this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2024
62 points (91.9% liked)

Star Trek

10618 readers
18 users here now

r/startrek: The Next Generation

Star Trek news and discussion. No slash fic...

Maybe a little slash fic.

New to Star Trek and wondering where to start?

Rules

1 Be constructiveAll posts/comments must be thoughtful and balanced.

2 Be welcomingIt is important that everyone from newbies to OG Trekkers feel welcome, no matter their gender, sexual orientation, religion or race.

3 Be truthfulAll posts/comments must be factually accurate and verifiable. We are not a place for gossip, rumors, or manipulative or misleading content.

4 Be niceIf a polite way cannot be found to phrase what it is you want to say, don't say anything at all. Insulting or disparaging remarks about any human being are expressly not allowed.

5 SpoilersUtilize the spoiler system for any and all spoilers relating to the most recently-aired episodes, as well as previews for upcoming episodes. There is no formal spoiler protection for episodes/films after they have been available for approximately one week.

6 Keep on-topicAll submissions must be directly about the Star Trek franchise (the shows, movies, books etc.). Off-topic discussions are welcome at c/quarks.

7 MetaQuestions and concerns about moderator actions should be brought forward via DM.

Upcoming Episodes

Date Episode Title
11-21 LD 5x06 "Of Gods and Angles"
11-28 LD 5x07 "Fully Dilated"
12-05 LD 5x08 "Upper Decks"
12-12 LD 5x09 "Fissue Quest"
12-19 LD 5x10 "The New Next Generation"

Episode Discussion Archive

In Production

Strange New Worlds (2025)

Section 31 (2025-01-24)

Starfleet Academy (TBA)

In Development

Untitled comedy series

Wondering where to stream a series? Check here.

Allied Discord Server

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
ValueSubtracted@startrek.website
USSBurritoTruck@startrek.website
OpticalData@startrek.website
62
The Official Teaser Trailer for Star Trek: Section 31 Is Here (www.startrek.com)
submitted 4 months ago by ValueSubtracted@startrek.website to c/startrek@startrek.website
43 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Direct YouTube link

top 43 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 65 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (6 children)

I fundamentally disagree with how Section 31 has been handled by most writers post-DS9. It should be a conspiracy of like-minded individuals that exists parasitically within Starfleet, not an official (or an "unofficial official" agency). Starfleet already has an intelligence agency, which everyone seemingly forgets about. Section 31 is not an operation being run by them. Section 31 should be treated less like "Starfleet's CIA", and more like Bohemian Grove as it exists in the mind of Alex Jones. The only post-DS9 Section 31 stuff that really clicked was, surprising, the ENT subplot of Malcolm being a Section 31 asset, because it understood that it was the kind of conspiracy that embedded itself deep within Starfleet personnel and didn't flash its ass at the universe.

This trailer does not give me confidence that the treatment of Section 31 as CIA action heroes is turning around.

[–] astronaut_sloth@mander.xyz 27 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It should be a conspiracy of like-minded individuals that exists parasitically within Starfleet, not an official (or an “unofficial official” agency).

I agree. When 31 was first introduced, and Sloan explained that Section 31 was sanctioned by Starfleet under Article 14, Section 31 of the Starfleet Charter, the implication was that they were people who misinterpreted or construed a (probably minor) part of the Starfleet Charter and used it to justify damn near anything.

Personally, I hate how Section 31 has been changed to be misunderstood, cool good guy/anti-hero types who are doing the wrong things for the right reason. DS9 had it right with portraying them as the villains within who should be snuffed out because the ends don't justify the means.

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The only current show that hasn't portrayed them as villains is arguably Lower Decks...

[–] astronaut_sloth@mander.xyz 9 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yes-ish. The characters were villains, but the organization wasn't necessarily. For instance, in Discovery season 2, Leland and his crew were the villains, but Section 31 was portrayed less as an extremist cabal and more as a misguided morally-grey organization. Less a blight upon the Federation and more an uncomfortable, but integral, part of it.

@setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world captures it well. Instead of being a cabal of extremists doing illegal and immoral things because they think they're connected to a higher purpose, they're a semi-official CIA-like organization.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that Section 31 isn't supposed to be a cool or semi-legitimate organization (with ships, insignia, etc.) but rather shadowy and absolutely beyond the pale of legitimacy where very few can stomach what they do. From an artistic/thematic POV, Section 31 should be there to show us that a good society requires work to maintain and that its undoing can come from within by those claiming to protect it by eschewing that society's values. In other words, the ends don't justify the means.

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 5 points 4 months ago

Section 31 was portrayed less as an extremist cabal and more as a misguided morally-grey organization

My interpretation was more that they were "hiding in plain sight" at that point in time - Pike was under the impression that they were some kind of special forces, and learned the truth over the course of the season.

