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.
The focus on the single lead character concerns me somewhat, as it's one of the things I disliked the most about Enterprise...
One of the strengths of Voyager, DS9 and Next Gen was that wide focus on their crews. While they each had a few crewmembers who got a little more spotlight than others, storylines wandered about and everyone on the crew was developed and had a role.
By contrast, from the little I watched of it, Enterprise had a Captain and a bunch of cardboard cutouts, and it just wasn't interesting.
I'm getting a few whiffs of that same slightly-off smell that came rolling off Stargate Universe in waves. We'll have to see, but between the ship and the single-character focus my optimism is waning fast.
Honestly I'm not even sure how you tell a "traditional" Trek story once you've eliminated both the episodic format and the ensemble cast.
"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal
Yodhrin wrote: Honestly I'm not even sure how you tell a "traditional" Trek story once you've eliminated both the episodic format and the ensemble cast.
Ultimately, you do it by telling a good story. Many of the greatest episodes from the various ST series often put a great emphasis on one or two characters, with the others being bit players.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
Honestly I'm not even sure how you tell a "traditional" Trek story once you've eliminated both the episodic format and the ensemble cast.
They've described it as a 'novel' in 13 parts. Which can certainly work with the right story and the right cast.
And, hell, even the single character focus can work so long as that single character is at least likeable and/or entertaining... two things Captain Archer was missing, IMO. (And also the big thing missing from SG:U, frankly... ensemble cast, but none of them were remotely likeable...)
SGU did have a likeable guy, though. He died in the first episode. ...you may have a point. In a related note, my wife and I managed to make it through ever single episode of Stargate Atlantis, and they were very careful only to have one likeable character and one interesting character at a time for the first two or three seasons. It's amazing that that and the world building was enough to sustain our interest through such a bland series.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: SGU did have a likeable guy, though. He died in the first episode. ...you may have a point. In a related note, my wife and I managed to make it through ever single episode of Stargate Atlantis, and they were very careful only to have one likeable character and one interesting character at a time for the first two or three seasons. It's amazing that that and the world building was enough to sustain our interest through such a bland series.
Atlantis was basically SG1 with a slightly smaller boner for the US Airforce and military adventurism generally, that plus McKay made it my favourite of the Gates.
Yodhrin wrote: Honestly I'm not even sure how you tell a "traditional" Trek story once you've eliminated both the episodic format and the ensemble cast.
Ultimately, you do it by telling a good story. Many of the greatest episodes from the various ST series often put a great emphasis on one or two characters, with the others being bit players.
Well sure, but those were characters we gave a gak about because we'd gotten to know them as part of the ensemble cast, or were background characters being given a one-off episode to flesh them out a bit. This time we're evidently going to be seeing a new "era", a new ship, a new crew, a new mission, all from the perspective of one main character, right from the beginning and since it's only 13 episodes probably without a break. That runs the risk of them giving us LtCdr Blandy McBlanderson so they can be a cipher for the whole audience, or of them giving us a really strong, distinctive character that doesn't appeal to some viewers leaving them with less of a "way in" to the story. I really do think the semi-episodic format and ensemble cast are pretty essential to maintaining the universality of Trek stories; they don't just give the writers the most options for stories to tell, they provide the audience with the maximum number of ways to engage with those stories.
Honestly I'm not even sure how you tell a "traditional" Trek story once you've eliminated both the episodic format and the ensemble cast.
They've described it as a 'novel' in 13 parts. Which can certainly work with the right story and the right cast.
And, hell, even the single character focus can work so long as that single character is at least likeable and/or entertaining... two things Captain Archer was missing, IMO. (And also the big thing missing from SG:U, frankly... ensemble cast, but none of them were remotely likeable...)
Eh, we'll see. I really enjoy "TV novel"-style shows, and they're evidently de rigeur at the moment, but honestly I could really do with something a bit lighter, that takes less effort to watch and which you can dip in & out of - Star Treks were always my favourite of that style of show, and while I'll take whatever Prime Universe content I can get at this stage, I can't say I wouldn't prefer a full-on, traditional, 20+ episode per-season semi-episodic show.
