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.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
He doesn’t always do as Picard might...

Understatement of the thread that one




He also doesn't handle poker games with lots of wild cards very well.

Totally backs up what I was getting at

Work’s instincts are Klingon, and therefore different to everyone else’s on the ship.

Plus I really love it when he’s all “nah, bollocks to it. I’m gonna smash his face in anyway”.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Plus I really love it when he’s all “nah, bollocks to it. I’m gonna smash his face in anyway”.

Agreed, though that very rarely goes well for Worf

True, but it makes him a more believable character.

Spesh when he kills Gowron, and gives Martok the mantle.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
True, but it makes him a more believable character.

Spesh when he kills Gowron, and gives Martok the mantle.

One of my favorite Star Trek moments of all time. Michael Dorn is so good as Worf. At the start of watching Next Gen if I had to guess which actor was in the most Trek, I wouldn't have picked Worf - he was never a primary character and had one or two episodes a season. But there was something very compelling about Klingon Politics. And when he makes it to DS9 he comes in as a fully developed character with years of history behind him, and he becomes an integral component of the fabric of the show. I suppose they selected him so they could do the Klingon-Federation War story arc. Not really a point to this ramble, just that I really like the character, and I think it's interesting that Michael Dorn has such a long history with Star Trek that none of the other major cast members can touch - 286 episodes over 11 seasons (seven on TNG, four on DS9), and an appearance in five movies (the four TNG movies and as Worf's grandfather in Undiscovered Country). Compare to Rene Aburjonois's cameo on Enterprise, Robert Picardo's cameo on DS9, Alexander Siddig's and Amir Shimmerman's cameos on TNG (and Shimmerman's first appearance as a Ferengi all the way back in Season 1), Michael Dorn blows them all out of the water. Closest I think would be Colm Meaney who was in 50 episodes of TNG before becoming main cast of DS9.

EDIT: Of course I also have to mention Majel Barret who was the computer voice in TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager, Nurse Chapel in TOS and (Commander Chapel) in Undiscovered Country, Lwxana Troi throughout TNG and DS9, and Number One in The Cage. If we include off-screen appearances, she's probably the actor who contributed the most. If only we could have explored the politics and drama of Betazed society the way we could have explored the Klingon Empire! Lwxana Troi could have become a main cast member in DS9.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit 2: A quick google reveals that Majel Barret also provided voices to The Animated Series! Is she the only actor that had a role in every major Star Trek series? According to Wikipedia, yes; she plays computer voice in two episodes of Enterprise; sadly she passed in 2008, else I'm sure she would have continued to be involved. I know Lwaxana Troi gets a lot of grief for being a difficult character to get along with (she's actually one of my personal favorites because it's clear that Majel Barret is having so much fun, it's infectious; "Fascination" is one of my favorite Guilty Pleasure episodes), but I don't think anyone could dispute that Barret has contributed a hell of a lot to the Star Trek Industrial Complex.

She was also on Babylon 5.

Worf is definitely a high point in all of Trek.

So far as I’m aware, he’s been a very consistent character and portrayal of said character.

Even in DS9’s wonderful adventures in the Mirror Universe, Worf convinces. We can see where Lt Worf and Regent (?) Worf diverge in terms of loyalty and dedication.

I’d even argue that Worf is more iconic than Spock, precisely because he swallows his pride when denied.

He is nothing if not a Hot Blooded Klingon Warrior. And I absolutely adore how we get to follow his cultural development.

Being adopted and raised by humans, he’s kind of divorced from his culture, only learning of it from Others.

He’s such a compelling character. The native outsider, invested in learning more about his people.

Particular high point? His relationship with Dax.

Well since the Klingons are one of the most successful species in the galaxy, their way of doing things must work pretty well.
The Kazon on the other hand, they have all of the flaws of the Klingons with none of their finer qualities!

One thing to consider is that Spock through the seasons never really changed because character change/evolution wasn't really something they went for. There was a bit in the movies, but by and large Spock is Spock.

Worf we see go through quite a lot of changes. In TNG we see some and in DS9 we see more. He evolves, changes and we see into his past, his present and such. We get a really good picture of him as a character. He's always Worf, but the Worf who started TNG is different to the one who ended DS9.


