Remove ads

Star Trek: Section 31 Movie Starring Michelle Yeoh Announced:

Reader mode
Glimmervoid said:
The criticism of S31 is not that the Federation should never do spy stuff. Starfleet Intelligence long predated S31 in the franchise. It's that the particular flavour of of S31 (tacticool 'ard men making 'ard decisions unconstrained by those know nothing politicians and pinks in Starfleet command) is something DS9 set out to speak out against. DS9 tells us that S31 are weak men, making taking easy decision - which is something that was rather lost in subsequent S31 appearances in the franchise.

On A Pale Moonlight is very very different from how S31 is portrayed in DS9. It's contemplative and philosophical, and that kind of in-depth examination of action is anathema to how S31 seems themselves in their internal myth.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's incredibly hard to say that DS9 was criticizing anything when all the evidence says otherwise.

I mean all of S31's actions against the founders were done without authorization from Starfleet command. The fact that no one in Starfleet aside from Bashir seemed to care about their actions. Is a pretty clear indication that they were perfectly fine with what they were doing.
 
Parth said:
It's incredibly hard to say that DS9 was criticizing anything when all the evidence says otherwise.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You're right. Them being constantly called out by our main cast, Starfleet command's increased involvement with them due to desperation caused by the war sickened our main heroes, and the series ends with our main Section 31-adjacent character undermining their big plan in order to save the day the way the Federation should.

Can't possibly be any criticism in there.
 
Last edited:
Tylonius said:
You're right. Them being constantly called out by our main cast, Starfleet command's increased involvement with them due to desperation caused by the war sickened our main heroes, and the series ends with our main Section 31-adjacent character undermining their big plan in order to save the day the way the Federation should.

Can't possibly be any criticism in there.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yeah who am I supposed to trust, the Hard Men telling me how Hard and Necessary they are, or the heroes who directly tell them to kick rocks and then triumph without them????
 
Tylonius said:
You're right. Them being constantly called out by our main cast, Starfleet command's increased involvement with them due to desperation caused by the war sickened our main heroes, and the series ends with our main Section 31-adjacent character undermining their big plan in order to save the day the way the Federation should.

Can't possibly be any criticism in there.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Whatever criticism there was falls flat, given that DS9 sends an incredible amount of mixed messages.

And despite what anyone wants to claim, there's zero difference between what Sisko did and what S31 did.

Finally no, I don't want to hear how it's different because Sisko had Starfleet permission, they're the same group who lets S31 exist after all.
 
Parth said:
Whatever criticism there was falls flat, given that DS9 sends an incredible amount of mixed messages.

And despite what anyone wants to claim, there's zero difference between what Sisko did and what S31 did.

Finally no, I don't want to hear how it's different because Sisko had Starfleet permission, they're the same group who lets S31 exist after all.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The main difference between what Sisko and Garak did and what Section 31 did is that Starfleet was keeping track of the details as it went along. Starfleet OWNED what was going on. Starfleet wasn't washing their hands of the entire affair and pretending they didn't approve of what was happening. They might not have been interested in telling the Romulans about it for obvious reasons, but they internally made the call and gave the go ahead for Sisko's plans. They wrestled with the moral weight of that decision to whatever degree and they decided that going with what Sisko and Garak had planned was up to whatever standard they felt was appropriate.

Section 31 was all about Starfleet not being willing to make the decision themselves and own that decision. It was about Sloan and his cronies deciding that Starfleet command was too weak to make the hard choices that needed to be done, and moving forward without giving them that decision. Sloan's idea that Starfleet wouldn't approve of what needed to be done is obvious bullshit given the things Starfleet has owned already, but that is Sloan's core claim.

Notably, the Federation DOES decide to go ahead with the "genocide the Founders" plan when they are eventually given the opportunity to weigh in, after Bashir gets the cure to save Odo. The Federation Council looked at the situation, deliberated, and officially said "don't give it to the Founders".

Then Bashir goes ahead and does exactly what Sloan was all about doing. He made the decision for them, because they wouldn't do what, in his view, had to be done. Thus any argument that Bashir was the hero we're supposed to root for is an argument that Sloan was right. That you can't trust the Starfleet and the Federation to make the right call, so you have to have heroes of strong moral character who ignore what the proper authorities have to say and act completely on their own with zero overisght or accountability.
 
Last edited:
Nerevar said:
Then Bashir goes ahead and does exactly what Sloan was all about doing. He made the decision for them, because they wouldn't do what, in his view, had to be done. Thus any argument that Bashir was the hero we're supposed to root for is an argument that Sloan was right. That you can't trust the Starfleet and the Federation to make the right call, so you have to have heroes of strong moral character who ignore what the proper authorities have to say and act completely on their own with zero overisght or accountability.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You know its interesting when you put it like that, because it makes me think of the dichotomy of how Trek protagonists and Section 31 antagonists mirror each other in certain ways.

Trek captains generally will publicly defy authority to do a nominally good action which authorities purport could have bad consequences.