Mind you, we do have Flash and (for the moment) Agents of Shield for that sort of thing, so perhaps it won't be too big a deal if Trek comes over all HBO srs bznz "proper drama".
"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal
I'm not sure about this whole after-Archer-before-Kirk time period. Is that really that interesting of a time period? I'm always wary of prequels and this entire series will now be a prequel. I just don't see why it needs to be a prequel. One of the hooks for Enterprise was that it was pre-Federation so we could see humans Star Trekking it up without the Prime Directive stopping them from getting involved in things. They could get as involved in things as they wanted. Plus we might see the founding of The Federation, which we did.
So what does that leave for STD? The main thing going on at that time would be the infancy of The Federation but from the description of the premise that doesn't sound like that will be a big focus. Not sure it would be that interesting anyway.
I suppose the Klingon War could be going on. I guess we shouldn't be surprised if they go there because of the buzz Axanar generated.
Post-Archer/Pre-Kirk is a really cool period! The Federation is just getting underway in the wake of the Romulan War and there is some kind of major war fought in that period, the one where Garth of Izar (Kirk's boyhood hero) wins some kind of spectacular victory at Axanar. The fan film people, following some old RPG material, make it out to be a Federation-Klingon war but the official timeline is pretty open.
Manchu wrote: Post-Archer/Pre-Kirk is a really cool period! The Federation is just getting underway in the wake of the Romulan War and there is some kind of major war fought in that period, the one where Garth of Izar (Kirk's boyhood hero) wins some kind of spectacular victory at Axanar. The fan film people, following some old RPG material, make it out to be a Federation-Klingon war but the official timeline is pretty open.
Alright, but will they go there? The die-hard trekkies are already wary of a gritty, war-themed series. Could be a damned if you do, damned if you don't problem.
Well I would first and foremost like to see a serial about exploration - but these days TV shows (even web series) need arcs. And conspiracies and wars readily sustain arcs. That's the main reason why DS9 is rated so much higher now than it was a handful of years ago.
DS9 was OK, it didn't really have any more "standout" episodes than any other Trek series but the overarching metaplot did make the less good ones more tolerable to watch. Of course IMO most of the really bad episodes from a Trek perspective came about as a result of that metaplot, so...eh.
Frankly I think a big reason DS9 gets so much praise relative to other Treks is it fits much more easily into the American comfort zone with all the war-heroism and its fairly unrelentingly positive spin on religion. EDIT: And also the change in the Ferengi come to that; comedy-relief hucksters are much more palatable to a broadly-capitalist audience than a deliberate attempt to unsubtly paint capitalism as the barbarity it's considered to be by the Federation.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/16 00:20:58
"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal
Yodhrin wrote: American comfort zone with all the war-heroism
I think DS9 has become more relevant since its initial airings in part because it tackled themes of war, and most especially the fear of war, that are more relevant in a post 9/11 America than a pre-9/11 one. But it sure as hell isn't engaging in America's comfort zone. DS9 was quick to abandon the TOS/TNG insistence that the Federation (aka Future Murica) was always right, especially in the middle seasons with the numerous episodes and story arcs questioning the Federations politics and morality (The Maquis, and In the Pale Moonlight to name two episodes, and Section 31 to name an entire story arc). Watching the Home Front/Paradise Lost 2 parter today is like watching a script written after someone looked into the future and looked upon the Patriot Act with terror.
DS9 actually dealt with the theme of war*, something TNG and TOS just glossed over in their own times with the pedantic message of "war sucks."
*I'd argue the over arching theme of DS9 on war isn't about heroism. There's heroes to be sure. Can't have a good story without someone to root for after all, but that wasn't what DS9 emphasized in its episodes. When it came to war DS9's fundamental theme is how it tears at you. How it corrupts the soul and kills you little pieces at a time. And not just you but the idealism you want strive for. DS9 posits a vision of war that is terrifying in how it corrupts you (almost any episode about Kira's time in the Resistance comes back to this). War isn't terrible because it sucks. War is terrible because even when you win you've already lost too much.
fairly unrelentingly positive spin on religion.
