At the start of the week, CBS made big news announcing a new Star Trek series focused on Section 31 and starring Michelle Yeoh. One of the showrunners for the new series is now speaking out about some reactions to the news.
Section 31 show not taking aim at Star Trek’s optimism
The official press release touted the new show with the tagline “CBS All Access goes black ops with Michelle Yeoh for new Star Trek series based on Section 31.” Yoeh will be playing the Mirror Universe version of Phillipa Georgiou, who has been recruited into Section 31 after being exiled in the Prime Universe. And of course, Section 31 has been shown to be a nefarious clandestine organization, willing to work in the grey areas where Starfleet either cannot or will not operate.
As Star Trek continues to expand on TV with a number of series in development, Alex Kurtzman – the executive in charge of the expansion of Trek – has made it clear he wants each show to have its own unique style and tone. Some fans and critics have wondered what that means for the Section 31 series, in light of how Section 31 by definition, does not hold itself to the standards Starfleet.
Georgiou shows off her Section 31 black badge
Some have even expressed concern that the show will abandon Star Trek’s core principle of representing an optimistic and hopeful future. This included Newsweek’s alarmist headline: “New Michelle Yeoh Section 31 Show Determined to Finally Kill ‘Star Trek’ Optimism“.
A fan picked up on that headline and asked Bo Yeon Kim – who is one of the executive producers/showrunners for the new series along with Erika Lippoldt – if the Section 31 series is taking aim at Trek’s optimism. Kim made it clear in her reply that this should not be a concern, saying: “Oof. That is NOT what we are aiming to do. We will never lose sight of what Star Trek represents.”
Oof. That is NOT what we are aiming to do. We will never lose sight of what Star Trek represents.
— Bo Yeon Kim (@extspace) January 17, 2019
Kim and Lippoldt have served as executive story editors for Star Trek: Discovery, working on both seasons. Their writing credits include the season one mid-season finale “Into the Forest I Go” and the Saru-centric Short Treks episode “The Brightest Star.” As an avowed longtime fan of Star Trek, Kim should be aware of the themes and lore of the franchise. And based on what she wore to WonderCon last year (see below) she should be aware of the origins of Section 31 on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.
I LOVE MY T-SHIRT. Ready to crash the floor! #Wondercon2017 #DS9 #deepspacenerd pic.twitter.com/bL9V8OpNda
— Bo Yeon Kim (@extspace) April 1, 2017
Keep up with all the upcoming Star Trek TV projects at TrekMovie.com.
That‘s twice today that the reactionaries have been proven wrong.
A pretty good day.
Yeah, so many negative people flooding the comments. Often before they even know anything.
But have they really been proven wrong? The show runner says “We will never lose sight of what Star Trek represents,” but that *could* just be hand waving. But even if it was said in earnest, a Section 31 show is still antithetical to the “optimism” of Trek and there’s not really any way to get around that.
Section 31 isn’t like the CIA or MI-6 or something. They’re more like the Obsidian Order or Tal Shiar, except no one officially recognizes they exist. They definitely do incredibly unethical things, and I dare say it, do evil in the name of “good.”
They’re definitely not an organization that could remotely define “what Star Trek represents.” If anyone is familiar with it, I tend to think that Section 31 is very much like “the Centre”/”Section One” in La Femme Nikita and it’s 1990s American remake. They are inherently evil organizations (ends always justify the means, and it’s usually assassinations that meet those ends), but much of what they do is for the “greater good.”
So there’s two main ways this could go in my mind:
1) They claim that the gritty tone that will appear in a Section 31 show couldn’t be downplayed and that anyone who doesn’t like it has any number of other optimistic Trek shows they could watch instead that “never lose sight of what Star Trek represents.”
2) They “soften” Section 31 and turn it into a run-of-the-mill spy agency, like how the CIA or MI6 are portrayed in media. The people in the organization are just regular citizens, but occasionally have to get their hands dirty or make “hard decisions.” I would suspect that the “hard decisions” would likely be just run-of-the-mill stuff like blackmail and not a conspiracy to wipe out an entire race like in DS9.
Either way they go it will tough to wrap our heads around the immense idiocy of hiring the wolf to guard the hen house.