Section 31 generally will secretly defy authority to do a nominally bad action which Section 31 purports will have good consequences.

One key difference is accountability, in that Trek captains are willing to accept potentially severe personal consequences for their actions. Something Hard Man Making Hard Decision types are pointedly averse because in their infinite arrogance them being removed from their post where they can unilaterally make 'better' decisions is the worst possible outcome. The willingness of captains to fall on their sword for an action may contribute to the Federation's relatively lax response. They invest a lot of trust and respect in captains, and if they say a one size fits all rule isn't working in this specific case on a vast, diverse, and unknown frontier, they're willing to buy it. Then there is the whole immediate actions are certain and subsequent consequences are not, so its easier to tolerate a good action for whom bad consequences is still theoretical than it is to tolerate a bad action for whom good consequences remains uncertain.
 
Last edited:
Nerevar said:
The main difference between what Sisko and Garak did and what Section 31 did is that Starfleet was keeping track of the details as it went along. Starfleet OWNED what was going on. Starfleet wasn't washing their hands of the entire affair and pretending they didn't approve of what was happening. They might not have been interested in telling the Romulans about it for obvious reasons, but they internally made the call and gave the go ahead for Sisko's plans. They wrestled with the moral weight of that decision to whatever degree and they decided that going with what Sisko and Garak had planned was up to whatever standard they felt was appropriate.

Section 31 was all about Starfleet not being willing to make the decision themselves and own that decision. It was about Sloan and his cronies deciding that Starfleet command was too weak to make the hard choices that needed to be done, and moving forward without giving them that decision. Sloan's idea that Starfleet wouldn't approve of what needed to be done is obvious bullshit given the things Starfleet has owned already, but that is Sloan's core claim.

Notably, the Federation DOES decide to go ahead with the "genocide the Founders" plan when they are eventually given the opportunity to weigh in, after Bashir gets the cure to save Odo. The Federation Council looked at the situation, deliberated, and officially said "don't give it to the Founders".

Then Bashir goes ahead and does exactly what Sloan was all about doing. He made the decision for them, because they wouldn't do what, in his view, had to be done. Thus any argument that Bashir was the hero we're supposed to root for is an argument that Sloan was right. That you can't trust the Starfleet and the Federation to make the right call, so you have to have heroes of strong moral character who ignore what the proper authorities have to say and act completely on their own with zero overisght or accountability.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
So what you're saying is that DS9 sends a massive amount of mixed signals as to what the message is?
 
Parth said:
So what you're saying is that DS9 sends a massive amount of mixed signals as to what the message is?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

No, I think you just have trouble differentiating between presentation and endorsement. Section 31 is, repeatedly, framed in the narrative as wrong, with dubious methods that produce limited success, and whose presence is treated as a net negative on the Federation. Every single one of their appearances ends with Bashir proving himself their moral superior. At no point in the show does anyone concede that Section 31 might have a point, or that their methods might be extreme but you can't argue with their results, or whatever. The Federation Council agreeing with Section 31 (to not cure the Changeling Virus) is presented as a Very Bad Thing, and the heroes rejecting that logic directly leads to the end of the war.

You keep trying to draw this connection between "In The Pale Moonlight" and Section 31, and building that out to "DS9 says Section 31 is bad but actually they're effective" but that's pretty tenuous one. IIRC at no point does Sisko say he's doing a Section 31 - in fact, when Sisko finds out that Garak was just bullshitting him the whole time and always planned on blowing up Vreenak he storms into Garak's shop and beats the shit out of him. Yeah, Garak is like "fuck off with the righteousness, you knew what you were doing", but Sisko ends the episode saying "Yeah, turns out I'm not as good as I thought", not "Yeah, turns out shady spy shit is Smart and Cool".

You're saying the show is at fault for not squaring the circle you just invented.
 
firefossil said:
You know its interesting when you put it like that, because it makes me think of the dichotomy of how Trek protagonists and Section 31 antagonists mirror each other in certain ways.

Trek captains generally will publicly defy authority to do a nominally good action which authorities purport could bad consequences.

Section 31 generally will secretly defy authority to do a nominally bad action which Section 31 purports will have good consequences.

One key difference is accountability, in that Trek captains are willing to accept potentially severe personal consequences for their actions. Something Hard Man Making Hard Decision types are pointedly averse because in their infinite arrogance them being removed from their post where they can unilaterally make 'better' decisions is the worst possible outcome. The willingness of captains to fall on their sword for an action may contribute to the Federation's relatively lax response. They invest a lot of trust and respect in captains, and if they say a one size fits all rule isn't working in this specific case on a vast, diverse, and unknown frontier, they're willing to buy it. Then there is the whole immediate actions are certain and subsequent consequences are not, so its easier to tolerate a good action for whom bad consequences is still theoretical than it is to tolerate a bad action for whom good consequences remains uncertain.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Absolutely.

I honestly think Deep Space Nine could have done with going back to the TOS well a bit more often. When Kirk pulled questionable or outright illegal shit for the greater good, the episode was often framed around his Court Martial, where he had to defend his actions and the Admiralty decided whether what he did was reasonable given the circumstances or not.