What I always find interesting is seeing him with regular Klingons, because Worf has grown up outside of their society and yet wanted so much to be a part of it. So his view is a very "romantic" style interpretation of what a Klingon should be. He is what they should be according to their rules, their codes and such. Yet he often has to deal with the cold slap in the face reality of the fact that "real Klingons" are corruptible, dishonest, without honour etc..

 Overread wrote:
One thing to consider is that Spock through the seasons never really changed because character change/evolution wasn't really something they went for. There was a bit in the movies, but by and large Spock is Spock.

Worf we see go through quite a lot of changes. In TNG we see some and in DS9 we see more. He evolves, changes and we see into his past, his present and such. We get a really good picture of him as a character. He's always Worf, but the Worf who started TNG is different to the one who ended DS9.


What I always find interesting is seeing him with regular Klingons, because Worf has grown up outside of their society and yet wanted so much to be a part of it. So his view is a very "romantic" style interpretation of what a Klingon should be. He is what they should be according to their rules, their codes and such. Yet he often has to deal with the cold slap in the face reality of the fact that "real Klingons" are corruptible, dishonest, without honour etc..

Agreed on that last point, one of the better episodes in Season 1 is when the two Klingon Warriors board the Enterprise and talk about going back to "the old ways." I had a bit of trouble believing that he could be so well-versed in Klingon behavior and mannerisms despite growing up among humans, but after a while I realized that it makes complete sense - he's playing up that side of him because it is the core of his identity. I'm sure the reason he's so, for lack of a better term, Klingon conservative is that he grew up within the Federation utopia.

I also like your point on Spock, the most character growth for all of the TOS characters is in the movies.

We also see an episode in TNG with his human parents talking about how they raised him and how they gave him the freedom, even as a child, to express himself and how they adapted to allow such expressions (eg eating/serving Klingon foods and such). I agree being within the Federation allowed him to be who he wanted to be even though he was, for the most part, an outcast.

Worf definitely falls into the “well educated, but no experience” category of Klingon.

Akin to a manager hired for their excellent qualifications, who turn out to have zero people skills, and no idea how the job is done;

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Worf definitely falls into the “well educated, but no experience” category of Klingon.

Akin to a manager hired for their excellent qualifications, who turn out to have zero people skills, and no idea how the job is done;

I think one of the things that made Worf interesting (especially as the TNG era continued into DS9), his how he both reveals the greatest qualities of Klingon culture and it's greatest flaws.

Worf is a Klingon but he was raised by humans and it clearly influenced him. Worf holds an idealized - romantic - image of Klingon culture, one that is gradually torn down over the course of his life and he is forced to reconcile with. It's part of what makes his arc so compelling. The conflict between who Worf believes the Klingon's should be and who the Klingon's actually are. His human upbringing plays into this I think, as Star Trek (well, before more recent series pissed all over the notion) tended to depict a idealistic humanity driven to be its best possible self. I'd say this mentality rubbed off on Worf, who took it and applied it to his own people; They should strive to be the they can be. That's part of why the moment at the end of DS9 is so great Worf giving the mantle to Martok was him living to the highest ideals he held of his culture and rejected the naked power, empty arrogance, and corruption Gowron represented

When you consider how traditional Worf is its no shock when Dax takes a liking to him as Kurzon also shared so many of those romantic notions of Klingons, partly through interaction with previous generations. Since its most likely that the idealised best of a generation or two past is likely a greater influence on Worfs romantic view of Klingons.



What's also interesting is that Worf also represents the loss of identity that all Klingons are sharing. Once they became part of the Federation they lost their edge. In many ways the corruption and decadence is a reaction to them losing a purpose since they are no loner warring with each other nor building and empire like they once were. They reached a peak, joined the Federation and got lost. Refusing to accept change into the Federation yet at the same time losing their own. Worf actually shows that one can be fully Federation in thinking and yet at the same time also the most honourable warrior under the Klingon code.
In many ways its a revelation. We see the same thing with the Ferangi, only this time its Rom and his mother who see the potential gains. Introducing greater equality within their social structure resulting in doubling their profit potential as a species. At the same time we have the Grand Nagus and Quark making a slower adaption to change and then we have Brunt who represents the almost "perfect Ferengi and yet is totally corrupted by it.


