|
Seaction 31 is fine in DS9 but it gave the lovely movies and lovely new TV show something gritty to grab onto it. It's sad how that's the one thing they took away from DS9. Not the importance of writing or a great ensemble cast. Not how to balance season and series wide serialization with satisfying digestible episodes. Not how to balance having personal conflict and darker themes with the uplifting utopian message of Trek. Nope, just "evil super security agency that will do what ever it takes to keep are citizens safe!" and running with it.
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 04:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 00:48 |
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Seaction 31 is fine in DS9 but it gave the lovely movies and lovely new TV show something gritty to grab onto it. It's sad how that's the one thing they took away from DS9. Not the importance of writing or a great ensemble cast. Not how to balance season and series wide serialization with satisfying digestible episodes. Not how to balance having personal conflict and darker themes with the uplifting utopian message of Trek. Nope, just "evil super security agency that will do what ever it takes to keep are citizens safe!" and running with it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 04:55
|
|
|
Section 31 makes things too morally grey and dark for my liking. Yeah Sloan eventually bites it, but I hate their inclusion in the setting. The Federation shouldn't have its own Tal Shiar or Obsidian Order, much less a group like Cerberus. I'd have been fine with them as a conspiracy condemned and cast out by the Federation, but they're not. Starfleet should not have a group like Section 31, in my opinion. Groups like Section 31 are things bad guys have.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 05:02
|
|
|
The CIA did 9/11/73 but I still gotta get up in the morning and look at myself in the mirror
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 05:05
|
|
|
Section 31 exists, metatextually, because you can't do Grimdark Trek unless you invent a reason how the Lawful Good Federation isn't completely Lawful Good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 05:14
|
|
|
I hate Section 31 for the same reason I hate DS9's take on the mirror universe - it basically says the Federation and liberal tolerance are dangerous lies, that states can only survive through brutality. Section 31 are painted as the secret heroes of the setting, and people like Bashir or Picard are dangerous fools who's naive utopianism would doom us all if it wasn't for the secret masters really running things.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 05:48
|
|
|
Angry Salami posted:people like Bashir or Picard are dangerous fools who's naive utopianism would doom us all if it wasn't for the secret masters really running things. Based on what happens in many episodes, yes. Even without Section 31.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 05:57
|
|
|
In the Pale Moonlight I don't have much to say about this that I didn't say about Section 31. I think this episode is a really good hour of sci-fi television, and a really bad hour of Star Trek.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 05:59
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:In the Pale Moonlight Booooo
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 06:15
|
|
|
Peachfart posted:Booooo I like Deep Space Nine a lot, it's easily my favorite of the Star Trek series, but I feel this one and Section 31 go too far.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 06:16
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:In the Pale Moonlight
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 06:27
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Seaction 31 is fine in DS9 but it gave the lovely movies and lovely new TV show something gritty to grab onto it. It's sad how that's the one thing they took away from DS9. Not the importance of writing or a great ensemble cast. Not how to balance season and series wide serialization with satisfying digestible episodes. Not how to balance having personal conflict and darker themes with the uplifting utopian message of Trek. Nope, just "evil super security agency that will do what ever it takes to keep are citizens safe!" and running with it. Cythereal posted:Section 31 makes things too morally grey and dark for my liking. Yeah Sloan eventually bites it, but I hate their inclusion in the setting. The Federation shouldn't have its own Tal Shiar or Obsidian Order, much less a group like Cerberus. I'd have been fine with them as a conspiracy condemned and cast out by the Federation, but they're not. Starfleet should not have a group like Section 31, in my opinion. Groups like Section 31 are things bad guys have. Angry Salami posted:I hate Section 31 for the same reason I hate DS9's take on the mirror universe - it basically says the Federation and liberal tolerance are dangerous lies, that states can only survive through brutality. Section 31 are painted as the secret heroes of the setting, and people like Bashir or Picard are dangerous fools who's naive utopianism would doom us all if it wasn't for the secret masters really running things. My dudes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 07:08
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:Section 31 exists, metatextually, because you can't do Grimdark Trek unless you invent a reason how the Lawful Good Federation isn't completely Lawful Good. At least the Culture is honest about Special Circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 07:12
|
|
|
Section 31 makes no sense for multiple reasons, the largest being that the Federation is peopled by a bunch of telepathic races, also has access to several different types of mind-reading technology, and even failing that Section 31's operatives are only slightly better than Sterling Archer at keeping their identities a secret.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 08:04
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:In the Pale Moonlight I 100 percent agree.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 08:05
