There was no need for DS9 or VOY movies: their stories are over. The ending of DS9 was great, IMO, and anything added to that would have killed the mystery and subtlety. I was dissatisfied with VOY's ending, but really, the show was about their journey in the DQ, not the destination. ENT could have had some movies, I was definitely wanting more, after season 4 picked up in quality, but sadly too late.
But it could be something like the DS9 epidsode Valiant, about a different crew on a different ship during the Dominion war, with little or no use of actors from the series and not with a huge budget geared toward the blockbuster/popcorn market but just depending mainly on a really solid script. If it costs $60-70 million and can see domestic gross of $100-120 million, or something like that, isn't that worthwhile?
But why? What's the point of slapping Star Trek: Deep Space Nine on the title if its not even about the station and the people on it? Having a supposed DS9 movie that doesn't even feature the actors from the series doesn't sound worthwhile to me, it sounds pointless.
There have been many examples in which a movie or episode of The Twilight Zone, The Outer Limits, etc. had a strong story and had to make up some sci-fi universe. But such a thing could benefit from the richness of the Trekiverse without turning it into a reunion of aging, high-priced actors or recreating those demolished sets. Our Trek novelists are capable of creating great things. Just look at the sudden improvement of ENT in season 4. It doesn't have to have DS9 in the title to be tied into that time, but just be something that could stand on its own but end up a bit more stylish by using the Trek uniforms and set, ship, and graphics designs, and well as Trek terminology, references, etc.
But then we aren't talking about DS9 movie anymore, which is what this thread is about.
They've already made a movie featuring everything you mentioned, its called Star Trek (XI).
RobertScorpio
Pariah
Agreed...
I never supported a DS9 movie then, and more so now. Its in the past..let it go. It one of those 'what ifs' that will never see the light of day; hopefully!
Rob
I personally always thought a DS9 movie would have been great, but as you all say the characters work great in the series but the way they play out in the movie’s would change. Also, the general ideas for the plot seems to be the same, danger to Bajor, Gamma Quadrant aliens or Borg threats or the return of the Pah- Wraith’s via Gul Dukat. All of them don’t seem very original. So yes I agree that DS9 wouldn’t work well on the big screen.
Of course there's one major point that would virtually prevent anything set on DS9 from being mounted - sets. The Promenade/Quarks sets alone cost over a million dollars nearly twenty years ago, so unless you wanted to spend the whole time shooting against bluescreen, a reunion TV or DVD project would be budgeted out from the start, and Paramount's focused exclusively on the JJprise crew (as you would expect) for the big screen.
Here's the thing - the writers intended him to be permanently gone at the endm his human body dead like Hercules ascending to Mt Olympus, and he would have told Kasady that he couldn't come back.
And Avery Brooks basically refused to shoot it, since he felt it made Sisko look like a deadbeat dad.
Ergo, they ended up shooting a compromise scene, where he vaguely suggested he'd be back at some point.
Here's the thing - the writers intended him to be permanently gone at the endm his human body dead like Hercules ascending to Mt Olympus, and he would have told Kasady that he couldn't come back.
And Avery Brooks basically refused to shoot it, since he felt it made Sisko look like a deadbeat dad.
Ergo, they ended up shooting a compromise scene, where he vaguely suggested he'd be back at some point.
RobertScorpio
Pariah
I could tell it was a cop-out tacked on explanation. It showed. I wouldn't have preferred the alternative either, though. I didn't like the vague suggestion that he'd be back, but an ending where he's definitely dead would have pissed me off anymore. I hate this idea people have that you have to kill a hero at the end in order to create a dramatically satisfying ending.
I think it was that same misguided idea that ruined "Xena: Warrior Princess", "Star Trek: Generations", "Star Trek: Nemesis", "X-Men: The Last Stand", and "Spider-Man 3". It's like, oh wow, a major character was killed off! You expect me to automatically be impressed and cry now? No, I'm just going to be pissed off by what a cheap, lazy tactic that was to create drama.
I don't mind when it's done really tastefully and seems to grow organically out of the story like in "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan", but Sisko's fate in this episode seemed SO forced. Like he was just a puppet of the writers (and the Prophets) with their whole Prophet destiny fetish, and he had no free will of his own.
He belonged on the station at that party, like Picard playing cards with his crew at the end of "All Good Things...". Imagine if Picard had been about to sit down for cards with the crew and got a call from Starfleet to get on a shuttle and have a battle to the death with Q or Gul Madred in a cave. The whole Star Trek fandrom would collectively yell, "what the fuck?!?" and be writing angry letters to Paramount for years.
