I recently started binging this wonderful series again and felt so unbelievably old when I realized the final episode aired some twenty years ago. So, to that end, I thought it might be fun to start a thread to talk about favorite episodes, legacy of the show, how well it's aged, and whatever else comes to mind.
Favorite episodes for me include The Visitor (I can't help but shed tears every time I watch this episode), In the Pale Moonlight, and of course Trials and Tribble-ations. Watching the show now, I think one of the biggest strengths of this show were the supporting characters. Garak, General Martok, and Weyoun, to name but a few, were outstanding additions to the series. Garak in particular has to be one of my favorite characters in any sci fi universe, he's just great fun to watch.
On the special effects side, I think the show has actually aged pretty well. I'm not sure how much of that is down to the fact that they used models instead of animation, though I'd reckon that's a big part of it. That said, I certainly wouldn't say no to an HD remaster. I would snatch up that Blu Ray boxset in a heartbeat. I've been waiting for an announcement since they gave TNG that facelift, but it seems like I'll be holding my breath forever.
I wish they'd taken up the Arc format with Voyager. They really hit on some amazing storytelling with DS9. I can't disagree more about the Ferengi episodes, moments of good storytelling lost in really, really, really bad writing, but overall I think it's become my favourite trek.
In the Pale Moonlight, the Dice is Cast, What we Leave Behind,Trials and Tribulations, all solid, solid episodes.
Oh, and I forget the name, but the stunning episode with Sisko as a storywriter back on earth exploring racism. I'll never forget that one. [Aside from the title, apparently.]
DS9 really was a big step for the ST writers as they had to step away from "Monster of the Week" formats. Whilst that was still there (esp in the first season) they quickly had to diversify into other things and no other series fleshed things out better than DS9.
We saw huge things within Starfleet itself from the Dr's Genetic alterations; to the Secret Order within Starfleet. We saw a lot more politics and character development of regular characters and the like.
It also really played with long storylines far more so than many others (Voyager let itself go because most of its long story arc was "going home" then again it was trying to return to its roots)
I didn't like it when I was a young'un as much as Voyager or TNG, but as the years have gone on I've come to appreciate it greatly. DS9 was ahead of its time in a lot of ways, and more than a few episodes seem almost prophetic 20 years later (Home Front and Paradise Lost in particular). In the Pale Moonlight is probably my favorite Star Trek episode period full stop, and one of my favorite 45 minutes of syndicated television. Easily one of the greatest lines of television ever devised and delivered.
Quark I feel is almost a landmark character in ways, a greedy conniving businessman humanized through humor and more than a few really biting lines cutting right to the heart of the optimistic utopia of the Federation. Garak as well. Few television shows can boast a cast of characters as well acted and written as the DS9 cast, and the series managed to tackle broad themes deeply without going into JLP style speeches.
Oh, and I forget the name, but the stunning episode with Sisko as a storywriter back on earth exploring racism
Far Beyond the Stars.
This was also a really good episode, though it feels out of place in the Star Trek canon in a lot of ways. It doesn't really fit, and I suppose in ways it was never really meant to. Kind of a "seize the moment" episode thrown together by a unique combination of circumstances and no other scifi series was really in a position to make that kind of television.
LordofHats wrote: I didn't like it when I was a young'un as much as Voyager or TNG, but as the years have gone on I've come to appreciate it greatly. DS9 was ahead of its time in a lot of ways, and more than a few episodes seem almost prophetic 20 years later (Home Front and Paradise Lost in particular). In the Pale Moonlight is probably my favorite Star Trek episode period full stop, and one of my favorite 45 minutes of syndicated television.
Quark I feel is almost a landmark character in ways, a greedy conniving businessman humanized through humor and more than a few really biting lines cutting right to the heart of the optimistic utopia of the Federation. Garak as well. Few television shows can boast a cast of characters as well acted and written as the DS9 cast, and the series managed to tackle broad themes deeply without going into JLP style speeches.
Oh, and I forget the name, but the stunning episode with Sisko as a storywriter back on earth exploring racism
Far Beyond the Stars.
This was also a really good episode, though it feels out of place in the Star Trek canon in a lot of ways. It doesn't really fit, and I suppose in ways it was never really meant to. Kind of a "seize the moment" episode thrown together by a unique combination of circumstances and no other scifi series was really in a position to make that kind of television.
That's the one.
And yes, it was utterly out of place and made no sense. But it was a powerful example of the TV show feeling something needed to be said, and saying it, with beautifully done acting and it was so nice to see the rest of the cast in "other" roles.
I forgot to say how amazing Garak was. Particularly in the James Bond Parody, when he's used to highlight what real spywork is like and just how far away we are from a real conception of it.
So. Many. Good. Episodes.
I believe I'm going to have to re-watch DS9 now, damn you all.
One thing I think that also comes to the fore is that for DS9 every alien they met or introduced mostly had to stick around long term. With Original Series, TNG and Voyager they could do whatever they wanted and that race might never appear again. With DS9 its static state meant that they had to work with what they'd got.
You see the same thing with things like Babalon 5 and I think the whole approach of a static station really lends itself well to the deeper story telling where there are fewer "throw away" episodes overall.
You notice this between a lot of "so so" series and those that last in that those which are "so so"tend to have a lot of throwaway characters and events. Episodes where basically whatever happens happens, but it could have happened at almost any point. The Merlin TV series that was on a while back had some episodes in its last series that felt like they could have been filler from the first.
It's actually something I've noticed recently as I've been rewatching a lot of Buffy and Angel and started to realise how many episodes which should be "throw away" are not. In fact the more "throw away" it feels the more key events are tied into them and a lot of characters don't just die or vanish but come around again and again.
I also liked that, for the most part, the Starfleet Crew were piggy in the middle. There at the behest of the Bajorans, only to help. Not to rule or dictate. It was out first chance to see Utopian Morals challenged by the sheer weight of reality.
The Maquis were pretty damned interesting, and again served as a good counter to 'but we're the good guys' that Trek so usually goes for. I think it's even Sisko that mentions about how they built paradise on Earth, and it skews one's perception of life elsewhere in the Federation.
If TOS worked because of the Triumvate (Kirk, Spock and McCoy representing different facets of the one mind), DS9 managed that with species and cultures.
Just a truly wonderful show. And I'm really hope we see Disco follow in it's footsteps somewhat. We saw the arcs in the first season (and I loved the extended trip to the Mirror Universe) and actions having repercussions beyond the next five minutes of run time.
DS9 is my favorite Star Trek. I loved the complexity of the show. It also allowed the exploration of the alien cultures, which was huge. We learned so much about Bajorian, Cardassian, Ferengi, and other species. They became fleshed out and made sense beyond just stereotypes.
The cast was wonderful and nuanced. Everyone had distinct personalities and brought something to the table. It was also cool to see everyone grow during the course of the series. Someone said that the crew of DS9 were a bunch of Outcasts, and I loved the dynamic between everyone. And the fact that the second in command was a religious terrorist is something that would not fly today.
Oh, and the "O'Brien must suffer episodes" were awesome. I loved how he was the everyday family man who had to deal with the crazy. Power to the engineer!
AdeptSister wrote: And the fact that the second in command was a religious terrorist is something that would not fly today.
Another aspect of the show being near prophetic I think. In the 90s you could roll the "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" ball without the moral guardians slamming you for it. You'd never be able to use an unapologetic terrorist as a main character in TV today, nor have a serious conversation about the morality and ethics of such tactics. It's great that DS9 was made before 9/11. In the early and mid 90s Jack Bauer could have been a Cardassian villain of the week and no one would bat an eye.
