Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Face thing about Garek?

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"

Eh. Disco is a mere one season and one episode ‘old’.

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.

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.

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.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Eh. Disco is a mere one season and one episode ‘old’.

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.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Best. Trek. Ever.

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.

 chromedog wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Eh. Disco is a mere one season and one episode ‘old’.

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.

Really? I felt Kes was the worst character in the whole thing.

And also, her relationship with Neelix was just creepy, as in Operation Yewtree creepy.

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.

I'll take two, please!

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.

To quote Quark: "Let me tell you something about Hew-mons, Nephew. They're a wonderful, friendly people, as long as their bellies are full and their holosuites are working. But take away their creature comforts, deprive them of food, sleep, sonic showers, put their lives in jeopardy over an extended period of time and those same friendly, intelligent, wonderful people... will become as nasty and as violent as the most bloodthirsty Klingon."

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.

I originally saw only a few of these but afyer reading through this thread I will watch from the beginning.

Thank you.

 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.

Well, this thead has got me watching DS9 again!

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!

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...

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.