DS9 vs the purist in me

Well, it did work out for Blackadder back in the 80's ... that is to say... kind of ...

 

I'd say it was the Dominion, and more specifically the Dominion War, that brought out the worst in people, and the Romulans were just the ones who were made to pay for not doing what some within the Federation wanted them to do.

 

Haha Excellent! I love Brian Blessed!

 

It was the right thing to do! If he hadn't, Spock would have died permanently and Earth would have been destroyed (or at least rendered uninhabitable).

Troi was super-annoying. The writing for her was all over the map, and her accent became increasingly sloppy and drawly as the seasons progressed. It really grated on the ears.

As for the post-Voyager series, I tried most of them and didn't like them. I haven't even seen all of Enterprise, and don't care. DiscoTrek was a nightmare of a bad premise and awful acting, and Picard lost me the moment Icheb was killed off (not that I liked it that much to begin with; I might have stayed with it because I like Seven, but they crossed a line).

So for me, Star Trek mostly ended with Voyager. I will grant, however, that I enjoyed the Mirror universe episode. That was well done.

I put a link in the fanfiction recommendation thread in the fanfiction subforum. I try not to discuss specifics of fanfic in the other Trek threads because it A. annoys the moderators; and B. one never knows when any of the tie-in authors might be reading.

If you're really curious, feel free to drop me a PM. I certainly don't mind recommending good stories.

Just a recommendation here: You've posted four comments in a row, which will annoy the moderators when they see it. If you want to reply to multiple people at once, use the multiquote function (the +Quote you see next to Reply).

(and yes, Brian Blessed is amazing )

 

Welcome aboard!

DS9, I feel, is the closest in spirit to TOS than any other spinoff. The people that inhabit that show are just people doing the best they can in a less than ideal region. It was full of excellent characters that felt real.

DS9 certainly challenged a lot of the ideals of the Federation and STAR TREK at its core. And that's a good thing. High ideals and morals should be able to be challenged.

Another point about DS9 that I always loved... it's the truest to the spirit of the franchise itself. You have a station manned by a wide variety of races and cultures, not the least of which run by two different groups that have different ways of thinking on many subjects (Starfleet and Bajorans), but they are able work well together. And for the civilians, you have radically different cultures and values and beliefs, but they all work and live together.

Many of the lead characters are even outcasts of their own societies (Odo, Worf, Garak, Quark for a while), but they are welcomed and can thrive on DS9. What better message can there be for anyone than, "It doesn't matter that you don't belong in your society or don't fit in there... you are welcome here"? That, to me, is one of the core philosophies of the franchise, and DS9 exemplifies that better than any other series.

As an example, take the ending of "BODY PARTS" (next to last episode of season 4). Quark just got outcasted by the FCA, and he has now lost everything. Even the shirt he is wearing, because he has to 'send it to Brunt in the morning'. But then Bashir comes in with a case of alcohol, then Dax with glasses... and suddenly you have Sisko walking in with pretty much the entire station with tables and chairs and stuff to help Quark get back on his feet. It was a supremely touching scene... even Quark was speechless. It is one of THE scenes that best shows what the franchise, and DS9, is all about.

And while DS9 did have their dark episodes, TOS was full of the dark side, too. It's very first aired episode had their doctor be forced to kill the last member of a species. And a number of other endings were not puppies and kittens, either... a wife and unborn child stoned to death ("THE PARADISE SYNDROME"), possibly locking a planet into an endless civil war ("A PRIVATE LITTLE WAR"), condemning a person for eternity to a fight with a madman ("THE ALTERNATIVE FACTOR"), marooning a teenager to a life of no contact with another person ("CHARLIE X"), and more.

But DS9 had just as much light-hearted and fun episodes as they did dark, heavy ones. "LITTLE GREEN MEN", "TRIALS AND TRIBBLE-ATIONS", "OUR MAN BASHIR", "FASCINATION", "HIS WAY", "TAKE ME OUT TO THE HOLOSUITE", and many more. They were a very, very well balanced show.

 

Thank you! Great post too! I think yours is the 47th reply. All threads should congratulate the 47th post! I wonder how many people will get my joke. I'm assuming most will!

