Like the espionage organization it’s based on, the Star Trek: Section 31 movie has been shrouded in secrecy. Originally proposed as a TV series to follow Star Trek: Discovery, and later revealed to be a direct-to-streaming movie, details about the project have been vague beyond featuring the return of Academy Award-winner Michelle Yeoh, reprising her Discovery role of Emperor Philippa Georgiou. A Comic-Con panel along with a teaser trailer offered our first real glimpse of Section 31, now set for early 2025 debut on Paramount+. And some follow-up SDCC interviews are filling in a few more details.
Taking on the Section 31/Starfleet moral divide
Since its first appearance in Deep Space Nine’s “Inquisition”, Section 31 has been a divisive topic among Star Trek fans. While some appreciate the moral quandaries illustrated by the existence of a shadow organization within the Federation, many other fans feel that the very concept betrays the enlightened future that Trek has always portrayed. Can humanity be proud of Star Trek’s utopia if it rests on a team that answers to no one? Do desperate times really call for desperate measures, and if so, how desperate do they need to be?
First seen in a 1998 episode of Deep Space Nine, Section 31 has been a contentious topic among fans.
The upcoming Section 31 movie seems ready to tackle these arguments head-on. Director Olatunde Osunsanmi doesn’t see the story as glorifying Section 31’s methods, but he sympathies with the mission they’re given. In an interview with CinemaBlend, he reveals the tone for the movie:
“Starfleet has a particular set of ideals and morals and aspirations, and I would say Section 31 also has a particular set of ideals and aspirations, but they both have different ways of accomplishing the same thing. And Section 31 is there to do things in ways that are… that Starfleet can’t, in a special ops kind of way.”
Falling outside the chain of command and answering to no one, Section 31 has never sat well with Starfleet captains. Benjamin Sisko was infuriated that Luther Sloan could operate with no accountability. Johnathan Archer viewed having a Section 31 operative on his ship, without his knowledge, as undermining his position as a leader. In the upcoming film, Rachel Garrett (played by Kacey Rohl) will have to come to terms with this same dilemma. Rohl explains in the same CinemaBlend interview:
“She’s straddling the divide between those two worlds as we say, trying to marry the Starfleet way of doing things and the Section 31 ways of doing things…. Trying to figure out which rulebook is appropriate for which situation.”
Kacey Rohl as Rachel Garrett
A crew of misfits… but not a Borg
It’s possible the most familiar element of Section 31 will be the assembling of a starship crew. This isn’t likely to be a team of Starfleet’s model officers, however. A crew of spies and assassins led by a former despot bears only the most superficial resemblance to any of the crews we’ve seen before. Georgiou aside, little is known about the origins of the other crew members. Hardwick summarizes the Section 31 recruiting ethos in a Variety interview:
“We take misfits, we take outcasts, and mean that in the greatest of ways, the most complementary of ways. But who all are very precise about what they do.”
If Star Trek: Section 31 tells the story of Starfleet not playing by the rules, then it’s fitting that the production loosens the conventions of traditional Star Trek filming. Actor Sam Richardson suggests that the chaotic world of Section 31 has found its way on-screen partially by taking a new approach off-screen:
“The other iterations of Trek are very naval. It’s a ship that has a hierarchy and protocol and chain of command, whereas this ragtag bunch… they have all these things, but it’s a little bit murkier. And so, they also kind of let us play with that and improvise a little bit, while still sticking to Craig’s script, a brilliant script.”
After the release of the trailer there was some speculation that the team includes a Borg, based on the look of Robert Kazinsky’s character being caked in robotic components. Due to this chatter, the actor felt the need to clarify on his Instagram that he is not playing a Borg.
Robert Kazinsky’s character is NOT a Borg.
A standalone movie, with a sense of humor
As newer iterations of Star Trek are released, it becomes increasingly concerning that newcomers may feel they will be lost without having the full backstory. With close to 900 entries in the Star Trek back catalog, viewers curious about Star Trek often don’t know where to begin. Osunsanmi sees Star Trek: Section 31 as a good entry point to Trek, with a story that doesn’t lean on the connections to Discovery or The Next Generation:
“You can hop right in. If this is your first Star Trek that you’ve ever seen, it is a great way to start. It is its own contained movie.”
Star Trek: Section 31 might be a different kind of Star Trek movie, and it may represent a different approach to storytelling, but the cast and crew insist that the finished product will stand alongside its predecessors. Actor Omari Hardwick told Variety about the balance of familiar Trek formality with the informality of Section 31:
“There’s still that marriage, the hybrid of the sort of formality that we grew up watching, and yet it still has this dirty, sort of edgy take on it—where a sense of humor is allowed.”
Previously, the cast of Lower Decks has also talked about receiving some leeway in the interest of building better comedy. The same approach could lead to a better “spy-fi” adventure as well.
If you haven’t seen it yet, here is the SDCC teaser trailer…
Star Trek: Section 31 is set to be released in early 2025 on Paramount+.
Keep up with news about the Star Trek Universe at TrekMovie.com.
I know the bashing will start soon, but I’m actually looking forward to this.
I like the trailer. It looks like we get some kind of origin story for Georgiou and how she became Empress of the Mirror Universe. It could be interesting to see how that works.
I’m going to watch it, but it’s not an original I need or want. I’d be much more interested in learning about prime Georgiou, but I’m happy for those that want this.
Prime Georgiou definitely never got her due. I think that was one of the major mistakes that Discovery made, killing her off so early.
I liked the Enterprise Mirror Universe episodes, and that Hoshi made herself Empress at the end, which never got followed up as they apparently intended to if the series had continued. Getting another glimpse of how Mirror Universe royalty works could be interesting.
This message board has too many “old men yelling at clouds” ☁️ . Just ignore them, everyone else does. I can’t wait to see this movie.
That’s ‘yelling at clods.’
I’m an old man who grew up watching Star Trek reruns in the 70s. I’m looking forward to Section 31 and I love all of the new Star Trek.
This site needs more people like you.
Same here. The more the “startle” of the tone of the trailer wore off, the more excited I started getting.
Maybe. But that doesn’t mean they are wrong.
I’m looking forward to Academy more but this works too. My secret hope is that this takes place post ST 6 and will link to it somehow.