I wouldn't go that far. DS9 was discussing religious terrorism a decade before 9/11 even happened (even just terrorism in general).
The reason DS9 is probably rated higher is because people have actually gone back and given it a chance (and probably more than a few new fans have watched it, imo DS9 has aged far better than other ST series). The first two seasons were definitively meh, and with its significant departure from TOS and TNG style explore the stars, a lot of viewers never even gave it a chance. Since syndication and hitting Netflix, I've noticed opinion for the series slowly rising relative to when I was younger and even suggesting DS9 was good (or even great) on the internet was tantamount to Star Trek heresy.
EDIT: And also the change in the Ferengi come to that; comedy-relief hucksters are much more palatable to a broadly-capitalist audience than a deliberate attempt to unsubtly paint capitalism as the barbarity it's considered to be by the Federation.
It's funny, because a DS9 episode directly goes straight to the heart of it, twice even (both by Quark);
It's a very poignant accusation in-universe, both about humanity, and the way the Ferengi were initially portrayed in TNG
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/16 01:06:14
Some good points Lordofhats. DS9 was ahead of its time. Even the Changlings could be seen as a commentary on our current fears about how the enemy could amongst us or be any one of us. All of this before 9/11 and the current global jihad.
Yodhrin wrote: American comfort zone with all the war-heroism
I think DS9 has become more relevant since its initial airings in part because it tackled themes of war, and most especially the fear of war, that are more relevant in a post 9/11 America than a pre-9/11 one. But it sure as hell isn't engaging in America's comfort zone. DS9 was quick to abandon the TOS/TNG insistence that the Federation (aka Future Murica) was always right, especially in the middle seasons with the numerous episodes and story arcs questioning the Federations politics and morality (The Maquis, and In the Pale Moonlight to name two episodes, and Section 31 to name an entire story arc). Watching the Home Front/Paradise Lost 2 parter today is like watching a script written after someone looked into the future and looked upon the Patriot Act with terror.
DS9 actually dealt with the theme of war*, something TNG and TOS just glossed over in their own times with the pedantic message of "war sucks."
*I'd argue the over arching theme of DS9 on war isn't about heroism. There's heroes to be sure. Can't have a good story without someone to root for after all, but that wasn't what DS9 emphasized in its episodes. When it came to war DS9's fundamental theme is how it tears at you. How it corrupts the soul and kills you little pieces at a time. And not just you but the idealism you want strive for. DS9 posits a vision of war that is terrifying in how it corrupts you (almost any episode about Kira's time in the Resistance comes back to this). War isn't terrible because it sucks. War is terrible because even when you win you've already lost too much.
I think that's a pretty charitable characterisation; DS9 questions aspects of war, of how it's conducted, but only within the framework where war can be and often is just. It takes pretty much the standard centrist-Liberal line that war can be wrong, but obviously this war that we're waging is right and true and necessary. The Defiant crew holding little ceremonies to celebrate the phaser couplings they've burned out killing enemies, people reacting to Bashir & his enhanced patients' predictions and proposed solution with immediate unthinking rejection, the way the writers went out of their way to subvert the presentation of the Federation as being beyond things like military adventurism and assassination - DS9 made the Federation more like "Future Murica" than any previous Trek did.
To your * remark; And yet in the end, the show always presented that loss as a price worth paying. The Resistance did horrible things to those who fought in it, but the show never presented their fight as anything other than necessary and just. In the Pale Moonlight made great play of Sisko agonising over his decisions in the moment, but Garak is very much the voice of the writer in that story and the argument is made explicitly at the end there; Sisko's self-respect and integrity, and the murder of multiple innocents were worth it to achieve the desired outcome. Time and again the Federation and its officers dump their principles when inconvenient "because war", and in the end it's all explicitly or tacitly justified by the simple fact that they win and face no reprecussions.
fairly unrelentingly positive spin on religion.