Yup this Section 31 Show is going to be great.
I could also see a scenario where Georgiou slowly begins to learn more about the prime universe and her counterpart’s legacy and has a kind of awakening, eventually turning to battle 31 from within.
After writing what I wrote the other day, I suppose a scenario could present itself in the series where the Mirror Universe Georgiou corrupts Section 31 and puts it on a path from being a “run-of-the-mill” spy/clandestine organization to being the “ends always justify the means” blackmailing/assassination organization we end up seeing in DS9. That at the very least retains the “optimism” until it gets subverted as the show continues.
This would at least fit in canon with the little we see of the organization in Enterprise.
For anyone familiar with Doctor Who (or for those who aren’t, here are some 13 year old show spoilers), it would basically be the exact opposite of what happened to Torchwood, which was introduced as a (apparently) malevolent clandestine organization but was “reformed” by Jack after it was virtually destroyed.
Of course this would have to ignore the Kelvin Timeline version of Section 31 where it appears to be just as evil (or perhaps even more-so) than what we see in DS9.
Haven’t been proven wrong yet.
First, I want to get this out of the way…
“We will never lose sight of what Star Trek represents.”
I sorta feel like S1 of Discovery pretty much did.
Next, while I realize they were responding to a magazine headline, that headline is not what I, and many others from what I have gleaned on line, think the problem with this Section 31 show is. It’s not the black ops nature of it. It’s the fact that the clandestine organization has apparently thought putting “space Hitler” in their employ would be a good idea.
But they just said that they have a plan, so they chose Georgiou because she allows them to tell a story that is both modern and yet fits with Trek‘s ethos. Wait for the actual show. Should it in the end not have delivered, you can complain. But worrying now is not logical, as Spick would say.
They said S1 of Discovery had a plan too. Having a plan does not mean it’s a good idea. Often times you know something is a terrible idea before you even sample it. Example, I do not need to pour coffee on my reuben sandwich to know it’s not a good idea. I do not see what is so “modern” about hiring a habitual bank robber to be a teller in your bank. It sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.
Except that S1 of DSC was pretty great, and very much in line with the ethos of Trek once it was revealed that all was not what it seemed.
Remember when Starfleet voted for killing all the Klingons?
Not in line with the ethos of Trek.
Because we never had amoral admirals before and because in the end they went through with it. Burnham acted like Picard or Kirk would have in the face of genocide. Deal with it.
Funny… When all was revealed was when the season was permanently lost. Up to that point it had been taking on water but it was certainly salvageable.
The real question is, what journey will she take? If a warmonger is a warmonger at the series midpoint and warmonger in the finale, that’s not a story–that’s a portrait. Kirk’s journey led him to confront his own racism in TUC, and today the story would include learning more about the Klingons than we ever learned 1966-87.
Using Hitler to describe anything but Hitler is meant to foreclose conversation not further it. Is or was Georgiou more or less evil than any of the successful pre-TNG Klingons we’ve come to know? Don’t even get started with the ‘honor’ nonsense. Klingons slaughtered civilians, used collective punishment (the legal definition of genocide), conquered worlds, yet we came to view them as noble warriors. I think that was problematic, too. But this story is unique, and we should see how it plays out.
You seem to forget… This person is MIRROR Georgeau. If it were Prime Georgeau then I could be intrigued. But put mirror anyone in section 31 is a mistake of monumental proportions. In fact, I’m stunned Georgeau is even still walking free. She needs to be jailed or they needed to find a way to get her back where she belonged. And Burnham should have been severely reprimanded for bringing her back to begin with.
I disagree: Mirror Spock – according to the simplistic MU definition – should have simply been an evil version of Spock. He wasn’t. He tried to change and liberalize the Empire (though failing) a decade after Georgiou. So saying that Mirror People are incapable of growth and goodness is just plain wrong.
Exactly, the concept is totally against what Star Trek is about. Characters can grow…even from the mirror universe.