I only watched this trailer once, but I didn't see any insignia, so I think S31's exact status is still TBD.

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 13 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

It should be a conspiracy of like-minded individuals that exists parasitically within Starfleet, not an official (or an unofficial official agency).

In fairness, Sloan said they were a branch of Starfleet Intelligence with an official designation in his very first appearance on DS9, and nothing that came after that really contradicted him (other than his obvious lies in "Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges").

Whatever liberties have been taken since then, that wasn't one of them.

[–] setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I always took that explanation as the thinnest of lie meant to give an air of legitimacy. Given the methods used to control Bashir, they seemed to clearly be working not just to hide their operational details, but their existence from the legitimate chain of command.

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I always took that explanation as the thinnest of lie meant to give an air of legitimacy.

I think a lot of people did, but the episode doesn't really make the case that it's a lie - in fact, Sloan is protected at the highest levels of Starfleet Command, which supports the idea that Sloan was being completely truthful when he was trying to recruit Bashir. It's a legitimate reading of the episode, at any rate.

[–] setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

It could be, but it's brought us to the point where Section 31 has narratively usurped the role of Starfleet Intelligence in its entirety and has kind of lost the point. Reading S31 as a conspiracy is the smarter play for people in charge of Trek, and I am disappointed that they've gone completely the other way. Like I mentioned, the S31 in ENT was the only expansion I liked because it took the conspiracy angle.

[–] Zorque@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Is he protected, or was he using Starfleet personnel for his own ends? I don't recall that it ever explicitly shows them officially working together. With Inter Arnim Selim Legis, the Admiral is working with Sloan, not for him or commanding him. A relationship of convenience, not an official one. Similar to when they're looking for the cure for Odo, it's not specific people working directly for Section 31, just people who are either working with them out of convenience... or being manipulated similar to Bashir and the Admiral whose name I can't remember from the aforementioned episode.

That doesn't speak to an official relationship, just the manipulative one of a parasitic organism pretending to be a mutualistic one.

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

BASHIR: Captain, is there any word from Starfleet about Sloan or Section 31?

SISKO: There's no record of a Deputy Director Sloan anywhere in Starfleet. And as for Section 31, that's a little more complicated. Starfleet Command doesn't acknowledge its existence, but they don't deny it either. They simply said they'd look into it and get back to me.

BASHIR: When?

SISKO: They didn't say.

KIRA: That sounds like a cover up to me.

BASHIR: I can't believe the Federation condones this kind of activity.

ODO: Personally, I find it hard to believe they wouldn't. Every other great power has a unit like Section 31. The Romulans have the Tal Shiar, the Cardassians had the Obsidian Order.

When the top brass of Starfleet are covering your ass, you're an official agent, whether you're "on the books" or not.

[–] Zorque@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I mean, if you want to turn a grey issue into something completely black and white, sure.

If you want to assume that because you got some dirt on your shoes, you should just throw them out. Even if you just had to step out of the way of a runaway car.

We literally know nothing about the relationship between Section 31 and Starfleet from that exchange other than that one is letting the other get away with shit. That absolutely speaks to a level of corruption and probably desperation (based on everything else going on in the quadrant at the time), but it doesn't speak to a level of involvement of one with the other.

It's the same as Paradise Lost... does one admiral and their staff attempting a literal coup. Does that mean Starfleet as a whole is condoning that coup? Should we just throw the whole thing out because of that incident?

Sure, if you think any measure of corruption means that it's not worth supporting something anymore.

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

All I'm doing is accurately describing the way the organization was depicted on DS9.

[–] Zorque@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

All you're doing is making a blanket statement about complex situations with limited information.

We have no idea what the exact situation is, that's kind of the whole point of the Section 31 storyline in DS9. Making any kind of concrete conclusion from it requires significant leaps in logic.

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 1 points 3 months ago

that’s kind of the whole point of the Section 31 storyline in DS9.

Again, no. That's not the story they're telling, and there's no episode that tries to make that point. It's a massive leap of logic to try to make that case.

[–] Indy@startrek.website 9 points 4 months ago

Hear, hear!!

I realize I'm not adding much value by saying this, but... I still wanted to support this with a comment and not just an upvote.

[–] MrPhibb@reddthat.com 5 points 4 months ago

This, it seems like they forgot the original intention as shown in DS9, it's not an official organization nor anything approaching it, it's basically just a long standing group carving hiding in Starfleet justifying doing what they want by pointing to a paragraph in the Constitution... Sovereign Citizens with phasers and photon torpedoes anyone?

[–] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

You are very correct in everything you wrote. That said... it's got Sam Richardson so I'm probably going to watch it.

[–] FrostyCaveman@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago

Yes. I hate Section 31. Feels like a justification for the CIA. It’s really sickening.

