Quote for truth.it's become clear that the show is at its' best when it really begins to explore the situations that are unique to its' premise
I'm glad you are enjoying the series. It gets better from here.Considering he passed away in October 1991, and the show debuted in January 1993, does anyone know what if any influence Roddenberry had (or tried to have), if any, on the show's development. When you factor in the character conflicts that exist and the heavy religious element, there's a big part of me that suspects Roddenberry would've hated this show, but I could be wrong.
A little over a year ago, I started this thread in the DSC forum:
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/should-i-give-discovery-another-chance.292885/
I asked if I should consider giving DSC another chance, having quit six episodes into Season One. Despite a litany of opinions on either side of the matter, I ultimately never revisited DSC. Whether technical achievements the show has going for it, the storytelling felt very superficial. I wasn't invested in the characters or their stories the way I ideally should be.
So, what does that have to do with DS9?
Until last night (May 19th, as I write this), I had never seen an enitre episode of DS9 beyond "Emissary". I distinctly remember watching it with my dad on the old TV in my parents' bedroom when it first aired in January 1993. I didn't remember anything about the plot other the opening scene at Wolf 359. I seem to recall liking it, but Dad and I didn't hang with show. I remember years later catching part of Take Me Out to the Holosuite, while doing some chores. Until now, that was the extent of my DS9 viewing experience.
After being disappointed with DSC, I realized I still had an entirely new series to watch from the beginning. Admittedly, I wasn't sure about how much I would enjoy DS9, as my disappointment with DSC made me wonder if there was anything left in Star Trek worth finding.
Being only two episodes in, I can say that DS9 has managed to grab me in a way DSC had been at most partially successful after six episodes. The storytelling and the characterizations feel sharper; DS9 uses its' storytelling to make its' points, whereas DSC often felt like storytelling was sacrificed in order for the point to be made.
I plan to keep this thread ongoing, if only perhaps to record my own experience with a new (old) series that made me think Star Trek still had something to offer when DSC made me question that.
Babylon 5 may have been a big unacknowledged influence, the new DS9 documentary doesn't make any mention of. I would have liked to have seen something of that controversy covered in the documentary, but its not surprising to me it wasn't. This is one of the major questions or mysteries about DS9, the extent of the influence Babylon 5 had on its development.I'm glad you are enjoying the series. It gets better from here.
As per Roddenberry's influence, he made sure Paramount continued to send checks to his estate. Berman and Piller discussed ideas with him, but I don't think that they got far into development by the time Roddenberry past away. Even at that point, his health (and other problems) meant that he wasn't a capable collaborator. The things that made DS9 distinct were the frustrations of the TNG writers who felt overly restricted by Roddenberry's rules. Some of them, like Ira Steven Behr and Ron Moore, were fans of the original Star Trek series, over which Roddenberry exercised less control and was defined by other showrunners..
Perhaps one of the big influences on the series--perhaps the best--was Brandon Tartikoff. He wanted Berman to do a series about a widowed man and his son living on the frontier in space. It didn't even need to be Star Trek. It was basically a modernization of The Rifleman. This would also stand in contrast to how Roddenberry preferred to portray family.
No, it didn't need to.Babylon 5 may have been a big unacknowledged influence, the new DS9 documentary doesn't make any mention of. I would have liked to have seen something of that controversy covered in the documentary, but its not surprising to me it wasn't. This is one of the major questions or mysteries about DS9, the extent of the influence Babylon 5 had on its development.
Perhaps one of the big influences on the series--perhaps the best--was Brandon Tartikoff. He wanted Berman to do a series about a widowed man and his son living on the frontier in space. It didn't even need to be Star Trek. It was basically a modernization of The Rifleman. This would also stand in contrast to how Roddenberry preferred to portray family.
The imprint of The Rifleman on "Emissary" is so big that it makes accusations that Babylon 5 was plagiarized look extremely silly.I hadn't thought about it, but The Rifleman influence makes sense. You can draw a distinct parallel between Lucas & Mark McCain and Benjamin & Jake Sisko. A loving and attentive, widowed father of a young son who is hitting adolescence, helping the locals to keep the peace on the frontier.
As well-done as it was, more importantly, "Duet" was a necessary episode. The audience needed to see the Occupation of Bajor from the other side. What on earth could possibly motivate, and attempt to justify, such brutality? In turn, we see how such brutality can create callousness (and even pride) in others. Harris Yulin really sells the "persona" of Gul Darhe'el.I'm curious what you thought of 'Duet'.
"Duet" is one of the best DS9 episodes.As well-done as it was, more importantly, "Duet" was a necessary episode. The audience needed to see the Occupation of Bajor from the other side. What on earth could possibly motivate, and attempt to justify, such brutality? In turn, we see how such brutality can create callousness (and even pride) in others. Harris Yulin really sells the "persona" of Gul Darhe'el.
I appreciate that the episode also takes time (briefly) to address the brutality of survival; Kira acknowledges that she did things she regrets in the fight for liberation. These are clearly still a sore subject for her, especially if you consider she has had to justify them to herself even if they seemed wrong.
When the big revelation comes that Darhe'el is Marritza, returning to atone for the crimes of his people, it makes the Cardassians more than just mustache-twirling villains. His need to atone to save his people from themselves, makes you realize that someone mired in some brutality can realize that change is possible, but only if the need to change is recognized. Marritza knows his people will suffer if they don't turn from the brutality, but in himself, he still represents the potential for change and the courage to face one's past, even if one considers oneself to be a coward.
It is. DS9 was one of the few shows in the 90s addressing topics of international politics like genocide, occupation, and war crimes."Duet" is one of the best DS9 episodes.![]()
If I'm not mistaken (haven't seen Duet in a while), wasn't Amin Marritza posing as Darheel but not actually him?
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.