I will say I think DS9 dropped the ball on this topic at times. The ending of The Darkness and the Light has always rubbed me the wrong way. For most of the series Kira seemed to take a "I did what I had to do and what I had to do was awful and tears me up inside" approach to her time in the resistance. In that episode though she seemed to forget it entirely, and I think the series just glossed over dealing with the reality that terrorism by it's nature hold's a disregard for target legitimacy. Kira ranting about how a laundry man was as guilty as a Gul makes her come off as callus and cruel, and maybe that could have been a heat of the moment thing but the episode just leaves it like that and never bothers to have Kira go back and reflect that maybe that poor laudry man didn't deserve to have his face melted off, and maybe the young children of your oppressor isn't something you should just chalk up to "legitimate targets" and wash your hands of the ordeal.
See, I kinda liked that she was outwardly unrepentant about her killing of civilians. And it feels like the writers knew that as well. She gets out the situation in the episode by exploiting the Cardassian's "humanity" that he doesn't want to kill an innocent. She comes off clearly as not a "good guy" in the episode and I liked that. I thought Nana Visitor did a good job, to me, showing her internal conflict. It felt to me that she dove deeper into religion to deal with her guilt. And the fact that she started to like some Cardassians by the end was huge.
EDIT: Oh, Kai Winn was awesome. And I loved Gul Dukat's arc throughout the series.
I didn't necessarily expect repentance, but I think there was a chance for the show to go "beyond good and evil" as it were, and they passed that up. I think it's possible to say "I blew up children and laundry men, and it's awful, and I'd do it again."
It's a big contrast to Sisko's bit at the end of In the Pale Moonlight, which I liked a lot more. He lied, he cheated, bribed men to cover the crimes of other men, he murdered, and he'd do it again, because one man's morality weighs less than the lives of billions.
LordofHats wrote: I didn't like it when I was a young'un as much as Voyager or TNG, but as the years have gone on I've come to appreciate it greatly. DS9 was ahead of its time in a lot of ways, and more than a few episodes seem almost prophetic 20 years later (Home Front and Paradise Lost in particular). In the Pale Moonlight is probably my favorite Star Trek episode period full stop, and one of my favorite 45 minutes of syndicated television. Easily one of the greatest lines of television ever devised and delivered.
Quark I feel is almost a landmark character in ways, a greedy conniving businessman humanized through humor and more than a few really biting lines cutting right to the heart of the optimistic utopia of the Federation. Garak as well. Few television shows can boast a cast of characters as well acted and written as the DS9 cast, and the series managed to tackle broad themes deeply without going into JLP style speeches.
Oh, and I forget the name, but the stunning episode with Sisko as a storywriter back on earth exploring racism
Far Beyond the Stars.
This was also a really good episode, though it feels out of place in the Star Trek canon in a lot of ways. It doesn't really fit, and I suppose in ways it was never really meant to. Kind of a "seize the moment" episode thrown together by a unique combination of circumstances and no other scifi series was really in a position to make that kind of television.
Eh. Its actually something of a cliche, the character is another character writing or believing he or she is another character. (Though one of the later season prophet episodes took it to it's absurd extreme). Buffy did it around the same time, for example.
But several of the racism episodes happened because Sisko's actor (I'm thinking the name Avery for some reason?) insisted they happen, and the show was established enough at they just couldn't ignore him. The 'circumstances' were simply that no other scifi show had a black lead.
I did really dislike the Maquis as an idea. These are federation people with no real needs, playing terrorist apparently for the giggles, after refusing to give up land claims on newly settled worlds as if it were 19th century America. I found no particular reason to find them sympathetic and a lot of reason just to despise them as murderers.
The 'circumstances' were simply that no other scifi show had a black lead.
I think it's two different ways of saying the same thing.
Ira Behr btw, was the one who pushed the episode, after rejecting an earlier idea focused on Jake. It wasn't something Avery Brooks pushed for, though he was picked as director because he loved the idea and wanted to direct the episode.
I think it's also worth pointing out that Far Beyond the Stars, while awkward in Star Trek canon imo, is to good to simply call a cliche. Behr based a lot of the story on experiences of Octavia Butler and Sam Delany. Delany notably had a book rejected in 1967 for the very reason that the publisher didn't want to publish a novel with a black protagonist. They even said "readers aren't ready for it," the same excuse given to Benny Russel in episode. He eventually did get it published and it won the Hugo Award for Best Novel in 1969, which kind of cut the rug right out from under that claim.
Every character in the flashback to the 50s cast is based on someone real. O'Brien's role was based on Isaac Asimov, Quark Harlan Ellison, and Julian Henry Kuttner. Most notable of the homages though is Kira taking on a role based on C.L. Moore, who hid that she was a woman because publishers didn't think anyone would buy stories written by one, a trend that effected a lot of women in the field, including several who would write Star Trek episodes for TOS and TNG.
The episode is steeped in the history of science fiction writing, so I don't feel comfortable equating it to a cliche even if the basic premise of the episode is hardly original. Given that TOS got and still gets recognition for it's inclusive cast, it did put DS9 in a unique situation of making an episode about inclusion, especially considering that diverse casts were still not very common in the 90s, and black leads equally so.
I'd agree on the Maquis conditionally. I think they were underdeveloped as a element of the show. The very same season that introduced them also introduced the Jem'Hadar and the Dominion six episodes later and we all know how DS9 went after that.
So, I have not seen this show yet but got it on my list on Netflix, but I'm curious, do I need to watch any of the other shows in order to "get" this show, or can it be watched on its own?
BrookM wrote: So, I have not seen this show yet but got it on my list on Netflix, but I'm curious, do I need to watch any of the other shows in order to "get" this show, or can it be watched on its own?
You don't really need to have seen much else save have a general idea what Starfleet is, what a Klingon is and such. If you've got the basics like that then you'll likely be totally fine.
The first Startrek Series established some themes, but many of its weekly episodes were "alien of the week" with little having a long lasting effect on the crew. It was that "everything's the same at the end as it was at the start" TV formula.
The Next Generation got a lot lot more serious in terms of its approach and style and also had some long story lines. They also broadened out the crew a bit more so that it wasn't just focused on 3 core characters.
DS9 is the next evolution and goes further with a lot more support characters and shifts even more away from the "alien of the week" approach and by the time its into its last seasons its fully into its own built up story.
BrookM wrote: So, I have not seen this show yet but got it on my list on Netflix, but I'm curious, do I need to watch any of the other shows in order to "get" this show, or can it be watched on its own?
It's perfectly watchable on it's own, though a few TNG episodes notably play into the story, and you could track them down to get the maybe 5% of the picture that you won't get out of DS9.
That said, there are several TNG episodes that preceded DS9, that you can watch if you want to because they play into it. It might help to watch the Star Trek: Next Generation episodes The Best of Both Worlds (part 1 is the season three finale, and part 2 the season four premire). These episodes explain the events before, during, and after the Battle of Wolf 359, and will make Sisko's background more clear. He doesn't appear in the episodes mind you. DS9's first episode might provide enough context to understand what's going on with him, though his antagonism toward Picard might be confusing if you haven't seen related TNG episodes.
The Wounded, also in TNG's fourth season, and the season seven episode Journey's End directly connects to conflicts between the Cardassians and the Federation and the origins of the Maquis. The former is also a good primer for the character of Miles O'Brien, a supporting character in TNG who became a main character in DS9. The season five episode Ensign Ro provides the early details of the Occupation of Bajor and the Bajoran Resistance. The two parter, Chain of Command in season six also deals with the Cardassians.
The 'circumstances' were simply that no other scifi show had a black lead.
I think it's two different ways of saying the same thing.
Ira Behr btw, was the one who pushed the episode, after rejecting an earlier idea focused on Jake. It wasn't something Avery Brooks pushed for, though he was picked as director because he loved the idea and wanted to direct the episode.
I think it's also worth pointing out that Far Beyond the Stars, while awkward in Star Trek canon imo, is to good to simply call a cliche. Behr based a lot of the story on experiences of Octavia Butler and Sam Delany. Delany notably had a book rejected in 1967 for the very reason that the publisher didn't want to publish a novel with a black protagonist. They even said "readers aren't ready for it," the same excuse given to Benny Russel in episode. He eventually did get it published and it won the Hugo Award for Best Novel in 1969, which kind of cut the rug right out from under that claim.
