Comment Stream

Search and bookmark options Close
Search for:
Search by:
Clear bookmark | How bookmarks work
Note: Bookmarks are ignored for all search results

Total Found: 58,214 (Showing 26-50)

Next ►◄ PreviousPage 2 of 2,329
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Tue, Feb 19, 2019, 5:55pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S2: Saints of Imperfection

@Jammer

"Regarding Kurtzman being an idiot: Why do some automatically assume that any executive is automatically operating in bad faith and knows nothing about what he has been charged with? And that he can't possibly have done his homework?"

Is that a serious question?

We aren't talking about "any executive" here. We are talking about *Kurtzman*, whose past work is known to all. This is a guy who never ever did his homework in the past, so why would we expect his current project to be any different?

"Let's see where this is going and give it a chance!"

You mean, like you did with your reviews of Season 1? Every second review, you've said something to the effect of "this doesn't seem to make sense on the face of it, but we'll have to see if there's a pay-off later on".

Well, season 1 is over. How many of the loose threads that season 1 promised to address, were indeed addressed? Can we now admit, after the season was over, that the plot was a complete mess and that the people in charge (not Kurtzman back then) had no idea what they were doing?

If I were you, I would be wary of being fooled again in this manner.

Unfortunately, past experience have taught me that if a show *seems* to make no sense, then this is usually the case. Now, add to this:

(1) A new showrunner whose a past work is full of examples of terrible (read: nonexistent) world building.
(2) The fact that this showrunner announced that he's going to make something like half a dozen new Trek shows at the same time.

And the odds of this ending well are pretty much zero.

Let me be perfectly clear about what I'm saying here:

I'm not saying the show can't be enjoyable. I'm not saying that it won't have good drama or interesting premises.

But there's no way... none... that Discovery will sensibly fit into previous Star Trek continuity, or even with its own continuity. And I'm not talking about obscure timeline nitpickery here. I'm talking about maintaining a coherent fictional world with coherent characters. The writers for the show are too busy with the "ooh!" and the "aah!" and the "rule of cool" to actually bother with with consistency.

(like the Spock being a kook and a murderer. No doubt somebody came up with this idea as a "cool and dark" secret for Spock to have, without even pausing for a minute to think how absurd this development is given what we already know about the Spock character)
Set Bookmark
JohnTY
Tue, Feb 19, 2019, 5:55pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S2: Saints of Imperfection

@dobber

Agree completely.
Set Bookmark
Mac
Tue, Feb 19, 2019, 5:35pm (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S1: Move Along Home

I actually really like this episode. It's kinda like if you were to put Are You Afraid of the Dark? and TOS in a blender.
Set Bookmark
Mertov
Tue, Feb 19, 2019, 5:34pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S2: Saints of Imperfection

"BTW you know what I've just discovered a few days ago? That ST:Discovery has turned Spock into a madman and a murderer. Funny how everybody is talking about his beard and smile (even funnier when you realize that "smiling Spock" came straight from the TOS canon), but this bit of character assassination almost went unnoticed."

Did they? Did this get confirmed? When? I thought that was the 'alleged' crime and that Pike, Burnham, and Amanda, not believing it, were in pursuit of Spock themselves to get to the bottom of what happened.
Set Bookmark
Gil
Tue, Feb 19, 2019, 5:28pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S2: Saints of Imperfection

@Tim C

“I enjoy listening to people scoff that Section 31 could not possibly have been forgotten over the course of a century. The various units that I've served in over the years have…”

…not existed in the highly technologically advanced 22nd, 23rd or 24th centuries.

And it’s really remarkable how many just sorta sweep this obvious distinction under the carpet.

Simply put, Tim C, your experience wouldn’t scale.

Although, to be fair, it’s infuriatingly common for genre series depicting a far future with extraordinary technology (and all that that would imply), to have its characters, or even the extraordinary technology itself, experience a sudden case of the dumbs for the sake of the plot.

@Booming

You found my post "weird". Fine. That's your reading. Move along.

But I'm not going to waste my time (and everyone else's) engaging with a dishonest debater who deliberately (and repeatedly) resorts to misleadingly reductive framing to concoct their rebuttal.

It amounts to no more than blatant trollery.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Tue, Feb 19, 2019, 5:22pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S2: Saints of Imperfection

@Paul
"No matter the subject, whether TNG, DS9, BSG, Dr Who, GoT, Star Wars, Harry Potter, or any of the myriad other examples, it's always the same: The new guys are clueless hacks bent on destroying everything the original property stood for, opposed by stoic Revolutionary Guard composed of elite keepers of the flame tasked with the holy duty of illuminating the unwashed masses on the meaning of The Word."

