Home
Creators
Search Recent Missing Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Section 31 Misses the Point of Star Trek (Patreon)

Published:
2025-01-23 05:00:06
Imported:
2026-06
Tags:
haven't archived this post yet. have a subscription? use the importer!

Downloads

  • 409988278.mp4

Missing 1 full-res photo, 1 video, as this post has not yet been imported.

Content

Hey all. While it releases tomorrow night, the review embargo is up for Star Trek: Section 31, the new Star Trek streaming moving starring Michelle Yoeh. However, I had a LOT of thoughts on the movie, so I wrote out an essay on it. But since this DOES contain a spoiler section (don't worry, its spoiler-free for 30 minutes and I give a warning before I get into spoilers), I'm just releasing early on Patreon until its out for everyone. So enjoy my review - again its 75% spoiler free and I give a warning when its not.... and honestly, you've seen the title. Theres sadly not a lot worth spoiling IMO... and that really sucks cause I really wanted to like this movie.

Files

Previews only

Comments

Pizzapants

perfect review. I haven't seen it, but this confirms my worst fears, and your thoughts are always so insightful and eloquently express so many of my own fears and disappointments.

Am1vf

Yeah... You're confirming what I feared seeing the trailers. I still had some hope they'd surprise me somehow. Skip. Starfleet Academy better be good.

Paul Jacques

Ah, a dark, super secret, black ops, covert, clandestine, working behind the scenes operation that no one knows about... looks quipy. That's a hard pass.

Taigan

*sigh* I try to accept that there can be different kinds of Star Trek. But having grown up with and loved TNG, DS9 and enjoyed VOY, and to a lesser degree ENT, I am saddened at how 21st century Trek keeps disappointing me. I rolled my eyes at the Kelvin movies. I never got into Discovery. I watched one season of SNW. I wasn’t even curious about PIC. If not for LD and Prodigy, I’d be completely disengaged from all modern Star Trek. From first hearing about Section 31, I was leery. They were an intriguing question asked in DS9: “could the federation actually exist while maintaining the high morals it set for itself?” The very existence of this movie seemed to answer “no.” 😓

Dr Martin Ward

"When Section 31 was introduced... its entire purpose as a storytelling device was to reject the idea that such an organisation had any place in a Star Trek future". "Bashir argued ... That idealism isn't naive, that you can actually fight for an prove it out" To use an analogy from Lord of the Rings: Sam Gamgee said: "there's some good in this world, Mr. Frodo. And it's worth fighting for". While Saruman said: "Against the power of Mordor there can be no victory. We must join with him, Gandalf. We must join with Sauron. It would be wise, my friend" In the Star Trek context: evil is so powerful that we must join with it, create our own evil organisation (Section 31) in order to survive. But Gandalf responded: "Tell me, friend, when did Saruman the wise abandon reason for madness?"

Avery

Spot on! Although I am not as forgiving with modern Trek (give me more DS9 season one, baby) your point about if they had framed this to be a ‘fighting the system from within,’ would have been incredible, especially in these times. Thank you for suffering through it for us though. I hope the franchise can move away from being another generic sci fi back into its morality tales, celebrating diversity or at least a little less Starfleet-focused.

Jesse gartung

I think this has to do with the grifers praising the Orville. Which I explain the reason why they do that because it’s creator Seth McFarland who worked on family guy and you know how edgy the early seasons of family guy were.

Erika Friedman

I’ll be watching this after I watch the movie but just from your title and blurb, it seems like what I was worried it would be from the underwhelming trailers.

Myst

Yup. As others have said I’m going to wait until I have time to watch it but that title isn’t as surprising to me as I expected, but it is a disappointment.

Mike Zaite

I’ve been disgusted with Section 31 ever since it showed up in DS9 in the. 90’s. It’s disgustingly antithetical. Not just to be a critique for the show to push against, it’s very existence and level of integration even in DS9 starfleet made me sick. Second rate Psi-Corp. The only acceptable explanation is the borg time invasion in First Contact ruined the real timeline, and everything since has been a second order weak mirror universe the enterprise crew got stuck in when resolving first contact. And even that I hate, because I’ve always hated the mirror universe because it breaks all logical causality to always be an inverted analog across its entire timeline. No sorry things will not keep happening mostly the same. At least the Kelvin timeline understands that. So no, I’m sure this show is not for me, or appropriate for Star Trek.

Damien Tonkin
>>162270361

I can see where they were coming from with the DS9 version. The show was in some ways a critique of star trek as an analogy for American imperialism so a CIA analog makes sense. I much prefer the civil war coded spy out in the cold image of section 31 which seems a more plausible concept for something that can survive in the Federation as a darker side of all of those corrupted admirals we've seen over the years. I don't think we have to like section 31 but it makes sense to interrogate the utopian vision of star trek and ask ourselves what price we'd be willing to pay for liberty. If it's secret kill squads I'd say the price is too high.

Wellington Marcus

I stopped watching after an hour and went to bed. very sad

GregD

Enjoying the video even if you didn't like the movie: I have been a long time fan of the novels that began with the DS9 Relaunch by pocket, and you bring up several in the video. I know its niche, but any chance you might do a show on the Relaunch or any individual books in the series?