Every character in the flashback to the 50s cast is based on someone real. O'Brien's role was based on Isaac Asimov, Quark Harlan Ellison, and Julian Henry Kuttner. Most notable of the homages though is Kira taking on a role based on C.L. Moore, who hid that she was a woman because publishers didn't think anyone would buy stories written by one, a trend that effected a lot of women in the field, including several who would write Star Trek episodes for TOS and TNG.
The episode is steeped in the history of science fiction writing, so I don't feel comfortable equating it to a cliche even if the basic premise of the episode is hardly original. Given that TOS got and still gets recognition for it's inclusive cast, it did put DS9 in a unique situation of making an episode about inclusion, especially considering that diverse casts were still not very common in the 90s, and black leads equally so.
I'd agree on the Maquis conditionally. I think they were underdeveloped as a element of the show. The very same season that introduced them also introduced the Jem'Hadar and the Dominion six episodes later and we all know how DS9 went after that.
I didn't know any of that about Far Beyond the Stars, but it's pretty obvious on reflection, and a really nice touch. Thank you for sharing that.
BrookM wrote: So, I have not seen this show yet but got it on my list on Netflix, but I'm curious, do I need to watch any of the other shows in order to "get" this show, or can it be watched on its own?
Not... really.
There are a handful of Next Gen episodes that establish the Cardassians, Bajorans and Maquis, but DS9's first season does well in fleshing the first two out right away. The Maquis don't actually matter for a while (and overlaps with/undercuts the Bajorans a bit, imo).
The broad strokes of Bajorans and Cardassians have enough real-world parallels that encyclopedic Star Trek knowledge is unnecessary. And the Maquis are literally named for their historic inspiration, though arguably diverge a fair bit, and get oversimplified.
Picard's presence in the series pilot really doesn't matter. It was emphasized to ease the transition to the new show, but while the fallout of Wolf 359 is a big part of Sisko's character for the first few seasons, Picard really isn't.
I maintain my previous view - DS9 is great TV, but gakky Star Trek, at least after season 3.
There's a difference between showing the difficulties that arise from the Federation's positions(The Maquis, their non-interference prior to the Cardassian withdrawal, Bashir's genetic issues, having to interact with religious extremist whackaloons on a regular basis as supposed allies) and undermining the basic concept of the Federation as an entity and even the basic concept of the show itself(In The Pale Moonlight, the attempted Starfleet coup, everything to do with Section 31, a lot of the background stuff surrounding the Dominion War arc).
DS9 is a great show right up to the point where Sisko goes baldie, at which point it's only worth watching for the supporting characters and side stories IMO, and even then I struggle because for my money it's the start of the rot that ended with the Kelvinverse and STD, this idea that Star Trek has to be "more than just monster of the week", and that a show can't be interesting unless it's filled with action and growling arseholes doing terrible things.
LordofHats wrote: I didn't like it when I was a young'un as much as Voyager or TNG, but as the years have gone on I've come to appreciate it greatly. DS9 was ahead of its time in a lot of ways, and more than a few episodes seem almost prophetic 20 years later (Home Front and Paradise Lost in particular). In the Pale Moonlight is probably my favorite Star Trek episode period full stop, and one of my favorite 45 minutes of syndicated television. Easily one of the greatest lines of television ever devised and delivered.
Quark I feel is almost a landmark character in ways, a greedy conniving businessman humanized through humor and more than a few really biting lines cutting right to the heart of the optimistic utopia of the Federation. Garak as well. Few television shows can boast a cast of characters as well acted and written as the DS9 cast, and the series managed to tackle broad themes deeply without going into JLP style speeches.
Oh, and I forget the name, but the stunning episode with Sisko as a storywriter back on earth exploring racism
Far Beyond the Stars.
This was also a really good episode, though it feels out of place in the Star Trek canon in a lot of ways. It doesn't really fit, and I suppose in ways it was never really meant to. Kind of a "seize the moment" episode thrown together by a unique combination of circumstances and no other scifi series was really in a position to make that kind of television.
Eh. Its actually something of a cliche, the character is another character writing or believing he or she is another character. (Though one of the later season prophet episodes took it to it's absurd extreme). Buffy did it around the same time, for example.
But several of the racism episodes happened because Sisko's actor (I'm thinking the name Avery for some reason?) insisted they happen, and the show was established enough at they just couldn't ignore him. The 'circumstances' were simply that no other scifi show had a black lead.
I did really dislike the Maquis as an idea. These are federation people with no real needs, playing terrorist apparently for the giggles, after refusing to give up land claims on newly settled worlds as if it were 19th century America. I found no particular reason to find them sympathetic and a lot of reason just to despise them as murderers.
You should rewatch "Blaze of Glory" S5 E23. The Maquis are not what you think they are, and Eddington makes some really, really good points as to what they actually are in that episode. Basically ST was taking a look at itself, and poking a bit of fun about the absurdity of the Federation and its principles.
Speaking of Section 31, I feel like even as DS9 has aged well, Section 31 has not.
If only because Section 31 is freaking everywhere now, whether it makes sense or not *glares at Star Trek: Discovery* and wow that idea had a lot less longevity than I would have thought.
Yodhrin wrote: I maintain my previous view - DS9 is great TV, but gakky Star Trek, at least after season 3.
There's a difference between showing the difficulties that arise from the Federation's positions(The Maquis, their non-interference prior to the Cardassian withdrawal, Bashir's genetic issues, having to interact with religious extremist whackaloons on a regular basis as supposed allies) and undermining the basic concept of the Federation as an entity and even the basic concept of the show itself(In The Pale Moonlight, the attempted Starfleet coup, everything to do with Section 31, a lot of the background stuff surrounding the Dominion War arc).
DS9 is a great show right up to the point where Sisko goes baldie, at which point it's only worth watching for the supporting characters and side stories IMO, and even then I struggle because for my money it's the start of the rot that ended with the Kelvinverse and STD, this idea that Star Trek has to be "more than just monster of the week", and that a show can't be interesting unless it's filled with action and growling arseholes doing terrible things.
It's interesting how two different people can have a different view, I see it as the continuation of TNG, the final maturing of ST as a franchise. Even Voyager still gets high marks from me, because it maintained a lot of the atmosphere, and in the shadow of DS9 and its Dominion arc and plot, Voyager returned us to the exploration side of ST we last saw in TNG. There are so many well rounded episodes in the later seasons, that interpose daily life during wartime with the bigger plot.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: Speaking of Section 31, I feel like even as DS9 has aged well, Section 31 has not.
If only because Section 31 is freaking everywhere now, whether it makes sense or not *glares at Star Trek: Discovery* and wow that idea had a lot less longevity than I would have thought.
S31 was an interesting villain for DS9. I always felt as though it was basically tailor made for that show, and I was so glad it never showed up in Voyager.
Yodhrin wrote: I maintain my previous view - DS9 is great TV, but [bleep] Star Trek, at least after season 3.
There's a difference between showing the difficulties that arise from the Federation's positions(The Maquis, their non-interference prior to the Cardassian withdrawal, Bashir's genetic issues, having to interact with religious extremist whackaloons on a regular basis as supposed allies) and undermining the basic concept of the Federation as an entity and even the basic concept of the show itself(In The Pale Moonlight, the attempted Starfleet coup, everything to do with Section 31, a lot of the background stuff surrounding the Dominion War arc).
DS9 is a great show right up to the point where Sisko goes baldie, at which point it's only worth watching for the supporting characters and side stories IMO, and even then I struggle because for my money it's the start of the rot that ended with the Kelvinverse and STD, this idea that Star Trek has to be "more than just monster of the week", and that a show can't be interesting unless it's filled with action and growling arseholes doing terrible things.