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Section 31 makes no sense for multiple reasons, the largest being that the Federation is peopled by a bunch of telepathic races, also has access to several different types of mind-reading technology, and even failing that Section 31's operatives are only slightly better than Sterling Archer at keeping their identities a secret. I think "In The Pale Moonlight" works so well because it is one moment in 20-odd seasons of TV. If it were the norm, it would suck.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 08:49
|
|
|
Section 31 isn't the Federation's intelligence agency, Starfleet Intelligence is. Section 31 is a shadow group that answers to no one and is barely even known to exist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 10:47
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:I like Deep Space Nine a lot, it's easily my favorite of the Star Trek series, but I feel this one and Section 31 go too far. What do you like about DS9? I haven't read all your posts but the ones I have are all pretty negative, I assumed you hated it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 11:09
|
|
|
Watching TNG, it is amazing how bad everyone is at acting. Other than Patrick Stewart.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 12:11
|
|
|
Section 31 would be best if they were a kind of secret paramilitary organisation who are completely separate from Starfleet and the Federation but are ostensibly on the same side as them; they insist that they're committed to the values and ideals of the Federation but they have a twisted view of what those values and ideals actually are, and as such believe that Starfleet and the Federation itself aren't capable of adequately defending them. All Section 31 would do is make things worse every time they try to help. Still, that's one of the overarching themes of DS9: how far are you willing to go for what you believe and how far can you go before you've compromised yourself too much? Section 31 is a part of that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 12:47
|
|
|
The premise of DS9 has the same problems that the Voyager premise has that everyone complains about; it waffles back and forth and is handled inconsistently. Nothing in DS9 fundamentally makes sense; not Maquis, not Bajorans, not the "gritty" aspects, nothing. Its "best" episodes tend to be thumbs in the eye to the idea of Star Trek. I never feel like DS9 "gets" Star Trek.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 13:10
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:What do you like about DS9? I haven't read all your posts but the ones I have are all pretty negative, I assumed you hated it. * "It's easy to be a saint in paradise! Well the Maquis do not live in paradise!" I like DS9 for being darker, grittier, and more willing to show the Federation and protagonists as flawed than other Star Trek series. They've come a long way since our time, but utopia is still a thing that must be earned and fought for, won against a universe that tends to be unhappy and our own darker natures. But I feel that Section 31 and Pale Moonlight go too far in this respect. I adore Homefront/Paradise Lost, for example, and in my list of recommended episodes I'm building they have a rightful place on that list. I likewise enjoy For the Uniform in this respect - Sisko has a temper and it does at times get the better of him. But again, these last couple of episodes go too far. They are good sci-fi television, don't get me wrong, but I feel they stray too far from the essentially optimistic view of the world and of humanity that I consider Star Trek's defining characteristic. * A generally great cast with great chemistry. I think Jadzia Dax is an obvious weak link, and I think many of the characters falter when pushed outside their element (I don't tend to like Odo romance episodes or Quark drama episodes, for example), but on the whole DS9 has far and away my favorite overall cast as an ensemble of the Star Trek series. Sisko is always a standout, and I feel Quark and Odo are terrific when used in their elements. * Consistent world-building. I love the little touches in DS9, that there are Klingons who open restaurants on Federation stations, that you know what Bajorans like to eat and how Dax introduces the crew to the wonders of Klingon coffee. Related to the above, DS9 has a lot of little scenes of characters bantering together over lunch or on boring days in Ops, and I like these little moments that build up the world and the cast's relationships with each other. * Greater continuity and character development than the norm for Star Trek. The Dominion is first mentioned in season two, but the Dominion War only breaks out in the last episode of season five. Nog, while I was pretty harsh on him in the beginning, develops immensely and is one of my five or so favorite characters on the show now. * Complex villains. Outside of Dukat, the villains in this show tend to have genuine virtues and understandable reasons for what they do. The Jem'hadar are great for this, they're so much more than genetically engineered supersoldiers when given a chance to explore them, and there are even moments where I've felt deep pity and sympathy for Weyoun. * Also related to point two, I feel DS9 is generally the funniest series of Star Trek. The great personal chemistry of the cast helps, there's a lot of humor just from how the crew interacts with each other - notice every time someone announces that Kai Winn is coming to the station everyone's face falls like someone just told them their cat died. * A willingness to take risks no other Star Trek series has dared. Episodes set wholly aboard Klingon ships. Episodes about spirituality and religion and one man's religious journey. Ending a battle with an appeal to faith and divine intervention. I'm a deeply religious person myself, and DS9's unique willingness to show human characters (well, just Sisko really) as deeply religious is part of the series' appeal. And with one exception, I love the episodes set on Klingon ships for showing a very different world than Starfleet. Cythereal fucked around with this message at 14:00 on Nov 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 13:57
|
|
|