Ah. But what if the new guys *are* clueless hacks bent on destroying everything the original property stood for?

Are you saying this can never happen?

This situation is like the 'Boy Who Cried Wolf" parable, only you're mocking people like Gil and myself just because OTHERS have falsely cried Wolf in the past.

Look... both Gil and you are basically parroting a mantra over and over again. The difference is that he actually provides evidence to back his position. Have *you* ever given a shred of evidence to back your own position? You must have written over a hundred posts mocking the detractors of Discovery, but I don't recall you making an actual argument even once.

BTW you know what I've just discovered a few days ago? That ST:Discovery has turned Spock into a madman and a murderer. Funny how everybody is talking about his beard and smile (even funnier when you realize that "smiling Spock" came straight from the TOS canon), but this bit of character assassination almost went unnoticed.

Well, I gotta admit it kinds of fits what they already did to Sarek, doesn't it? Sarek, the genocidal maniac. Like father like son. And I challenge you to bring an example from another Trek series that butchered an iconic character from a previous series in this manner.

And then there's Section 31. Let's forget the canon consistency problem for a moment, and look at it from a different angle: The only reason Section 31 kinda worked in DS9 is that the Federation really faced an existential threat. I can live with the notion of such an independent shadowy organization that springs into action only in the most extreme scenarios.

But having them as a major component of everyday Starfleet operation? No. F***-ing. Way.

I would also like to remind you that our "heroes" did tons of very *very* questionable things in season 1. Things that were completely unheard of in any other Trek series. Even Jon torture-aliens-in-an-airlock Archer would have never resorted to planting bombs on corpses, nor would he ever suggest the complete annihilation of the population of an enemy home planet.

At any rate, you seem to be quite adamant in your claim that people like Gil and myself (and many other people here who are too numerous list) are talking nonsense. So how about giving actual evidence for your stance, for a change?

Set Bookmark
DLPB
Tue, Feb 19, 2019, 4:50pm (UTC -6)
Re: VOY S6: Tsunkatse

I know this is science fiction and man won't really advance on its own this way, but why did the writers portray the "advanced" humans on Voyager enjoying a violent sport?
-----

Perhaps because not everyone in the world is forced to believe and think as you do? You suggest the future should be a mindless conformism.

"Violent" sport is a test of human ability. It is a sport practiced by people who know the risks and enjoy the challenge. It isn't for you to outlaw it or decide who likes what, you mindless bigot.
Set Bookmark
Booming
Tue, Feb 19, 2019, 4:32pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S2: Saints of Imperfection

@Gil: Ok, full disclosure. I didn't remember that you were the chubby guy. And even without that info I think that your post is pretty weird.
Let's see: The bad side likes something that is reactionary, shallow, negative, nihilistic and they are probably foreigners while your side likes values, optimism is progressiveness. Just not in your posts.
Do you watch a lot of Jordan Peterson? :)
Set Bookmark
Paul M.
Tue, Feb 19, 2019, 4:31pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S2: Saints of Imperfection

Gil, while reading your posts is fun, as they are eloquent and enjoyable to read, they'd carry more weight had I not seen ones just like them countless times in almost every conversation regarding any given fictional universe in the last few decades. No matter the subject, whether TNG, DS9, BSG, Dr Who, GoT, Star Wars, Harry Potter, or any of the myriad other examples, it's always the same: The new guys are clueless hacks bent on destroying everything the original property stood for, opposed by stoic Revolutionary Guard composed of elite keepers of the flame tasked with the holy duty of illuminating the unwashed masses on the meaning of The Word. The Guard members are bestowed with a vital power: to issue Certificates of Faithfulness. Woe to those who fall short of their lofty standards!
Set Bookmark
Booming
Tue, Feb 19, 2019, 4:10pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S2: Saints of Imperfection

@ Gil: I guess I haven't.

Set Bookmark
Tim C
Tue, Feb 19, 2019, 3:35pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S2: Saints of Imperfection

I enjoy listening to people scoff that Section 31 could not possibly have been forgotten over the course of a century. The various units that I've served in over the years have undergone numerous name changes, mergers, de-mergers, decommissionings, recommissionings etc, and that's just in the relatively tiny Australian Defence Force. I could probably name a couple of these changes for you from the the units I've directly worked with, but across the entire ADF? Not a bloody chance without doing some deep research or consulting some historians.