That ending just perfectly demonstrated why DS9 could never be as good as TNG. Despite all the advances it made in character development and original concepts from its predecessors, the show was ultimately undone by its overambitious writers who often wanted to do too much and couldn't leave well enough alone. What they did with Sisko in the end is one of the best examples of that. They needed to have more restraint.
I think it was that same misguided idea that ruined "Xena: Warrior Princess", "Star Trek: Generations", "Star Trek: Nemesis", "X-Men: The Last Stand", and "Spider-Man 3". It's like, oh wow, a major character was killed off! You expect me to automatically be impressed and cry now? No, I'm just going to be pissed off by what a cheap, lazy tactic that was to create drama.
I don't mind when it's done really tastefully and seems to grow organically out of the story like in "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan", but Sisko's fate in this episode seemed SO forced. Like he was just a puppet of the writers (and the Prophets) with their whole Prophet destiny fetish, and he had no free will of his own.
He belonged on the station at that party, like Picard playing cards with his crew at the end of "All Good Things...". Imagine if Picard had been about to sit down for cards with the crew and got a call from Starfleet to get on a shuttle and have a battle to the death with Q or Gul Madred in a cave. The whole Star Trek fandrom would collectively yell, "what the fuck?!?" and be writing angry letters to Paramount for years.
That ending just perfectly demonstrated why DS9 could never be as good as TNG. Despite all the advances it made in character development and original concepts from its predecessors, the show was ultimately undone by its overambitious writers who often wanted to do too much and couldn't leave well enough alone. What they did with Sisko in the end is one of the best examples of that. They needed to have more restraint.
I disagree. DS9, for the most part, was pretty episodic, and there imo outshined TNG. What they screwed up was the final season and the ending, which was just alright.
After watching BSG, while a lot in that series didn't make sense, the whole thing was nicely set up in the final season, leading to a satisfying wrap up.
On DS9 however, you got a whole culture based on prophecies and religion- but they couldn't really build a good arc out of it. When they did standalone episodes dealing with those things (acession, Destiny, Rapture, Moses Sisko in the desert, The Reckoning), they did great, but they failed to put up a grander scheme of things for the finale.
The only thing in that direction was Kai Winn telling the Monk guy she only wanted to bring on the "Restoration", but that's it, and it was already in the final chapter, too late.
Why not make a big deal out of it- she's triggered the restoration thingie, and now Bajor is in turmoil, while Sisko is looking for answers with the Priests and texts.
What we see on screen is that Sisko suddenly remembers his fate and is called to go on a lame final confrontation with Dukat in the standard Trek cave. No foreshadowing, no goosebumps destiny stuff like in BSG, no great revelations.
And that was pretty lame in retrospect.
As for a DS9 movie...one could have worked although I don't see any DS9 related story suitable for a follow-up.
After watching BSG, while a lot in that series didn't make sense, the whole thing was nicely set up in the final season, leading to a satisfying wrap up.
On DS9 however, you got a whole culture based on prophecies and religion- but they couldn't really build a good arc out of it. When they did standalone episodes dealing with those things (acession, Destiny, Rapture, Moses Sisko in the desert, The Reckoning), they did great, but they failed to put up a grander scheme of things for the finale.
The only thing in that direction was Kai Winn telling the Monk guy she only wanted to bring on the "Restoration", but that's it, and it was already in the final chapter, too late.
Why not make a big deal out of it- she's triggered the restoration thingie, and now Bajor is in turmoil, while Sisko is looking for answers with the Priests and texts.
What we see on screen is that Sisko suddenly remembers his fate and is called to go on a lame final confrontation with Dukat in the standard Trek cave. No foreshadowing, no goosebumps destiny stuff like in BSG, no great revelations.
And that was pretty lame in retrospect.
As for a DS9 movie...one could have worked although I don't see any DS9 related story suitable for a follow-up.
You think that the ending of BSG was an example of a satisfying wrap up?! Seriously?!
As I've made it very clear about 100 times already on this forum, I have a very low opinion of DS9's Pah-wraiths/Dukat/Space Jesus Sisko storyline and I think it really hurt the ending of show, but I don't think it hurt it nearly as much as the ending of BSG hurt that show. Compared to BSG, DS9 had an amazing ending. And I don't just mean Daybreak, I mean all the resolutions to all the major arcs in season 4. I LOVED BSG, but after season 4, my esteem for the show fell down several notches. It's an example of what happens when the writers build the main storyarc around all sorts of mysteries, while having no idea at all how to resolve it, and making it all up as they go along. Season 4 had several major examples of the writers having written themselves into a corner, and coming up with lame, forced retcons as a solution.