His Way On the one hand, I still don't like the Kira/Odo romance as I've talked about before. On the other hand, I do like Vic and God knows this series needed something lighter after the last few episodes. Call it a wash.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:I like Deep Space Nine a lot, it's easily my favorite of the Star Trek series, but I feel this one and Section 31 go too far. DS9's meta-premise was amazing. Secular Federation? How does it deal with it's representative being fundamentally embroiled in a faith-based culture? 'We come in peace?' How is that tested when war is inevitable? Infinite diversity? What happens when shapeshifters start impersonating anyone? Testing the aspirational premise of Trek is fine - properly done it can show how dedicated the Federation is to it's central ideals. But DS9 had the Federation fail those tests again and again, often in such a way as to imply that the aspirational idea was always pretense, that humans are crappy and petty and will always be thus. There's a lot of good sci-fi there, but the reason I like Trek is that it stands out by living somewhere else.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:Section 31 would be best if they were a kind of secret paramilitary organisation who are completely separate from Starfleet and the Federation but are ostensibly on the same side as them; they insist that they're committed to the values and ideals of the Federation but they have a twisted view of what those values and ideals actually are, and as such believe that Starfleet and the Federation itself aren't capable of adequately defending them. All Section 31 would do is make things worse every time they try to help. We can also argue that between Section 31 creating the Founder Virus and the Tal Shiar/Obsidian Order trying to blow up the Founder Homeworld, that is what really kicks off the Dominion War.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
Sarcastr0 posted:But DS9 had the Federation fail those tests again and again, often in such a way as to imply that the aspirational idea was always pretense, that humans are crappy and petty and will always be thus. Why are people acting like TOS and TNG didn't have corrupt members of Starfleet? Hell, 90% of Starfleet admirals that we see are utter pieces of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 17:09
|
|
|
Sarcastr0 posted:DS9 had the Federation fail those tests again and again, often in such a way as to imply that the aspirational idea was always pretense, that humans are crappy and petty and will always be thus. I rather like the idea that instead of re-engineering who and what we fundamentally are to be not-dicks, we are good enough to recognize our dickish propensities and engineer a society that minimizes them. Externalities like the dominion would then test us and we would need to reconcile the new threat with out desired culture. I think DS9 does all that pretty well. Just saying "humans have moved beyond being crappy and petty" as though through evolution rather than social engineering seems handwavey and just magical essentially. Section 31 is the other similar complaint I see and frankly they seemed like a rogue agency that wasn't necessary and are clearly the bad guys causing a lot of their own problems.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
thexerox123 posted:Why are people acting like TOS and TNG didn't have corrupt members of Starfleet? That's because of the evil worms in them 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:His Way Since you like Vic, even in His Way, I'm going to move you up to "Even" on my personal "DS9 Fan or bad fan" scale. Also Section 31 are always portrayed as the bad guys and anyone that worked with them are always portrayed as, at the very least, morally wrong so I'm not sure why anybody thinks the show represents them as something the Federation wants or needs. Just beacuse Sloane is given the opportunity to explain his ideals doesn't mean the show agrees with him, it means the show wants him to be more than just a cackling villain. Really it's just another version of "Dukat doesn't actually seem all that bad," just that Section 31 doesn't get their corresponding Waltz making them literally Space Hitler. Like, there is a whole Star Trek movie about a group of Federation-supremacists conspiring to draw the Federation into a war with the Klingons so they can be conquered (which seems like something that would be ret-conned into a Section 31 plot in a book somewhere). The heroes stop them. There are probably people out there that think "Well actually the war would have been a good thing overall." The Federation and Starfleet has never been portrayed as all good and that there is always a need for people of moral character to fight back against this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
The very first Kirk episode of TOS is about a member of Starfleet getting corrupted by power.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
thexerox123 posted:Why are people acting like TOS and TNG didn't have corrupt members of Starfleet? The individuals were (hilariously regularly so); the organization rose beyond them again and again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
Been catching up on the thread, and I notice you guys stumbled onto that ultra long fan film trilogy at about the same time I did. I watched about 3 minutes of it, before I spotted a 30-minute "making of" doc about it in the sidebar, so I watched that first. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_uGL5QpeBk The whole thing is done like he's talking to an off-camera interviewer, and he actually does a pretty convincing job of it. But it all feels kind of creepy when you remember that he's almost definitely sitting alone in a room looking at a wall, talking to thin air about his Star Trek fan film made in Poser. As you watch, you start to realise how much of the story of at least the first film (I haven't watched the rest*) is in some way about him. The villain resembles him, right down to being the only person in the Federation who wears glasses (retinax allergies aside, of course). As he goes on, the oddness deepens. There's a whole section of the first film that uses a 3d model of the set for "The Price is Right", and defends it because apparently a lot of people thought it was jarring and weird. In the film, the scene goes on way too long, just to provide a clue that requires a leap of logic, and just makes you cringe because you know it's mainly there because he's proud of it, not because it belongs. Looking at his YouTube channel, interest in old game shows seems to be something else the villain inherits from him. And then he talks about some stuff about one of the characters who's based on a girl he knows. This part seemed weird, more so by how vague he was and how, after watching it, his film seems like kind of an attempt to explain himself or say sorry or something. I dunno. All that aside, making these three films must have been an enormous effort. There's 9 hours of plot, voice acting, character animation, sets and effects. And all that effort and hard work resulted in 9 hours of a crew of the same two Poser models with different hairpieces and all the same voice chasing another Poser model with a penchant for being dramatic (badly). * Yeah, I watched the first one. Once you get past 80% of the characters having his voice (even the women) it's actually a fairly well put-together effort, by the standards of fan films. It avoids the usual fan-film schtick of introducing a POWERFUL NEW ENEMY and a GALAXY PLUNGED INTO WAR. The villain's motivation is hilariously goony, though. He got dumped. And I would never in a million years recommend you actually watch it. I only had it on while I was working.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
Sarcastr0 posted:The individuals were (hilariously regularly so); the organization rose beyond them again and again. When was that not the case in DS9?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
The fact that the Federation even has a military -- who regularly gets involved in lethal combat that isn't always 100% necessary -- has always felt like an inherent contradiction in Roddenberry's supposedly pacifist vision. Or at the very least, it clearly was never a perfect Utopia, all things considered. I feel like DS9 was an attempt to wrestle directly with that elephant in the room and come out with something stronger that still maintained the same overall optimism, and I think they pulled it off admirably.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
The Bloop posted:I rather like the idea that instead of re-engineering who and what we fundamentally are to be not-dicks, we are good enough to recognize our dickish propensities and engineer a society that minimizes them. Externalities like the dominion would then test us and we would need to reconcile the new threat with out desired culture. I think DS9 does all that pretty well. Just saying "humans have moved beyond being crappy and petty" as though through evolution rather than social engineering seems handwavey and just magical essentially. Agreed - that's an intriguing as hell idea. And not one that's really been well explored. But it isn't Trek, IMO. To me (and I will admit to being as idiosyncratic as any fanboy) the seminal idea of Trek is that the best humanity we could be was in there all along and was brought out by technological Utopian. There should be nothing to integrate because we will already be the best. Our conceded, philandering, whale-saving best. Except for the Prime Directive, that's a moral horrorshow. Is Trek how we could turn out? My instincts tell me it would end up being more like Eclipse Phase. But I like Trek for how out of step it's premise is, and for sticking to it even in the 90s and 2000s. (BTW, if you like crazy-pants aspirational sci-fi I would recommend James White's Hospital Station series.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 17:38
|
|
|
Sir Lemming posted:The fact that the Federation even has a military -- who regularly gets involved in lethal combat that isn't always 100% necessary -- has always felt like an inherent contradiction in Roddenberry's supposedly pacifist vision. Or at the very least, it clearly was never a perfect Utopia, all things considered. I feel like DS9 was an attempt to wrestle directly with that elephant in the room and come out with something stronger that still maintained the same overall optimism, and I think they pulled it off admirably. I generally agree. I just think Pale Moonlight and Section 31 are missteps.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
thexerox123 posted:When was that not the case in DS9? If Sisko hadn't lied, the Federation would have been lost to the Dominion If Section 31's secret ruthlessness didn't exist, the Federation would supposedly have been lost many times over. DS9's Federation is a place that doesn't actually triumph due to it's better nature, but despite it. Again, that's neat to examine. But the need for idealism to meet pragmatism is all over the rest of sci-fi (which I also often enjoy).
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:You just described what Section 31 is. That's exactly what they are. I thought they were a fully-integrated part of Starfleet/the Federation. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
Sarcastr0 posted:If Sisko hadn't lied, the Federation would have been lost to the Dominion The Feds might have engineered another way out of it, or the Romulans might have had a revolution led by the ruinification faction to save the Feds or Odo might have self-destructed the founders if desperate enough. It was written that way in a "Even good people do bad things once in a while" which is a lesson from Fred Mr. Motherfucking Rogers who is about as Federation ideal humanity as it gets in the real world. Sarcastr0 posted:If Section 31's secret ruthlessness didn't exist, the Federation would supposedly have been lost many times over.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 00:48 |
|
|
Sarcastr0 posted:If Sisko hadn't lied, the Federation would have been lost to the Dominion Sisko isn't an individual? Anyone who takes part in Section 31 knows that they have to keep it a secret... they are also acting as individuals against the knowledge of the Federation. Your issue is that we get corruptible characters who are sympathetic, not that there are suddenly more corruptible characters in Starfleet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 17:49
|
|