Do you think "Discovery" will take more chances than "DS9." did?

[Jayson1]

With all the talk of the show trying to be something new and going for a new visual style it made me wonder how this will be different from "DS9" when you could say it already tried to do that.

DS9 had the first black captain and also he also wasn't a captain when the show started. Plus I would argue he wasn't even the traditional lead we were use to but instead was more, apart of the ensemble instead of being someone who had to play a major role in almost every episodes.

The show had strong continuity. I wouldn't call them arcs but their was a progression in the show and the reset button wasn't pushed as much as in the other Trek shows.

With a alien space station you had completely new style of sets. Also the cinemaograpy was different, especially in the first 2 seasons. It was simply lit darker and not as bright.

The show took many chances within the franchise starting with non-starfleet characters as regulars,huge array of guest characters who were important,a more realistic look at Starfleet/Federation to a war and I am sure I am missing some things.

One big difference is this show really did to seem to be more intrested in still staying apart of the canon by using some established characters with the original actors in O'Brien/Worf and a some of the guest characters at times, and the starfleet look stayed the same for the most part.

How do ya think the "Discovery" changes will look in comparison? I mean the special effects will look more advanced and I think we might see more scope when it comes to alien planets but does anyone else expect any huge differences?

Jason

 

[Dukhat]

Considering the only "chance" DS9 took, IIRC, was to have some female-on-female kissy face and lesbian Mirror-Kira, I'd say DSC already has them beat with having a gay male main character.

 

[Michael]

Cue the “Deep Space Nine is overrated” posts. As a Niner I completely agree with everything you just said about the show, but as usual this kind of thread draws those type of people who think it's not all that great.

As for comparing Deep Space Nine to Discovery, I think we will have to wait and see. At this point it certainly looks like it will take some chances, just like Deep Space Nine. But we can only say for certain when we really watch the show.

 

[Jayson1]

Considering the only "chance" DS9 took, IIRC, was to have some female-on-female kissy face and lesbian Mirror-Kira, I'd say DSC already has them beat with having a gay male main character.

I agree that having a gay male regular is a big step in the right direction. Not even stating that gay people even existed was a major sin on all the Trek shows to be honest.
Still in other area's I still think "DS9" was bold for a Trek show at that time. Let's also not forget that "DS9" was taking a chance when "TNG" was still really popular. They could have easily phoned it in and went with a cheap copy instead of doing something the fans might not like, and frankly many of them must not have liked because it didn't get the ratings it deserved IMO.

"Discovery" has the advantage of coming at a time when Trek's popularity isn't what it once was. Some grew tired of it and others didn't like the movies. If you got that feeling with fans then it means people will be more open to risk and changes on a whole.

Jason

 

[CorporalClegg]

Considering the only "chance" DS9 took, IIRC, was to have some female-on-female kissy face and lesbian Mirror-Kira, I'd say DSC already has them beat with having a gay male main character.

That wasn't a chance so much as it was what Claudia Christian might call a "blatant ratings grab."

 

[Mage]

Considering the only "chance" DS9 took, IIRC, was to have some female-on-female kissy face and lesbian Mirror-Kira, I'd say DSC already has them beat with having a gay male main character.

For the time it was made in, DS9 did a lot of things that television wasn't doing a lot, not the points you mentioned. A dear friend of ours finished TNG a few weeks ago, and is now binging DS9. She already noted so many differences in the kind of stories and way of storytelling, for example.

It's easy to compare DS9 to contemporary shows and think it isn't bold. Looking at the early 90's though.... wow.

 

[cultcross]

That wasn't a chance so much as it was what Claudia Christian might call a "blatant ratings grab."

If a gay couple on Trek was a ratings grab, we'd have, well, had a gay couple on Trek. DS9 got enough crap over their halfway house cop out in Rejoined.

DS9 had some points that were objectively bold on TV at the time, but most of what makes DS9 different is that is different from other Star Trek, rather than being a standout show in the pantheon of nineties TV. It was on a station, had a (black) commander, who had a kid and played fast and loose with the rules from the start, it had non Starfleet main cast, it had an NCO, it had religion, it had story arcs, it had a traumatic backstory for the lead which generated conflict in the present between him and our, at the time, favorite Captain. Then it told stories about terrorists and politics and war, and put it's main characters in positions no Trek character had been in before, while maintaining a slightly tongue in cheek attitude which set it apart from its parent TNG and baby sister Voyager.

Nothing groundbreaking in the field of television there, but it set DS9 apart from all other Trek to date straight away. Like it or hate it, it's the most different Trek. Now, @Jayson1 question becomes - will Discovery surpass it on that front? We'll see. Personally, I suspect not, I'm expecting an updated version of the standard operating procedure, but it may be that it ends up being something quite out there. Initial points that suggest I might be wrong include not following the Captain, serialised storytelling, and two main ships.

 

[Mudd]

In a walk, yes.

Looking at TV drama in the early 90s, DS9 is very weak tea.