Two words: little Nicky. Wait, wait, we made Chief a Cylon... but now he has a half-human, half-Cylon child? But Hera was supposed to be so special because she's the only hybrid child?... Hm, what can we do now?
Athena shooting Natalie; Caprica Six/Tigh - WTF?
the great mysterious destiny of Baltar and Caprica Six as "parents" of Hera, the great task that Head Six had been going on for years, was to grab the kid and carry her through the hallway on Galactica?! 
Mitochondrial Eve
Now, let me make it clear, there were a lot of things that I enjoyed about the finale of BSG - mostly the character stuff, the flashbacks and the character resolutions. Those ending scenes were very moving. But the so-called resolutions to the mysteries and to the overall arc was extremely unsatisfactory. DS9's ending to the Dominion war was way better than BSG's ending to the story about Cylons and Humans.
^It's really best to just pretend the series ends when they get to Cylon Earth, and to pretend Cylon Earth is our actual Earth. Then the rational and interesting fan-theory of "everyone is a Cylon, it turns out" triumphs over "some kind of dumb shit happens in the past that doesn't make sense."
Something I've always wondered, and hope someone can answer: how involved was Ronald Moore in the "Sisko is Space Jesus" and "Dr. Strange fights Baron Mordo in a Goddamn cave" stuff? I know Dukat's turn from moral ambiguity into total psychopath was Behr's idea, because he apparently didn't understand his own creation, but how involved was Moore in the realization of Behr's abortion of a story arc?
For one, I've always been very interested in the conceptual similarities between DS9 and BSG (for example, humanoid Cylons have much the same story properties as the Founders, if combined with the immortality of the Vorta).
But of course my main interest is if the worst thing that ever happened on DS9 was partly RDM's fault, too.
Because that's what I do, I tear down.
Something I've always wondered, and hope someone can answer: how involved was Ronald Moore in the "Sisko is Space Jesus" and "Dr. Strange fights Baron Mordo in a Goddamn cave" stuff? I know Dukat's turn from moral ambiguity into total psychopath was Behr's idea, because he apparently didn't understand his own creation, but how involved was Moore in the realization of Behr's abortion of a story arc?
For one, I've always been very interested in the conceptual similarities between DS9 and BSG (for example, humanoid Cylons have much the same story properties as the Founders, if combined with the immortality of the Vorta).
But of course my main interest is if the worst thing that ever happened on DS9 was partly RDM's fault, too.
Because that's what I do, I tear down.
I think it was that same misguided idea that ruined "Xena: Warrior Princess", "Star Trek: Generations", "Star Trek: Nemesis", "X-Men: The Last Stand", and "Spider-Man 3". It's like, oh wow, a major character was killed off! You expect me to automatically be impressed and cry now? No, I'm just going to be pissed off by what a cheap, lazy tactic that was to create drama.
This isn't specifically directed at you because you are not necessarily "They".
All "They" used to complain about was the unwillingness for writers to do something bold like kill off a main character in a movie or a television show. You have no idea how many times in the past 15 years on the net I've heard people been called everything from "gutless" to "cowards" and worse due to the unwillingness to kill off a central character in almost anything.
So then the writers start doing it more often (maybe they were THEY before they got jobs in Hollywood) and now it's a "cheep, lazy contrivance".
Now I know some of it has to do with the way the death is handled, but it really is true that you can't please everyone.
No, it has EVERYTHING to do with how the death is handled. It's all about context. I don't simply hate major characters being killed off. I'm talking about many instances where I think there was a good example of a character being killed off just to manufacture some forced 'drama'. As I said, there have been many examples of deaths for main or recurring characters that I really appreciated.
For example, my favourite episode of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" ("Passion") got a considerable amount of its poignancy and power from a shocking sudden death that occurred in it, and I don't think I'd hold "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" in nearly as high regard as I do now if the death scene at the end hadn't been so moving to me.
I will applaud and say it took an admirable amount of guts and creativity to kill off a major character if it is done in a way that feels natural and beneficial to the story. On the other hand, a death like the DS9 finale death is lazy in my eyes because it seems to just try to shoehorn the death into an episode just to make it feel more 'epic' and 'important' when it was doing just fine attaining those qualities without the cheap twist of the death.