Now consider how truly *massive* the Federation Starfleet must be to span such a huge chunk of the galaxy. How many personnel are in that, and organizations and sub-organisations, etc. The beauracracy would be mind-bogglingly huge and just like any beauracracy throughout the years, subject to the political whims of the time.

In me head canon: Section 31 was born as part of Starfleet Intelligence, and grew in stature through the ENT and TOS eras whilst still being (relatively) hush-hush. Sometime after this, something went down behind-the-scenes that saw them fall from grace. A political agreement? A feud between the "legitimate" Starfleet Intel and its black sheep? A personal grudge from someone high up in the admiralty?

Whatever it was, S31 was officially decommissioned and never mentioned again. But someone still believed in the mission. Fortunately, the politics of peace time meant that Starfleet was free to look the other way and pretend that humanity really was the morally superior species now, even as S31 continued clandestine operations.

Of course, the Dominion ruined all that and brought them out of the shadows again.
Set Bookmark
Gil
Tue, Feb 19, 2019, 3:10pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S2: Saints of Imperfection

@Booming

I see you still haven't gotten over the chubby.
Set Bookmark
Booming
Tue, Feb 19, 2019, 3:00pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S2: Saints of Imperfection

@ For anybody who doesn't want to read all of Gils post. "Two sides. One hates Discovery, loves STar Trek and is awesome and the other side loves Discovery and is garbage. The end :D
@Peter G.: I thought that she was talking about the Federation. And I just meant that it is just a standard term in political science.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Tue, Feb 19, 2019, 2:39pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S2: Saints of Imperfection

@ Booming,

"But Nation building is also a legitimate term used to describe stabilizing a country. Only because the Yankees used it to describe their wars is not the fault of the term. Shouldn't we listen to Wagner only because Hitler loved him... ok admittedly Wagner was antisemitic... hmmm. "

It's true that it *can* mean something altruistic...except that it never seems to. And if a term like this is being used in an American show in a time of American exceptionalism, I guess I'll drawn my own conclusions about what it's implying. Perhaps we'll see more of what Cornwall meant by it later.

@ Jammer,

"From there it's not hard for me to imagine that Section 31 at some point became an official arm of Starfleet Intelligence, if that's even what we are seeing here. And that arm could be completely dissolved and disavowed sometime in the next 100+ years, which is plenty of time for someone like Bashir to believably not have heard of them in the 24th century, where they could've been spun up again as an underground rogue operation."

Agreed, it's not impossible. I do think it's a retcon, but as you point out the retcon would be no problem on its own if the reason for its employment was meaningful, which remains to be seen. Others have suggested that it's a cheap way to introduce non-Trek plot elements under the guise of "but it's Section 31 stuff!" which may or may not turn out to be the case. S1 was rife with this device, instead using MU Lorca as the excuse for why anti-Trek attitudes were being shown. So now what needs to be shown is: do the showrunners really do espouse the Trek ethos, and desire to use these devices to show off antagonists to this ethos (Lorca, M-Georgiou, and now Sec-31) or do the showrunners basically prefer to have unethical plotting (from a Trek standpoint) and recognize that they need to excuse it? I guess you'll have to judge the integrity of this situation as it goes along.