I wouldn't go that far. DS9 was discussing religious terrorism a decade before 9/11 even happened (even just terrorism in general).
Discussing religious terrorism doesn't require a negative spin on religion as a whole. I'm talking about the way Kira is used to present that saccharine "fnar fnar, if you had faith you wouldn't need faith to be explained *knowing smug grimace*" rubbish as a get out of jail free card any time one of the show's stories might raise conflicting feelings in a religious viewer, the way faith is presented always as a general social good despite any specific examples to the contrary - any even slightly negative story element concerning religious belief is immediately counteracted with an example of religion also being the reason the "goodie" character is opposed to the negative story element.
The reason DS9 is probably rated higher is because people have actually gone back and given it a chance (and probably more than a few new fans have watched it, imo DS9 has aged far better than other ST series). The first two seasons were definitively meh, and with its significant departure from TOS and TNG style explore the stars, a lot of viewers never even gave it a chance. Since syndication and hitting Netflix, I've noticed opinion for the series slowly rising relative to when I was younger and even suggesting DS9 was good (or even great) on the internet was tantamount to Star Trek heresy.
For myself I got over that fairly quickly and began to enjoy DS9, it's only now as an adult when I go back and watch it that I notice the pro-religion, anti-pacifist undertones and the writers' attempts to subvert the core themes of the franchise; as I "appreciate" DS9 more, my enthusiasm for the show declines.
EDIT: And also the change in the Ferengi come to that; comedy-relief hucksters are much more palatable to a broadly-capitalist audience than a deliberate attempt to unsubtly paint capitalism as the barbarity it's considered to be by the Federation.
It's funny, because a DS9 episode directly goes straight to the heart of it, twice even (both by Quark);
It's a very poignant accusation in-universe, both about humanity, and the way the Ferengi were initially portrayed in TNG
I don't agree. The point of the Ferengi wasn't to make a couple of pat remarks about human greed, it was to be a critique of capitalism as an ideology, to be a constant, on-the-nose, in-your-face condemnation of the very idea of structuring your society around capital inequity and the pursuit of profit by presenting the only in-universe society structured in that way as monstrous and barbaric.
DS9 morphed the Ferengi into, as Quark says there, modern-day-us but if anything a bit more moral, who mostly get used either for comedy or to present a version of centrist-Liberal policy where the worst excesses of capitalism are tamed by modest redistributive reforms. They took a group that was meant to be an argument by counterexample for utopian communitarian postcapitalism and reframed them, intentionally or not, as an argument against that kind of radical change, both by presenting their existing state as not actually that bad, and by intimating in the end that some pretty modest social-democratic reforms was "good enough" to sort them out.
Now obviously you can argue the merit of their original purpose, but it's undeniable they were reframed substantially in a way that made the intended critique of capitalism far more modest and the corresponding urge for change far less urgent and radical.
"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal
Yodhrin wrote: - DS9 made the Federation more like "Future Murica" than any previous Trek did.
It's nice and easy to pretend you can avoid war, until you can't just warp speed away from whatever mess you've gotten yourself into at the end of the episode. DS9 subjected the optimistic ideal of the Federation to reality. The show always presented that loss as a price worth paying because that is the reality. However terrible war is, it can't always be avoided. In the same way that the Federation's interactions with the Dominion were defined by a pervasive fear of losing its freedoms and sovereignty, the Dominion's interactions with the Federation were defined by its innate distrust of anything that wasn't safe for the Founders (which the Founders define as everything not themselves). As stated rather bluntly in the episode "The Ship";
"Do you have any gods, Captain Sisko?"
"There are... things I believe in."
"Duty? Starfleet, the Federation? You must be pleased with yourself. You have the ship to take back to them. I hope it was worth it."