 

I guess about 47%.

 

If you're in a service under military discipline and you see it as very important that X action be taken, what's the best thing to do?

A. do you best to convince your superiors in the chain of command that X is very important

or

B. just grab whatever you need and whoever you need and go off on your own to do X?

 

TBF, Kirk did talk with Admiral Morrow first, but got shot down.

 

Admiral Ross figured correctly that some things Section 31 does are really vital, and Section 31 is too well-entrenched for one Admiral (and a doctor and a CPO) to get rid of, even if he made it his top priority.

So if your superior says no, you go ahead and do it anyway?

 

Whether some things S31 does are really vital is a debatable claim, but what's not debatable is that their activities in the episode were extrajudicial and likely illegal. To say that Ross is unequivocally "good" given his role in the matter strikes me as a dubious claim.

Granted it's out of scope, but the novelverse would expand upon just how deeply in bed with S31 Ross was.

You appeared to be claiming that Kirk just went off on his own; I was merely pointing out that Kirk did ask for permission first.

 

Even admirals have to pick their battles. Fighting Section 31 wasn't one he could win, so he concentrated on fighting the Dominion.

Are you saying that it's better to ask for permission and then go off on your own when permission is denied than it is just not to ask permission at all?

 

As has been mentioned, he did do his best to convince his superiors that X was very important.

As Kirk said, "The word is 'no'. I am therefore going anyway." It's not the first time he "therefore went anyway" in order to save Spock (does Amok Time ring any bells?).

Kirk was laboring under the misapprehension that his superiors had functioning brain cells and consciences. He discovered they didn't, so went ahead and did the right thing.

Consider what would have happened otherwise. Kirk asks permission to go to Genesis, is told no, and meekly says, "Okay." Spock dies with the Genesis planet and McCoy is locked up because he's still got Spock's katra in his mind and it's driving him insane.

Three standard months later the whale probe swings by Earth, and because Kirk, et. al aren't in a position to A. figure out what the probe wants; and B. take steps to make that happen, Earth is rendered powerless and scoured clean of its oceans and most people die (not to mention that 300 years in the past George and Gracie and her unborn calf also die because they were caught by the whalers).

Which scenario would you prefer?

 

So what? The question isn't whether Ross chose wisely by not engaging with S31; the question is whether he's a good person.

Obviously that depends on the context.

 

Star Trek ethics obviously since there are those who criticize the actions of Sisko in In The Pale Moonlight.
I don't!

I agree.

I agree here too

Roddenberry created Star Trek which was good and iIreally like him for that. But I don't see him as a god or something similar. He really had som weird ideas and it was good that some of them never becamre real.

That's true.

I think that we have the same story here.

I was against a retro series already from the start and ENT turned out to be even worse than expected. Bland characters (except for Trip and Porthos), bad stories and the constant screwing up of established Trek history. Not to mention that it didn't look pre-TOS at all, more like some alternate universe set after Voyager.

I found DSC downright horrible, even worse that ENT. Bad characters, bad acting, bad stories and those Ninja Mutant Turtles who were supposed to be Klingons made me turn my back to it after five episodes. I don't like the NuTrek movies either.

And PIC, what a disappointment! I'd been waiting for so long for a series set in the 24th century and when it finally arrives, it's just a mess of doom-and-gloom.

The way Icheb was killed of made me almost quit watching that series. I did watch a few episodes after that but safter a while I just gave up. As for Seven, for obvious reasons she wasn't my favorite on Voyager but I liked to see her show up in PIC. One of the few positive things with that show.

I will take a look at that. I need something good to read after all the disappointments I'd had with Trek Literature in the recent months. [/QUOTE]

Excellent comment about DS9!

 

Good person or not, he's a good admiral for winning the winnable Dominion War rather than letting himself get distracted by an unwinnable war against Section 31.

 

So...needs of the many? IDIC?

Ethics is a very broad term and not universal.

Context is for kings.

 

What you call good I call morally dubious. Also, you're speaking as though he's the only person who could have done anything about S31 so chose to deprioritize it, when he was just one person in a massive organization, including a whole lot of other admirals.