Why bashing? It’s actually looking good, and it reminds me the time when Discovery was worth watching.
I gotta admit, the trailer has grown on me a bit. Don’t get me wrong, it still looks like a complete mess, and extremely un-Star Trek, but I’m no longer actively hating it.
I will definitely give it a shot. The trailer was a disaster so I don’t have high hopes. But I’m always happy to be proven wrong so if the movie isn’t the giant mess it appears to be I will be happy to change my outlook.
People really need to stop saying something is ‘un-Star Trek’. The Star Trek people made it, so it’s Star Trek, period. I’m not saying you have to like it, but calling it un-Star Trek is just ridiculous.
S31 came out DS9, a show many thought was ‘un-star trek’.
I remember all the hateful things people said about DS9 as a kid. So glad I never listened to those fools.
NARRATOR: “No one needs to stop saying anything they don’t want to stop saying.”
You’re not going to solve gatekeeping by gatekeeping the gatekeepers.
How am I gatekeeping by expressing an opinion that (to me) this doesn’t look like it fits within the ethos of Star Trek? I definitely want it to be good, and for those that liked the trailer and are excited about this movie, all the more power to them; but I fail to see how I am gatekeeping.
I think people mean un Star Trek as straying away too much away from the familiar Trek formula . I think people just have certain expectations about Star Trek. Not unusual. I’m pretty sure Star Wars fan’s would also complain if they did a very slow paced movie like 2001 A Space Odyssey and not action adventure they’re used too .
If that’s what people mean, they just need to say that. Calling actual Star Trek stuff ‘un-Star Trek is just childish. If you don’t like, just say you don’t like it.
I’ll try to be more succinct in my wording then, since apparently you’re unable to grasp that something that (to me) looks un-Star Trek does not negate the fact that it is still Star Trek.
Dont’ sweat it.. I knew exactly what you meant. This is the modern discourse about Trek. For me, I just want two things. 1. to see reverence and respect for what’s come before. I don’t see it in a lot of modern Star Trek. 2. I want it to be good. so much of this just isn’t. That’s not gatekeeping. I want Trek to forge ahead. It lives too much in its own past, which is hilarious when you consider that it isn’t at least reverent to it these days. Criticism is fine.. loving something others don’t is fine. Loving old Trek and not the new is fine, and vice versa. It’s ok. I take Trek seriously, so when something doesn’t (and S31 doesn’t look to be doing that), I’m probably going to have some a problem with it on some level. I remain open, but this doesn’t look very good right now.
sticking to the formula led to shows like Voy, early Ent and the endless ‘mad man with a grudge and a WMD’ in the films.
Of course it’s Star Trek, I never said otherwise. I simply expressed an opinion that the trailer doesn’t look very Star Trekky, but that doesn’t negate the fact that this is indeed a Star Trek movie.
Star Trek XIV
:)
That is an interesting way to consider this film: I note on box sets of the first ten movies that they are indeed all numbered, including TNG movies as 7 (Generations) through 10 (Nemesis). If we continued that trend, the JJ movies would be 11 through 13, and S-31 could be considered the 14th Star Trek “movie” filmed by Paramount. Interesting, indeed.
SO glad this isn’t going to be a series. If the film is great, great. If it’s terrible – and I have a sinking feeling it may be – it’s over. Anyway, I’ll be tuning in.
Based on the trailer, feels like the most plastic, shallow non-Trek production ever made. We’ll see…
You seem quite judgmental based on a few seconds of trailer.
To be honest I’m not a fan of Yeoh’s character in DSC, or DSC in general, and the trailer really did turn me off. That being said though, since it’s only a film I’ll be watching it. Just not terribly optimistic about it.
NARRATOR: “There was nothing judgmental about what Danpaine wrote. What Just Another Salt Vampire wrote, on the other hand, was quite judgmental.”
Ha! Many thanks.
No offense was meant, Dan.
No worries, thanks.
Is there something non-factual about my observation, troll? We have less than two minutes of footage of the movie. To call something “the most plastic, shallow non-Trek production ever made” based on that is objectively judgmental.
If that was the impression the trailer gave the commenter, then that is the fault of the people who made the trailer.
I really hope they make a new trailer that gives a different impression besides being “the most plastic, shallow non-Trek production ever made”
Read the YouTube comments. It seems to be an opinion shared by many.
Fair enough. Thanks, Trellium.
Do NOT Read the YouTube comments! Youtube is not moderated so all the Marvel/StarWars/StarTrek haters troll there.
If dissenting comments are pruned by moderators, then that is not an accurate representation either If it’s outright trolling, then fair enough, but most of the comments I’ve seen from people who disliked the Trailer haven’t been worthy of the troll label. I don’t like it either. Given the track record of Kurtzman and the current team, I don’t see this being of any better quality than the rest of what they’ve offered. The Trailer is supposed to represent the movie, so I’ll be gob smacked if is somehow elevated above everything that has come before. I want to be gob smacked but at this point, I’m highly dubious.
Agreed. And I always hate when something gets a lot of negative posts people just hand wave it away as ‘trolls’ or ‘haters’. Maybe just maybe most just think something is bad and expressing their honest thoughts on it.
That is possible. Here is a great example but I bet people don’t know out of all these new shows which trailer got the most hate and downvotes when it premiered (and no it’s not Discovery). It was Lower Decks. To this day that first trailer got the most down votes and dislikes than anything in NuTrek at the time. It was so bad they cut off the comments section for it lol. Go have a look. It’s the ONLY Star Trek trailer that has ever gotten its comments section turned off and yes it STILL is to this day. It was so bad they turned it off after the third day IIRC.
The only other trailers that got a bad initial reception in the modern era were the Beyond teaser, the first Discovery trailer and now this movie. But yet none of their comments section were ever turned off either.
Now for the people who downvoted LDS into oblivion, were they just mostly haters and trolls or fans who was just turned off by the tone and content? Sure there will ALWAYS be trolls and people who downvotes just to give it to NuTrek but they are in the vast minority. That was proven true because all the other LDS trailers from season 2 on is overwhelmingly positive. Paramount happily keeps those on lol. So where did all those trolls and haters go the last four seasons then?