It was an excellent tool for showing that accountability and for getting deep into a character's moral reasoning in a way that often might not come across watching the events as they happen.

A Court Martial framing of Sisko's capture of Eddington would have been especially welcome, since there's zero chance Starfleet would have accepted "then I'll be the villain" as a justification for a chemical weapons attack on a civilian target. Sisko needing to tell the admiralty, and by extension us the audience, what his actual thought process was that he wasn't sharing with Eddington would have been welcome. Or, if they wanted to emphasize Starfleet's corruption, they could have had Sisko preparing his Court Martial case only to be informed by the admirals that it wouldn't be necessary, and showing Sisko shocked and disturbed rather than relieved.
 
Arthur Frayn said:
No, I think you just have trouble differentiating between presentation and endorsement. Section 31 is, repeatedly, framed in the narrative as wrong, with dubious methods that produce limited success, and whose presence is treated as a net negative on the Federation. Every single one of their appearances ends with Bashir proving himself their moral superior. At no point in the show does anyone concede that Section 31 might have a point, or that their methods might be extreme but you can't argue with their results, or whatever. The Federation Council agreeing with Section 31 (to not cure the Changeling Virus) is presented as a Very Bad Thing, and the heroes rejecting that logic directly leads to the end of the war.

You keep trying to draw this connection between "In The Pale Moonlight" and Section 31, and building that out to "DS9 says Section 31 is bad but actually they're effective" but that's pretty tenuous one. IIRC at no point does Sisko say he's doing a Section 31 - in fact, when Sisko finds out that Garak was just bullshitting him the whole time and always planned on blowing up Vreenak he storms into Garak's shop and beats the shit out of him. Yeah, Garak is like "fuck off with the righteousness, you knew what you were doing", but Sisko ends the episode saying "Yeah, turns out I'm not as good as I thought", not "Yeah, turns out shady spy shit is Smart and Cool".

You're saying the show is at fault for not squaring the circle you just invented.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Because as far as I am concerned, there isn't any difference between S31 and the tactics Sisko employed.

The only reason why anyone claims that there's a difference is because you want it to be different.

Yes, Sisko did beat the shit out of Garak, but then thirty seconds later he's like, "Yes it sucks and I committed a lot of crimes, but it was for the good of the federation, so I'm just going to have to live with it."

Secondly, Admiral Ross was a character whose justification for working with S31 is that he was tired of ordering young men and women to their deaths. The same justification that Sisko used and was using when he decided to live with what he did.

Maybe to you, DS9 did enough to say that S31 is bad and wrong, but from my point of view, it didn't everything I see in the show is indirectly saying that S31 is actually in the right and Bashir is just naive.

You know the saying show don't tell?

Well DS9 might be telling us S31 is bad and wrong, but everything that it's showing us says the exact opposite.
 
Remove ads
I'm given to understand that Paramount was apparently contractually obliged to make this abomination as part of whatever contract was made to have Yeoh come back after the Discovery premiere?

As for Yeoh, aside from the face that she's gleefully chewing the scenery; I'm reminded of that YouTube joke re Johnny Cage
 
Remove ads
IGN Review — Star Trek: Section 31 Review - 100 minutes of generic schlock containing only trace elements of Star Trek New
  • Apocrypha
    • Well, the review embargo for this mission impossible in space mishap is over.

    www.ign.com

    Star Trek: Section 31 Review - IGN

    The Michelle Yeoh fronted spin-off movie Section 31 is 100 minutes of generic schlock containing only trace elements of Star Trek.
    www.ign.com www.ign.com

    Not sure how much I can quote so for now I'll just leave the bare article.
     
    Last edited:
  • New
  • Apocrypha
    • The Verge Review - Star Trek: Section 31 is firing on all cylinders New
  • Apocrypha
    • Here you go, an opposing review. Basically: It's stupid, it's goofy, and it's over the top, but if you can enjoy things like the Fast and Furious franchise without taking them seriously, you should be capable of doing the same with this too.
    www.theverge.com

    Star Trek: Section 31 is firing on all cylinders

    Paramount Plus’ new Star Trek film: Discovery spinoff movie feels like the start of something better than another series.
    www.theverge.com www.theverge.com
     
  • New
  • Apocrypha
    • I don't want 'Suicide Squad but in Star Trek.' I want Star Trek. I want to see strange new worlds, rubber foreheads, diplomacy, and the struggles of upholding utopia* in an uncaring galaxy full of weird phenomena and bastards trying to take advantage.

    *i.e. not by glorifying FUCKING SECTION 31
     
    Ah yes, the utopia that sells its citizen to lizard fascists for a 'peace in our time', buddies up with slaver crab Weebs and which holds prettied up social darwinism posing as non-interference as nigh-religious dogma.

    Section 31 is a poisonous idea to Trek, but trek has long since shown itself to be a utopia built on moral vacuousness
     
    Last edited:
    Reader mode
    You must login or register to reply here.
    Remove ads
    Back
    Top