In a sense its a continual message that extreme viewpoints can be fine so long as they are balanced by morality.

 Don Qui Hotep wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
True, but it makes him a more believable character.

Spesh when he kills Gowron, and gives Martok the mantle.

One of my favorite Star Trek moments of all time. <snip>

Ah me too, absolutely awesome.

Along with that this was probably one of my favourite scenes in Star Trek let alone Deep Space Nine, from the episode 'In the Pale Moonlight'. This still puts hairs up on my neck watching it.

 Pacific wrote:

 Don Qui Hotep wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
True, but it makes him a more believable character.

Spesh when he kills Gowron, and gives Martok the mantle.

One of my favorite Star Trek moments of all time. <snip>

Ah me too, absolutely awesome.

Along with that this was probably one of my favourite scenes in Star Trek let alone Deep Space Nine, from the episode 'In the Pale Moonlight'. This still puts hairs up on my neck watching it.

"I can live with it..."

 Don Qui Hotep wrote:

"I can live with it..."

I've been telling myself the same thing since 2009...

Yep, still very much the Michael Burnam show, with Michael doing whatever Michael wants because she knows best and must always save the day.

 Pacific wrote:

 Don Qui Hotep wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
True, but it makes him a more believable character.

Spesh when he kills Gowron, and gives Martok the mantle.

One of my favorite Star Trek moments of all time. <snip>

Ah me too, absolutely awesome.

Along with that this was probably one of my favourite scenes in Star Trek let alone Deep Space Nine, from the episode 'In the Pale Moonlight'. This still puts hairs up on my neck watching it.

Agreed - can you imagine such a scene with Super Burnham or more importantly anyone caring.

I think In the Pale Moonlight was one of the best Star Trek episodes ever made and really showcased DS9's strength as a show; the conflict between a character's ideals and the unideal reality around them. It's also just one of the most succulent moments of television imo for the moral and ethical quagmire inherent to clandestine operations.

 LordofHats wrote:
I think In the Pale Moonlight was one of the best Star Trek episodes ever made and really showcased DS9's strength as a show; the conflict between a character's ideals and the unideal reality around them. It's also just one of the most succulent moments of television imo for the moral and ethical quagmire inherent to clandestine operations.

I thought it was an interesting choice to treat this episode and, in a similar vein, all of Section 31, as the responsibility entirely of the individuals. They say a couple times that Section 31 acts without precedent, so they can interfere whenever they see the need. I don't really agree with that, I don't think it's fair for Sisko or Sloan to take responsibility for the entire Federation - but it was smart of the writers to lean into that choice, because it makes things more ambiguous - is it a noble sacrifice for Sisko to not be able to live with it (despite his protests), or is he also damning the rest of the Federation for being culpable in the benefits of his decision? Even though I really disagree with Sisko's decision in that episode, the framing of the episode of him trying to rationalize the choice to himself served to keep the character likeable (then again, I'm already a big Sisko fan). Same with Sloan; when Bashir and O'Brien hang out in his brain, you get a sense of what he sacrificed to be able to carry on Section 31. Is that a noble sacrifice? In my opinion, no*; I think Sisko and Sloan are both being very selfish and romanticizing unjustifiable choices by turning the consequences into "man pain." But that's just my reading of it, and I think the writing is strong enough to allow multiple valid interpretations.

*

DS9 really asked the question of if the federation can live up to its ideals when its seiged on all sides, Cardassians, Dominion, Klingons all of them.
And i would say they kinda suceeded for the federation as a whole, but not for individuals to keep their own values.
It really turned TNG and Rodenberry's notion of "Respect all Cultures no matter what" notion on its head, when the culture itself was meant to destroy or subjugate.
I think there are a few shows that stick with you your whole life, and for me, DS9 is one such show,

Well, we do see the right compromise, in the end.

Once the Dominion is defeated in the Alpha Quadrant, they’re simply banished to whence they came under a peace agreement - with only a single Founder being held prisoner.

The difference between Sisko and Section 31 is that Sisko was only prepared to go so far - it was Garak that did the strictly necessary.