I just wish people can just look at this stuff more objectively. Now of course the argument is that it’s being downvoted by people who isn’t looking at things objectively and obviously that can be true.
But I’m going back to my Lower Decks example. At the beginning of season 1, LDS was one of the lowest rated Trek shows at around a 6.2 on IMDB. And I’m pretty confident for the dozens of people that voted it higher also blamed it on the trolls and haters why it was rated so low on IMDB. But oddly enough it’s now rated at 7.8 four years later and is the SECOND highest rated show on that site for a NuTrek show; second only to SNW.
So how did that happen? Did a group of LDS lovers start up some up vote campaign and got the show higher in places like YouTube and IMDB? Or the more likely scenario fans minds just changed and voted accordingly as the show went on? My guess is the latter.
And my long winded rant is to make two points. A. I think most people who is downvoting the trailer just thinks it’s a bad trailer, period just like all the downvoted LDS originally got. But B. If the finished product is perceived better than it will naturally change as this stuf usually does.
But yes most of the time when something is widely panned online it’s usually people just expressing their honest opinion, it’s not always just toxic fans who thinks if they downvote something enough times an angel will appear and get someone fired.
And regardless how you feel about it, is it really shocking that a fanbase who wants to see Star Trek elements in their Star Trek shows and movies not like something that clearly went out of its way to avoid those elements in their promotional material? Is it really that surprising?
The Fast & Furious style trailer for Beyond almost kept me from seeing the movie because I am not interested in those movies at all.
There are many movies I will skip if the trailer is unappealing to me, and to be clear, my only complaint so far about Section 31 is the teaser trailer, that once again, is in the style of the type of movie that doesn’t interest me. Nothing about it says Star Trek to me. Not the visuals or the quippy remarks peppered throughout.
It was such a specifically targeted trailer that it seems P+ doesn’t care if I am interested in seeing it or not.
Fantastic post, Tiger. It wasn’t terribly long-winded – ha – but you nailed it. This Trek fan wants Trek that actually Resembles TREK. This trailer, imo did not, as to me, DSC did not. Maybe I’m just aging out. It’s cool, plenty of old stuff to watch.
Thanks!
And yeah that’s all people are saying, it didn’t feel Star Trek enough and why most seem to hate it. And that’s not the only reason either but definitely seems the biggest.
Even people who never liked either Georgiou or Section 31 itself and don’t care about this movie still probably wanted it to feel like an actual Star Trek product just the same. And many of them are probably even more disappointed.
Even Anthony and Laurie, the two biggest Trek nerds and supporters of modern Trek who run this site and become very established in the Star Trek community both said on their podcast they wouldn’t even bother watching this if it didn’t have Star Trek in the title. When you are pushing away even these people it’s a problem IMO. But again its just their impressions of the trailer. But as you have ro remind people that’s the purpose of a trailer. When people say ‘it’s just a trailer’ they are right but they are made to literally sell you on the product like every commercial does. Yeah most here are going to watch it no matter what but we don’t make up the majority either. And for those people they actually do respond by how its marketed to them first and foremost.
But stop acting like all the people who don’t like it are doing it out of reflex because they think anything Kurtzman touch is dire. There will always be those people but the majority isn’t doing that and just like LDS in the beginning it just wasn’t the Star Trek they recognized and responded. LDS managed to get over that hump obviously even if others still feel that way about it today but this movie could do the same. We just don’t know yet obviously.
But until we see more the division over it is very understandable. They obviously had to know that and my guess another reason this thing didn’t become a full on TV show.
I agree with this. I’ve seen bad trailers for good movies, and great trailers for bad movies. I just think it’s fair to say ‘this appears to not be something I’ll like’, and FTR, I’m with you on that opinion. TBH, I expected this tone. On one hand it could be a fun romp that just plays in the campy corner they wrote mirror Georgiou into. As a twoish hour steaming movie, I’m ok with that. Nothing here offends me at this point, and that’s more than I can say about that SNW clip. I’m fine with branching Trek into places it hasn’t been before, I just wish it was somewhere more interesting.
Agreed with everything you said per usual. It may be great in the end but it’s very questionable for me watching that trailer.
Exactly! Jumping outside the box is a lot more palatable for 2 ish hours than for 10 episodes and 5 seasons. I’ll watch it at least once.
Same here. I’m hoping it will impress!
If the next trailer is just more of the same, then I think it will be very safe to assume it will be exactly what they plan on delivering.
It can still be a show if it’s very successful. The only reason it’s a movie is because of her availability. They can still make a show with the rest of the cast and have her show up as a special guest star. A S31 show would be a great replacement for SNW when it’s 5 seasons are up.
Anyone remember Renegades?
It doesn’t look as good as Renegades
I just hope we see a monster maroon or assault phaser or some kind of TMP/Lost Era ship, if you’re going to set the movie in a very specific era then I hope we some kind of nod to established canon outside of the name “Rachel Garrett” but I’m probably going to be disappointed
I like the TV showroom look to the bridges from the 2290s myself (not being facetious.) But I love that assault phaser from TFF as well!
This!!! The TMP movie era looked great, functional and still had the TOS galaxy to colonize to explore. Can’t wait to see Rachel Garrett in action!!
No Captains sitting in front of giant doors and walls while unable to turn to talk to their crew on the bridges in those movies. Was all visually stunning AND functional.
A worry with this trailer was that it had NONE of the TMP movie era. I get that they are outside Starfleet, fair enough, but some hint of the era would be fantastic.
Indeed like the TNG era, a lot of talking in front of doors and hallways. Like WTF, why in the future does everyone need doors and hallways to no where with no computers, stations, laboratories, etc. I mean, I get that there are still bars… probably because no one actually works I guess, they just stand in front of doors or walk hallways.
Hopefully the ‘movie era’ will appear in the actual film, and the teaser is just a trendy Guardians/Suicide Squad style trailer to sell it to non Trekkies
Funniest and truest post I’ve read here in awhile!
There’s a great (and as yet untried) way to inject visual activity into bridge scenes that I used in a Super-8 movie over 40 years ago. You attach the camera to the Captain’s chair arm snd have it pointing at right angles to his position, so it looks directly to his right or left. Then when he spins round ro question somebody at the back, the person comes into view.It’s a little schticky, like something Sidney Furie might do (he shot through a lot of keyholes in THE IPCRESS FILE, considered visually gimmicky by some), but you can do variations as well, like when the ship is hit, the ‘vibration’ spins the camera up and round into the captain’s face.
