The Eternal Question: TNG or DS9
- Thread starter Spirit of 73
- Start date
What was needed was a real genuine Cardassian 
, like Gul Madred (how many lights?), to keep everyone in line. You don't mess around with a Gul Madred, a TNG character btw.
There's a great moment in "The Naked Time" where a frustrated Kirk snaps at Uhura, who snaps back at him. "I'm doing the best I can, sir!"
But then they both take a deep breath and regain their composure. I love moments like that. Makes the the characters seem more believable, despite the far-future setting.
Last edited:
DS9 has epic characters with surprising developments like Damar, Kira, Dukat, Weyoun. Some TNG character remained bland. Reg Barclay finally got character improvement and development in Voyager without being only a socially clumsy fellow. TNG focused on the big three Picard - Riker - Data. DS9 had a more diverse cast. That's why I love it more.
It's funny because I was just watching this episode and I was struck at the range of emotions often expressed, even in very desperate situations.
If memory doesn't fail....
I think I have always thought TNG as the winner out of these two.
I think I have always thought TNG as the winner out of these two.
Yes. This attitude is apparent in DS9 and it soured the series for me. As I said earlier, it is a show made by people who don't like TNG for people who don't like TNG. And I very much like TNG!
As for TNGs portrayal of the future I think it is the only Trek show who actually tries to do it realistically. People say that they find DS9 more realistic, but those people lack vision and understanding of history. Realistic future is not just people like people are today, except with rayguns. (Or WWII-era people with rayguns, as DS9's laughable portrayal of planetary warfare would suggest!) Think about how people thought and behaved three hundred years ago. Their views on gender, race and many other topics would feel pretty damn barbaric to us. They still burned witches! So people from hundreds of years from now shouldn't feel like the people of today; that would be highly unrealistic! TNG actually tries to portray a genuine social progress.
The first is portraying a rational and principled stance, the latter is embarrassing creationist apologia. Its pretty clear that TNG one is superior and more courageous take on the topic.
Last edited:
And would be fairly inaccessible to many viewers today. That's why TNG's elitism always rubbed me the wrong way, as did Gene Roddenberry's view on future humanity as shown in TNG.
There is realistic, but there is also crafting entertainment, and TNG's elitist snobbery of evolved humanity isn't entertaining. There's a fine balance to be struck, and I don't know if Star Trek ever fully achieved it. TOS was close to it, since it allowed imperfections in humanity (Styles, Kodos, Mudd), while encouraging collaboration among the crew. Obviously, very much a product of the time so certainly not perfect.
I think that looking at Star Trek to portray realistic future humanity is incredibly difficult, since imagining what future humanity might be like is quite difficult, much like humans imagining us now, 300 years before. And we are trying to tell stories that are relatable to current humans, so presenting them as completely unrelatable is a failure of storytelling.
TNG is the most popular of the Trek spin-off shows, so obviously it worked for a lot of people just fine. I find the idea that we could someday reach the sort of social progress like depicted in TNG inspiring; I find Picard's conviction inspiring. And so did many others, and that's why they're bringing him back. There is enough cynicism in the real world, so I don't really need that in my Star Trek.
That's fair and I'm glad you and others are getting Picard back
I just don't think its for everyone or that all Trek must be like it. And including negative aspects of humanity doesn't automatically mean cynicism.
I'm still working my way through TNG again, because of Star Trek: Picard. After that, I'll run through DS9 again. I'll have an updated perspective of both series instead of relying off of faded memory, which I've been doing since I came back here two years ago.
My take so far:
The first season is unwatchable. I tried three times before and gave up. The second season is better than I remembered. The fact that I got through it alone puts it above the first season. But I legitimately liked most of it and enjoyed a good chunk of it. The third season, I had inflated expectations for. Which means I still think it's better than the second but it's less of a leap from one season to the next than it seemed. That's where I'm at now. If I have nothing else to do and it's a lazy day, I'll go from one episode to another, but once that day is over, I don't feel a burning urge to keep going. I keep going when I feel like it or get around to it.
I'm old school (even though my being a fan of Discovery might not make it look like it). In a Kirk vs. Picard Debate, I go with Kirk almost on instinct. But that having been said, I think Picard is better than a lot of the scripts he's been in. He raises the material. So that's a plus going into Star Trek: Picard.
My take so far:
The first season is unwatchable. I tried three times before and gave up. The second season is better than I remembered. The fact that I got through it alone puts it above the first season. But I legitimately liked most of it and enjoyed a good chunk of it. The third season, I had inflated expectations for. Which means I still think it's better than the second but it's less of a leap from one season to the next than it seemed. That's where I'm at now. If I have nothing else to do and it's a lazy day, I'll go from one episode to another, but once that day is over, I don't feel a burning urge to keep going. I keep going when I feel like it or get around to it.