See I saw it as totally differently. I DS9 was the first ST to explore all the different cultures and show how they can exist.The exploration of different cultures with each of their different valid points of view were great.
I am hoping to see the documentary and would love for the show to be transferred to HD on day (https://ds9documentary.com/).
Just adding this from the thread I started prematurely without seeing this one.
I have been watching ST since I was a small child, going on about 25 years or so now. I saw the original broadcasts of the final two seasons of Next Generation as a child, grew up with the entire runs of both DS9 and Voyager, suffered in silence through Enterprise, and cried alongside my father as JJ Abrams took a colossal dump on the franchise, not once, but twice. While we were all down, Brian Fuller came and started kicking us over and over and over all while laughing about stealing our lunch money.
But, all that aside, I've just completed a re-watch of all of DS9. It was always my favorite of the shows, growing up I had such a great time watching it with my father. You know what I've learned from my reviewing?
Some of the best, written and acted episodes of the entire franchise are set right here in this extension of the show. There is a wealth of personal growth, confrontations on highly charged topics, and well played schemes hiding throughout the show.
From the friendship between Miles and Julian, to the eventual relationship between Odo and Kira, and the friendship between Nog and Jake, we see constant examples of good writing helped only by even better acting. Even the rivalry between Hudson, Sisko and Eddington is something of a cinematic masterpiece.
There are a ton of episodes that come to mind that extol the good writing and acting of the show, but I think there are even more out there than just the most well known ones.
Last night I was watching one of my favorite episodes, "The Magnificent Ferengi" S6 E10. As I watched the episode, I couldn't keep my mind of the humor of the plot and how strange it was that the longer the story went on, the more I found myself rooting for Quark and his little band of misfits in their quest to free their mother from the dominion. At that moment, I realized how wonderfully written this episode is.
Anyone else out there have any examples of underrated trek episodes, from the franchise as a whole or from DS9 specifically?
I don't know if any were really underrated. But it might be that I don't super follow ST fandom that much. I loved the episode when O'Brien was placed in virtual prison (Hard Time). I liked how it explored how the prison system can change someone and be a super traumatic experience.
Heck I loved the O'Brien episodes as he was a family man, Non-Commissioned Officer, placed in crazy situations and continued to be somehow get through it with his grit and hard work.
Edit: Geek.com has a list of some the crazy he had to deal with. Be warned that is full of spoilers:
On reflection, I feel DS9’s successs I’m expanding the politics of the Alpha Quadrant, and how it went about it, was squandered by Voyager.
The Maquis were built up to be if not merciless, heavily principled. They were True Believers, Fighting The Good Fight. The way they jut folded into Federation normality so easily always irked me.
Imagine how much better Voyager could’ve been had it been a show about internal conflict, and Janeway’s ideals being challenged by the sheer pragmatism of how to best get home. Make it more a BSG than TNG-but-like-over-there.
AdeptSister wrote: I don't know if any were really underrated. But it might be that I don't super follow ST fandom that much.
Without delving into which opinion is right or wrong, during DS9's original run and airings a lot of people didn't like it. The show would get criticized for leaning too much on danging plots from TNG, and for abandoning established elements of the franchise (a focus on exploration and "boldly going"). It didn't help that season 1 was weak, and season 2 shaky at times. I don't think DS9 found its real footing until it the end of the second season, when the series' serial story lines really got started. Until maybe 10 years ago DS9 was arguably the second least favorite Star Trek series after Enterprise among fans.
Since then though DS9's reputation has improved (notably Voyager's popularity has declined in that same time), for a lot of the reasons people watching during the original run didn't like it. I feel an influx of new fans has played a big part, watching reruns on TV or binging on Netflix. Others like me have simply come around over time and appreciate the show more now than we did during the original run.
I watched DS9 during its original run, but my circle was totally into it. I guess I had heard of it as the "black sheep" of ST (until Enterprise came a long.)
I would totally watch Discovery if it was not on CBS All Access.
For some reason, that’s my favorite Star Trek quotation.
I like how some YouTuber edited that quote with Sisko saying "IT'S REAL!!!" from the episode where he's in the illusion of being a 1950s sci-fi author.
My favourite episode was the already discussed Far Beyond the Stars where Sisko is a Sci Fi author. I loved Quark in that episode, must have been nice for him (and Worf) to be able to act without all that make-up.
What I loved about Quark is how well he made a character who was going through huge social change and yet resisted it, whilst at the same time not being a "nasty" character.
In way way too many productions and books we see those who approve of social changes (that modern society approves of) being on the side of good, with most of those on the opposing side being shown as variations of evil, bad, bigoted or otherwise undesirable unless they change.
Yet with Quark we don't get that. He's not evil nor overwhelmingly nasty. He's just a normal person who grew up a certain way coming to terms with a lot of his established world being changed. Plus it wasn't a single episode but a growing change and series of repeat challenges - the whole social change for his people was a background storyline that was far more fleshed out than many often are.
Overread wrote: What I loved about Quark is how well he made a character who was going through huge social change and yet resisted it, whilst at the same time not being a "nasty" character.
In way way too many productions and books we see those who approve of social changes (that modern society approves of) being on the side of good, with most of those on the opposing side being shown as variations of evil, bad, bigoted or otherwise undesirable unless they change.
Yet with Quark we don't get that. He's not evil nor overwhelmingly nasty. He's just a normal person who grew up a certain way coming to terms with a lot of his established world being changed. Plus it wasn't a single episode but a growing change and series of repeat challenges - the whole social change for his people was a background storyline that was far more fleshed out than many often are.
For me, I think it's that Quark shows how you can be a greedy business man and still have the humanity to not be a complete prick about it, which most certainly isn't how most stories handle the archetype. You're either a bleeding heart who doesn't care for money, or the meanest corporate CEO around.
One of the interesting things about Quark though is that for all his whining and praise for Ferengi tradition, we learn slowly over the course of the series he was never that traditional. He complains about how he's infected by Federation morals, but he was making decisions on conscience over profit before the Federation even came into the picture. It's even lamp shaded in Brunt's "the reason you suck" speech. He sold medicine to Bajorans during the occupation, at "slightly above" cost! Any proper Ferengi would have milked them for all they were worth.
It's very hard for me to decide whether I like DS9 or TNG more, but I'm pretty happy with enjoying them both equally for their different strengths. I honestly didn't want to like DS9; I had some notion that it was a b-team spinoff that needed to borrow O'Brian and Worf in order to increase its street cred, and I felt that it wasn't "real" Trek if it didn't follow an episodic format based on rootless exploration.
I was definitely wrong. In terms of writing and character development it is arguably the strongest series in the franchise. Its serial style allows it to focus on plot and theme instead of being a 45-minute foray into one, surface level sci-fi or socio-political idea with a subspace-related solution to everyone's problems at the end. It's not at all like other Trek shows, yet there's so much for a Trekkie to love with deeper dives into several alien cultures than possible in an episodic format. The way they handled the Ferengi, Klingons and Cardassians was great.
Absolutely great show, I will watch it again gladly.
Loved DS9 and had a massive crush on Terri Farrell as a teenager( omg has it really been that long? ). Avery Brooks was hands down the best captain too - he punched Q in the face!
Quark was the heart of it, and although I hated the Ferengi in TNG, he was hilarious.
I think Dax was the most interesting character as the trills are a bit like the "Timelords of Star Trek", y'know being able to change hosts an'all. And she went on quests with Klingons! How cool is that?
Come to think of it, I do get tired of the "sjw" thing surrounding todays heroines - where was that crowd back in the day with Ripley, Dax and co? Not a dicky-bird about Sigourney Weaver running around with a pulse rifle/flamethrower combo. That said, DW is trying way too hard to be "diverse" and "pc" when Star Trek was already doing it years ago, and much better. For all its preachyness, not even all the years of "new-who" compares to the one DS9 episode "Rejoined". That was done really well.
I think one other difference is that in most of the other Trek series the captain steals the show. They are central to pretty much every single story; barring a handful where they are not.
