Star Trek and Idealism vs cynicism

[BookTenTiger]

Section 31 works fine as a villainous group of Federation extremists who've lost their way. It only stops working when it stops being treated as the outright villain. Having it be a known part of Starfleet as of the Discovery era was a mistake, and contradictory to the way it was originally portrayed, and the idea of setting an entire series around it always seemed ridiculous. Which seems to be borne out in their failure to pull off even a decent movie of it.

I think the only way to make a Section 31 show work would be to make sure they're still villainous, and have the main character be a double agent who is trying to bring it down. They would slowly convert others by reminding them of the optimism and hope of the Federation until they finally mount a coupe against the leadership.

Or anyways that's how I'd do it!

 

[Bedrockgames]

Some of the discussion about the section 31 movie got me thinking and i figured it should be it's own thread. We all know that when roddenberry started the Star Trek universe, it was meant to be hopeful and very idealistic about humanity's future (along with a commentary on contemporary issues) but then things slowly started to change.

I think how you feel about the existence of S31 comes down to how idealistic you think ST should be overall.

I liked how DS9 showed that everything outside the core of the federation wasn't all sunshine and rainbows and that it asked the question "What does it take to keep it that way?"

So, how do you feel about Star trek leaning into cynicism?

I am all for cynical science fiction. It has long been a thing. Some of the greatest Sci-Fi stories are dark in that way. But the reason I got to star trek is its focus on optimism, dialogue and its tendency not be heavily focused on action (obviously this has changed in recent years but my attraction to the original series, to the later shows and the early movies was this optimism). It isn't like it didn't have cynical plots, but the overriding philosophy was one of optimism. It is okay to have optimism even if the world itself can be a very dark place (in fact we probably need optimism)

 

[Mallus]

I loved it when it was Ben Sisko erasing his personal log.

I haven’t seen the new movie yet. But let me say I think the cynicism of new Trek has been vastly overstated and the idealism of old Trek has been somewhat overstated.

My introduction to Trek was TOS. A show about a crew of killers with the blood of a million years on their hands exploring a galaxy littered with dead civilizations, who struggle each day to do the right thing. But you get bigotry on the bridge sometimes (even from your friends).

 

[Mort]

I loved it when it was Ben Sisko erasing his personal log.

In the Pale Moonlight was meant to be a difficult and thoughtful episode and outside the norm. But the point was to have to make an impossible choice when otherwise faced with disaster.

Section 31 isn't that, its lets proactively do horrible things because (we think) the ends are justified.

I haven’t seen the new movie yet. But let me say I think the cynicism of new Trek has been vastly overstated and the idealism of old Trek has been somewhat overstated.

Disagree. The first and second seasons of discovery are REALLY cynical (Captain Pike mostly excepted - great take on a Start Trek Captain). And the first two seasons of Picard double down. The whole plot line of the Federation making its decisions out of fear and ignorance? IMO, completely wrong direction

My introduction to Trek was TOS. A show about a crew of killers with the blood of a million years on their hands exploring a galaxy littered with dead civilizations, who struggle each day to do the right thing. But you get bigotry on the bridge sometimes (even from your friends).

Original Trek didn't always get it right, but it tried and was progressive for it's time. It's sad that much of New Trek, in it's attempt to be edgy and "relevant" is actually regressive.

But they've shown they CAN get it right, Lower Decks and Strange New Worlds are great shows with great messages.

 

[Mort]

I think the only way to make a Section 31 show work would be to make sure they're still villainous, and have the main character be a double agent who is trying to bring it down. They would slowly convert others by reminding them of the optimism and hope of the Federation until they finally mount a coupe against the leadership.

Or anyways that's how I'd do it!

IIRC, that was one of the original official pitches/concepts for the show.

But then Michelle Yeoh got involved and that treatment makes no sense for her character (not that what they ended up with makes that much sense!).

 

[Mort]

Edit: not meant to be a post.