Yes, Sisko does say he probably did know what happened was necessary. But he had good reasons to do it.

And it also echoes Spock’s “needs of the many” standpoint.

Romulans vs Dominion was inevitable. The trick was to bring that conflict forward whilst there were other powers to ally with.

Though DS9 tackling that stuff, and doing it so well, did have its own downsides of lesser writing teams trying to put those kinds of stories into later Trek works as well. Always to worse results.

Same issue really with "What defines a life and what rights does life have, regardless of the origins of that life?" from TNG. The overarching plot with Data, and especially episodes like Measure of a Man, tackled that so well that any Trek following it which tries to tackle that theme will have to somehow escape from that shadow and be even better.

True.

TNG in particular was probably the last of the classical episodic sci-fi series, as Babylon 5 (at least as far as I’m aware) introduced arcing plot lines.

Yet we also see callbacks and loose sequel stories appearing. Certainly TNG had a largely fixed timeline, where things that happened remained happened.

In terms of Disco and Picard, I still feels it’s just too early to declare them DOA. Certainly season 3 of Disco feels like an improvement so far. And whilst I’m not terribly fussed by her omnicompetence, it definitely needs to let someone other than Burnham take the lead.

Picard? Need to see all of Season 2 first!

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
DS9 really asked the question of if the federation can live up to its ideals when its seiged on all sides, Cardassians, Dominion, Klingons all of them.
And i would say they kinda suceeded for the federation as a whole, but not for individuals to keep their own values.

I always found that particular episode interesting, because it pretty much defined my problems with classic D&D paladins, as people who hold their own values as superior to the good of society. The won't lie, always personal honor over practicality just grates on me.
A big part of what made Sisko a good person (and a good captain) was he was willing to make personal sacrifices for the people around him, rather than stick to the book and use it as a shield to justify why it wasn't his problem in the first place.

It also provided a third Starfleet Captain Archtype.

Kirk is more swashbuckling, I guess you could say. A man of action.

Picard is the negotiator. The exemplar of Starfleet’s ideals (and thanks to Q, technically the exemplar of humanity?)

Sisko? He’s a wounded individual. The first senior officer lead to have lost someone dear to him in pursuit of his career. He’s the closest to being a pragmatist. He’s also, to the Bajoran’s at least, an unwilling messiah. He’s the most conflicted of all the Captains so far. And he can’t simply Warp away from any errors of judgement he might make.

I’m not a big fan of Janeway (character, not the actress for clarity), so I won’t offer my thinks on her. I’ll just say “Poor old Eternal Ensign Harry Kim, his boss was awful. And seemingly utterly blind to the progress her crew made”.

I always felt that Janeway's biggest problem was the writers. One week she's a complete hardcore 'rules are rules' stickler, the next week she's hiding in her quarters for months, the week after that she's inventing exceptions to justify doing whatever she wants. And her character keeps oscillating back and forth, with no regard to continuity, just whoever happens to have the lead on writing that week.

And then her 'final form' appears and everything goes out the window.

Voss wrote:
I always felt that Janeway's biggest problem was the writers. One week she's a complete hardcore 'rules are rules' stickler, the next week she's hiding in her quarters for months, the week after that she's inventing exceptions to justify doing whatever she wants. And her character keeps oscillating back and forth, with no regard to continuity, just whoever happens to have the lead on writing that week.

And then her 'final form' appears and everything goes out the window.

Yup. Voyager suffered greatly from Rick Berman's views on what Trek should be.

Voss wrote:
I always felt that Janeway's biggest problem was the writers. One week she's a complete hardcore 'rules are rules' stickler, the next week she's hiding in her quarters for months, the week after that she's inventing exceptions to justify doing whatever she wants. And her character keeps oscillating back and forth, with no regard to continuity, just whoever happens to have the lead on writing that week.

And then her 'final form' appears and everything goes out the window.

That might actually be the very Badger that’s irked me. Inconsistency without pressure.

I’ve waxed lyrical before about how much of a wasted opportunity Voyager was, and there’s an old thread out there somewhere covering it. Given I pushed back against peeps just posting “I don’t like Disco” only a page or two back, I shan’t be hypocritical in my own actions here. Thread is out there if you care to see my head weasels on that issue.