For example, my favourite episode of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" ("Passion") got a considerable amount of its poignancy and power from a shocking sudden death that occurred in it, and I don't think I'd hold "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" in nearly as high regard as I do now if the death scene at the end hadn't been so moving to me.
I will applaud and say it took an admirable amount of guts and creativity to kill off a major character if it is done in a way that feels natural and beneficial to the story. On the other hand, a death like the DS9 finale death is lazy in my eyes because it seems to just try to shoehorn the death into an episode just to make it feel more 'epic' and 'important' when it was doing just fine attaining those qualities without the cheap twist of the death.
RobertScorpio
Pariah
I think it was that same misguided idea that ruined "Xena: Warrior Princess", "Star Trek: Generations", "Star Trek: Nemesis", "X-Men: The Last Stand", and "Spider-Man 3". It's like, oh wow, a major character was killed off! You expect me to automatically be impressed and cry now? No, I'm just going to be pissed off by what a cheap, lazy tactic that was to create drama.
This isn't specifically directed at you because you are not necessarily "They".
All "They" used to complain about was the unwillingness for writers to do something bold like kill off a main character in a movie or a television show. You have no idea how many times in the past 15 years on the net I've heard people been called everything from "gutless" to "cowards" and worse due to the unwillingness to kill off a central character in almost anything.
So then the writers start doing it more often (maybe they were THEY before they got jobs in Hollywood) and now it's a "cheep, lazy contrivance".
Now I know some of it has to do with the way the death is handled, but it really is true that you can't please everyone.
No words were more correct than those. I liked Generations, I like kirk's death..and i think its the best TNG movie of them all....
Rob
The only good TNG movie was First Contact. And even that film could have used some serious improvement.
Anyways, I think a Deep Space Nine movie could work if it was a direct to DVD movie or a mini series or something. But as a film. I just never seen that as a possibility after the finale episode.
Anyways, I think a Deep Space Nine movie could work if it was a direct to DVD movie or a mini series or something. But as a film. I just never seen that as a possibility after the finale episode.
Heh...DS9 should have been featured heavily in the movies anyways, in place of Insurrection. What better way to show fog of war issues, challenging federation values, with the Dominion war? It seems to me that Paramount just didn't want to pony up the cash to do such a storyline right, and tried to shank out something on the cheap, and Insurrection was the best they could crank out.
People probably wouldn't go to see a standalone DS9 movie, but a real Dominion war movie would've been great. Imagine putting Picard through a "In the Pale Moonlight" type of dilemma. Epic battles on screen is what the people really wanted, and all they had to do is use some imagination. It could've worked. Now it's too late.
People probably wouldn't go to see a standalone DS9 movie, but a real Dominion war movie would've been great. Imagine putting Picard through a "In the Pale Moonlight" type of dilemma. Epic battles on screen is what the people really wanted, and all they had to do is use some imagination. It could've worked. Now it's too late.
RobertScorpio
Pariah
The only good TNG movie was Generations.
And after seeing the awful BAB-5 direct to Dvds, and the terrible Starship Troopers one they did? No. I hope DS9 stays where it is right now; in good standing in my memory.
Rob
Yeah DS9 would be too complicated to integrate into a movie, too many people in the general public would be lost on what's actually going on, and you'd have to somehow explain what happened to Sisko.
The only thing I could see happening is a mini-series on TV that revolves around Sisko being brought back which involves some big situation that would require Odo/Founders help, Worf/Klingon's help and other explanations on how to bring back the old crew, like O'Biren, etc.
Something like 10 episodes just might be enough to tell the story decently, but not possible for a movie, cuz it'd have to span a few to be worthwhile.
However, since Spock went back in time and screwed everything up in the new movie..... it's impossible to have a DS9 movie or mini-series in the first place, cuz now we're right back to the Kirk era of things..... it'd just confuse people even further.
The only thing I could see happening is a mini-series on TV that revolves around Sisko being brought back which involves some big situation that would require Odo/Founders help, Worf/Klingon's help and other explanations on how to bring back the old crew, like O'Biren, etc.
Something like 10 episodes just might be enough to tell the story decently, but not possible for a movie, cuz it'd have to span a few to be worthwhile.
However, since Spock went back in time and screwed everything up in the new movie..... it's impossible to have a DS9 movie or mini-series in the first place, cuz now we're right back to the Kirk era of things..... it'd just confuse people even further.
Similar threads