I'll just throw in what my head canon is based on DS9's representation of Sec-31, because it's a bit far from what they're showing here. I sort of understood it to be the case that an old military organization (Starfleet) that had black ops and other arms that most high-ups were unaware of (just like the current military), and that some of these were really off the radar. So maybe a blend between military black ops and the CIA in this sense. At the time of the Federation's founding their activities would have become illegal, much like how the CIA and FBI were far from the ideals of the UN when it was first founded, and how they had to operate sort of underground, officially denying all of these activities. The CIA was supposedly reigned in around the 70's, but I believe all that happened was that it went further underground. So back to our topic, I think that like any dug-in group 31 would have gone deep underground in order to avoid scrutiny from the new Federation charter, and from that moment on operated basically autonomously, using resources it had already gathered for itself to maintain its activities. For instance if it needed a Federation lab, it wouldn't go in "as Sec-31", but would already have created fake credentials that made it look like an official assignment; what would the scientists know about this if the person giving the instructions had what looked like legitimate orders from Starfleet intelligence? Using guile and craft they could do all their maneuvering under the rader, with at best a minimal amount of people actually being in on it outright. By the time of DS9 this would be little more than a myth if it was known at all, to the point where they would have become completely concealed and all activities would have a front to go along with it that could be the 'legitimate' explanation of the resources being allocated. I never imagined it as being official past the founding of the Federation, and I think that's exactly why this point was mentioned, because the Federation would never have tolerated it, nor would the member races. It was deep cover rogue people acting basically as private vigilantes, but where Starfleet was sort of inclined to not chase them because they recognized that this group (a) got things done, and (b) could be denied as being part of the Federation, because they really weren't. *This* is the tidy arrangement that Odo pointed out. I don't think he meant at all to suggest that Starfleet was actually conducting illegal operations and then denying it; that's not tidy, that's just commonplace deceitful politics. What's tidy is denying it and telling the truth as you do it, knowing that 31 will still do their thing. I think it's more like Batman than anything else; this masked 'criminal' who helps Gotham. And were they to go after him it would cost them a lot even though he's violating ordinary civil law. The way Cornwall describes the situation it's basically analogous to the contemporary U.S., which is neither novel nor interesting. It's literal reality, so why do we especially need to see it in a sci-fi setting? So yeah, I really do think it's a violation of canon, inasmuch as we can establish the scanty information we do have as canon. It also violates common sense, I think, because the stability of the Federation really, *really* depends on their true honesty, not just official honest. Hypocrisy on their part would be their doom in so many ways. Basically it would mean that the Romulans and Cardassians are right and that the Federation are just better liars than the Obsidian Order.
Set Bookmark
Gil
Tue, Feb 19, 2019, 2:37pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S2: Saints of Imperfection

An obvious divide exits and has existed for quite a long time.

And, I would conclude, this divide speaks directly to the franchise’s ever diminishing returns.

On one side there are those who cherish and endorse Star Trek’s uniqueness and core values in the sci-fi TV pantheon, and on the other, those who don’t cherish its uniqueness or endorse its core values, and have no qualms whatsoever seeing it subverted to conform to passing trends or a prevailing zeitgeist, so that other than its surface affectations, the end product more or less resembles its crude assembly line competition.

That competition being shallow, hyperactive, sensationalistic, excessively violent, nihilistic fodder for the mass market, particularly a lucrative foreign market where generic action vehicles are easy sells. Which is J.J. Trek in a nutshell and STD by default.

And then there’s Section 31. Ah, Section 31…

From the volume “Star Trek Apocrypha, Vol. III”:

“Suddenly Behr leapt wobbly to his feet and punched the life-sized effigy of Roddenberry in the face, sneering ‘f**k off hippy,’ took a lusty gulp of Coors and then impassively returned to his game of Stratego with a satisfied belch. Buds Moore and Beimler chuckled and nodded approvingly from their seats around the desk, while off in the corner behind a mountain of scripts a heavy-browed Berman declaimed ‘would you assholes keep it down over there, I’m trying to work!’”

I mean, the UFP directly authorizing or silently condoning Section 31 would be like the Catholic church tacitly endorsing pedophilia. Uhmmm…

It’s progressive Trek vs reactionary Trek.

It’s optimistic Trek vs. pessimistic Trek.

It’s value-added Trek vs. discounted Trek.

@wolfstar: “[Discovery is] also not consistent enough to have articulated a coherent value system of its own yet.”

So how’s about an open declarative?

Nail meet coffin (otherwise known as slapping down the Boy Scouts around the camp fire):

“Section 31 may not be the shining beacon of righteous conduct you want it to be … they are a critical intelligence division … we have more pressing priorities than debating article 14 of Starfleet’s charter. Nation building is never pretty. That is the unadvertising truth and you know it.” — Adm. Cornwell

So … it’s ”nation building” now, is it?

Before Discovery:

“Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship [fill in the blank]. Its continuing mission: to explore strange new worlds. To seek out new life and new civilizations. To boldly go where no one has gone before!”

After Discovery (courtesy Behr):

Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship [fill in the blank]. Its continuing mission: to co-opt strange new worlds. To plunder new resources and new technologies. To boldly go where every imperialist has gone before!

That isn’t Star Trek, unless a lot of folks didn't get the memo that 79 episodes of TOS, 366 episodes of TNG and 172 episodes of VOY had been retconned on account of 3 episodes of DS9 and Enterprise each.
Set Bookmark
Dobber
Tue, Feb 19, 2019, 2:10pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S2: Saints of Imperfection

@Jammer the way I see it, if Section 31 had previously been a public arm of Starfleet, for Bashir it would be like if you today encountered someone who revealed that they were a member of the Spanish Inquisition (or the Knights Templar for that matter). The reaction wouldn’t be “never heard of them” it would be “but they ceased to exist centuries ago!”. Especially for genetically enhanced memory Bashir.