Again, the reason for the MU is being lost. If Prime Georgeau was a jerk, then that character could grow and learn. But that is not what the MU is. Mirror Georgeau is the opposite of prime Georgeau. Mirror Kirk is the opposite of prime Kirk. To them, growing and changing is to only get darker and become a worse person. To put it in the simplest terms.. From our point of view to a prime person up is up. To their MU counterpart, up is down. It’s nature. Instinct perhaps even. If Georgeau goes down an arc where she “sees the light” it would go down as one of the most vomit inducing plot element in Trek since the Lorca reveal.
Oh he was different, alright. He was definately someone you didn’t want to cross even though he still retained some of the logical Vulcan charicteristics. But notice it is the humans who are pretty much opposites. It is just the nature of the MU humans to be what they are. And you need to understand what the function of the MU is here. It is literally a mirror to show the darker parts of ourselves. If one thinks that MU humans are capable of growth and change for the better then the reasons for the MU to even exist are lost on that one.
But the MU humans are not as simplistic and shallow as you suggest. Look at the mirror O’Brien from DS9, for example.
Not saying they were simplistic or shallow. Just the moral opposite.
NO! THEY! ARE! NOT!
We’ve given you half a dozen examples now and you refuse to acknowledge any of them. Fans dubbed it the “Mirror Universe” but it is *not* the exact opposite. Otherwise the Klingons and the Cardassians would be harmless lambs. They aren’t. Otherwise the Kelpians wouldn’t be victims, they’d be savage warriors, they aren’t.
You’re just repeating a point over and over again that’s been thoroughly debunked, mate.
Now you have resorted to screaming. Which will not change anything. The episode was called “Morror, Mirror” for a reason. Just look at how they acted on the ISS Enterprise. It is a savage world as opposed to a civilized one. The Kirk duplicate was acting out in rage in the prime U. The the opposite way prime Kirk does. And you CONTINUE to ignore the function of the mirror to begin with. We really have nowhere to go under these circumstances.
“Moral opposite” is pretty simplistic. Mirror O’Brien was not even close to the moral opposite of Prime O’Brien. There are many other examples as well.
Because the mirror universe was a pretty simplistic concept.
Your opinion. You aren’t an Admiral in Starfleet. And even if you were, it wouldn’t be just up to you.
It’s up to those running Section 31. Bringing MU Georgeau into their fold is like using that serial killers brain to put in the cyborg in Robocop2. (For the few who saw it) It’s just common sense.
She is much worse than Hitler. She has immeasurably more blood on her hands than him and is responsible for a bunch of successful genocides. She also enjoys eating intelligent life forms. Not even Hitler did that.
She was raised in a culture fostering those traits. This is a great chance to show that evil is not something you are “born as”, a belief which is the basis for a lot of our current problems, but something you can overcome. People can be better, no matter how we think of them. And that’s a very Trekian ideal this show could very well present.
“This is a great chance to show that evil is not something you are “born as”, ”
In the MU, it kinda is. That is how it was set up to be.
How often do I have to repeat it: Look at Spock. Look at the DS9 crew in the Mirror Universe. They are not *evil* by birth and some of them even are “good guys”. Sarek is not evil in the Mirror Universe. Your reading of the MU is incorrect in this regard.
How often do I need to repeat it… Spock is VERY different and very sinister. In fact, the Vulcans in general come across that way. And the last time I checked, Georgeau was Human. Not Vulcan. Humans in the MU are by their nature mirror opposites of their PU counterparts. As good a person as prime Georgeau was, her MU counterpart would be as evil. And boy, was she!
Her name is not French, it’s Greek. Georgiou. G E O R G I O U. :)
How was MU Spock, the one time we saw him, sinister? He didn’t take pleasure in causing pain. He wasn’t sadistic. He was still a Vulcan, operating in a very different set of circumstances, that led him to make “best of a bad situation” moral choices. And ultimately, he did use the Tantalus Device to come to power and try, at least, to reform the Empire.
It’s not that the Mirror Universe is “evil” with a 1:1 duplicate of everyone. We’ve seen that some people are dead, others were never born, some are freedom fighters etc. Nor that there’s 180-degree flipped morality for every single person, species or stellar power. It’s more like their history turned out very, very differently to the prime universe.
