canon to have referred to the Federation as a "socialist utopia" onscreen, using those exact words.
Last edited:
Yeah, I agree. Pelia said that with some irony. She'd be more skeptical of Starfleet. Less credulous than her crewmates.
The 23rd century Federation was only ever 20th century America projected into the future. A lot of folks thought we were an empire. We said we weren't. YMMV.
Second great episode in a row.
It's amazing how it only took two good to great episodes for me to soften on this season's rocky start. (I liked the Space Indiana Jones episode as well.)
Near the beginning of the show I paused and said "Are they going to literally ask 'Is Starfleet a military?" THAT would be a deep cut.
My boy also commented after the intro of the Enterprise: "They put numbers on the screen. Dad's annoyed."
Oh. I don't know if this had been mentioned: Was the space butterfly thing possibly the best looking special effect in Star Trek?
It's also possible she was a slave. Probably more than once.
Pelia doesn't strike me as the type who cares about "skeletons" and vices. She gives off that old woman who doesn't care what people think vibe.
She cared about them 200 years ago. (Now.)
She might not care what people think but she cares what they do. (Like "Will they arrest me or take my stuff?") And she has more than a healthy dash of paranoia to her.
This is the same one who literally gave her Star Trek speech and asked if anyone wanted a second take a few weeks ago?
Probably why Beto avoided her.
Yep. Pelia was desperate to be in Beto's show.
It's a bit of a giggle to imagine someone in the Trek future fretting about being Canceled by a smug goober with a camera.
I don't think Pelia gives a shit about skeletons in her closet after all this time. It's not like she needs to hide or reinvent herself every hundred years anymore.
I think you're right about that. It was just a vague scenario for the moral dilemma to take place in. However, at least for me, the nature of the conflict was just confusing enough that it took me out of the story a bit.
However, my larger concern was that the documentary framing device kind of failed. It didn't add to the story and detracted a bit from the dilemma. Some of the interviews were tedious and irrelevant. Sure, you can say it was Beto's first documentary and it was intentional, but that doesn't make the episode better!
I still enjoyed the story but it wasn't the most effectual telling of it.
I agree completely. And there doesn't seem to be anything we as Americans can do to stop our government from supporting this kind of behavior. What's going on in Gaza is straight up genocide.
Without the novel format the story was a thrice-told Trek tale.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