Meanwhile in DS9 you've got so many strong characters, each with their own background and focus, that many times Sisko actually takes a very background stage, esp as the series matures. That I think lets a lot of characters establish themselves very well and stronger than in many other ST series, and indeed than many other series that have a strong central lead character. Many other series might throw in a token episode for a character to have on their own, DS9 isn't afraid to throw an entire sub-plot in that might span multiple episodes and reappear in the future.
I think its also a reason why Quark actually starts to steal the show in many ways; because he's the character almost all of them will interact with even when tackling their own issues and problems. He's almost more central and key to the smooth running of things than Sisko is - at least from a social point of view. It's why its rather fitting that, in the end, he got the last line of the whole series
Luciferian wrote: It's very hard for me to decide whether I like DS9 or TNG more, but I'm pretty happy with enjoying them both equally for their different strengths. I honestly didn't want to like DS9; I had some notion that it was a b-team spinoff that needed to borrow O'Brian and Worf in order to increase its street cred, and I felt that it wasn't "real" Trek if it didn't follow an episodic format based on rootless exploration.
I was definitely wrong. In terms of writing and character development it is arguably the strongest series in the franchise. Its serial style allows it to focus on plot and theme instead of being a 45-minute foray into one, surface level sci-fi or socio-political idea with a subspace-related solution to everyone's problems at the end. It's not at all like other Trek shows, yet there's so much for a Trekkie to love with deeper dives into several alien cultures than possible in an episodic format. The way they handled the Ferengi, Klingons and Cardassians was great.
Absolutely great show, I will watch it again gladly.
For me that's easy, I see them as an extension of eachother, and so to me, they're the same. Like a really, really long book.
I can see that. The events of TNG do kind of dovetail naturally into DS9, and of course you have several TNG characters showing up for recurring roles. They certainly compliment each other more than any other two series in the franchise.
Luciferian wrote: I can see that. The events of TNG do kind of dovetail naturally into DS9, and of course you have several TNG characters showing up for recurring roles. They certainly compliment each other more than any other two series in the franchise.
Yep! It feels as though DS9 flows out from TNG, and finds its own footing in the later seasons. Just like with MASH (when Potter and Winchester show up at the midpoint), when Worf shows up half way through the show gets a lot better, becomes more sure of itself and establishes a great identity. However, there are some phenomenal episodes in the first few seasons, that shouldn't be ignored.
It was really nice seeing O'Brian also turn up and go from a casual character in TNG (mostly teleporter operator) into a leading character in DS9. He's also a neat character because whilst you've got many of the others in quite unique and important or key roles he's just the engineer.
He's not genetically enhanced; a unique member of his species within starfleet; a unique species in the quadrant; a notable freedom fighter; a messiah; a spy; a leader; etc.... He's just an engineer and he retains that position through the series pretty much (Quark is sort of the same but with the stories unfolding on his home world he kinds of jumps up a few notches at least with his direct family connections)
Overread wrote: It was really nice seeing O'Brian also turn up and go from a casual character in TNG (mostly teleporter operator) into a leading character in DS9. He's also a neat character because whilst you've got many of the others in quite unique and important or key roles he's just the engineer.
He's not genetically enhanced; a unique member of his species within starfleet; a unique species in the quadrant; a notable freedom fighter; a messiah; a spy; a leader; etc.... He's just an engineer and he retains that position through the series pretty much (Quark is sort of the same but with the stories unfolding on his home world he kinds of jumps up a few notches at least with his direct family connections)
I agree. Colm Meaney is a fantastic actor.
Both Miles and Quark are hugely important to the show, especially Quark who goes through a lot of character growth in the later seasons.
One of my favorite episodes involving Miles is "Empok Nor" The dynamic between he and Garak, the debate and constant harassment about being the "Hero of Setlic III" it's all fantastic!
"
Everyone grows through the course of the series. It is wonderful. All the characters viewpoints change over the course of the series. All the relationships feel natural and earned.
I'm still saddened by the fact that I haven't seen a show out there handle 'alien/foreign' cultures or represent minorities (or the 'other') as well as DS9.
I do prefer Babylon 5 to DS9 for it's overall story arc and I think it evoked greater emotional peaks as well, but DS9's lead characters were probably the best I've seen in any TV show of the last 30 years. Seriously, is there a more positive depiction of the father-son dynamic out there than Benjamin and Jake? Not just that, but the show handled so many relevant contemporary issues extremely well and with a level of nuance rarely seen in popular media. I don't think the development of grudging respect/mutual admiration or more between two characters of disparate cultures happened repeatedly on DS9 by accident.
Benjamin Sisko is never 'close friends' with Quark or Garek, but he develops a mutual respect for both of them and becomes something of a mentor to Nog
Nog and Jake Sisko become best friends for life (honestly I think their relationship is the single most underrated aspect of the show because it examines them on so many levels and does so with a degree of subtlety. It begins with the cultural clash, leads to friendship, develops another cultural clash after Nog joins Starfleet and reaches a head due to his PTSD which Jake can't relate to and evolves from there)
Quark and Garek develop a mutual respect for each other
Garek's arguably best friend (or at least closest companion) on the station ends up being Dr. Bashir
Kira Nerys and Benjamin Sisko go from throwing daggers at one another to being close friends and comrades despite cultural and religious differences
And the list goes on from there. If you watch television for character interactions than DS9 is unequivocally the best Star Trek series. Hell, I think it's the best period, but I can understand why someone would appreciate TOS (especially if you like exploring the unknown) or TNG more.
TLDR: Probably the best Scifi/Fantasy television series ever
I think one key thing is that DS9 wasn't afraid to change their own characters. A lot of TV series keep characters very fixed in their ways. Take a look at something like NCIS - you can pretty much pick up any episode that isn't in the first or last few of a series and you pretty much know the formula and can settle in and watch it without major problems. It's more of a jump if the cast changes, but the first major cast set to the second major (which lasted a very long time) are basically identical.
There are subtle shifts in relationships, but by and large Gibs in series 1 is Gibs in series 10 - same for Ducky, Tony etc....
It's a deliberate design that works for casual viewing and for not losing your audience.
DS9 on the other hand was far more dynamic. On the one hand their character roster and setup meant that some weeks they'd focus on only a portion of their characters and leave out the rest. There are stories where a lead character like Sisko only appears as a backup character. These give an instant shift in perspective and focus. Then you've got changing relationships and developments within the character set; which because its large are able to shift around - two characters can shift from each others throats to friends to back to each others throats.
I think that lets you have a more mature approach to development of relationships and characters because you're not pressing the re-set button at the end of every episode. You're not keeping them in fixed points of time.
My fave Star Trek series by a large margin, re-watching it again since last September after a ten ish year break.. up to the end of season 4 so far. but I still love it now as much as I did the first few times.
Nice to also see my kids getting into it even if they don't watch every episode, they have got the names of the characters down, and have their favourites. Hell, even my youngest loves the intro even if he tends not to pay attention for the rest of it, but he has learned Quark (cawk is his three year old version) and points at the TV if he sees him on screen. I should really film him doing it at some point.
The amount of depth and development that went into not only a vast cast of recurring characters not in the opening titles but the cast of recurring antagonists, the willingness to present multiple viewpoints rather than Star Trek's usual Roddenberrian "hippie Federation superior to all the aliens" sledgehammer, the willingness to deal seriously with topics like war, religion, and terrorism without whitewashing them to make them more palatable...There are many reasons DS9 is one of the greatest things ever broadcast.
The writers got very good at the Bathos dramatic/comedic juxtaposition later on (there were bits that fell flat later), one of my favourite episodes is Treachery, Faith, and the Great River, where the comedic setup of trapping Odo in a confined space where he can be a straight man to a sillier character is used to tell a really dark story about the nature of the Dominion in the A-plot, while the dramatic setup of having O'Brien trying to solve a wartime logistical shortage is used for a comedic plot about Nog navigating an endless parade of black-market deals to help, and neither feels at all out of place.
