Star Trek Discovery season 2 megathread

[Simplicius]

I've still not been given an adequate explanation for the "visual reboot". If we're supposed to assume that the story is the same but the "look" is different (I think Roddenberry said something similar when making TMP) ... then what's the explanation for baffling nonsense like everyone knowing what Section 31 is?

That's not purely visual, it breaks continuity with plot and dialogue too. We can't just imagine Sloan wearing the dumb combadge, we have to imagine that someone/something erased the Federation's widespread knowledge of them or imagine that Julian Bashir (a man obessed with spies) just so happens to be ignnorant of common knowledge (the same would go for Sisko and O'Brien).

The visual reboot argument feels disingenuous because it seems like a disposable layer of defence.

1. "Only very minor things have been changed."

But everything looks radically different ...

2. "That's just because they've got a better budget, but the setting is still the same."

But certain things contradict multi-episode plot points and dialogue beats in "later" seasons ...

3. "Well continuity doesn't really matter. You should give it a chance to be its own thing."

But they keep making references to other seasons and they keep saying everything will all line up with TOS ...

What's the response to that? The writers could just come out and say "hey, the show takes place in its own continuity" and we'd (mostly) all be happy. Instead, they keep saying its "prime". Like, what does that even mean? It belongs to a certain timeline of events but it can contradict those events with impunity? Then what's the point of even saying it's "prime"?

[Yukaphile]

They should just try to bring back all the old equipment like they did on DS9. Yes, it will cost a lot, but it means less criticism, and it means more people being willing to accept your show.

[clearspira]

I've still not been given an adequate explanation for the "visual reboot". If we're supposed to assume that the story is the same but the "look" is different (I think Roddenberry said something similar when making TMP) ... then what's the explanation for baffling nonsense like everyone knowing what Section 31 is?

That's not purely visual, it breaks continuity with plot and dialogue too. We can't just imagine Sloan wearing the dumb combadge, we have to imagine that someone/something erased the Federation's widespread knowledge of them or imagine that Julian Bashir (a man obessed with spies) just so happens to be ignnorant of common knowledge (the same would go for Sisko and O'Brien).

The visual reboot argument feels disingenuous because it seems like a disposable layer of defence.

1. "Only very minor things have been changed."

But everything looks radically different ...

2. "That's just because they've got a better budget, but the setting is still the same."

But certain things contradict multi-episode plot points and dialogue beats in "later" seasons ...

3. "Well continuity doesn't really matter. You should give it a chance to be its own thing."

But they keep making references to other seasons and they keep saying everything will all line up with TOS ...

What's the response to that? The writers could just come out and say "hey, the show takes place in its own continuity" and we'd (mostly) all be happy. Instead, they keep saying its "prime". Like, what does that even mean? It belongs to a certain timeline of events but it can contradict those events with impunity? Then what's the point of even saying it's "prime"?

To paraphrase Chuck: if you have any experience of Trek in its latter years, then the objective seemed to be to track down anything even remotely cool and strip it until it was a shadow of its former self.

Section 31 is a great example of that. STD has done to them what VOY did to the Borg - overexposed and castrated. Both the Borg and S31 worked better when they were in a handful of episodes in which they were allowed to be badass. You hit the nail on the head: it is impossible to imagine Sloan working for these people.
Commbadges and the S31 headquarters in Star Trek Into Darkness... Jesus H. Christ... that is the exact opposite of everything they were. And the sad thing is that the S31 in ENT was far closer to DS9.

[Makeshift Python]

DS9's S31 is set a hundred years after, and we've never seen how S31 functioned in the 23rd century at any point. That's perfectly easy for me to explain the differences.

[Simplicius]

DS9's S31 is set a hundred years after, and we've never seen how S31 functioned in the 23rd century at any point. That's perfectly easy for me to explain the differences.

"A hundred years" cover quite a bit of time, to be sure, but it doesn't even exceed a single human generation (let alone a Vulcan one). Even then, if we say that S31 goes completely dark between the events of DIS and TOS, Bashir would not be shocked by the very notion of it even existing.

His response would be: "You're telling me that after [insert speculative explanation here], Section 31 survived?!"

Either way, this misses the point of continuity in the first place. Do you actually believe the writers on DIS have a clever explanation for all this that explains the massive discrepancy between S31 in their story and DS9/ENT (I didn't like their appearance in ENT but it was still far easier to rationalise than this)?

Deep Space 9 introduced the concept of Section 31, a rogue organisation that preceded the Federation and operated in the strictest of secrecy to do the work Starfleet Intelligence was unwilling to. Discovery then makes them a clear as day on-the-books equivalent of the Tal Shiar or Obsidian Order (organisations they were explicitly contrasted against in DS9).

So, either the writers have a super-secret brilliant way of reconciling these two ideas and a great reason to create the confusion/contradiction in the first place ... or they wanted to write a typical black ops story and decided to slap a recognisable symbol on it ... or Kurtzman is just remaining faithful to the Kelvinverse where S31 are indeed an on-the-books department of Starfleet Intelligence.

The third option has been explicitly rejected by you and others, along with CBS itself. The first option seems unlikely. The second option would suggest that the writers don't actually care about continuity (which contradicts their own comments, once again).

[Yukaphile]

@clearspira My only fear is when the Cardassians and the Dominion finally get their turn... and if the reactions of other forum-goers is any indication, Makeshift Python and Mixed Drops will be just fine with that, because it's clear they have a different interpretation of the franchise than I do. The problem here is that Section 31 fits better into Trek in a post-9/11 world, like something you'd find on 24 or the X-Files, but you need to think through how this stuff works, and Trek writers are not doing that.

@Makeshift Python That doesn't justify a direct and blatant continuity error that you're perfectly fine with. This from the guy who complained about Romulan ridges, yet was okay with what they did to the Klingons.

[clearspira]

DS9's S31 is set a hundred years after, and we've never seen how S31 functioned in the 23rd century at any point. That's perfectly easy for me to explain the differences.

Commbadges and physical headquarters to a very small shadowy group who have neither in only a hundred years? Perfectly easy for you that may be, for me though that is a massive cop out and crap world building.

[Yukaphile]

Simplicius, you hit the nail on the head. This is a Kelvin verse show that's now just recently trying to whittle off the edges of that square peg so it'll fit into the round hole because of fan complaints calling them out on their bullshit. I've seen this from people who like STD. But they can't say it's a Kelvin verse show because Paramount has the rights.

[clearspira]

The problem here is that Section 31 fits better into Trek in a post-9/11 world, like something you'd find on 24 or the X-Files, but you need to think through how this stuff works, and Trek writers are not doing that.

Translation: dark, dark and more dark. Said this before, I'll say it again: why Trek was awesome for me and so many others was that it was the hopeful vision of the future. Where we are all equal and wear bright uniforms and have united under a single banner to better ourselves. And if you wanted dark, great, that's what Star Wars and Alien was for. But nowadays all sci-fi looks and feels the bloody same.

Y'know, I do wonder if they made the episode where Kirk fights the Gorn today, whether Kirk would still refuse to kill it at the end or not. Just a thought. And one I think we all know the sad answer to.

[Yukaphile]

Star Wars, the original, wasn't even dark. So I don't know where your comparison comes from. Clarify a bit?

Actually, I think he should have. And yes, I know about the retcon where they'd blow up the winner's ship. But think about it. That Gorn and his whole vessel got away with mass murder of surrendering civilians, women and children. We said it was wrong when the Nazis had orders, we shouldn't say the same for them just because they felt "invaded."