Also, Section 31 is such an affront to Federation values that it makes no sense that the public could be aware of it without significant political and diplomatic reprecussions. Why would any other planet join or even trust the Federation when they are so openly hypocritical about their core philosophy? Why would the people of the Federation (especially the true believers on Earth) tolerate it’s existence? And how could they ever forget something like that was once part of their society?

Tbh there’s no reason they needed be depicted this way. The story could easily work without this retcon. It’s a shame.

Regarding Kurtzman, I’ve personally never voiced an opinion of him here but suffice to say I’m not a fan and I seriously doubt that he has done his homework (or even cares enough to). And that’s not an assumption, it’s an observation based on everything he has been involved with in the franchise so far.
Set Bookmark
William B
Tue, Feb 19, 2019, 2:09pm (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S7: The Changing Face of Evil

Thanks for that, Chrome. I didn't know, for instance, that Santa Anna allowed some to escape to build up the legend of the Alamo victory, like the "Female" Shapeshifter (never sure what best to call her).
Set Bookmark
Booming
Tue, Feb 19, 2019, 2:04pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S2: Saints of Imperfection

Peter G.: But Nation building is also a legitimate term used to describe stabilizing a country. Only because the Yankees used it to describe their wars is not the fault of the term. Shouldn't we listen to Wagner only because Hitler loved him... ok admittedly Wagner was antisemitic... hmmm.
@Yanks: I did. I did. Thats why I didn't say: Can you not just have fun! :)
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Tue, Feb 19, 2019, 2:02pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S2: Saints of Imperfection

I agree with Jammer's comments and would add that one of the more uncomfortable implications of the DS9 arc was that Sloan was essentually correct - but for Section 31's intervention in creating the Changeling virus the Alpha quadrant powers would almost certainly have lost to the Dominion.

The neutralization of the Founders was, arguably as much as the closure of the wormhole, responsible for the Dominion's loss. Their impact in the years leading up to the war and during it was, frankly, devastating. Consider that but for what amounted to protagonist plot armor, they would have single handedly 1) Blown up DS9 and half the Federation fleet; 2) Started a war between the Federation and the Klingon Empire; 3) Started another war between the Federation and the Tsenkathi and 4) Turned the Federation into a paranoid dictatorship etc...

None of the foregoing is really arguable in the context of DS9.

I don't fault DS9 for straying from Rodenberry's vision; I fault Rodenberry's vision (which was actualized most clearly in TNG through Picard) for being rubbish, completely at odds with the universe as it was portrayed. Even assuming humanity had forsaken its sins by the 24th Century, certainly the Romulans and Cardassians (and others) had not! The only thing the Dominion brought to the table that was really gamechanging was a ruthlessness and resourcefulness that others lacked. But this was a question of degree, not kind.

In this context, how could Starfleet not embrace at least some of Section 31's methods? Does the enlightened human of the 24th Century choose annihilation and enslavement over violation of his principles? It was always easy for Picard to choose principles behind the helm of a Galaxy Class starship capable of wiping the floor with virtually all of its adversaries.
Set Bookmark
Jammer
Tue, Feb 19, 2019, 1:17pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S2: Saints of Imperfection

DS9 said Section 31 was a part of the original Starfleet charter. This was later shown in Enterprise as having existed under Article 14, Section 31. (This pre-dates the Federation, BTW.)

From there it's not hard for me to imagine that Section 31 at some point became an official arm of Starfleet Intelligence, if that's even what we are seeing here. And that arm could be completely dissolved and disavowed sometime in the next 100+ years, which is plenty of time for someone like Bashir to believably not have heard of them in the 24th century, where they could've been spun up again as an underground rogue operation.

Is it a retcon? Probably. But as retcons go, this is on more solid ground than most.