 

[Jayson1]

When you think about "Discovery" taking place on 2 different ships I could even argue that DS9 had sort of did that idea of multiple settings as well.
You had the season 6, 6-parter where you had stuff on the station and away from the station. In season 7 we would get stuff on the station and on Cardissia, via that bunker and later the resitance movement.

I would even argue the fact that some of the cliche nature of the stories sort of served the same function of what I think it might be like having a show with 2 ships. You could also go several ep's where nothing important happens at Op's is not all that different from the idea of how I heard that Burnham might not be on the bridge as much as past captains/leads.

Jason

 

[Michael]

In a walk, yes.

Looking at TV drama in the early 90s, DS9 is very weak tea.

I'm curious, how exactly do you suppose Discovery will set itself apart or break new ground when you look at TV drama of today?

 

[mattyhugh]

For Star Trek? Absolutely. For TV in general? No. It will be derivative of other shows that broke the crowd in the so called golden age of TV.

 

[dahj]

lesbian Mirror-Kira

Ugh, that was so freaking stupid.
Intendant Kira was straight in her first appearance, she was only into herself because she's a gigantic narcissist. And then they made her bi, because evil sadistic people have to have "evil" sexual appetites to show just how evil they are...

 

[Mudd]

I'm curious, how exactly do you suppose Discovery will set itself apart or break new ground when you look at TV drama of today?

I don't.

But it's certainly likely to be a more innovative show than the 90s Trek series, which was the question.

 

[Michael]

But it's certainly likely to be a more innovative show than the 90s Trek series, which was the question.

So you are weighing Deep Space Nine's merits as an innovative show against the merits of other 90s TV shows, but compare Discovery to the Star Trek of yesteryear. Doesn't seem fair to me.

 

[Mudd]

So you are weighing Deep Space Nine's merits as an innovative show against the merits of other 90s TV shows, but compare Discovery to the Star Trek of yesteryear. Doesn't seem fair to me.

It's a question, not a contest. I don't expect Discovery to set the world on fire, just as DS9 didn't. It does, however, look somewhat as if the producers are at least trying to keep pace with what's going on around them, and oldTrek just didn't.

We've lready got a topic going here about death in Discovery that uncovers a lot of anxiety that the producers just are not going to hold the hands of old-time fans who want their vision of "good Trek" to be validated by the new show; some confirmation that the old stuff went unnoticed, un-watched and finally disappeared by some oversight or accident of the times. It doesn't look like that's in the cards, really.

 

[Mage]

Ugh, that was so freaking stupid.
Intendant Kira was straight in her first appearance, she was only into herself because she's a gigantic narcissist. And then they made her bi, because evil sadistic people have to have "evil" sexual appetites to show just how evil they are...

You could make a whole argument about how some religions have taboo against being gay, and that perhaps this goes for the Bajoran faith aswell, and the reason she ultimatly fell for Odo is because even though he represents as male, he's basicly genderless, and Kira felt safe with this in regards of her faith.

Or (and I'm saying this as a person who knows several bi-sexual people), just because our Kira was never seen in a relationship with a woman, doesn't mean she doesn like women. She just never met a woman with the right personality she's atracted to. One of the bisexual women I know, admits to being both sexually atracted to women, having kissed women, but never actually had sex or a relationship with one. Simply because, she doesn't do one-nightstands and hasn't met a women with the kind of personality she likes AND was also into her.

I know, that's probably not how the writers were reasoning. But simply stating Intendant Kira was straight at first because she didn't kiss a woman in that episode, is asuming everyone's straight untill you see otherwise. One could simply not imply sexuality to someone at all.

 

[Spider]

All Star Trek TV shows had a few unbelievably great classic episodes, mixed with some horrible mind numbing crap that should have never made it to TV, and a whole bunch of mediocre to above average shows. It is a shows percentage of those above average shows that made or broke it for me.

And I don't want DSC to emulate DS9, because that would mean they'd have a character or two that are so silly and misconceived they can make watching the show on a weekly basis difficult. VOY had the same problem, and to a smaller extent, so did ENT. ENT, mostly, actually had good characters, but horribly ridiculous writing early on kind of muffled that.

I suppose I should include a "IMO" with that. LOL

 

[F. King Daniel]

I hope so.

 

[Mudd]

All Star Trek TV shows had a few unbelievably great classic episodes, mixed with some horrible mind numbing crap that should have never made it to TV, and a whole bunch of mediocre to above average shows. It is a shows percentage of those above average shows that made or broke it for me.

I sort of agree, but rather than a percentage what makes or breaks it for me is just how good I feel the really good episodes are. I'll sit through a lot of mediocrity without too much resentment if my experience leads me to expect something really brilliant occasionally...because "really brilliant" isn't delivered by much of anyone on a reliable basis.

 

[BillJ]

It was simply lit darker and not as bright.

Early TNG was lit darkly as well, when the story called for it. They dumped it come season three.

As far as the question at hand? I don't think DS9 took any more chances than TOS did.