I just so want to see these shots of the cameras orbiting cast members whie flying past transparent pieces of glass int he foreground to be gone gone gone (that’s what I call gimmicky! he said, unintentionally sounding like Decker after Ilia’s death in TMP.)
I said this when they announced Rachel Garrett. Someone should be wearing the Monster Maroon at some point in this movie, or we riot!!!!
I’m giving it a chance regardless but that trailer did it no favors at all.
And I will say someone who likes comedy in Star Trek and why I like LDS and SNW I think they are starting to emphasize it too much.
Besides those two shows, they have also emphasized now this movie and the Academy show will also have a lot of humor (which I guess it’s no surprise why Tilly, the Doctor and Jett Reno are part of that show) and of course the announcement of the live action comedy show. Maybe the other two will be more serious than comedic, but it does seem like they are pushing it pretty hard lately.
Section Suicide Squad. Why is Star Trek trying so hard to be like everything else that isn’t Star Trek?
At least the YouTube comments for the trailer are entertaining.
Because, and I hate to word it quite like this, if they don’t evolve they’re not going to survive.
Case in point I essentially married Penny from The Big Bang Theory. If I put on any of the Berman Era Trek she rolls her eyes and plays on her phone. If I put on Lower Decks, The Orville, or the Kelvin-verse she eagerly watches without a second thought. She’s even had friends tell her they’ve checked it out and enjoyed it. She saw the teaser a few moments ago and now she wants to watch this and even plans to rewatch the Discovery episodes she didn’t pay attention to the first time we watched them to prepare.
Well, I hope they get enough “Pennys” to replace the people who no longer connect with it.
It seems, to an extent, they may be doing so. Trek is often in the top 10 shows during first run for streaming viewership. This movie wouldn’t have been made if they didn’t think it would provide a financial incentive for those who authorized it.
Going along with what I said a few moments ago my wife just mentioned the trailer to one of her friends while texting and sent the trailer. She’s now planning to watch it too (she has Paramount+).
It’s nice that Trek has ended up in the top 10 but I don’t think it really means that much because Halo got much higher views and apparently season 1 was P+ highest original series and it still got canceled after just two seasons.
It’s more proof that these views don’t tell us that much, especially when 4 of the 5 shows have been canceled.
And they obviously didn’t see Section 31 that viable as a show anymore and why it became a TV movie instead.
Now all that said I do hope the movie hits above expectations because it will naturally give us more and most likely a Legacy movie if it does well enough.
I’m guessing that Halo was probably too expensive for them. I don’t really understand the economics of streaming but if shows that get a lot of views like Halo still get cancelled, then maybe it has more to do with how many new subscriptions a show generates for the streamer?
Just my uninformed guess with how they decide whether to keep a show or not.
I don’t the quality (or lack thereof depending on one’s stance) has anything to do with why there has been a glut of cancellations of late. Paramount is haemorrhaging money and that’s the reason, combined with the fact long running shows don’t bring in new subscribers year on year. They were cancelled as cost saving measures and as sacrifices to the almighty algorithm. Prodigy was even cancelled so it could be a tax write off.
5 years is clearly the cut off point for the new shows (save for Picard which was always going to be a three and done affair). Personally, I can’t wait for S5 of SNW to be done so we can put this tedious beige series to bed. But I digress!
But that’s basically my point, if they were bringing in more money I don’t think they would be cut off so soon.
And sure people can argue that once a show hit a certain number of seasons then naturally they get canceled much faster on streaming as opposed to network shows.
But even with that said the other reality is they are just making a lot less Star Trek shows today period. Three years ago they were making five of them and now they are currently down to two. Maybe it will be three if the live action comedy show gets a greenlight (or an additional show gets annouced) and my guess is that’s two years away at minimum.
And you’re probably right and SNW will be done after 5 seasons as well. I just don’t think any of these shows pulls in enough to go longer than that.
But yeah this is an issue in streaming in general not just a Star Trek one.
And I don’t think it has anything to do with quality either. Prodigy seems beloved by everyone who watches it at least but it still got canceled regardless. And while I am crossing my fingers for a season 3 after how well received season 2 was, not holding my breath either.
Maybe Star Trek never should have been mainstream in the first place.
And so far it seems that the more Star Trek tries to change into something else, the less people enjoy it.
If you just write Star Trek the people will come to watch it.
That logic doesn’t really work when you consider that by the end of Enterprise, nobody was watching it. And that was AFTER they slapped Star Trek atop the titles.
That’s not the point Star Excelsior was making.
But it is though. Enterprise is Star Trek. Nobody watched it, even after they rebranded the show to include the Star Trek prefix. That suggests that if you write Star Trek, people will not necessarily come and watch it.
You’re being incredibly literal here and I think the reasoning is specious. You’re invoking the power of the name, they are saying if you write a “traditional” Star Trek show that doesn’t try to break the mold, then that will pull in viewers who are iffy on straying too far from the norm.
It doesn’t even matter if we agree with that thesis (I don’t, as a matter of fact) because your example doesn’t work. Enterprise season 3 was not a traditional Star Trek show, so the (desperate) ploy to change the name of the show is immaterial. Not only was it still a prequel with only so many of the trappings of previous Star Trek shows, it became a serialized 9/11 parable with an emphasis on higher octane action and darker storytelling.
On top of that, you’re making a bad faith argument because we all know there is little precedent for a show getting an uptick in viewers that late into its run, especially if it’s been written off by the public. Stunt casting and radical changes are what get people’s attention. The Xindi storyline may have made for better reviews but it’s not Seven of Nine in a catsuit or adding Worf to the cast. And season 4, banished to Friday nights on UPN was DOA. These are trends bigger and more powerful than anything you’re trying to pretend would refute their argument.
I agree with this completely.
If the right people were placed in charge of the IP modern Trek might be a better product.
Unfortunately pandering to potential new fans in order to chase the dollar dumbs down content pretty substantially and therefore loses the essence of what makes good Trek.
To me most modern Trek content is comparable to dumb superhero shows on CW.