Am1vf

I hope "mark as watched" on Nebula really counts as a watch, because I had already watched here.

Jay P Hailey

The Costumes were good. Mostly. Georgiou's Space bar/hotel/casino thing was almost interesting.

Jay P Hailey

They could have dumped most of the flashbacks and exposition and it would have been more interesting. And I am blaming Craig Sweeny. He did NOT do a good job here.

Jay P Hailey

They Nerfed Section 31 into a "Mission Impossible Force" So they didn't have to deal with the questions raised by the DS9 version

Joshua Halstead

I was so excited for this movie...and yeah...really disliked it. Felt like late 2010s Power Rangers shows mixed with that old Birds of Prey show.

Lori Lum
>>162405781

Honestly, if they'd gone with the DS9 version of Section 31, they could have made some topical political points, which is when Star Trek is at it's best... But, hey, what do i know? 🤷‍♀️ with major companies dropping DEI programs as some sort of signal, i guess asking the Paramount execs to have kanones to green lite that story would be expecting too much

Francis Peterson

Watched the movie last night and unfortunately your review is spot on. Also that little "delete the wife" clip at the end really made me laugh so thank you for that 😂

David Meier

I'm still watching your video, but I have to say I totally agree with you on how NewTrek have completely mishandled Section 31. They are supposed to exist as a shadowy cabal of spies, saboteurs and assassins. They do the fucked up intelligence work that the Federation doesn't want Starfleet or any of its official organs involved with. They're supposed to be deniable assets who exist entirely in the shadows. New Trek's writers completely forgot this when they decided to use the cool new things. Everyone from the JJ Films to Enterprise to the Discovery writers and now the makers of this film have completely missed the point of Section 31. They're criminal rogues who have completely lost the plot, not a "cool" spy agency. These are people who work in the deepest of shadows operating in places even the Tal'Shiar and Obsidian Order fear to tread. The "cool" spy agency in the Federation are Starfleet Intelligence. Section 31 are Secret Police.

Mike Zaite
>>162270361

Thing is, Star Trek’s way of doing that is to position something outside the Federation that is looked at and assessed in the narrative. Not tacitly approved of IN Star fleet. Section 31 was basically the show runners saying “yea all that stuff about the federation being the refined evolution of sapient organization, that’s all a bullshit facade, the federation is no better than any lame ass contemporary government, war never changes, fear and hatred always wins.” That’s a complete condemnation of everything TOS and Next Gen posited. The only way to reconcile it is everything post Borg in Bozeman First Contact is a crappy half mirror-mirror sub-universe. Which when you look at Picard through that lens makes it even more pathetically tragic. Because the enterprise crew was dragged into that alternate timeline. And clearly had issues reconciling it.

Iron

Alex Kurtzmann is a really bad person and I don’t understand why he treats Star Trek so hatefully. I don’t generally think that content creators are bad people or have harmful opinions, but Kurtzmann really does strike me as a malicious actor where Star Trek is involved…

Noah Stackhouse

I found this to be a very forgettable film. The actors all did their best, I'd like to see Robert Kazinsky appear in another role down the line since it's clear he loves Trek from the interviews he has done. I'd also like to see Kacey Rohl as Rachel Garret again and keep expanding the characters story.

Noah Stackhouse
>>162825840

Respectfully, making a bad film does not make someone a bad person. It's also impossible to know how much someone like Kurtzman really influences the individual projects. No writer, director or producer is infallible, they're going to have successes and failures. At the end of the day a bad film is just a bad film, and it's easy to move on from it.

Iron
>>162825840

I stand by what I said. I don’t normally think making a bad film makes someone a bad person, but Kurtzmann is the exception, and I already said that. You need to read my statements more carefully. Kurtzmann isn’t a normal case of one bad director making a bad film. He’s done more than one piece of Star Trek media. He’s made a pattern of managing Star Trek poorly as a brand and Kurtzmann changing the brand’s values and politics does indicate maliciousness and hostility to me, even if it doesn’t indicate that to you personally. Also I don’t have to give multi millionaires or how they manage the properties that they buy for themselves the creative benefit of a doubt. You may feel the need to do that, but not me.

Noah Stackhouse
>>162825840

You're right. You're under no obligation to give Kurtzman the benefit of the doubt. I'm sorry you don't like nutrition, but that still doesn't justify calling him a bad person. Jessie Gender recently released a video on the subject. I hope you see it.

Iron
>>162825840

I did watch Jessie’s video on the big K. Me saying that I think Kurtzmann is a bad person and a rich idiot who is bad for Star Trek, does not even begin to put me in the same galaxy as someone who attacks or harasses creators. You can mock rich idiots that you don’t like online, that’s not harassment. Harassment is harassment. I’m kind of worried that you think mocking a bad creator and actually harassing people are the same thing. They’re not, and you should probably question yourself.

Noah Stackhouse
>>162825840

I never accused you of harassing anyone. But mocking someone and calling them a bad person are two different things.