"So do I." <Said with a sense of absolute anguish, and realization that however worth it his victory might be, the cost was still too high
That was part of the series message on war. It presents it almost as a Lovecraftian monster. You can't escape it, if anything you'll probably cause it trying, and when it comes you don't have the choice of ignoring the reality anymore.
Time and again the Federation and its officers dump their principles when inconvenient "because war", and in the end it's all explicitly or tacitly justified by the simple fact that they win and face no reprecussions.
I would consider that to more be the weakness of existing as mainstream television than a prevailing theme EDIT: And In the Pale Moonlight is easily the darkest most morally gray episode of any ST series, but the underlying plan of the episodes is brilliant strategically and its message is a serious philosophical question directed right at the famed phrase "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." How far is too far? Garak is not the voice of the author. Sisko is, with Garak merely functioning as the proxy who allows Sisko to retain a sense of moral balance in the wake of what happens in the episode by scheming to remove the outcome of their plot from Sisko's hands.
any even slightly negative story element concerning religious belief is immediately counteracted with an example of religion also being the reason the "goodie" character is opposed to the negative story element.
I could easily say that any slightly positive story element concerning religious belief is immediately counteracted with an example of religion also being the reason the "baddie" character is opposed to the positive story element.
If anything, the series was extremely critical of organized religion (in the form of the Vedek Assembly, and Kai Winn who are presented as obstacles more often than not, and the way the Founders program their minions to Worship them uncritically), and very approving of personal faith (Kira, and Weyoun 6). If your standard for "unrelentingly positive" is "never attempts to show the negatives and positives of belief," then pretty much anything short of Edward Gibbon* is going to qualify.
*I admit it... I really don't have a good reference for this one @_@
The point of the Ferengi wasn't to make a couple of pat remarks about human greed
The point of the Ferengi was from to recreate the dynamic of the Federation and the Klingons from TOS. The Cold War was ending when TNG hit the air, and the dynamic just wouldn't work anymore (plus the Federation was then at peace with the Klingons). The Ferengi are not an attack on Capitalism. They were attack on Wall Street, which in the 1980s was profoundly seen as impossibly greedy and economically reckless. Herbert J. Wright was delegated the task of creating the "new Klingons" by Roddenberry, and that's the social conflict he honed in on; "The Ferengi sprung from the stereotype of agents and lawyers being cutthroat, greedy and wanting only money." The Ferengi are so Flanderized, it's hard to take them seriously as an attack on Capitalism itself. Compare the first mentions of the Ferengi in Encounter at Farpoint Station, where it's suggested they eat other sentient creatures, and then their actual first appearance in The Last Outpost. The entire idea the Ferengi as a serious threat fell apart almost from the get go. Even by the standards of "alien culture defined by a single cultural dynamic" the Ferengi are just kind of ludicrous. I don't think they were ever intended to be comedic when work on them began, but its just impossible to take them seriously.