(Also honorable mention to Quark and Nog unexpectedly poppinig out of the maintenance tube in Sisko's office in The Magnificent Ferengi for being the funniest thing in Star Trek.)
A long time ago I sat down and watched every known ST series (in the following order: TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, TOS, TAS with the movies in the logical places). Whilst I'd never do that entire slog again, I'd happily give TNG & DS9 a whirl again. They complement each other quite well.
Manchu wrote: DS9 is a great show but it also contains the seeds of everything that is wrong with Trek these days.
Extreme time travel and alternate dimension travel as major plot arcs that last way beyond a single episode and might even define the entire series not just one season? Thus letting creators totally reinvent and alter things however they wish?
We the audience can always tell that he is, at all times, two steps ahead of everyone. And the look on his face when the others catch up is equal parts proud Uncle, and condescending turd!
Manchu wrote: More like, darkening the tone and shifting from episodic to arc-driven narrative.
Darkening tone is something that's crept into a lot of things as of late - I think partly because the younger generations that grew up on it are not adults and thus an adult "dark" market is more viable now than it was years ago. Meanwhile long story arcs I don't see as a weakness. Personally I see them as a really powerful strength to most TV series. That said I do feel that many of the new Treks suffer from the same problems that the Prequels for Starwars suffer -- that of being new-age productions that take advantage of huge amounts of advance in the visual world, esp CGI, which means that you end up with preceding series that appear to have a higher level of technology than the series that comes after.
I also think with Star Trek there' been too much pressure to try and "soft" reboot it several times - with the movies going all out to reboot. Reboots are always a gamble - they can work great or they can fail and often as not they can snare a new younger generation whilst an older generation still has fond memories of the past and can dislike the "new direction"
Discovery is terrible. I mean, very happy for anyone who likes it. But it shouldn’t be called Star Trek. Anyhow, that’s not what this thread is about, except inasmuch as some of the weaknesses of Discovery as a Star Trek show (and the Kelvin reboot) I think were born in DS9. A super explicit example is Section 31.
Now tone in TV and movies may have indeed darkened “of late” — well, actually it’s been a long while now. Nolan’s first Batfilm was nearly 14 years ago! And DS9 premiered 12 years before that! Even before the pilot aired, the marketing around DS9 promised a darker take on Star Trek. It only got darker still over the course of the series. DS9 took Star Trek to unprecedented levels of cynicism, the direct opposite of what had originally, and once again with TNG, made the franchise notable.
Of course, DS9 also remained thoughtful. Keep the cynicism and jettison that thoughtfulness and you end up with Abrams Trek and Discovery.
DS9 is my favorite Trek. At some point almost character has a redemptive moment where they have to admit "I was a total POS, I did something bad and I tried to make up for it."
Manchu wrote: Discovery is terrible. I mean, very happy for anyone who likes it. But it shouldn’t be called Star Trek. Anyhow, that’s not what this thread is about, except inasmuch as some of the weaknesses of Discovery as a Star Trek show (and the Kelvin reboot) I think were born in DS9. A super explicit example is Section 31.
Now tone in TV and movies may have indeed darkened “of late” — well, actually it’s been a long while now. Nolan’s first Batfilm was nearly 14 years ago! And DS9 premiered 12 years before that! Even before the pilot aired, the marketing around DS9 promised a darker take on Star Trek. It only got darker still over the course of the series. DS9 took Star Trek to unprecedented levels of cynicism, the direct opposite of what had originally, and once again with TNG, made the franchise notable.
Of course, DS9 also remained thoughtful. Keep the cynicism and jettison that thoughtfulness and you end up with Abrams Trek and Discovery.
Spoiler:
I'm always confused when people praise Discovery. Some elements are really strong, but the narrative and characters are uninteresting compared to every previous series
I don't like calling DS9 'dark.' It was definitely 'grittier' or more realistic than TNG. It addressed issues instead of simply claiming they didn't exist. It attempted to address the repercussions of certain actions (namely war) that TNG and TOS largely glossed over.
I could call something like TDK or Watchmen 'dark' for their respective endings at least. For me at least the difference between 'dark' and realistic is that while both take a long, hard look at reality and human nature one surrenders faith in the general populace and the other doesn't. Throughout Nolan's trilogy only a handful of individuals are willing to take a stand against corruption. Most aren't evil, but they are too afraid or disinterested to do anything about it. Starfleet, by it's very nature and throughout all of it's incarnations, is typically made up of individuals willing to put themselves in harm's way for the sake of an ideal. In DS9 that includes some surprising moments of heroism (or at least altruism) from very unlikely people. DS9 never gives up faith in humanity.
DS9 took a season or two to really bed in. TNG, three seasons.
I fear giving it absolute judgement at this early stage is a bit daft.
DS9 took 3 seasons to really settle in, like its forebear, TNG.
Enterprise started to improve AFTER 3 seasons likewise.
Voyager just never stopped emulating a black hole (it was a suckhole to end suckholes. Declining ratings, send in the blonde with the large ... assets ... in the skintight suit, that'll get them watching. Or maybe it'll be seen as the transparent attempt at pandering to male nerd fantasy-trope). Even "Beyond" was better than voyager. Not having trek on tv was better than voyager.
Disco is a mere season and 1 episode old. It's got time to improve.
The fact they couldn't simply Warp away from problems. That actions had consequences that'd sometimes come back to bite them.
It's also the last series (before Disco) that I actually enjoyed. Voyager was lacklustre, Enterprise awful.
Fave episodes tend to be the Ferengi ones. Dunno why, but they really do appeal to me.
I think one reason why DS9 was good and Voyager wasn't is that the people who made Voyager rubbish were busy making Voyager, letting the DS9 team just get on with doing all sorts of un-Trek things like having long-term plots and conflict among the protagonists and suchlike. They were rather to blame for making the Ferengi and Klingons rather one-dimensional, but I'll let them off.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Overread wrote: It was really nice seeing O'Brian also turn up and go from a casual character in TNG (mostly teleporter operator) into a leading character in DS9. He's also a neat character because whilst you've got many of the others in quite unique and important or key roles he's just the engineer.
He's not genetically enhanced; a unique member of his species within starfleet
Well, he's apparently the only one in Starfleet who's not an officer.
DS9 took a season or two to really bed in. TNG, three seasons.
I fear giving it absolute judgement at this early stage is a bit daft.
Declining ratings, send in the blonde with the large ... assets ... in the skintight suit, that'll get them watching. Or maybe it'll be seen as the transparent attempt at pandering to male nerd fantasy-trope). Even "Beyond" was better than voyager. Not having trek on tv was better than voyager.
Disco is a mere season and 1 episode old. It's got time to improve.
I always thought it was ironic that they sent her in rather transparently for her looks, but it was her acting skills and the way she protrayed her character that lead to the main redeeming part of Voyagers later seasons. Seven of Nine and the Doctor were really the only characters with any character growth - They were the only attempt in DS9 to build any kind of ongoing arc, and between them by far the best actors in the show. She really took the chance they gave her on the basis of her looks and really did something special with it.
I'll never forgive them for the way they just shoved her with the first officer in the final episode. There's really no comparision between 'Endgame' and 'What you leave behind.
DS9 was probably my favorite Trek series, I even had the whole thing on dvd. Those old discs probably don't work anymore, I should have taken better care of them. But I still watched the whole thing a good 3 times at minimum. I kind of liked the character development and continuous plot. As opposed the more episodic nature of TNG. I quite liked the BSG reboot as well so it makes sense that i'd like DS9, with it's more grey moral ambiguity and war plotlines.
When it comes to BSG, I feel Voyager really missed a trick.
DS9 showed us a more realistic side to life in the Federation. Throughout, they're meant to be on DS9 as mediators. Standing independent. Yet we see that commitment constantly challenged, and questionable results ensue.