Fan service is also something modern Trek can’t seem to get right but this isn’t limited to that franchise.
But you can’t simply write a series to cater solely to existing fans. That’s a sure fire way to get your show cancelled.
But you also can’t write stories for an existing IP that ignores what came before it in favor of only appealing to new audiences.
You have to strike a careful balance and actually be receptive to constructive criticism. If you ignore that criticism and keep making the same mistakes you are literally digging the grave yourself.
Gary Numan thought his music had to ‘evolve’ and be mainstream. He went from 3 consecutive #1 albums in the UK to almost total irrelevancy in a few short years.
He later admitted he wasn’t making the music he wanted to make and was just trying to be relevant, trying to emulate artists like Prince. In that period, every album he released did worse, and worse, until it almost ended his career.
His turn to more mainstream music didn’t bring in new fans, and alienated old ones. Of one of those albums he said ‘I’ll regret [it] for the rest of my life” and later said “Imagine falling off a ship in the ocean, knowing if you stop swimming you’re finished. That’s what I was doing then. I was trying not to die.”
That’s what Section 31 looks like.
but his career has been revived lately, partly to do with his manager and wife able to get him lucrative tours around the world.
and he always plays his classic songs on stage.
oooh ok – I get it. This is just Star Trek: Suicide Squad. Got it.
It’s like what I wished they’d done on DS9 after Dukhat commandeered that BoP. I thought that would be a great ship to base a limited series on that combined various castoff characters like Ishara Yar, basically unauthorized commandoes.
I want to put things into perspective. This is (so far as we know) a movie about space Hitler going on a space Suicide Squad. Forgive me for not being excited or optimistic about this movie.
Yeah, I have to agree with you. That’s exactly what it looks like.
“So that’s it? We’re some kind of space suicide squad.”
If Star Trek “exists” in Doctor Who, LOL, Suicide Squad “exists” in Star Trek. 🥺
The splash line on this story is exactly what the movie should be, but I just think they haven’t got the guts or the talent to do that premise justice. It’s also sounding a helluva lot like an idea I came up with after GEN came out nearly 30 years back, one I’ve voiced on trekbbs and here repeatedly, that would have ‘rehabilitated’ the officers and Captain of the E-B after The Day They Lost Kirk. Basically a black ops that promises to clear their names, but they realize it is seriously wrongheaded stuff, and they wind up going through hellfire from both (or actually three) sides before the truth wins out and the E-B actually gets its name back.
My kind of Star Trek. I can’t wait.
If the goal is to trade the fan base for an imaginary audience, then mission accomplished.
lol so much this. They keep chasing after people that have no interest in them. Which…I guess is a bit on the nose for a geek franchise – ha!
But yes, if the history of Trek has shown anything it’s that staying close to the forumla is what works. Get too far afield and forget the spirit (it’s not about sets or costumes or casting) of human imagination, modern moral quandries or topics shown in a sci-fi setting, etc… new people will come in anyway. Try to attract pervs with decontamination gels and catsuits – you’ve lost the plot.
Have to admit I find the not-Borg cyborg guy kinda charming in a 90s extreme action figure sort of way. Dangit, I wanna see him fight the Turtles!
Is “edgy” here like “gritty” was supposed to be for Enterprise Season 3?
Enterprise season 3 -was- fairly gritty by Trek standards.
Seems to have some “Suicide Squad” vibes to it. I’m curious about the Empress backstory. Might get bored, because cool, slo-mo action doesn’t do it for me generally, nor does “elite squad of misfits.” Still, I bet I won’t hate it. Star Trek is a huge sandbox to play in.
This sounds more like the Wagner Group than an intelligence agency.
THE AMERICANS was good because the writers actually had some experience with the intelligence community.
All these shows have some sort of CIA ‘expert’ on the payroll to give guidance, people like Akiva, JJ Abrams and Alex Kurtzman have worked with folks like this on all their shows even pre-Trek.
I just hope damage to star trek is limited. You can’t have Picard with “there is always a way” (to play by the book) and the moral standard star trek is breathing and on the other side Section 31. Imho its always been a foot in the door for the autors and creatives to leave the limitations star trek is giving itself but on the end there always had been the truth that the moral standards have to stand. For me, not taking any path to circumvent, diminish or ignore these moral standards is the connection to the real world and is Star Trek. It remains the optimistic approach that good can triumph with good means. If it takes Section 31 to do this, Star Trek will lose part of its soul. And I’m afraid that this film will cast Section 31 in a positive or cool light.
Yes, my problem with Section 31 is, how can anybody square the existence of Section 31 with the events of “Errand of Mercy” or “Corbomite Maneuver” or “Spectre of the Gun” where Kirk and crew were saved only because aliens saw humanity’s potential for goodness. Would the Metron have let Kirk go if he knew about 31, knew that the Federation postured as peaceful but sanctioned off the books evil? Roddenberry was correct about humans having to mature; in a time when one person with a pistol phaser could cause untold damage, there would have to be maturity and progress.
but we have seen OS eps like ‘a private little war’ where kirk gets his hands dirty involving himself in a conflict because he wants to stop more klingon involvement.
Yeah, but Kirk making a hard decision is different than the codified existence of an evil, dirty tricks organization like section 31. Kirk stands by what he does. If Section 31 exists, it makes Kirk a dupe or a liar when he says the Federation is a “good”. LLAP.
Am sure kirk was unaware of s31 in the prime universe.
ENTERPRISE INCIDENT, anyone? I think they even did some novels suggesting s31 was behind all of that.
An interesting question for debate along this theme would be squaring the Picard standard of “there’s always a way to win thru moral means” with the fact that one of the reasons the Federation survived the Dominion War is that Sisko and Starfleet behaved immorally by tricking the Romulans into joining the war thru the murder of one of their Senators.
Starfleet sanctioned his plan to trick the Romulans thru non-lethal means. When that Senator exposed the deception, though, Sisko remained silent after he learned that Garak murdered the Senator. Sisko’s deleted log entry suggested that values sometimes have to be compromised in the name of a greater good — one act of murder to save the entire Alpha Quadrant, in this case.