 

[MGibster]

If you want sci-fi about an apparently utopian universe that's actually engaging in some pretty brutal spycraft and so on, there's the entire The Culture setting by Iain M. Banks! It's literally about this, the main focus, the most common meta-subject/question of Culture books is whether it's right or wrong that they're interfering, and how they're interfering, and The Culture was always conceived as a sort of more cynical take on the Federation (but not without hope/optimism). Consider Phlebas is still begging for a real high-budget adaption by a director who actually gets it (Tony Gilroy would, but he's already done Andor and I suspect is unlikely to do SF again).

Oh, my. The Culture setting is a dystopia where humans are essentially the pets of powerful God-like artificial intelligence. I think you're the first person I've run into who referred to it as an "apparently" utopian society.

 

[Mallus]

In the Pale Moonlight was meant to be a difficult and thoughtful episode and outside the norm.

Agreed. I think it's one of the finest hours of television drama.

Section 31 isn't that, its lets proactively do horrible things because (we think) the ends are justified.

Do you mean the new movie (again, haven't watched it yet) or Section 31 in general?

I like the idea of Section 31. Even utopias can use a morally suspect intelligence outfit. For example, Iain Banks's Culture, which is the reigning ne plus ultra of interstellar utopias, birthplace of fully automated luxury space communism, has Special Circumstances. And SC employs people like Cheradenine Zakalwe and the nicest thing you can say about him is he's a delusional war criminal.

I guess your reaction to Section 31 depends on how much you view Star Trek as a political allegory. Or what kind. For me, iIf Trek is going to work as examination of Western liberal values and power then it needs to look at the less aspirational, less idealistic, more realpolitik aspects, too. For example, a Space CIA.

The first and second seasons of discovery are REALLY cynical. And the first two seasons of Picard double down.

I mostly agree about DISCO season 1, though watching Jason Isaacs was fun, and it did turn out he was playing a Mirror Universe ex-pat.

I strongly disagee about DISCO season 2. It was Star Trek as brash melodramatic timey-whimy space opera where everyone unites at the end to face a common foe and a heroic (and beautifully rendered) joint sacrifice. Something between Moffat-era Dr. Who and Dan Simmon's Hyperion Cantos. Plus it introduced Anson Mount's Pike. What did you find cynical about it?

Same with Picard season 1. I thought it was a fantastic expression of Star Trek's values. The Federation finally comes to not only accept, but defend the validity and sanctity of machine life as life. All parties choose hope, to risk coexistence. Underscoring this is the unfolding tragedy of the Romulan Star Empire, who keep choosing fear and paranoia and millions of extra dead because they blew up a relief flotilla their adversaries were building to help them. I admit, I also loved the idea the Federation had material limits; post-scarcity only goes so far.

Original Trek didn't always get it right, but it tried and was progressive for it's time. It's sad that much of New Trek, in it's attempt to be edgy and "relevant" is actually regressive.

But I do think TOS gets it right about the human condition.

 

[cranberry]

I don't mind the Federation having a dark underbelly. No institution is perfect, as we've seen in all Star Trek shows. To maintain the ideals of the Federation, sometimes you have to do what needs to get done, and it should always always be considered a last resort that idealistic realist despise.

 

[Mort]

I don't mind the Federation having a dark underbelly. No institution is perfect, as we've seen in all Star Trek shows. To maintain the ideals of the Federation, sometimes you have to do what needs to get done, and it should always always be considered a last resort that idealistic realist despise.

Perfection is not required and actually kind of boring.

But the whole for the Federation to exist requires "hard men to do hard things..." narrative (as @Ruin Explorer says) makes the entire idealism and progressiveness of the Federation a lie.

This doesn't mean hard choices don't have to be made. The whole point is the Federation are idealists not idiots, and they CERTAINLY believe in peace through strength (that's been a part of Trek from the beginning). But the whole lie, cheat , blackmail and murder anyone who gets in the Federation's way mentality (including it's own citizens) of Section 31 is NOT what Star Trek should be.