First of all, I have probably not seen even half of DS9. I'm however planning to see more soon when I'm done with my third, nocturnal TNG marathon. However, all over the web I see DS9 being epithetized as "the thinking man's Star Trek" by its fans. I do not demur to that characterization, absolutely not, it's just that such a title indicates a perceived dearth of it in the other shows, which couldn't be more wrong concerning the predecessors. I find VOY and ENT to be crappy and lacking in so many different squadrons that the intravenous essence of Star Trek is gone. DS9 however is a fine show with the prevalence of political intrigues and moral dilemmas. Yet, of the episodes I've seen as a kid and adult, I do not find DS9 (only in collation) to be so multi-layeres, astute or elliptic such as TNG and especially TOS. Beneath the obivous layers of allegories and gists, there was not to rarely an intimate backyard of other meanings and straws to discern. I do not remember DS9 as being entirely concordant in volumes there. As I said, this is only in comparison. Nevertheless, my question is: How come people frequently refer to DS9 as "thinking man's Star Trek" while they do not title the other shows like that? Are there any specific reasons for this or is it just an Internet phenomenon e.g. one person alluded to it like that once and then others started doing it too? Or has these people only seen DS9, VOY and ENT. I'm not aversing it's warrancy of that characterization, I'm just wondering why those people don't seem to descry the other series like that.
I've never seen or heard of DS9 being referred to as "The Thinking Man's Star Trek" that I recall. A couple of things that set DS9 apart: 1. Beyond S3 it becomes quite serialized, and does a pretty good job of not contradicting it's own Continuity most of the time 2. DS9 had darker portrayals then the other series (Though ENT S3 did also potray some unexpected darkness). There was some heavy stuff that occurred throught the 7 seasons, and often (Though, not always, there still was a fair amount that was dropped/forgotten about when the episode ended), there was reprecussions that flowed through to future episodes, unlike the Other Series, which almost always forgot about what happened in previous episodes.
Not ubiquitously but if you google the phrase you'll see that most results adhere to DS9. If you ignore some book reviews, all results adhere to DS9. "the thinking man's star trek" https://www.google.se/search?hl=sv&....0.181.3014.12j18.30.0...0.0...1c.GmDrkHYPFzY Just listen to this. This guy insinuates it's a very usual demarcation of the show. http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62143&PN=2 And watch out for/ignore the 12th result. Just another rant by me.
I hadn't heard the phrase, either. If we're going to use it, I think it applies just as much to parts of TNG. And IMO, it's a compliment, not an epithet.
Sorry. In my language, an epithet is a neutral term, an attribute, a characterization. Not any negative connotations whatsoever.
I'm used to hearing it used negatively -- for instance, describing certain words as racial epithets. But I just checked the dictionary, and it can be used neutrally in English, too, just as you describe. I learned something new this evening!
I think it's the best of the Rick Berman-produced shows, but I've never heard it called "the thinking man's Star Trek" until now.
It's possible that if it is being considered the "Thinking man's Star Trek" that it is mainly due to the way the show forces the character's to face the consequences of their actions in an arc format. Things don't just go away after the credit's roll. The issues will usually resurface in some other facet that forces the audience to file a certain situation or decision made in their memory because it will likely drive the story at a later date. In the other shows we generally had a formulaic teaser, introduction of a situation, a critical juncture where the situation becomes almost unmanageable and then a dramatic solution. Toss in a little levity on the bridge and the lesson learned for the day and warp to the next episode.
Like a lot of people on here, I have never heard DS9 referred to that way. But even if it was, I don't see how it would be the "thinking man's" Trek.
I guess you are right. Another possibility I've thought of is that the intrigues, allegories and the punchlines are sometimes very lucid and well-exposed. While TNG and TOS are certainly not complicated, they do tend to be comparatively more subtle and somewhat obfuscatory and nebulous while I've found DS9 often seems more limpid on this point. Not all people digests the cerebral attributes of TOS and TNG, but since it's more emphasized in DS9, maybe DS9 is a little more perceivable to more people? I always thought of DS9 and TNG as two different secessions of the original series. TNG I think inherited the conceptual strength to more dispersive extents than DS9, while DS9 augmented the space opera elements of the original series which were diminished in its older sibling. TOS was a melange of space opera and "hard science fiction" while DS9 and TNG respectively emphasized one of these things more than the other.
Well there is more subtext in TOS. Whereas DS9 flat out told us "this is subtext". Which made it a lot less sutexty.
So I guess, it's obtuse people who calls DS9 "the thinking man's Star Trek"? Is that what you mean? Unless the quality of what DS9 yells us straight to our faces is in parity with the quality of that which TOS whispers to us. Would you say that although it's is so lambently elucidated in DS9, that the overall quality of those thoughts, ideas and meanings are on par with TOS or TNG? Or is DS9, not only more expository, but also more frivolous?
There's subtext in TOS!? To me TOS has the sophistication of one of those 80's cartoons that sit you down at the end and tell you the moral of the story.
Rose colored glasses to be sure. I think that TNG and DS9 presented as much subtext if not more than TOS.
DS9 is not any more cerebral than any other ST show. But it has much better characters, chemistry between the actors, a lot of compelling story and character arcs. It's just a wonderful show. Characters like Worf, who had been pretty much 1-dimensional in TNG, suddenly became very interesting characters on that show.
Then you're clearly missing it or not wanting to see it. As I said in my original post (cited below), many episodes in TOS and TNG are multilateral, like a coin. If you flip it over you can see another meaning than the one you thought was being emitted. And of course, it's mostly not just the episodes as totalities. A lot of gists are seen through allegories and implications in separate scenes. I do not see that in most episodes of DS9. Although I could just have seen the wrong episodes. But I still like DS9 for other qualities in the writing. The interpersonal developments are definitely among the best in any Star Trek series. However, often finding myself being a (sometimes exorbitant) conceptualist as a cineast, I tend to venerate and be galvanized by such parameters to higher extents. For me, ideas and formations can be more important than other properties and factual results. You don't want to know what kind of movies I might panegyrize, entirely based on conceptions rather than results or other more important factors. For that reason, despite my lifelong affection for the cinema, I'd be an abominable reviewer. Especially if I were to review the latest Hollywood hits.