As a storytelling device it’s good, it’s a useful “what if…” or “there but for the grace of God go I” type stories, to cast our own moral choices into stark relief.
In any case, Spock’s reforms led the Terran Empire to be defeated by the Klingon-Cardassian Alliance. Is it because the Klingons and Cardassians are any more warlike than they would be in the Prime universe? No, more like they teamed up to deal with the threat that the Terran Empire presented.
And then, to complicate history further: We see the effect of what may be an altered timeline, when the Prime USS Defiant falls through the interphase rift from the 2260s and is taken over by Hoshi Sato in the 2150s, in that mirror Enterprise episode.
This means the Mirror Universe has access to technology from 100 years in the future. It’s surprising that by the time we enter the Mirror Universe in Discovery that they explicitly reference the incident, even suggesting the Defiant is still the Empress’ flagship (?) but their general level of technology *isn’t* noticeably more advanced than the Prime Federation, aside from the ISS Charon having that miniature sun powered by the mycelial network.
Post-Defiant, it seems like the Mirror Universe was severely altered. Georgiou strongly implied she wiped out the Klingon homeworld, leaving only remnants (like Mirror Voq). If so, would there even be much of a Klingon Empire to recover in 80 years’ time to form the Klingon-Cardassian alliance? Would Worf even have been born? Would the Mirror-DS9 timeline exist as we’ve seen it?
All this to say, Mirror-Philippa is a person who is not innately evil, but did extremely evil things, because of the nature of her society and upbringing. She’s not an outlier in her world, she’s the apex.
What the Section 31 series should show us is someone who will (predictably) snark at the soft-headed idealism of the Federation, but slowly come to understand it. Maybe not a 100% redemption arc, but something will get under her skin to make her care.
A world based on respect and love instead of power and fear – at some point will she have a breakdown? Like when Soviet defectors would tour the USA and realize everything they’d been told was a lie, and start sobbing at the abundance on offer at any typical supermarket?
You certainly thought that thing out. From my point of view you overthought. The MU is really a ton simpler than that. Spock WAS different. Just in how he carried himself and there was subtext to what he was saying that was hard to miss. Something Prime Spock almost never did. And we go back to what the function of the MU is. Which I will not repeat as it was said in another post. But you did provide an interesting analysis.
The Vulcans in the MU came across as put upon more than sinister. They adapted to fit a universe where humans went the wrong way and got drunk on power they didn’t know how to use, over and over. The MU shows how we could be, not that MU humans are naturally incapable of conscience. In nature vs. nurture, Trek rarely says a villain is born one. Georgiou is going to evolve.
Except it is in the MU. That is it’s function.
The function of the Mirror Universe is whatever the writers decide it is. Stop being wilfully obtuse!
First screaming now insults. Calm down. Of course it is what the writers made it. And I already made you aware of what the function was. Screams and insults aren’t going to change that.
Except that it isn’t? If we take all the DS9 MU stories as canon, then certainly some people act in an evil way compared to their counterparts, but others are just trying to survive. Mirror Jennifer wasn’t evil, mirror O’Brien wasn’t evil. Mirror Odo and Prime Odo are literally both examples of the “nurture, not nature” argument, because Odo didn’t grow up to think solids were inherently evil, in one universe he rebelled against his species and in the other he adopted the morality he was taught.
In the original TOS episode the Halkans were the same in both universes, devoted to peace. It was only the Federation / Terran Empire that was different! If your theory held true the Halkans would have used their natural riches in dilithium to conquer the galaxy or something.
Incorrect. It was the humans who were depicted as the most polar opposite. I’ve said that from the start.
I feel that ML31 is basically correct; the function of the MU was to tell a morality tale about the darkness within people and the horrors it can lead to if it becomes socially acceptable to let it out. This is why the original episode concentrates on humans mostly; because the message is for us and the aliens (expect for Spock) are just there to enable the story telling. Whether future writers really understood that is where the disagreement begins – maybe they didn’t, or maybe they wanted to make a different point, and so we have the MU and its people being portrayed in different ways.
Can you punish someone from another universe for crimes they didn’t commit in this one? Her reality was literally not ours until Burnham snagged her. I think it brings up a great setup for ethical questions to be played out in one way or another and with Yeoh at the center, nobody is going to give her anything but the best material to work with. I’m highly anticipating this series to see how they figure these sorts of questions out.
