Also, highly debatable.
Which is funny because I believe Ira Steven Behr started on TNG.
News Kurtzman: Spock And Filling In Canon
- Thread starter AutoAdmin
- Start date
As did Ron Moore. And Rick Berman created the damn thing!
Doesn't mean he liked it! A big part of DS9 was deconstructing TNG utopia. Some people liked that, I most definitely didn't!
No it isn't.
it could "not be" if it were merely a series set in the Tr ek universe earli er than TOS. Like ENT. I thought a true prequel sets up the installment that is later in-universe. Not a show simply set earlier.
So let me rephrase. Was DSC originally intended to be so integrated with, and such a setup to,TOS (my def of "prequel")?
O r originally mainly just a show set earlier than TOS?
UPDATE: Sorry, I hadn't read alll the responses in thread before replying. I see the answer above.
Question: does anyone else share my def of prequel meaning specifically setting up a "later" installment as opposed to a show or film merely set earlier in a universe (thuse ENT wouldn't really be a prequel to TOS?)
Last edited:
No idea. But the latter is how I define a prequel.
Though it seems there was always going to be some integration with TOS. But I don't think the show is meant to "set up" TOS. One of ENT's failing was too much concentration on doing that.
I don't understand the dislike for Section 31. Section 31 is maybe one of the greatest diea's DS9 conceived off. It was something that grounded Starfleet into a more realistic way. Plus all black outfits always look cool. I like the idea of seeing how they go from been a official part of "Starfleet" which they were in the beginning and even in "Enterprise" to being a kind of rogue group that still kind of works for Starfleet but not in a official capacity.
Jason
Jason
There was absolutely no need for that sort of nihilism disguised as realism in Star Trek. S31 means that Federation is a lie. It is the single worst idea ever introduced in the setting. Granted, it was fine when it all could have been just bullshit spun by Sloane, but it didn't stop there. There is a subset of fans (and writers!) who would rather have Terran Empire than the Federation, and who find this sort of puerile edginess appealing.
Technically, GR didn't like TOS as he got older.
Also, there is a difference between deconstruction and challenging. I think that DS9 took the idea of putting the Federation through challenges to see how it handled them. I don't see that as deconstructive. I see that as an opportunity to show the strengths of the Federation due to those challenges.
They were outmanoeuvred by Section 13
It's only nihilism if most of the main characters feel like it is a good thing IMO. Sisko and everyone was against it. Section 31 was never treated as the good guys. They were at best seen as a necessary evil but even then you have Sloan talk about how even though Starfleet needs people like him they also need people like Bashir. It's something I think we as the audience are suppose to ponder and think about which to me is what Trek is good at. Making people ponder interesting idea's.
Jason
It could have been that but that's not what happened. If they had wanted to do that then Federation would have prevailed by its virtues, not by the main character Captain engaging in a murderous conspiracy or the S31 poisoning the enemy leaders. If it had been a show about the Federation defeating the dominion by showing the Jem'Hadar and the Vorta that they wouldn't need their false gods and could take charge of their own lives and build a better society, then it would have been different.
The Federation doesn't need people like S31. If it does, then it is a lie. And Sisko was a murderous shit, he was no better than S31. If the show makes you ponder whether or not we need clandestine fascist assassins, then it is not a good message!
Even Starfleet and the Federation hasn't defeated all enemies that way. From the beginning, Starfleet has engaged in subterfuge to accomplish its ends, from Kirk and Spock, to Picard, Worf and Crusher with the Cardassians.
The Federation did try to show the Vorta and the Jem'Hadar that they didn't need the Founders. And that failed. What would you have the Federation do then?
It is a good message and makes you think. It is not as painfully obvious to everyone that assassination is some how wrong.
What about Bashir and Co. trying to stop Section 31 from killing the Founders? Getting the cure for the poison S31 gave them?
They defeated the Dominion by offering the cure.
I think you completely missed the point.
They defeated the Dominion by offering the cure.
And the show never says they do.
I think you completely missed the point.
But that only failed because the writers chose to write it so!
If your starting position was in favour of fascist assassins, then no amount of Star Trek (even TNG!) is gonna help you. What they did was to manage to show something that should be unequivocally wrong as maybe OK in certain light.
I always saw the point of Section 31 as being the difference between being pragmatic and being idealisitc. When does one of these go so far that they cross the line into being something that hurts or helps the people. In the same way you can be to pragmatic you can be so idealistic that you can run the risk of being naive. The answer is we will never know the answer. It is a question that people will always need to ask and keep aware of. Not having a answer is often a great answer in allegory because that is how I think things are like in real life.
Jason
Jason
Bashir is a hero, no question about that.
They used it as a bargaining chip. The Federation didn't give the cure until the war was won. So they embraced S31 tactics.
Also, I think I said in another thread that I don't want to get drawn into yet one of these discussions about amoral assholes in Star Trek, yet here we are again. I think this derail should end.
What is your opinion about Sisko. Do you like Sisko?
Similar threads