EDIT EDIT (lots of edits lol): I wanted to hunt this down, but wasn't sure if it would have been edited off of Memory Alpha since I last saw it;
Spoiler:
When the Ferengi made their on-screen debut in "The Last Outpost", the general reaction was disappointment, with many realizing the species was no real substitute for the Klingons. As the TNG producers discovered, the Ferengi didn’t offer much threat. (Star Trek: The Next Generation 365, pp. 36 & 188) Hence, many people (including Ira Steven Behr and Armin Shimerman) consider the introduction of the Ferengi in TNG to be disastrous. Indeed, Shimerman once commented that, by portraying his Ferengi character of Letek as very one-dimensional, he had done a "horrible thing [...] to the Ferengi." (Crew Dossier: Quark, DS9 Season 6 DVD special features) Additionally, Shimerman admitted, "It's one of the great disappointments of my life that it didn't flesh out to be exactly what Gene Roddenberry had wanted it to be." (Star Trek: The Magazine Volume 2, Issue 12, p. 54) Behr proclaimed, "Was there ever an alien race on Star Trek that did not work more than the Ferengi when they were introduced? It was a disaster." ("Quark's Story", DS9 Season 2 DVD special features) He elaborated, "I think I'm not saying anything out of school by telling you that the idea of lethal Ferengi was kind of a bust. The Ferengi are not the Klingons or the Romulans. They were minor villians at best." (AOL chat, 1997) Likewise, Wil Wheaton has stated that the Ferengi were "probably the lamest enemy ever introduced in the history of television." [3] Maurice Hurley critiqued, "The Ferengi were just terrible. They were like pests. It was like making a villain out of a housefly." (Cinefantastique, Vol. 21, No. 2, p. 27) Hurley criticized further, "I still think the Ferengi were a waste of time. Goofy. No bushido involved; it was a joke. We had these arguments from the beginning. I was the lone voice screaming in the wilderness. If somebody's interested in gold, they're not much of an adversary. If we can make gold in our replicator–and we can–then it's like sand at the beach in Santa Monica. Who cares? Give 'em all the sand that they want. Get them out of here. They want gold? Here, take a truck load and get out." (Captains' Logs: The Unauthorized Complete Trek Voyages, pp. 158 & 160) Rick Berman concurred that the Ferengi didn't "measure-up to the level of villainy intended." (Cinefantastique, Vol. 21, No. 2, p. 35) In fact, he believed they had a high "silliness quotient" so they were a "disappointment as a major adversary." (Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion, 3rd ed., p. 41) On the other hand, Producer Robert Justman thought the Ferengi worked best when they were first introduced. (Star Trek: The Magazine Volume 2, Issue 12, p. 21) Michael Piller remarked, "There's a big difference of opinion about the Ferengi." (Cinefantastique, Vol. 21, No. 2, p. 35) Nonetheless, TNG's audience was disinterested in the notion of Picard regularly having confrontations with a race of cutthroat capitalists. (Star Trek: The Next Generation 365, p. 36)
LoH: DS9 largely reformed the Ferengi by going all in on the absurdity of the idea. As villains they'd never b taken seriously, but as plucky comic relief the stage was set to redeem the Ferengi into something worthwhile.
I'd say Wright missed his mark. The best he was able to conjure up was a parody the many stereotypes about businessmen and finance, and that's what DS9 ran with because it worked better (and they still managed to get in a horde of poignant jabs in at the most absurd aspects of neoliberalism). TNG frankly ran with it to, as no future episodes of the series concerning the Ferengi ever treated them as a serious threat to the Enterprise. Arguably another example of DS9 becoming more relevant over time, because especially in the wake of the 2008 recession, people still really see corporate finance as greedy, economically reckless, and screwing over the little guy. When I say "in-universe jab" I do mean in-universe. Within the world of Star Trek, Quark cuts right at why the Ferengi appear so villainous alongside the noble and ideal Federation, and simultaneously points out that "there are a lot worse things out there than greed."
because the Feregni could be a lot funnier making them a mirror image of the American Guilded Age
Agreed! >
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2016/08/16 08:37:33
The main villains of TNG were the Romulans and subsequently the Borg. I never gave much thought to which IRL social fears they correspond except for the obvious general issues of paranoia in a confident and arguably complacent society as well as the fear of losing one's humanity in the midst of technological advancements. I generally dislike TNG because the Federation is unbearably self-congratulatory. I suppose that is why, at the time, I liked DS9 so much more, long before it started to become relevant (in terms of topical content) and trendy (in terms of character- and arc-driven storytelling).* Whereas the smug TNG crew were overachievers (barring Worf and a few weirdos like poor Barclay) who left a trail of neatly solved problems in their wake, everybody on DS9 was some kind of a loser in one way or another, except maybe Jadzia Dax who in my mind sort of embodied the Federation we saw in TNG. I was not sad to see that character go, naturally. I was happy, conversely, to see Worf join. He got to be more of a person than a prop in DS9. It was weird that they got married.