Perhaps not. But they really should be devising a way to send her back to her own environment and Burnham ought to have been severely disciplined for her amazingly foolish actions of bringing her over.
“I sorta feel like S1 of Discovery pretty much did.”
Well I know you’re not the only one who feels that way. But that’s also not the only opinion. Plenty of people enjoyed Season 1 and plenty of people felt it was a very good representation of Star Trek, albeit from a new angle.
I am excited for Picard, Section 31, and Lower Decks, and look forward to seeing Trek delivered with new and different visions.
I know there are some who felt S1 hit their mark. Good for them. But there were many where it didn’t. In fact, many felt it missed by a goodly margin. I even preferenced the comment with “I think” in an attempt to keep the opinion nit pickers away.
For the record, I too am curious about the lower decks show and even the kid version. Picard and THIS version of a section 31 show? Not so much. But I have said over and over that I am pleased to see Trek diving into different genres. Not all will work or even speak to every one. But it’s great they are expanding.
I think there are more than “some” people who liked Season 1 and I think there are not that many people out there who actually disliked it. It seems to mostly be a very vocal majority that’s utterly toxic.
I’m not including you in this, because you’re willing to debate here, but in general the main criticism of Season 1 by the people who disliked it seems to be: BUT WHY IS NOT EVERYTHING ABOUT WHITE MEN? I’M A WHITE NERD BRO AND THOSE PEOPLE OF COLOR AND FEMALES HURT MY FEELINGS!
I’m not sure if they even watch the show or if they just try to transplant the toxic argument with which they already poisoned Star Wars’ and Doctor Who’s fandom into every franchise now.
I have seen such arguments out there but to be honest those are VERY rare. The bulk of the complaints against S1 were that the writing and plotting were not well done at all. The next most common complaint is that it didn’t “feel” like Star Trek. The next most common were “They changed everything”. The race stuff is pretty far down the list.
Maybe I’m malicious, but a lot of the “doesn’t feel like Trek” and “changed everything” seems to be “diversity makes me feel uncomfortable” in coded form. It’s weird how women and people of color who like Trek in general seem to agree that the show is in the spirit of Trek.
Well, is it possible then that you may be going out of your way to find racism where it doesn’t exist? When the reason is “doesn’t feel like Trek” it is referring to the darker tone and lack of exploration. When they say “changed everything” they mean Klingons don’t look like Klingons, uniforms don’t fit. There shouldn’t be holographic communications. Stuff like that. These things I figure to be pretty darn obvious. I find it odd that the racism/sexism is the first place you would run to when hearing those reasons. I’d also like to see the data that supports your final sentence. That has not been my experience at all.
“I know there are some who felt S1 hit their mark. Good for them. But there were many where it didn’t.”
Yeah, that’s… what I said. SMH.
Yeah, you also pointed out opinion when I already pointed it out. So it seemed appropriate to respond in kind. SMDH.
I agree with this comment…I’d like to point out, that Star Trek isn’t a “Liberal” show. It takes the position of many different opinions with different episodes and iterations.
Which is the definition of being liberal. So how can Star Trek not be a liberal show?
Liberal is being oben to ideas.
Conservative is being closed against ideas.
The hypocrisy of that comment is hilarious and almost certainly lost on the author.
Actually, conservative is being resistant to change. They come around, it just takes a lot longer. That’s not necessarily a bad thing.
No, it is a good thing, because a lot of ideas are destructiv by nature. So it is essential for every society that there are forces that bring up new things and forces that counter check and preseve what is approved.
Nah, it’s a liberal show, in the idealistic-pragmatic JFK mode. That’s just a fact.
A good representation? Don’t tell me, non-Star Trek fans told you that?
““We will never lose sight of what Star Trek represents.”
I sorta feel like S1 of Discovery pretty much did.”
No, they didn’t. What they did was upping the ante, raising the stakes. They challenged Trek’s values against various sinister backdrops. Maybe the final solution was a bit rushed but it was pure Star Trek. The MU is evil and so was Lorca from day one.