But Voyager? It just didn't add anything. They squandered the Maquis angle utterly. Handful of episode showing some chafing as the crew settled in. Then 'happy clappy federation band camp where everyone is simply best chums.
Imagine if they'd been bolder. We know the Caretaker had been effectively abducting peeps for a while. What if they'd not been bumped off, but stored somewhere. Perhaps their ships held in stasis as well.
Voyager shows up as cutting edge Alpha Quadrant tech, and is able to Treknobabble the situation. Suddenly, you go from a single ship full of inexplicably goody-two-shoes all obeying the rules because reasons, to a rag-tag fleet trying to make it home. That opens up narrative depth. That lets us see exactly what makes the Federation strong (willingness to compromise etc). It builds off the groundwork laid by DS9 in a more interesting setting.
But no. We just got half-baked, presumably rejected TNG scripts lightly dusted off and rammed into production.
Voyagers problem was it was trying to return to Startreks roots when DS9 had expanded on those roots. Voyager wasn't dire, it was still Trek at its core and mostly stuck to the original timeline and established elements. It didn't mess around trying to be its own thing; it kept things Federation and Star Trek.
It was just that it was built as an Alien of the Week series. I also think that their whole "well we can settle or try and fly home" mechanic sort of failed because they chose to head home, but didn't have that same feeling that you got in something like Battlestar where there was real struggle. Indeed you get the feeling the Voyager almost went looking for trouble half the time as they headed home.
I also think they missed a major trick with not attaching it stronger to things like Vger and the Cerulean Probe. They could have REALLY built on some of the earlier films and mysteries by focusing on this unknown quadrant - heck they could ahve brought some of the mystic back into sci-fi that I feel has become lost. DS9 actually tried really hard with that with the Wormhole Aliens so it was a shame that Voyager didn't try to build on it more so.
Also I felt that Kess had a good story early on, but her short liefspan element sort of shoe horned her into vanishing too early.
Great discussion so far, a lot of you have drawn attention to things I never really thought about in regards to the show. I'm also glad I'm not the only one who who loved Garek!
In regards to the Voyager discussion we've branched off to, I have a huge soft spot for that series as it was the first Star Trek I really got into when I was younger. I had caught the odd episode of the original series and TNG when I was a kid, but around 14 I started watching Voyager on a regular basis and so it became my gateway to the Star Trek universe. It catches a lot of flak from the fandom, and I agree with many of the criticisms of the show, but still like it in spite of those things.
I think for sure that the Maquis/Star Fleet divide was a massive missed opportunity. DS9 benefited hugely from the fact that Roddenberry exercised no influence over it, and allowed them to do things like interpersonal conflict between the characters in the main cast. It's a shame Voyager didn't do the same. There could have been some great stories there, not just episodic but serial as well. A failed mutiny would have been interesting to watch, or if they were really bold a successful one.
A lot of what happens in the first season of BSG would have been good stuff to see in Voyager. Nothing seemed to go wrong on Janeway's ship, while the Galactica really struggles to stay afloat. You never really got a sense of desperation with Voyager. Getting flung across the galaxy, all alone as the only Federation ship for thousands of light years, came off like just a mild inconvenience. I know the Intrepid-class was supposed to be a state of the art vessel, but how does this thing get on for 7 years without ever docking at a star base or shipyard? Everything just works.
Oh my god. I would have paid real money for this Spinoff.
Voyager at the head of a rag tag group of ships trying to get back home. Maybe a Klingon, a Caradassian, the Marquis, maybe a smaller federation ship, voyager... All those competing idologies trapped together having to rely on each other for survival, constantly persued by strange aliens. Occasionally losing and gaining new parts of the fleet as desperate aliens sign up and former allies go rogue... BSG but in Star Trek.
One issue is replicators - so long as Voyager has power they can replicate almost anything they need. That in itself resolves a vast number of missing parts issues and basically makes their only limited resource Dilithium Crystals - and since they are in a Quadrant that has multiple warp capable factions there's clearly an abundance of that resource.
DS9 was so good because it finally got away from Gene Roddenberry's mitts. He was an idealist to a fault and it hurt more than it helped.
DS9 was able to do episodes and arcs where there was no good guy, only shades of black and blacker black. There isn't a snowballs chance in hell that a Gene Roddenberry captain would turn a blind eye to assassinations, despite the assassinations being totally necessary.
There is no way that he would admit that humans are simply two missed meals away from being bloodthirty savages.
Ds9 was absolutely abiut shades of grey and that's one of the reasons I liked it, take Sisco as an example, by the federations standards he is a war criminal and a hypocrite of the highest order, his chasing down of the marquee traitor, pale moon light, those actions show that no matter how he justifies his actions to himself, he has betrayed the federation and it's ideals.
Overread wrote: One issue is replicators - so long as Voyager has power they can replicate almost anything they need. That in itself resolves a vast number of missing parts issues and basically makes their only limited resource Dilithium Crystals - and since they are in a Quadrant that has multiple warp capable factions there's clearly an abundance of that resource.
Depends on the parts that go wrong. Conduits and that? Sure. Easy. Hull plating? Gonna need an industrial one for that.
And the last episode?
Old Janeway Right, here's the natty dakka and shield. Off you pop
Young Janeway Well, slap my thighs and Call Me Kenneth, we just sort of happen to have all that tech lying around. How fortunate!
It really did squander the whole 'we have no supply chain' angle that could've proved interesting.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: ...Imagine if they'd been bolder. We know the Caretaker had been effectively abducting peeps for a while. What if they'd not been bumped off, but stored somewhere. Perhaps their ships held in stasis as well.
Voyager shows up as cutting edge Alpha Quadrant tech, and is able to Treknobabble the situation. Suddenly, you go from a single ship full of inexplicably goody-two-shoes all obeying the rules because reasons, to a rag-tag fleet trying to make it home. ....
I think it certainly would have been interesting, and out of production before the end of season one due to the lawsuit from Battlestar Galactica.
You're definitely right about Voyager, whilst I came to eventually enjoy the series, I felt that they caved to quickly with the Maquis element. That could have been a long source of tension and conflict, but it seemed to resolve too easily.
All that said, DS9 is by far my favourite Star Trek. The only series in the whole franchise I've watched in its entirety at least 3 times. Sisko was also my favourite Captain, and it's nice to know I'm not alone in thinking so.
I definitely feel like Sisko was the most balanced of the captains. A man of action like Kirk, a philosopher like Picard, and a man who was willing to stick a giant middle finger to the rules like Janeway, except unlike Janeway Sisko wasn't completely random in when he did it.
Souleater wrote: I originally saw only a few of these but afyer reading through this thread I will watch from the beginning.
Thank you.
You honestly might be best off starting from the second season finale. The first season is pretty dire. I think only nostalgia gets me through it now. The show really comes into its own with season 4 when Michael Dorn joins the cast.
Season 1 isn't as bad as people make it out to be. In fact it has the best episode of Star Trek ever made (Duet). Season 1 has a lot of world building which can be off putting to some people.
There are condensed watch orders you can check out though that skips a lot of the "filler".
cuda1179 wrote: DS9 is my favorite Trek. At some point almost character has a redemptive moment where they have to admit "I was a total POS, I did something bad and I tried to make up for it."
I liked watching Eddington goad Sisko into going further and further down the rabbit hole. To the point where Ben was willing to do the same kinds of things Eddington was just to win. Unlike Picard, who was stoic and well practiced in his attitude and demeanor, Ben was a more realistic depection of both a human being, and a man.
This clip really drives that point home.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaconCatBug wrote: Season 1 isn't as bad as people make it out to be. In fact it has the best episode of Star Trek ever made (Duet). Season 1 has a lot of world building which can be off putting to some people.
There are condensed watch orders you can check out though that skips a lot of the "filler".
I agree, Duet is extremely powerful and moving. The acting is superb, the character growth is unlike anything I've ever seen before.
