Which isn't what I said.
Last edited:
I would have mentioned TOS as well, but that didn't seem to be relevant to what was under discussion.
You're correct that it isn't. Things like Section 31, The Founders, and conspiracies by flag officers are largely predominant in Deep Space Nine. Not saying that darkness originated in Deep Space Nine but that elements that factor in to later stories, with ongoing Wars, attempted coups, and clandestine organizations have greater roots in Deep Space Nine.
Conspiracies by flag officers: TNG admirals Pressman ("The Pegasus") and Connelly ("Ensign Ro") and Admiral Cartwright from TUC say hello.
TNG tells us the Federation had wars just before (Talarian war) or during its run (Cardassian war).
TNG gave us the Borg, who are even worse than the Founders and the Dominion.
Clandestine organizations: the Tal Shiar first appeared in TNG.
Section 31 is a DS9 creation, but it was a good addition. It challenged the ideals of the Federation. If values are never challenged, are they really as worthy as we think? "It's easy to be a saint in paradise" is one of the best lines in the franchise, and it's absolutely correct.
You are technically correct but again misses my point that Deep Space Nine utilized these in much longer form than previous installments, aside from the Borg. DS9 is touted as the best of Trek so it should come as no surprise that those darker elements DS9 focused on would repeat in newer Trek.
Re the bad admiral trope, it might be relevant that TUC came out after TNG had been on for several years.
And even in 1991 we'd had Admiral Kennelly in "Ensign Ro," which aired not long before TUC hit theaters.
"Darkness" is doing a lot of heavy lifting as a word. I think what a lot of people mean about not liking it in Kurtzman Trek is that it often feels like the shows are trying to set themselves apart from past shows by being performatively "grittier" in rather lazy ways, and also bringing up old concepts just to undermine or destroy them (Icheb's eye!), which is where the comparisons with DS9 can start being drawn.
Yes DS9 used dark threads more closely, but laying it entirely at the feet of DS9 is just wrong.
Kirk's pilot too was pretty dark too. Mitchell, former bestie and student of Kirk, now elevated due to esper traits elevated by irradiation from the galactic barrier pink thingy, gets godlike powers and plans to murder the Captain, complete by showing him is tomb in advance. Mitchell's newfound graying temples were pretty grizzly too and, indeed, he even spat "blasphemy" toward Dr Dehner (so Kirk's assertion that eventually one of them would kill the other was pretty much spot on, never mind Mitchell's earlier comment on how the whole shipload of them being killed like insects. Even Kelso (?) was strangled in full frontal camera view with a power cable.) Small scale, but dark and morbid nonetheless. And to think, had they succeeded, they'd just abandon Mitchell there and we get lots of scenes showing the desolation as well, also paralleling the ship being effectively stranded (in a way that was rarely done then, never mind in any spinoff) - though a few episodes, even "Day of the Dove", also discussing death in the icy depths of space.
You'd brought up a supreme point raised by "CONSCIENCE OF THE KING"...
SPACE SEED had a very grizzly moment involving the decompression chamber as a major plot point too.
THE ULTIMATE COMPUTER had M5 going haywire and wiping out numerous starships.
THE OMEGA GLORY has Captain Tracy using a phaser to wipe out scores of people.
THE EMPATH, like or dislike, definitely goes out of its way to introduce gruesome torture. Even if other episodes put more depth and reason into various acts, EMPATH was so edge for the time it was banned in some areas for being too sadistic for kids.
TOS was definitely not tame and had its moments. Constrained for the time, imagine if they hadn't such constraints.
Which really really wasn't my point.
TOS had a few bad captains as well. But TNG was supposed to be "super-dee-duper perfect humans now", it makes all the "evil admiral* of the week" examples feel that much more tropey and hokey.
* or captain, etc
You mean the part where Khan catches fish with his mouth and rubs his back against a tree?
I quoted what you said.
The way you worded it, you make it sound like it was DS9 was the show that set up all the darker elements in the franchise. I was simply saying that is false because DS9 just ran further with what TOS started. I used only the original pilot and season 1 examples for the express purpose of showing the dark threads were present from the first time 'Action' was uttered and filming commenced in the franchise.
TOS had a few bad captains as well. But TNG was supposed to be "super-dee-duper perfect humans now", it makes all the "evil admiral* of the week" examples feel that much more tropey and hokey.
* or captain, etc
Yes. TOS had some bad captains. It had some commodores making poor decisions. And it had admirals and Federation diplomats who were obstacles for Kirk to overcome.
To a person the commodores were all redeemed in the end, by admitting their mistakes, and stepping out of the way so Kirk could save the day. I can't recall a single admiral or Federation diplomat in TOS (or commodore, for that matter) who betrayed their position at any point (that includes Decker).
The bad admiral trope takes errant characters like Ron Tracey who were guilty of betrayal (in Tracey's case, errant is probably putting it mildly) to the next level, by taking them off the front lines of the frontier and embedding them within the organizational brass, in the upper echelons of Starfleet itself. A TOS admiral ordering Kirk not to go to Vulcan because there are overriding interests in the quadrant, when Kirk doesn't feel at liberty to even tell him why, isn't remotely in the same league.
And I made my point poorly. You are quite correct.
As for this thread, I've said what I wanted to say (or write).
But it could be intereting to know what people might think of this Youtube-video.
I'm not gonna comment on it or start arguing about what the creator of the video thinks.
But he has some interesting points.
But it could be intereting to know what people might think of this Youtube-video.
I'm not gonna comment on it or start arguing about what the creator of the video thinks.
But he has some interesting points.
If there's one thing I've observed about this site, it's that no one clicks videos. At least, not until someone explains what they're about.
As Surak himself once said, "The new stuff will conflict with the older content, and it must be logically approached. Or meltdowns can happen, and I'll let it slide when they happen."
Similar threads