What they did was including a bit more graphic violence in parts, but where is the moral dilemma in that? Redshirt after redshirt dropping dead is totally okay but showing some guts and gore isn’t? Sure it’s catering to the viewers’ voyeurism to some point but isn’t that true for all sorts of Trek eye-candy, from SFX to TOS’ less-is-more girl outfits?
OK. You think they upped the ante and raised stakes. Don’t just say it but explain HOW they did that. I didn’t see that in any way shape or form. What I saw was disjointed writing and VERY bad plot lines. Just adding the final moral of “genocide is baad, m’kay?” does not make it Star Trek. It doesn’t even make it Star Trek-ish.
Deep Space Nine already challenged Trek’s values in exactly that way, and did it far more intelligently.
“I sorta feel like S1 of Discovery pretty much did.”
The problem is the themes and everything has been there through the first Season of Discovery. They are presented differently because it’s not 45 minute standalone episodes, but they are there. You can find many of the same messages and morals and things that Trek has always had.
When the Tartigrade comes up as a central plot point in a story of self sacrifice, slavery, mistreatment, I didn’t hear “Wow, so it is Trek” I hear ” Oh.. Voyager already did this with Equinox.”
Last season when the Captain uses exploration and scientific curiosity against the crew to serve his own means, that doesn’t mean anything apparently, that this crew is so enamored with the idea of exploration, or discovery, that they are fooled by a man they think to be their friend. and when that turn does happen and he’s revealed, what happens? We coalesces around the message that we will come back stronger and fight back.
When we end up in the Mirror Universe and are given time and again how hard it is to try and uphold Starfleet ideals in this universe, and how much their cover can’t be blown or else they are going to die, crew still risks their lives to try and help the freaking rebellion against an oppressive dictatorship (and they really leaned on the stronger together through diversity message in that particular episode), we’re told it’s all dark, that there’s no hope, there’s no messages or ideals.
The very end of the season we have a very Trek message (though I will admit the rushed episode doesn’t help, but that’s not what we’re talking about). One about how even when the worst things come to pass, you can’t go against your own principles and what you say you stand for just to survive. That’s is a message straight from TOS.
These are just off the top of my head here.
The fandom seems to want to have it both ways, and you can’t have it both ways. Either there’s no messages, or there are. Plainly there are, and yeah, some of them may be retreads but that is far from a thing that’s unique to Discovery.
What wasn’t there was the examination of the human condition. What happens when you run into terrible choices. What makes us what we are. The friendships that develop and how those can get affected by difficulties. None of which could be found in Discovery. At least, not upon one viewing. As the show was not good enough to get a return look to see if there was some sort of subtext that was missed. The takeaway was that not only was Discovery a drab, joyless horrible place but the season long story arc was just way too ridiculous to take with any kind of seriousness. It’s one thing if it were just a bad episode. But this was an entire season that contained ONE episode that dealt with real emotion and real caring for anyone.
Not only do we have a friendship that is in the middle of the main plot and is twisted and turned and they still somehow make it work, we also have a main character who literally comes to terms with her terrible choices in Episode 1 when she is confronted by them again in Episode 15.
So, sorry, I don’t know what show you were watching, maybe The Orville, but it wasn’t Star Trek: Discovery.
What friendship are you referring to? Because the closest we saw on Discovery was acquaintance or colleague. The main character was supposed to have a full season arc but those issues with her, as well as her relationship with coworkers, seemed to be solved off screen within the first 4 episodes.
Since you brought up Orville it’s first 4 episodes this year have not been nearly up to the level they were last year. I am disappointed in it. So no. No confusion there. And I must say, I think it undermines your own comment that you even went there.
I guess my concern was getting back to the more clandestine take on Section 31. I feel they are too well known for an organisation that many officers had not been aware of over a hundred years later.
I think a crap ton of Admirals and above knew about Section 31 even in the Ds9 era.
Exactly. I’ve been rewatching DS9 of late, and it’s pretty clear that most high ranking officials at Starfleet Command were well aware of it. Sisko, Bashir, Odo, all bumped into Starfleet personnel who “didn’t deny the existence” of Section 31.