With good writing, this sort of tension would be great fodder for a Section 31 show or movie — how much immorality is acceptable in the face of a greater evil? And so forth.
and admiral ross and others turning a blind eye to s31 running a romulan double agent and then the larger plan to use the virus to kill the founders and end the war.
That’s why doing a series might have been better, because you’d see gradual attrition over psych stress, allowing the cast to turn over pretty quickly. SPOOKS/MI-5 would be a terrific role model for any eventual s31 series (and would have been a terrific model for Bond movies this century too, instead of the pap we got.)
Star Trek is already badly damaged due to mismanagement. From a prime time show, it’s now a barely noticeable niche show that isn’t talked about or perceived by the general public. Look at the limited products, they are all TOS or TNG. Eaglemoss couldn’t give away the DSC ships. SNW has jumped the shark into pure farce. DSC fractured the fanbase and the boldest effort, Prodigy hasn’t connected with younger viewers. This atrocious looking movie will be forgotten, just like Rebel Moon and other drek.
It’s all over bar the shouting. Any future movie will flop hard, unless they involve someone who cares, like Matalas.
I admit it really bothers me about how niche Star Trek feels today; especially when you saw how much the first two Kelvin movies brought out the masses of new fans since TNG arrived. No matter how some fans feel about those movies the reality is for at least a few years Star Trek felt like a mainstream product for the masses even if still a much smaller one when compared to Marvel or Star Wars.
But today Star Trek barely exist in the mainstream. Just strike up a conversation with someone and mention Discovery, SNW or Lower Decks and it’s usually total silence. Most people don’t know what most of these shows are much less ever seen them. That’s why when people bring up this idea these new shows are attracting new and younger fans I really don’t buy it at all. Yes SOME but probably on the margins at best.
But it’s very obvious the overwhelming majority are old fans and they know it. It’s why all these shows are a revolving door of legacy characters and there are constant call backs to old storylines. It hit me recently both Lower Decks and Discovery last seasons revolved around TNG episodes The Chase and The First Duty for example.
I been saying for a long time now for a franchise people keep saying is trying to attract new people oddly everything they been doing seems to be more about keeping old fans around, like all the TOS characters they keep shoehorning in SNW and now we know the Doctor will be in SFA. The new comedy show sounds like it will be mostly for old fans as well and the reason it’s set in the 25th century is to probably bring in a litany of TNG era legacy characters like Picard did.
None of this strikes me as trying to be a broad appeal for new fans because they know the franchise isn’t really doing that. The one show they made that was specifically targeted to bring in new and younger fans was Prodigy and it was canceled after one season; the first for a Trek show. That really tells you everything and it’s my favorite show in the modern era.
I don’t blame it all on Star Trek itself though, but the biggest problem is it’s basically now on a smaller streaming site most people don’t have or want and there is very little marketing to anyone under 30. Again marketing barely exists for these shows unless you are already in the bubble.
It’s weird that there are tons of Star Trek today and yet I don’t know a single soul watching any of it. I certainly can’t say that for stuff like Marvel, Star wars, DC and so on. Even if they don’t watch all of it they are watching some of it.
It’s also why I’m hoping if nothing else the old shows get license again to other streamers. IMO that really gave Star Trek a second life once it showed up on Netflix and Amazon and younger people were discovering it again.
Yeah, ST09 was huge. One of the best selling blu rays of all time. Star Wars wS on its knees after the prequels.
And how did they jump on this success? TNG season 1 on blu ray released alongside the movie. If only they’d released the 2 partners as TV movies.
Or Greenlit a captain Robeau series.
I just want DS9 and VOY in HD. Do the two partners first with some deleted footage and boom. Cheap and exclusive movie of the week. Released on p+ exclusive for a week, then license it to Amazon or Netflix. Start with something awesome like Year of Hell, or Way of tge Warrior.
Yeah I think the Kelvin movies had a huge influence on new audiences which was obviously the point but it just didn’t sustain them very long either probably for a lot of reasons. The biggest they didn’t strike while the iron was hot and didn’t produce more of it in a more timely manner. And this was when MCU was at its infant stage and grabbed popular culture we haven’t seen in a long time and had already made nearly a dozen movies in the same time it took Trek to make 3.
And of course no one is suggesting they needed to make a dozen movies lol but even a movie every two years could’ve sustain new fans if they were good. This wasn’t unrealistic either because Paramount was making Transformers movies every two years up until the fourth one. Granted those movies made way more than Trek but every movie made more than the last one because they were building new fans until the fifth one finally crashed.
That’s how those movies should’ve been doing but people had already moved on after the second one and here we are.
Or at least a TV show as you suggested which to this day I don’t understand why it was never on the table? I know CBS itself never cared about the Kelvin universe since all the money they made was tied up in the prime universe but that didn’t stop them from making a Kelvin universe based show and still make money off of it it was popular? And the merchandise for all these new shows are not the same for the classic shows anyway. But maybe because the Kelvin movies merchandise didn’t make any waves is what kept them from doing more? I don’t know but just a theory.
And even now they are making a dozen prime universe shows but the thought of doing at least one show in the Kelvin universe is never even suggested. But I guess that universe doesn’t have all the legacy characters and actors they can constantly throw in. That seems to be driving force all these shows today obviously. No one is dying to see a Kelvin universe version of Worf although I would love to see it lol.
As far as why they don’t make DS9 or VOY in HD I wish they would too. I guess once the blu ray market dried up and I read the TNG blu rays didn’t sell as much as the TOS ones it was a sign that market was dying out.
And I guess with streaming it’s much harder ro determine a cost to revenue basis on things like this and probably why it’s a bigger risk. But that’s why the streaming world is so.much murkier because I don’t think anyone fully understands it yet in determining how valuable something really is like network and cable TV
But hopefully one day as it becomes cheaper they will do it.
ST has been niche long before Disc, with ratings for DS9, Voy and Ent never matching the millions who watched TNG in the early 90s.
and the ST films no match for the bigger film franchises.
and ST has never been a traditional network winner, needing syndication in the 80s, 90s to get the ratings for TNG.
Paramount didn’t need to air TNG directly in syndication. It had offers from networks and might still have caught on had it been on one. They just knew how well TOS did in syndication and saw an opportunity to take out a middleman and maximize profit.
