Date: Wed, Apr 15, 1998 20:50 EDT
<<Mr. Moore, as you no doubt may be aware, there has been some dissent
regarding the introduction of Section 31... What is the point of developing
Section 31?... Are they trying to say that the harmonious and advanced
Federation we have known could not have existed without this nefarious dark
side 'eliminating threats' to it?... Doesn't this, on a fundamental level,
state that the principaled Federation we have known has been a sham the
Glad to see that "Inquisition" has stirred things up a bit. (Wasn't I taken
to task recently for how we're supposedly depicting the Federation as pure
and noble, not to be questioned, always on the side of right, and generally
painting the UFP as some kind of militaristic puritans without any shades of
grey anymore? My, how fast things change...)
The idea that there's a rogue element within the Federation doing dark deeds
outside the normal chain of command is certainly a provocative one, I'll
grant you, but does it really throw into question "on a fundamental level...
the principaled Federation we have known..."? Not yet it doesn't.
Everything you know about Section 31 came out in one scene of one episode
and out of the mouth of one character. It's a little early to declare the
death of the UFP, folks.
Go back and watch the final scene between Bashir and Sloan again. A lot of
things are implied, but very little is specified. You can read a great deal
between the lines if you wish, but there's not a lot that can be
definitively said about Section 31 with any degree of certainty. How much
of what Sloane -- a man who's just spent the last hour lying to Bashir and
the audience -- said can be taken at face value? When he says that they
take care of threats to the Federation "quietly" what does that mean
exactly? Murder? Exile? Forced viewings of "Meridian"? We don't know.
All we do know is that Sisko, Bashir, and the rest of our heroes recoiled
from the very idea of Section 31. (Last time I checked, they were part of
the Federation too.) So we know that whatever Section 31 represents, it's
certainly not condoned and accepted by everyone in the UFP. We know that
Sisko isn't willing to look the other way and that he plans to do something
Oh, and we know one other thing -- Trek is still capable of challenging its
audience and their expectations after more than three decades of boldly
going. And that's good for everyone.
<<You are co-writting Mission Impossible 2 with Braga , right ?>>
It's very cool.
Tom Cruise is a very nice, very interesting guy.
And I can tell you virtually nothing else about it.
<<What has happened to Area 51 ?>>
It's still alive, but has been moved back.
<<Ron, what I have read about the current script for Star Trek IX, it sounds
like a lighter, funnier movie. But doesn't that countradict what will be
happening during that specific timeframe when the movie releases? >>
I take great pleasure in saying that I haven't read the new script and
therefore cannot answer any questions about the next film.
<<Was Eddington the leader of the entire Maquis, or was he simply one of
We saw him as the leader at the time of his capture.
<<Do you think, before the series is over, we'll learn why Garak cared so
much for Tain's
<<Finally, perhaps this was explained somewhere along the way and I just
missed it, but will we ever learn anything about Sisko's mother? Is she
still alive, and if so, where is she? And if not, when did she die?,
She's dead, and I'm not sure what we'll learn about her in the future.
<<Do you see all of the various plot threads (how the dominion will be dealt
with, the Bajor-Federation arc, Sisco's role as Emissary and so on) being
completed and closed by the time you're done?>>
I hope so.
<<Any hope of learning more about Odo's Cardassian informant from
"Improbable Cause" before the series wraps?>>