Captive Pursuit is a great episode, Battle Lines, The Storyteller, and Progress all do a great job of creating captivating stories while further developing the Bajoran people as a species in the lore.
I think that I watched the first season when it was first shown, but going to university kind of put the stop to that. The last couple of decades resulted in me despising Star Trek for its "reverse the polarity to save the day" technobabble.
Having watched the first five episodes, I'm impressed with the characters, acting and some of the subtleties that I never would have dreamed could exist in a Star Trek show. 18 year old me could never have grasped the relationship between Sisko and Jake; 25 years, a wife and two children brings a whole new perspective on things!
SamusDrake wrote: Yeah, season 1 is a bit flat compared to the others, but there are golden nuggets in there - and yes, Duet is definitely one of them.
OMG, "Buckshot Roberts" from Young Guns is a farmer who refuses to abandon his home. Thats another reason to watch season 1...
Duet is one of my all-time favorite DS9 episodes, right after In the Pale Moonlight and The Magnificent Ferengi.
And although I haven't seen Young Guns, I did recognize the farmer as the dad from the 1960s "The Parent Trap".
Another great season 1 moment: Sisko actually punching Q in the face. Picard always wanted to (you know he did!) but Sisko actually did it. Q's reaction was priceless! And notice that while Q continued to periodically mess with Picard, he never bothered Sisko again.
One of the coolest things in the series (at least to me) was seeing three of the main Klingon antagonists from episodes of the original series reprise their roles in DS9.
DS9 was really neat for its time in terms of its arc-driven structure, its emphasis on character development, its stories turning on deconstruction of grand narratives and idealism, and the way it prominently portrayed cynical characters in a consistently sympathetic light. I loved all of this stuff watching it from week to week, even as some people were screeching about how Babylon 5 DID ALL OF IT FIRST AND DS9 IS JUST COPYING B5 REEEEEEEE (who cares).
But basiclly everything on TV is like this now. And it has been for almost as long as DS9 has been off the air.
I’m ready for episodic storytelling again, especially storytelling that can manage satisfying endings. And I’d like to see a return to stories that focus on plot and thematics rather than endless drama between characters. I think we’d be better off with a more idealistic vision of the future, rather than just yet another edgy proclomation that we are awful and we are doomed to always be awful and even whoever we find out there in the cosmos will also be awful.
I have to agree a fair few series have become a little too drama focused. Casualty, which I used to watch years ago, and even The Bill both suffered from these (The Bill in its latter years before it gracefully ended and Casualty I've no idea what its doing now). They steadily shifted more and more into drama with characters, which often got more and more extreme. They lost sight of the series core - crime and medical - and ended up inventing new twisted ways to get characters into extreme drama. Often resorting to developing mental issues, insane love quadrangles and other such things.
It's a shame Firefly vanished, they ahd a neat way to do an adventure of the week without it being "monster" of the week and yet still had an overarching story line woven in.
I never can sit down and watch the Firefly series, but I did watch Serenity in the cinema and thought it was good. Wild west in outer space and all that jazz.
I think DS9 stands out as a show that tackles it's themes intelligently. It wasn't edgy to be edgy, or dark to be dark. It didn't present it's characters with crappy choices for the sake of making drama, but because there was somewhere smart to go with it and best of all it utilized it's serial story lines to build unclosed problems into new problems. Everyone is happy to root for the Cardassian's overthrowing their dogmatic military government until it starts a war between the Federation and the Klingons and drives an egomaniac to make a deal with the devil. Then that little win suddenly doesn't seem so great anymore.
I'd contrast it with the Blacklist. I really like the Blacklist in a lot of ways. Reymond Reddington is a golden character acted by the perfect man for the job. Except all the damn senseless drama between the characters, the dumber than balls global conspiracy, and the the constant "dramatic reveals" soils the tension and coolness of the premise with an endless barrage of character stupidity.
We are elated to share the THEATRICAL release trailer and news for Ira Steven Behr‘s Star Trek: Deep Space Nine documentary, What We Left Behind.
Just last month, it was announced that SHOUT! Factory had picked up the worldwide distribution rights for the docu, and that plans for “multiple format release” were in play.
What We Left Behind is co-directed by DS9 showrunner Behr and David Zappone (For The Love of Spock). It boasts some of the most in-depth interviews with cast and crew from the series, as well as a look at the third Star Trek series in HD, as promised by Behr back in December of 2018.
SHOUT! Studios VP Marketing Michael Ribas said in a statement to Deadline:
“Deep Space Nine has a passionate fanbase—as shown by the successful crowdfunding campaign that brought this movie to life—and we’re thrilled share their love of and dedication to the show by bringing the What We Left Behind to an even wider audience.”
Fathom Events will be bringing the docu to theaters for “one night only”, on May 12th. Tickets will go on sale for the event on April 12th.
“Deep Space Nine is described as ‘dark,’ ‘edgy,’ and ‘the black sheep’ of the Star Trek family – a show that did not fit in Gene Roddenberry’s vision of the future. 20 years after it left the airwaves, fans all over the world continue to watch Deep Space Nine with the same affection they feel for the other Star Trek series.
Through extensive interviews with cast and creators, show footage presented in HD for the first time anywhere, and brand-new animated storyboards showing what could have been and what still might be, directors Ira Steven Behr (showrunner of the original series) and David Zappone (Star Trek docs The Captains and For the Love of Spock), bring you What We Left Behind: Looking Back at Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, an in-depth look at this beloved show, its fans, and its ongoing appeal to Trekkies of all ages.
This one-night event will include an exclusive two-sided poster (11×17, limited quantities) as well as a roundtable discussion on the making of the documentary.”
LordofHats wrote: I think DS9 stands out as a show that tackles it's themes intelligently. It wasn't edgy to be edgy, or dark to be dark. It didn't present it's characters with crappy choices for the sake of making drama, but because there was somewhere smart to go with it and best of all it utilized it's serial story lines to build unclosed problems into new problems. Everyone is happy to root for the Cardassian's overthrowing their dogmatic military government until it starts a war between the Federation and the Klingons and drives an egomaniac to make a deal with the devil. Then that little win suddenly doesn't seem so great anymore.
I'd contrast it with the Blacklist. I really like the Blacklist in a lot of ways. Reymond Reddington is a golden character acted by the perfect man for the job. Except all the damn senseless drama between the characters, the dumber than balls global conspiracy, and the the constant "dramatic reveals" soils the tension and coolness of the premise with an endless barrage of character stupidity.
I just feel DS9 was politically more authentic in its approach.
As you mentioned about the Cardassian Revolution, and how revolutions rarely work out as planned. To see and be able to follow cause and effect years into the future was very new at the time.
Yes, Babylon 5 did it, and did it brilliantly. But DS9 had the benefit of us seeing it happen in a setting we were more familiar with. To see The Federation’s utopian facade pealed back and exposed was compelling viewing. It gave the Maquis a real sense of, well, justification, whilst equally portraying elements as overly extreme, and no better than those they fought. I empathised with their struggle, but not their means.
Just a ridiculous amount to enjoy. I for one can’t help but wonder if it would’ve been better received overall if it aired in the day of the DVD boxed set. If you view it as an episodic affair, it’s easy to lose sight of how tight the overall plot was. That’s not clearly revealed until you can give it a proper binge?
DS9 fanboi here. Having watch the entirety of DS9/Voyager/TNG It is easily the best Startrek ever for me. Watched 1 episode of enterprise and decided I'd rather watch seaquest over again than watch that BS. Discovery? OMG...Get out of here with that nonsense.
DS9 is probably the best because there is a real progression from episode to episode. It feels like a story rather than piecemeal episodes that have nothing to do with each other. Voyager tries this but IMO fails...because the story can get boring. DS9 characters are also the best. Outside of picard Sisko is my favorite character in ST followed by Worf and Ducat so....like I said I am a fanboi. Love me some DS9.