I'm old school (even though my being a fan of Discovery might not make it look like it). In a Kirk vs. Picard Debate, I go with Kirk almost on instinct. But that having been said, I think Picard is better than a lot of the scripts he's been in. He raises the material. So that's a plus going into Star Trek: Picard.
Kai Winn is not even remotely supposed to be the hero of that story. Her pov is pretty clearly objectively wrong. I really don't get how anyone can go into that episode without pre-existing bias and come out calling it 'creationist apologia'. It just isn't.
Sure, Winn is the bad guy. But Kira agrees with her and Sisko treats the nonsense position as legitimate.
All of Wynn's actions were a ploy anyway, so the whole dispute is moot. She went there to start a controversy to set the stage for a political assassination. Keiko was easily bated. I think Kira and Sisko were the only ones acting rationally here.
Maybe Wynn would be a good S31 candidate
Maybe Wynn would be a good S31 candidate
Sisko has to do that because his job is literally to keep the Bajorans happy. It's their station, anyway, so his power is limited. Kira is a deliberate example of how those totally ridiculous positions can crop up even in people who normally seem completely reasonable. Keiko's shocked by her position.
The episode isn't about who is right, it's about how do you deal with the situation and what are the consequences. Is compromise unacceptable? Even when they have the power to literally shut you down? It's a philosophical no-win scenario. With a final twist deliberately designed as a scathing criticism of creationism (dishonest and politically motivated). There's nothing apologetic about it.
It sounds like it's been about a hundred years since you've watched it. At best, this would describe the first season.
Perhaps I was overtly harsh.
SISKO: Nobody's saying that there can't be spiritual teaching on this station, Major, but can't it be in addition to what's taught in Mrs O'Brien's classroom?
KIRA: But if she's teaching a fundamentally different philosophy
KEIKO: I'm not teaching any philosophy. What I'm trying to teach is pure science.
KIRA: Some might say pure science, taught without a spiritual context, is a philosophy, Mrs O'Brien.
SISKO: My philosophy is that there is room for all philosophies on this station. Now, how do you suggest we deal with this?
But this is basically Kira espousing the bullshit stance that science is just a sort of religion, and Sisko agreeing with him.This rubbed me the wrong way.
And yeah, the episode is not so much about who's right than how to deal with the situation. But I really would have preferred if the 'creationism' argument had been defeated on its intellectual merits (or lack there of) instead of by the person espousing it turning out to me a murderous crook.
SISKO: Nobody's saying that there can't be spiritual teaching on this station, Major, but can't it be in addition to what's taught in Mrs O'Brien's classroom?
KIRA: But if she's teaching a fundamentally different philosophy
KEIKO: I'm not teaching any philosophy. What I'm trying to teach is pure science.
KIRA: Some might say pure science, taught without a spiritual context, is a philosophy, Mrs O'Brien.
SISKO: My philosophy is that there is room for all philosophies on this station. Now, how do you suggest we deal with this?
But this is basically Kira espousing the bullshit stance that science is just a sort of religion, and Sisko agreeing with him.This rubbed me the wrong way.
And yeah, the episode is not so much about who's right than how to deal with the situation. But I really would have preferred if the 'creationism' argument had been defeated on its intellectual merits (or lack there of) instead of by the person espousing it turning out to me a murderous crook.
Last edited:
A great question.
There are a lot of little and medium things I could talk about, and some of them would go in DS9's favor. But there really is one major advantage TNG had over DS9: the great shows were mostly TNG. If I were to take a top 20 composed of episodes just from those two shows, I'll bet fifteen would be TNG. In the Pale Moonlight is the best DS9 show - still waiting to watch season seven - and it would probably be around 7 overall for me.
DS9 never gave us anything as good as The Best of Both Worlds, Yesterday's Enterprise, Q Who, Cause and Effect or All Good Things... It only rarely gave us anything as good as Timescape or Parallels.
DS9 was more consistent, to be sure, but just like I skip the bad songs on an album I love, I can skip Menage a Trois and Sub Rosa. And DS9's consistency was born of its far greater adherence to a storyline, which made an episode that comes out of nowhere like Cause and Effect less likely in the DS9 world.
The Federation and Starfleet as portrayed on TNG were all about respecting other people's cultures. It's one thing for Picard to tear down a new religion that's based on him, but it's not his or Sisko's job to go to people's planets and tell them that their religion is wrong--that was Kirk's bag.
Only when when the object of worship was a computer causing cultural stagnation
Similar threads
