Same.
Why no movie for Deep Space Nine??
- Thread starter Mrs. Silvercrest
- Start date
There was no business case for a DS9 movie and there was no artistic desire to do one, either. Thank god.
I think it is telling as to how low a regard the producers had for DS9 that they tried to kill its iconic ship, the Defiant, as a throwaway bit of business in "First Contact".
No, they simply needed an excuse to get Worf aboard. How would Worf come else when the Borg were attacking than with the Defiant, the ship he practically lived on, to help in the defense? And if the Defiant wasn't very badly damaged, why would he ever come aboard the Ent-E in the first place?
/thread
Quite the opposite. They likely hoped that it's destruction would create an emotional response among at least some of the audience. STIII wasn't showing low regard for the 1701, nor was STVII showing low regard for the 1701D. And the destruction of the Defiant in the seventh season wasn't low regard either. It was opportunistic.
That's not the way Ira Steven Behr saw it, and not the way the original script of the fim had it.
https://screenrant.com/star-trek-ds...original script for,to blow up DS9's starship.
No, IRB had to go to bat to save the Defiant, whose destruction was scripted without even telling him.
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/no-...ole-against-the-borg-in-first-contact.145307/
That's not in dispute. It's the argument that they wanted to trash the Defiant out of low regard that holds no water.
To put it differently, showing the sacrifice of Defiant while valiantly defending against an alien invasion makes if the fucking Thunderchild!
Of course. It was Behr's to destroy.
I think that the actions of Berman and his crowd speak for themselves. They took one of the centerpieces of DS9, didn't consult the showrunners, and tried to trash it. This was just the latest bit of disrespect in a long, long line of diss-es that have been well-documented.
hardly. It was just one of a whole fleet of disposable ships in the movie. it was a throwaway bit that had no foundation or impact, other than to be used for a corny Riker gag.
Not really, no. Destroying the station would have been a bigger deal. But, even with the Enterprise destruction we still get new ships by the next episode/film so the idea that this was problematic is looking for a problem that doesn't exist.
This is where you are completely wrong. First, the Screen Rants page says nothing about the regard the studio had for the show. Second, it confirms the use of the Defiant as a vehicle for bringing Worf into the story. Three, according to Ronald D. Moore, who wrote the movie, the status of the Defiant was indeterminate. Fourth, it was that lack of clarity that got Behr going. Fifth, when Behr gets going, he goes full Bronx. Everything else is trying to shoehorn scattered facts into a theory.
I tend to agree. It was actually a pretty good pretext for retrieving Worf from his new home on DS9. And way better than the frankly insulting "we don't give a s***" non-explanation we got for Insurrection.
And it was easy enough to rewrite the script so that the Defiant was salvaged, so no harm done.
And it was easy enough to rewrite the script so that the Defiant was salvaged, so no harm done.
There are entire books about how much the behind the scenes drama got going vis a vis DS9. The disrgard that Berman had for it, his passive-aggressive alternating neglect and micromanaging. No one who was paying attention in those years doubted that the studio never had any confidence in or regard for the show.
Another example of it: it is the only Trek show of that time period to be denied a chance to "bear the torch" of the franchise by being the only new Trek on the air. Another bit that got tempers flaring and that caused at least one serious argument beteween the DS9 showrunners and Berman.
Not like the ratings gave them much to be confident about.
Similar threads