Good. Whew. Now I can sleep sound. This worried me. Now I’m amped. Warp speed!
How to be an Old School Star Trek Fan:
1. There is a gap or apparent inconsistency in canon.
2. Fans ask, ‘what explanations could there be to fill this gap or resolve this inconsistency?’
3. Fans debate which theories remain true to what we’ve seen and what we want to see.
4. Fan rely on the consensus ‘head canon’ until they learn otherwise.
How to be a New School Star Trek Troll:
1. There is a gap or apparent inconsistency in canon.
2. Trolls rush to Twitter to proclaim their fan bona fides by that the creators of the new Trek are apostates, morons, or malicious destroyers of everything dear about Star Trek.
3. Trolls rush to YouTube to monetize their hate and virtue-signal their intolerance for the new Trek.
4. Trolls form mobs, harassing both fans and creators online, making fandom fraught and contentious.
5. Professional Trolls (RM Burnett, Trekyards Sam Cockings, Lore, Doomcock, MechaRandom, AntiTrekker, Egotastic, Nerdrotic) further monetize the hate, such that any attempt to discuss or debate the OPPORTUNITIES of the apparent gap is both ignored and actually pays them money through ‘engagement.’
One simple, uncontroversial example: DSC uniforms are unprecedented. However they are also form-fitting, navy blue, mid-20th century-inspired like Captain Robau in the Prime scenes of STO9, while featuring asymmetrical collars/tops, like Captain Pike’s field jacket in “The Cage.” It’s easy to look at DSC uniforms and see how they fit in between Robau’s and Pike’s, but this detail was fed into the Troll process above. Our conversation was degraded, while hate mongers like Burnett, Cockings, and the guys too ashamed to use their own names collected dozens, maybe hundreds of dollars. It’s sad and pathetic.
It only takes a short conversation with someone in the profession of selling and writing story for film and television, or anyone with a literature degree, to learn that a fish out of water story, like a Terran Emperor in the black ops section of Starfleet, is far more likely to be transformed by her environment, with her beliefs challenged, than the reverse. Has anyone ever read GULLIVER’S TRAVELS? For crying out loud. Mirror Georgiou will meet people she’s killed, be saved by people she despised, and learn far far more about those she hated than she ever could have in the Terran Empire.
All of this is to say, not just ‘look on the bright side,’ but stop helping the professional trolls monetize hatred and base-level ignorance.
Super stoked for tonight. Very excited for what’s to come from Star Trek. And humbled by BYK and EL’s rocket-like ascent from junior staff writers to future show runners.
LLAP
Well said.
Excellent Comment.
Thank you. 100% agree.
Dude, no one is going to read all that stuff about what you think a troll is.
I don’t see Michelle Yeoh headlining a TV show. She’s a “name” in the movie business and for the most part it’s foreign films. They would be smart to have her a rung or 2 down on the headliner board for this show. I love anything Trek, but for the first time I am skeptical this one will work.
Matthew McConaughey fronted True Detective, Ali in Season 2 and Farrell in Season 3. Reese Witherspoon and Meryl Streep star in Big Little Lies. Emma Stone and Jonah Hill in Maniac. Cillian Murphy on Peaky Blinders, Ewan MaGregor on Fargo, heck, Jason Isaacs in Discovery.
Movie actors, even bonafide stars, on TV (particularly on streaming TV) has become a new trend.
The Newsweek article is completely right. The mere extistence of Section 31 already completely undermines a positive depiction of the future. There is nothing nice about a Federation with such a nasty organization at its core. And Section 31 hiring genocidal, mass murderer of billions Georgiou who has spilt so much blood that it could fill an ocean, is making it even worse.
Season 1 of Discovery was already protraying a nasty Federation. They were planning to capture, enslave and torture to the death tons of tardigrades and didn’t even have the decency to feel bad about it. It is one thing wanting to commit genocide against the Klingons when you are about to lose a war against them, but the tardigrades were completey innocent. They didn’t attack the Federation, but the Federation still planned to make them suffer just so their space ships can move faster from place to place.