[–] halm@leminal.space 26 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Look, I'll watch Michelle Yeoh in almost anything, including this, but I can't get past the fact that they're using "genocidal tyrant" as shorthand for "lovable badass" to characterise Georgiou. It was a glaring problem in Disco, and it continues to be so here.

"But, but... She redeemed herself!" Nope, you don't get to pull that card for a character who "murdered her own people by the millions". There is just no coming back from that.

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

From the trailer, I don't get the impression that they're trying to come back from it - rather, they're leaning in to it.

[–] halm@leminal.space 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yes, exactly. So they're either playing the redemption angle (which I don't buy) or they're just going "Massacres! They're wholesome!" (which is plain terrible and I don't see Yeoh going for it).

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I've said elsewhere in the thread that I think there's a difference between redemption and atonement - I had the impression from the season 3 two-parter that they'd be taking the latter route with Georgiou. I think that could be really interesting, should they go in that direction.

This teaser really didn't provide any information as to whether they will, though.

[–] halm@leminal.space 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I missed that comment, but I still think it's a matter of semantics between atonement and redemption. In Disco the rest of the characters just shrugged it off with a "she was a mass murderer, but she was our mass murderer", and I find it rather disturbing that the franchise runners seem to do the same.

Like I said, Michelle Yeoh is a treasure, but the character of mirror Georgiou has been dialed up to maximum evil yet she's played for comic relief?

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 1 points 4 months ago

To me, "redemption" implies forgiveness, while "atonement" implies reparation or sacrifice, without actual forgiveness being in the equation. I think it's an interesting notion, if they can pull it off.

Georgiou has great potential to be a sort of nature/nurture story.

[–] rozodru@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago

looks like Star Trek: Suicide Squad.

And what's with Trek suddenly being like "Yeah, Rachael Garrett...lets really bring her into the fold" it's like show runners at paramount FINALLY noticed that Yesterday's Enterprise is a lot of fans favorite Trek episode of all time....with the alternate timeline...focused on military and action...ah shit yeah it all makes sense now.

[–] Corgana@startrek.website 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

This is either going to be amazing and bring in a bunch of new fans orrrr it could be Star Trek Renegades II

Also is that the guy from VEEP?

[–] Snowyday@startrek.website 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Rachel Garrett? Good

Young Rachel Garrett origin story? Great!

Rachel Garrett without red hair? Hmmmmm

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 5 points 4 months ago

Please, everybody knows Garrett's natural hair colour is blue.

[–] mactan@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The Marvelization of Star Trek is complete, or just beginning

[–] Nuke_the_whales@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Say what you will, but I can see the appeal of showing the dirty, shady side of the trek universe. We always see a Starfleet crew of perfectly moral Starfleet officers who go around moralizing through the galaxy and claiming that human society has moved past capitalism and selfishness. I call bullshit on that. Sure you can tell me that earth and the federation planters are now a Utopia and Starfleet is clean and perfect. But I wanna know about the poor humans in society who are still getting fucked and the criminals and underworld that Starfleet ignores.

Anyways, you can't tell me that there aren't gangsters and this kinda stuff in the trek universe.

As long as strange new worlds keeps its star trek tone, I don't see why another show can't have a different tone and feel.

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I was hoping for something more suggestive of the story, but I'm actually very interested in anything that explores growing up in the Mirror Universe.

[–] hopesdead@startrek.website 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That is why this is called a teaser.

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 10 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I feel insufficiently teased!

[–] hopesdead@startrek.website 8 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

At least the plot was not spoiled. Modern trailers tend to do that (from what I’ve read in recent years).

[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

That is a cool dress.

[–] M500@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I get the impression that this will take place almost entirely in the mirror universe.

I’m guessing section 31 does something to block or hold back the mirror universe people from going into the prime universe or something like that.

[–] rozodru@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago (2 children)

They should send that memo to the federation in Star Trek Online cause...holy shit.

[–] M500@lemmy.ml 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Sorry I’m out of the loop. What’s that about?

[–] rozodru@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

So Star Trek Online is an MMORPG and has been around for a several years now. In the game there's a story, a convoluted one, but a story none the less.

Now imagine every single thing that has ever happened in the entirety of Star Trek regardless of tv show, movie, timeline, multiverse, animated show, whatever. everything. think of everything that has ever had "Star Trek" in it's title. got it? good. it's in the game. and in the story.

One aspect is the mirror universe which is a decent chunk of the story and it's a good excuse to bring back old Star Trek actors whose characters might be dead. Like there's A LOT of mirror universe stuff in the game.

really at the end of the day Star Trek Online is essentially the multiverse nexus of all Star Trek.

[–] Corgana@startrek.website 2 points 4 months ago

At this point "Star Trek Online being absolutely batshit insane" is the rule, not the exception.