The documentary Chaos on the Bridge talked about this the most when they were trying to get TNG off the ground and there were certainly other networks like ABC and the then fledging FOX who were interested in buying it but none would commit to a full season from the start and this was when syndication was a big deal obviously. They only saw making another Star Trek show worth it if they could get enough seasons to air reruns later hoping it could do the same type of business as TOS did as you said.
But then they decided to do something that was very rare at the time and produce a first run show in syndication and the rest was history. But it could’ve failed big time too.
And even then they really only expected TNG to go 5 seasons and was happily if it got to 100 episodes. No one saw the break out hit it became and really changed a lot of the industry and genre TV including Star Trek as a whole obviously.
What I’m saying is the new shows today just feels waaaay less exposed than the shows in the 90s. I always bring up merchandise as an example. There was still tons of DS9, VOY and even Enterprise merchandise. You go to a mall or Target and there were books, toys, T shirts, games,cups, etc. It was there because it sold. Today it’s very limited and really for rich collectors. There is no merchandise for the masses anymore. The last time they tried to make merchandise for the masses was for the first Kelvin movie and it didn’t do that well and there has been less of it since.
Also the biggest difference was a lot more kids for whatever reason watched Star Trek back then, usually teens or younger that most of people here themselves started out with. It started with TOS and continued with the 24th century shows. I myself was in in elementary school when TNG started and through high school other people my age watched it religiously at the time. I don’t think as much for Enterprise when it came on but the point is once upon a time Star Trek got tins of kids to watch it, hence all the toys and game merchandise; many I and my friendshad ourselves. There was a lot of toys for 10 year olds to college age kids from action figures to trading cards. This stuff used to be advertised all over TV in the 90s including during Saturday morning TV cartoons because a lot of kids were watching it. I guess the comics are still popular since they keep making them but I’m guessing most people who read them are much older (but I been told that’s the case with that industry as a whole now)
But I’m not suggesting every Star Trek show has to match the level of TNG to be considered a hit, certainly not today, but as I said people knew what those shows were because they were on TV and not just relegated to one online streaming service the overwhelming majority of people don’t have. And unless you are already im the Star Trek bubble it’s very easy for so many shows like Trek to get overlooked today because there is just way more content today.
Also back then there were no Marvel or Star Wars live action shows. Today there are and those IPs just get more attention than Trek does. Back in the 90s, Star Trek WAS the biggest genre IP on TV, ie, something everyone at least heard of. Now genre TV is HUGE from video games like The Last of Us and Fallout to comics and novels like The Walking Dead, GOT and on and on. There is now a LOTR TV show. But doing the 90s, it was Star Trek that was the biggest name. There were certainly some bigger IPs in the 90s like a brief stint of Comic book shows like Lois and Clark or Flash but most of them only lasted a few years while Star Trek had multiple shows going over 5 seasons. Now if we had more of these types of IPs back then maybe Star Trek would’ve had less influence but we’ll never know obviously.
Star Trek certainly wasn’t the biggest hit on TV but it was a much bigger deal back than today and helped spun a lot of other sci fi shows back then because others saw how successful it was. That era beginning with TNG ran for 18 years, 25 seaons of shows and 6 movies. I can’t think of another TV franchise in that time which ran for that long outside of Doctor Who, but that was never very popularin America itself. Now even that is more popular in America today.
I know Stargate ran for a long time and had multiple shows but someone correct me if I’m wrong but not as many seasons? And only one film.
Star Trek just feels much less influential today because it is. The competition is just way more fierce now and it just doesn’t have the same exposure today because how fragmented the content is and it’s just not in the public sphere like it was 30 years ago. Obviously it’s still very popular but the fact it’s not gaining a lot of newer and younger fans as the other shows a shift in either society in general or it just doesn’t speak to people like it did in the previous generations.
I love Star Trek obviously but this is the reality today unfortunately and I really wish it wasn’t.
every appearance by s31 in past ST shows and ‘darkness’ ends the same way- their plans largely failing, and their ethos always rejected by starfleet officers who value the standards of the uniform.
Borg or not (I guess not?) whatever that costume is, it looks ridiculous. I have such low expectations for this movie but I also know trailers are typically misleading, so will re-up P+ in early 2025 and check it out…maybe to a Picard Se. 3 rewatch too.
I didn’t see anywhere in the article mentioning the 2290 period setting, was that mentioned somewhere else or are we just assuming cause younger-Rachel Garrett is in it?
Now that Discovery is over, the spirit of violent and lame Star Trek lives on in Section 31. Yay.
You know this movie is gonna be so frakkin cool because they’re wearing black leather and they don’t care what ANYONE thinks! Slay space qeeeenz
Still willing to give it a go. There are all types in the Star Trek universe, especially at the fringes of the Federation. It’s only logical these are the types of people who would be recruited to a black ops organization like Section 31.
As much as I like the conflict and messiness of DS9, I did think the invention of S31 undermined the spirit of Trek more than anything else the show did. Yes, we’ve seen corrupt and deluded humans before, most of them admirals, but it’s disheartening to think that paradise and idealism comes at the cost of dark forces that have been doing dirty work in the shadows to protect the Federation for hundreds of years. Because DS9 is all about the grey, there’s a legitimate argument to say that their existence has been essential. That’s a bit of a disheartening cliche and makes the idealism of Starfleet and the Federation feel more like a veneer rather than the product of generations of self-improvement, curiosity and empathy.
But it exists and it’s a logical outlet for Georgiou and a very different sort of adventure. We shall see how it all shakes out!
bashir, sisko and the rest always rejected the values- or lack of- and measures advocated by s31, as did kirk in ‘darkness’ and burnham and pike in Disc.
they always held to the values of Starfleet and the Federation in the end.
It still persists, suggesting it’s an essential part of the Federation humanity hasn’t evolved to be able to go without.
s31 tend to rear its head during major crises for the federation/starfleet- the xindi war, the first klingon war in Disc, after the nero attack and the dominion war.
tempting to use extreme measures to deal with major threats.
I have my doubts, but I’ll give it a shot. I’m pretty much committed to watching all canon Star Trek productions available in my lifetime, and of course Yeoh is always great to watch no matter what.