The new Section 31/Georgiou series takes the worst aspects of Discovery and concentrate on them completely. It is completely against the spirit, the premise of what Star Trek stood for. Star Trek is suppose to be about an optimistic future with overall better, nicer humans, a future people of today can aspire to and not a warning example of what should be avoided.
You’re right, and that’s what will make this series interesting. I’m not looking for more of the same.
You can’t lay Section 31 on DSC. That was part-and-parcel of Ira Behr’s grittier take on Trek. On balance that largely worked for DS9, but I still think that Section 31 was a big mistake.
I disagree. As portrayed in DS9, Section 31 is a “shadow government” group which is treated as a perversion of the Federation’s ethos, and peace with the Dominion comes through their defeat.
The problem is that the incompetents who wrote ENT and DSC took Sloan’s justifications at face value. I.e. Who exactly did we get that speech about Section 31 being the necessary evil that exists so Picard et al. can afford to be optimistic from? Was it, perhaps, Section 31?
The way it works is that TV today is much more geared towards terrorism and 9/11 fears. They can’t really go back to 90s Trek style because they are incapable of doing that.
I’m quite sure they never HAD sight of what Star Trek represents.
And that’s why most people here on this website feel that Discovery might be the “truest” Trek show since The Next Generation, right?
I thought most people on this site were saying that about the Orville.
Regardless you are using a logical fallacy (which may be an additional symptom of whatever makes you like Discovery) – please see STAR TREK Logical Thinking #1 – Argumentum Ad Populum (Appeal to the Majority)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkoMdnCS6Og
THIS!
I think this show is just going to need a Bashir-like character. Somebody who reluctantly works with Section 31, but will call them out for betraying the Federation’s ideals.
I agree. I would love to see the main character be a naive young ensign recruited by the head of the S31, who’s forced to work with Georgiou, and is really freaked out by how ruthless she is. Perhaps over time he grows to distrust her, and in the end must take her down.
Geez, that Newsweek headline… I have an entirely different problem, namely with the way S31 has been treated recently (in-universe, that is): Essentially no one’s supposed to know that they even exist! Black badges for black ops, eh? No, no, no. That’s not how it works…
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not even getting overly worked up about that, but I sure hope they’re smart enough to figure out some sort of in-universe justification.
Generally I see the positive side though: It gives the audience more of a choice. So if one faction within the fandom is not interested? Well, they don’t need to bother! There’ll be enough Trek around to suit their tastes… hopefully.
I for one have a feeling that Kurtzmann does a good job at delegating. And just like DS9 was at one point basically Ira Steven Behr’s and Ron Moore’s show, it would seem that this will be Lippoldt’s an Kim’s baby, whereas the animated series will be McMahan’s and the Picard show might be Chabon’s.
I’m sorry, I mean: “Pulitzer Price-winning Michael Chabon’s.”
PRIZE, geez… “Pulitzer Prize” of course…
God, I hope it’s Chabon’s. That would literally be stellar.
So much hand-waving, rending of clothes and agita, and the first episode hasn’t even aired yet! I would advise waiting until the series premieres, but I’m sure you’d chide me and question where’s the fun in that. *rolleyes*
I’ve no idea what concept is being cooked up for this show so I’ll cross fingers for it to be good.
I can’t say I’m nearly as excited about this like I am for the Picard Show.
What I dont understand is the assumption that Georgiou is the hero of the show. Dick Dastardly is the star of Wacky Races, but he isnt the hero.
I thought that Newsweek article was pretty absurd. I had no doubt the writers would respect the essential optimism of Trek. Plus, a purely evil lead character would make for incredibly boring storytelling. There has to be some sort of growth and redemption planned. Glad to see someone with actual knowledge and influence chime in.
Section 31? Optimistic? What dictionary are you using?
They abandoned the optimism the minute they made Section 31 the PROTAGONISTS. An unaccountable, ultranationalist, black ops shadow government group is supposed to be optimistic?
Sloan was optimistic? Ahahahaha! Oh CBS…
Oh, of course not.
Just like JJ didn’t, like Discovery didn’t, etc. etc. etc. etc.
These people don’t understand Star Trek.
“Section 31 Series Will Not Abandon Star Trek Optimism” Too late: Discovery did that for you.