Deep Space Nine without Star Trek

[Bad Thoughts]

How would you feel about Deep Space Nine if it had not been a "Star Trek" series, or had been related to Star Trek without clearly being in the Star Trek universe? What if it was merely a series that crossed over with Star Trek series?

Increasingly, I've come to feel that a perspective in which the idea of TOS,TNG, DS9,VOY, ENT, and DISCO being all part of this singular universe, wherein there is a tight continuity, is not only limiting, but it is also too fractious. There are too many conversations about what is really Star Trek, when in fact each series had its own approach to the question. Indeed, too often what is Trek means what is TNG. I've found it more fruitful to think of the franchise as independent series that often overlapped. I'm not trying to say we should consider DS9 not Star Trek, but how would you feel if it had not been?

 

[Discofan]

I think I would have judged DS9 on its own merit, just as I do now. It wouldn't take much to make it a non-ST series btw. Just eliminate the few allusions to the other series of which there aren't many. Change a few names, change the names of the "races" and modify some of the disguises. And there you go, there are so many ways in which DS9 is radically different from the other shows that it wouldn't matter much. Sisko's approach to most problems, for example, is definitely not star fleet, sometimes it's even downright insane (like when he orders Worf to bombard a planet with children on it) I am surprised that star fleet would stand for that and not relieve him and court-martial him right away!

 

[Riker'sMailbox]

I suppose that it is different enough from the other series that my opinion on it would be pretty similar to what it is now. My POV may be a bit different since I have only seen TNG and DS9 in their entirety. I am now struggling to get through VOY, but I am only 3 seasons into it. I can easily separate TNG and DS9, they are two entirely different shows with entirely different world views, types of character and plotlines.

That said, I am glad they exist in-universe. I don't think the show would have been as successful for me if I did not already know much of the rich culture of the Klingons or the Machiavellian manner of the Romulans. This enhanced DS9. I also quite enjoyed seeing how far Sisko would take his Federation sensibilities when faced with very unique challenges.

 

[The Wormhole]

How would you feel about Deep Space Nine if it had not been a "Star Trek" series

So, in other words, Babylon 5.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

Boundaries can help fuel creativity, which DS9 did wonderfully as part of the Trek universe--if anything it probably did me re to deepen and enrich the setting than any other the other shows.

 

[BillJ]

Very few would care about it now.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

So, in other words, Babylon 5.

Removing "Star Trek" from the title would turn it automatically into a hamfisted, emotionless retread of Tolkien?

Fascinating.

 

[Discofan]

Removing "Star Trek" from the title would turn it automatically into a hamfisted, emotionless retread of Tolkien?

Fascinating.

Mostly due to Avery Brooks's scenery chewing.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

Mostly due to Avery Brooks's scenery chewing.

He is considerable better than Michael O'Hare or Bruce Boxleitner combined.

 

[Discofan]

He is considerable better than Michael O'Hare or Bruce Boxleitner combined.

Michael O'Hare left for mental issues. Did you know that?

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

Michael O'Hare left for mental issues. Did you know that?

Firstly, it's more appropriate to refer to it as mental health issues, mental issues makes it sound like he was insane.

Secondly, of course I knew that, it's now well known following his passing.

Thirdly, what in my statement called into question the mans mental health? Despite 25 years of acting prior to B5 he didn't sell the character to me, whilst Boxleitner had moments of Shatner-worthy haminess. Brooks was a far more capable actor than the both of them, IMHO.

 

[Discofan]

Firstly, it's more appropriate to refer to it as mental health issues, mental issues makes it sound like he was insane.

Secondly, of course I knew that, it's now well known following his passing.

Thirdly, what in my statement called into question the mans mental health? Despite 25 years of acting prior to B5 he didn't sell the character to me, whilst Boxleitner had moments of Shatner-worthy haminess. Brooks was a far more capable actor than the both of them, IMHO.

Brooks is far better at playing the bad guy IMO. When he plays the good guy, he's like a fish out of water. You can see it in his demeanor.

Tell you what, the episode with the rivalry between him and Michael Edington, it would have been more credible if he was the maquis renegade and Edington the Star fleet captain.

