DS 9 is the most cerebral series of them all

As opposed to Kirk being the super-duper white man that saves the world?

What part of Gabriel Bell is a terrorist? Or is there another episode I'm missing?

 

Taking police officers hostage would qualify.



=

 

That doesn't make someone a terrorist. (Plus, I don't think any of the hostages were police officers anyway.)

 

The impression I get was that BC took the hostages and Bell was swept along with events, ultimately using it as a means of changing the unjust system rather than as an instrument of terror. So I'd say more a "revolutionary" or "activist" than terrorist.

 

Of course DS9 is more cerebral. It follows numerous intelligent threads, utilising a large cast of disperate characters and covered war, political intrigue, espionage, terrorism, racism, religion, post-occupation relations and pulled at a myriad of other fascinating strands.

It also looked deeper into the nature of Federation economy (which I personally liked a lot).

The idea that anyone would accuse it of being the least cerebral is hilarious. TNG is the loveboat in space, Voyager is painfully episodic and the less said about Enterprise, the better.

 

All of that is melodrama. Nothing more. Not that that's bad, but let's not make it more than it was.

 

Who's making it more than it was?

It was melodrama that explored more interesting themes in a non-episodic style using a greater number of characters. Ergo, more cerebral than the other shows which basically consisted of a monster of the week and something called... making it so.

 

Everybody calling it cerebral is making it more than it was. DS9 (while a good show, don't get me wrong) was all about taking the Star Trek concept, and turning it on it's head. "Challenging assumptions", as Ron Moore was obssesed with. Cerebral means exploring ideas. TOS and TNG were cerebral. DS9 was melodrama, which means looking at characters and their (sometimes overly dramatic) emotional reactions to things.

 

TOS and TNG generally stopped short when exploring many of its ideas. Economics, for example, were portrayed in an idealized manner without exploring the consequences thereof. At least DS9 pursued the meaning of economics without money more fully (though not necessarily completely) than those previous series. TOS and TNG tended to also have a soft take on warfare: often conflicts were resolved with a small amount of technological trickery. In DS9 it could not be resolved without perseverance and personal interaction.

Was it more cerebral? Considering what science fiction is considered cerebral (like 2001), I would say no. However, it was very analytical and thoughtful.

 

Like I said. Hilarious.

Exploration of characters is exactly why it was a more cerebral journey. TNG was a lecture (and a boring one at that). DS9 was dirty , grubby people revealing their dirty, grubby thoughts. I recognised them.

I recognised no-one in TNG.

 

I tend to make a distinction between intelligent and cerebral. Issues of politics, racism and terrorism are all rather practical concerns. And while it's possible to say very intelligent things about those issues (which DS9 did), I wouldn't consider that cerebral. When I think cerebral I think of taking a difficult philosophical concept and trying to wrap your mind around it. I think of things like questioning whether a machine can be sentient, if transporter fusions really new people, or explaining linear time to aliens who don't understand it. DS9 tackled these issues from time to time but much more often their concerns were practical, how do we deal with the Dominion, how should religion and politics mix, is terrorism ever justified, and so on. DS9 had a lot of intelligent things to say on those issues and in fact I think that it is the best written of any Star Trek show, but I wouldn't characterize it as cerebral.

 

"Cerebral" is just a term Roddenberry used when quoting NBC executives on "The Cage". Trekkies run with it to feel good about their viewing choice.

Each "Star Trek" series on the whole (TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT) is just as cerebral, goofy, nerdy & escapist entertainment as the others. They're each well-made TV shows.

Of course a DS9 fans wants to say DS9 is the "most cerebral" to be elitist about their favorite series; a lot of DS9 fans want the world to believe it's the best show of them all and nevery miss an opportunity to say as much. Although each Trek series is a little different, lets celebrate they're all good, and about the same quality, & are good entertainment. You might have a preference, but to say DS9 is the most cerebral is silly now.

 

Yes, this. Exactly. Thank you.

That's the one word that could have killed Trek before it ever saw the light of day.

 

Cerebral? Oh my, no. I would call very little of the Star Trek franchise cerebral. The philosophical concepts Star Trek touched on were often done in a ham-handed, "pop up" storybook sort of way. Star Trek is cerebral in the same way that Star Wars is a treatise on real world physics.

 

No, it isn't.

Voyager is my favourite by a long way (so your theory is instantly nonsensical) but any dick banjo can see that DS9 explores far more interesting themes than the other shows specifically because it is a far more character driven show which embraces an ongoing narrative.

You've got the war and it's pollitics. You have a greater exploration of Klingon, Ferengi, Bajoran, Cardassian culture, a closer analyses of the so-called paradise and it's darker side, a deeper look into religion, bigotry and equality, a show that doesn't pretend that we all just forgot that racism was a thing, a show that peeled away the wafer-thin veneer of Federation utopianism and peeked underneath to see the hand of Section 31 working away, a show that looked at itself and its own reputation and chose not to be as reverential.

It was more "cerebral" because it asked you to look at more than just the usual Trek ham.

Those who don't see that are probably people who take offence at its utter lack of respect for the "bettering ourselves" gibberish.

We can all come up with bullshit theories.

 

Isn't "character driven" by definition more emotionally based which is, purely by definition, not cerebral?

I realize this may just be splitting hairs, and DS9 really was a smart and engaging show. I'd say it was the most character driven of any Trek as well. But cerebral is a tougher word to justify.

 

One doesn't preclude the other. Besides, DS9 had 176 episodes. Plenty of time to be character driven and cerebral.

 

When did character driven exclusively mean emotional?

DS9 explored character driven stories using the framework of an ongoing narrative that required the audience to THINK about the numerous threads and relationships being followed. The other shows didn't ask this of the audience at all.

Hence more cerebral.

The thread title is MOST cerebral in the series. Anyone suggesting that the other shows in the franchise required the audiuence to engage their brain in the same way that DS9 did... is being ridiculous.

Most cerebral doesn't mean better so if that's what's bothering people, chillax.