Re: “ With close to 900 entries in the Star Trek back catalog,” it’s actually well over that now:
80 TOS episodes (counting the original pilot plus the 79 episodes from the network run)
22 TAS episodes
6 TOS movies
176 TNG episodes (counting the premiere and finale as single, double-length episodes; 178 episodes if counting them as two-parters)
173 DS9 episodes (or 176, counting double-length episodes as two-parters)
4 TNG movies
168 Voyager episodes (or 172)
97 Enterprise episodes (or 98)
3 Kelvin universe movies
65 Discovery episodes
10 Short Treks
30 Picard episodes
40 Lower Decks episodes
39 Prodigy episodes (or 40)
20 SNW episodes
… totaling 933 installments (individual episodes, movies, and shorts) in the official canon (or 944, depending upon how one counts certain episodes of TNG, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise, and Prodigy), not even counting the other stuff that’s on the way, at least some of which (the ten episodes of Lower Decks S5) should be out before Section 31.
Well What is canon? The Temporal Cold War, The Red Angel, Klingon TIme Crystals, the reinsertion of time etc.
All of those are canon.
Thanks for that list, I love it! I will also watch the S31 movie, but not right away. I will probably wait a few weeks or months. It looks very bad. But it has the Star Trek title, so they got me.
That is very impressive how much Trek is out there today. A few years ago a few of us on Reddit thought by the 60th that we would have a thousand installments of Star Trek by then and hit two major milestones. But this was when 5 shows were running and we didn’t expect all the cancelations we got later unfortunately. Prodigy alone could’ve gotten us there if it got 3 more full seasons.
But it will get close. There is still SNW and LDS curret seasons in the can and 20 more episodes. If SNW season 4 come out in 2026 along with SFA then that’s another 20 (assuming they each have 10 episodes). Section 31 counts as one and yeah if by some miracle a Star Trek movie for theater makes it by the 60th that’s another.
It would be another 44 installments but sadly still a bit short.
So, which Star Trek universe does “Section 31” take place? In an alternate universe? A mirror universe?
If Empress Georgiou is there, isn’t that in an alternate universe?
If Rachel Garret is in it, then it takes place in the latter part of the 23rd into the 24th Century. They will say that “Georgiou was cured of her time illness from Discovery.
I have been very consistent in my thoughts on the Kurtzman era of Trek. I wish they would just tell the fans that they have rebooted the 23rd century portion of the Prime Universe and get it over with. The Red Angel storyline and the Khan story pretty much cemented that. It won’t stop the criticism but a little more honesty would be appreciated. The mystery box thing is lame to me. Section 31 has always been an intriguing concept. It was done beautifully on DS9. (DS9 is my Trek and always will be).
Is the writers room about making a product that sells and fans love or is it driven by the Hubris (sometimes activism) of the people in that room i.e. the failures at Lucasfilm for example. I think Trek is feeling itself a little bit and they better be careful. Star Wars is dumping a lot of money into things that people hate. Kevin Feige fired everyone at Marvel Studios that cared more about their political agendas than making entertainment. (Look it up).
I listened to Tawney Newsome talk about this new Trek comedy and she talked about putting her “stamp”on Trek and I hope that the new owners scrap it. Paramount has already had layoffs and I am pretty sure the Entertainment division is going to pull back. People in Hollywood seem to get rewarded for mediocrity and failure. Lower Decks is okay.
Kevin Feigie saw Picard Season 3 and recruited Terry Matalas. Lets be real Picard seasons 1 and 2 were not good. Season 2 was awful. They completely mishandled John De Lancie as Q. That Borg story made zero sense.
You keep Tawney Newsome but you let Terry Matalas go? Okay.
So the fans want a a Legacy show but you create a show about an Academy set in an era nobody wanted or cared about. At the end of the day these folks are going to do what they want to do. If it were up to me, I would keep SNW, prioritize the Kelvin film series, and do a Legacy Show. But what do I know?
We need more honest conversations. I am Trek fan. I am not happy with the current state of the franchise. It is sacrificing opportunities to be great for gimmicks and nonsense. Star Wars is dying. Look it up.
We have to see the other side of the coin though. As with any big company, Paramount Global has a holistic perspective which doesn’t line up with what many ardent fans of its IP might want.
Every single live action Trek series has made it onto the Nielsen top 10 rankings, despite Paramount+’s distribution handicap. From their POV these are expensive shows but they deliver, regardless of if they bring back old actors. Paramount Global is also hemorrhaging money and just took a $6 billion write down due to the contraction of its broadcast empire. Paramount+ finally turned a brief and tiny profit last quarter but that’s due to spending less. It won’t have a sustained profit until next year and that may take years to make up for broadcast losses, if ever. A future infusion of capital from Skydance will be welcome but that’s a year away at the earliest. They’re also not going to be an angel investor flush with cash to burn – they are looking for more savings. Even Disney, Apple, and Amazon have started to stem the freeflow of content spending.
Paramount+ clearly cannot spare enough money to have so many live action shows in production at the same time anymore. While I think a Legacy series is a worthy investment to supplement SNW and SFA, it would be expensive due to the cast alone, and there’s clearly a calculation going on that older fans will watch the new shows anyway, so why potentially alienate new fans who might be more interested in SFA or even a live action comedy (that surely would cost less)? I understand their thinking there, even though I agree losing Matalas is a brain drain and a Legacy show mixing new younger characters could still appeal to newer Trek fans. At the end of the day with its limited resources, Paramount would favor something at least superficially fresher and most certainly cheaper.
I agree with a lot of what you said (agree completely about ds9 and s31 as seen there.) I found the part where you cite Newsome putting her stamp on things significant, as ‘stamp’ vs ‘spin’ means something to me, as in, doing something massive versus simply innovating, and carries more potential for disaster (though ultimately that depends on who is executing the notion, which is why even though the sell-line on this story sounds appealing, I have grave doubts.)
If TPTB actually ever owned up to it being a reboot, it would be simple. On a SNW, you find out Carol Marcus aborted the child she was having with Kirk. Just that one throwaway piece of dialog — or a whole running subplot that paid that off — would let everybody know that ‘nothing’s the same anymore’ (as my fave on BABYLON 5 once said, ending the first season.) It would also free Kirk up to fling with the security chief, if anybody cares about that dangler.