 

[Markonian]

Not Star Trek? Probably wouldn’t have watched it or would not watch it anymore. I embrace every iteration of Trek because I’m a Trek fan.
With third party Sci-Fi in very picky. It’s not a quality judgment.

 

[STEPhon IT]

So, in other words, Babylon 5.

Paramount should've green lit JMS Babylon 5 than ape off of it. I think DS9 was better off keeping the fanwank stuff away from the show and staying with it's premise. Far away from Federation territory where we would rarely see the Klingons or what was seen on TOS and TNG. Explore a new part of the Galaxy while new aliens come to them.

Two seasons of the concept and done. Back to the gravy train formula but with more explosions!!! I felt Babylon 5 was more in tune to Star Trek than DS9.

 

[BillJ]

I felt Babylon 5 was more in tune to Star Trek than DS9.

Yep. I'm at a point where I need something more than arrowhead badges and Klingons to think something as "Star Trek".

 

[Spot261]

Removing "Star Trek" from the title would turn it automatically into a hamfisted, emotionless retread of Tolkien?

Fascinating.

Except according to many sources that's exactly what happened, DS9 was what came about when Paramount were shown the B5 bible and decided to make their own version with the "trek" label attached.

Of course, if you genuinely believe a "hamfisted, emotionless retread of Tolkien" is all B5 was, then I suggest you give it an open minded rewatch.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

Except according to many sources that's exactly what happened, DS9 was what came about when Paramount were shown the B5 bible and decided to make their own version with the "trek" label attached.

Of course, if you genuinely believe a "hamfisted, emotionless retread of Tolkien" is all B5 was, then I suggest you give it an open minded rewatch.

I have watched. It's good, but also flawed. And no, Paramount did not steal it. JMS did not invent space stations or epic quests or jump gates. The fact that JMS shopped his idea around is immaterial. Indeed, there is plenty of evidence of how DS9 emerged from the particular experiences of writers and producers within TNG from its earliest days, particular their resistance to the limitations GR placed on them. The only evidence that JMS ever presented that his ideas were stolen was his hurt butt.

ETA: If you want to argue that Piller and Berman ripped something off, you would have a much stronger case with regards to The Rifleman. Watch the first several episodes. You'll see what I mean.

 

[Spot261]

I have watched. It's good, but also flawed. And no, Paramount did not steal it. JMS did not invent space stations or epic quests or jump gates. The fact that JMS shopped his idea around is immaterial. Indeed, there is plenty of evidence of how DS9 emerged from the particular experiences of writers and producers within TNG from its earliest days, particular their resistance to the limitations GR placed on them. The only evidence that JMS ever presented that his ideas were stolen was his hurt butt.

ETA: If you want to argue that Piller and Berman ripped something off, you would have a much stronger case with regards to The Rifleman. Watch the first several episodes. You'll see what I mean.

No it can't be proved, but it doesn't change the fact that there are so many parallels between the two that "DS9 without Star Trek" could easily be said to be B5

 

[BillJ]

No it can't be proved, but it doesn't change the fact that there are so many parallels between the two that "DS9 without Star Trek" could easily be said to be B5

Space station next to a wormhole with the lead as a religious figure? C'mon. Totally different!

 

[suarezguy]

Increasingly, I've come to feel that a perspective in which the idea of TOS,TNG, DS9,VOY, ENT, and DISCO being all part of this singular universe, wherein there is a tight continuity, is not only limiting, but it is also too fractious. There are too many conversations about what is really Star Trek, when in fact each series had its own approach to the question.

Somewhat different emphases, I don't think whole different approaches. In particular Voyager was created and run by the people who ran the bulk of TNG (Piller/Taylor and Braga) so pretty similar approach.

I'm not trying to say we should consider DS9 not Star Trek, but how would you feel if it had not been?

I rarely think of something like this this but I think I would like it less. The [Ferengi] and [Starfleet] would feel so similar to the Ferengi and Starfleet that them not being the same would feel like a ripoff (and the differences would probably be to making the new ones a little less likeable). DS9 does often feel pretty iconoclastic so it being iconoclastic to another series it was more attacking, rather than its own parent series it was just critiquing, would probably feel even more sour and less pleasant.