A cast of flawed characters worked very well in the definitely fallen world of the show. DS9 initially reached back to before the Cold War to the end of WW2 and the American occupation of Europe. The Cardassian occupation of Bajor was time after time after time painted as a stand-in for the Holocaust. In this context, the Bajoran religion had tremendous dramatic potential. Imagine if Yaweh chose George Marshall to be his prophet to the Jewish people in 1946; that's the situation Ben Sisko fell into, except Sisko was hardly as capable or inspired as George Marshall. So, in other words, Sisko was actually a lot more like an actual biblical prophet except that he was, strangely, a gentile. I liked the story of the Federation "sticking its nose in" where the guy they send is actually wracked by doubt and then immediately has this completely unsettling experience that makes his co-workers simultaneously revere, envy, and distrust him but which also, at the end of the day, nets him very little in the way of the leverage he needs to do his job.
*even just a few years ago, mentioning you think DS9 is the best or even second best Trek would at the very least earn you a lecture from Babylon 9 fans
This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2016/08/16 20:55:43
Manchu wrote: *even just a few years ago, mentioning you think DS9 is the best Trek would at least earn you a lecture from Babylon 9 fans
Oh god lets not go there XD Nevermind that both shows ended up in wildly different places presenting completely different universes with only superficial similarities in the early seasons. DS9 and B5 have their own greatness and were worthy science fiction shows.
Nowadays my fav Trek remains TOS but I honestly think that goes on a different shelf, so to speak. Looking over the spin-off shelf, I have really come to love Enterprise in the era of Netflix.
Manchu wrote: Nowadays my fav Trek remains TOS but I honestly think that goes on a different shelf, so to speak. Looking over the spin-off shelf, I have really come to love Enterprise in the era of Netflix.
Really? And I thought I was weird for liking Into Darkness. I do like Enterprise overall except for Archer. I've never heard anyone say its their favorite Trek though.
I don't know who this "Archer" is. I thought the captain of the NX-1 was "I can't believe its not Sisko."
Which was, and remains, the main reason I just struggle to enjoy Enterprise. For a setting filled with possibilities, most of the characters, and episodes felt recycled*. The most original ideas were about the Temporal War, which the writers clearly weren't into until Season 3, and then was abruptly abandoned in Season 4 cause "hey, we finally made this thing interesting, lets dump it with a terrible time travel two parter to end terrible time travel two parters." Then season 4 was okay, save for the still recycled characters.
*Archer is Sisko
Tucker is Scottie
Hoshi/Travis are both Harry Kim
Reed is Worf
Phlox is Neelix
T'Pol starts out like Spock, but of all the characters she probably ended up being the least derivative by the time we hit season 3&4
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/16 23:41:59
Archer owes a lot more to Kirk than Sisko - plus he is less, um, professional? than either of them, which is suitable for Starfleet's first captain to "get out there." Archer retains all the enthusiasm and sometimes the naivete of a boy in his role as an explorer, although he has a man's backbone when it comes to the dangerous and/or "do the right thing" moments. As an audience vehicle character, he is more accessible than Kirk. Trip is a great Robin to Archer's Batman.
Malcolm is never faux competent enough to be Worfed; I actually wonder sometimes if the writers had it in for him. He's blustery and blundersome despite wanting and needing to appear cool and professional. He may be the realest of all Star Trek characters, other than the epitome of Average Joe that is Miles O'Brien.
Hoshi and Travis are some of the least interesting characters in Star Trek but they are still more interesting than any character from Voyager. And comapring Phlox to Neelix is totally off base. Phlox is a weird mix of Spock and Bones.
T'Pol is my fav. At first I was worried because maybe all there would be to her is this ravishingly beautiful woman keeping a straight face all the time. But by the end of the series, I was fascinated by how much she had developed, how gradually and subtly she had grown from being a veritable alien, and somewhat one-dimensional for that reason.
If "accessible" is another word for dumb then yes that's Archer. He's an audience vehicle character for a writer that doesn't think much of his audience. Also, Scott Bakula is just a terrible actor.