Regarding Kurtzman being an idiot: Why do some automatically assume that any executive is automatically operating in bad faith and knows nothing about what he has been charged with? And that he can't possibly have done his homework? Maybe he did and maybe he didn't, but the assumption of the worst is indicative of a really tough crowd. Let's see where this is going and give it a chance!
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Tue, Feb 19, 2019, 12:47pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S2: Saints of Imperfection

@ John Harmon,

"To have actual Starfleet agree with them ruins it in my opinion. Cornwell said "nation building isn't easy". In a post scarcity society it would be. "

She actually said this in an episode? Oh lord. In modern terms that's a euphemism for regime change in foreign governments and quasi-imperialism in rich countries dictating policy to weaker ones. It's one thing if she was meant to be an Admiral on the wrong side of the Trek ethos, who needs to be corrected. But from S1's arc it seemed pretty clear that she *was* Starfleet, as their only representative that we ever see (along with Sarek), and that therefore we are meant to take her statements as representing those of Starfleet as a whole. If she is now openly condoning 31 then that means so is Starfleet, and it's not just a question of a few people in Starfleet doing sneaky things and the rest of the organization failing to attack the cancer because it pulls strings (like Palpatine).

That doesn't sound concordant to me with how DS9 portrayed it, which was as something that outraged your average officer when learning about it. Even O'Brien, the most loyal guy in the fleet, basically resorted to what basically amounted to treason to try to deal with them.
Set Bookmark
Yanks
Tue, Feb 19, 2019, 12:46pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S2: Saints of Imperfection

Booming/Chrome...

I didn't say I didn't like it.... read my whole post.

I do want to similar context while observing a cat fight though :-)

Set Bookmark
Booming
Tue, Feb 19, 2019, 12:42pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S2: Saints of Imperfection

@ Yanks: That is not sexist. She didn't say: "Boys, stop swinging your dicks around or men, always fighting, insecure idiots." And if she wanted to cover her bases: "Boys don't get you panties wet." That would be a double whammy. Sexist towards men and women.
So come on now. Don't be so sensitive and man up! ;)
@ John Harmon: Yeah, Chrome covered it pretty nicely. And I want to add that there are at least some admirals who knew that they existed like Admiral Ross.
Just think of it this way. At the beginning the Federation was often vitally threatened but over the decades it became more and more like paradise and people were less and less inclined to accept a Star Trek Gestapo. The better the Federation worked the lower their profile became. And we shouldn't forget that the Discovery is itself not a regular ship. You probably have to get through a million background checks to get on that ship because of the Spore drive which is super secret.



Set Bookmark
Yanks
Tue, Feb 19, 2019, 12:42pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S2: Saints of Imperfection

@John Harmon
Tue, Feb 19, 2019, 11:52am (UTC -6)

"And also Cornwell's monologue at the end condoning Section 31 and saying how necessary they are for a society made me ill. When Sloan said it in DS9, it made sense because he was the bad guy. He was an extremist so of course he'd say something like that.

To have actual Starfleet agree with them ruins it in my opinion. Cornwell said "nation building isn't easy". In a post scarcity society it would be.

Discovery is just gross. It's just American Foreign Policy IIIIN SPAAAAAACE. I think Discovery is the most American Star Trek yet, and it makes me sad.

We're a far cry from the TNG era, where one of the edicts was to not just make Starfleet space police, forcing other cultures to conform to their way. They wanted to avoid making Star Trek look like it was just American foreign policy. Not anymore."

Not sure it's the most American... Kirk recited the premble to the Constitution in an episode (Omega Glory)... lol

At the end of season 1, when "the answer" to the Klingon War was to give a weapon of mass destruction to an installed leader I thought "have we learned nothing"?

As far as "nation building isn't easy", I don't think she was refering to Earth. That's the place it should now be easy, not the imalgination of worlds in the Federation.


Set Bookmark
Chrome
Tue, Feb 19, 2019, 12:12pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S2: Saints of Imperfection

@Yanks

Well, that would depend on whether you think being manly, or competing for manliness is insulting. Personally, I don't! :-)

@John Harmon

I didn't watch Enterprise, but from reading up on it, it looks like they elaborated on a specific Article and Section of the Federation charter that created section 31. Now, I guess we could be pedantic and say the charter doesn't specifically mention creating a group to help carry out the extreme measures of the article, but if you know anything about the U.S. constitution, you would understand that a lot of the ways that the U.S. government branches were not outlined in specifics . They have been interpreted over the years to create a functioning government. The FBI, as mentioned above, isn't anywhere at all in the constitution, but derives power through the judicial branch (stemming from Article III, s2) who created it as a policing force to help the objectives of the DOJ.
Next ►◄ PreviousPage 2 of 2,329
▲Top of Page | Menu | Copyright © 1994-2019 Jamahl Epsicokhan. All rights reserved. Unauthorized duplication or distribution of any content is prohibited. This site is an independent publication and is not affiliated with or authorized by any entity or company referenced herein. See site policies.