Spoilers Deep Space 9: Revisited and Reassessed

Just began re-watching Deep Space 9 and have now completed "Emissary" (S1E1/2) .

"Emissary" was excellent in terms of a series pilot. It let us know we were not getting a rehash of what had come before. Familiar, yes, but immediately we are informed these characters are more sophisticated in a much more complex setting. Ben Sisko, Kira Nerys, and Odo are somewhat broken characters in the beginning while Jadzia Dax, Julian Bashir, the O'Brien's, and even Quark give us the stand up optimism that is a hallmark of Star Trek.

It was terrific to revisit the father and son relationship of Ben and Jake Sisko. Even today it looks to be holding up as one of the best portrayals of a single working parent raising a child. There is love and dignity in orbit of a shared profound loss.

The socio-political environment of Bajor and DS9 makes this a far grittier and inherently more compelling premise. I also enjoy the added dimension of spirituality into the mix. A sad feature of modern Trek interpretations look to excise that aspect of humanoid existence which makes a bit less relatable or real. What did strike me as odd this time around was that when Dax and Sisko enter the wormhole and make first contact with the entities inside was those entities did not know a wit about humanity or Sisko or even linear existence therefore I am looking forward to rediscovering how it is that Ben Sisko was anointed Emissary, and how could they have an interest in the Bajorans if they were ignorant of linear existence?

Looking forward to this journey …

 

DS9's exploration of spirituality really is fascinating, and is one of the many ways I feel like it 'bears fruit' from the premise of placing typical, agnostic scientifically-minded 24th century Starfleet officers alongside characters who are not Starfleet and come with their own world, society and belief systems. The differences and contrasts of all these characters are maybe the key to DS9 feeling, in many ways, more "real" than the other shows in the franchise.

Interesting reading, looking forward to hearing more of your thoughts

 

Just finished "Q-less" (S1E7).

Don't know why but on Memory Alpha "Past Prologue" is episode 3 and "A Man Alone" is episode 4. On Netflix they are flip-flopped. Anyone know why?

Both episodes were more about laying foundations as the "A" stories were pretty standard stuff (especially if you've been watching TV since the mid-1960's. They were well done just a bit cliché. It was the background stuff ("B" and "C" stories) that were more interesting they set up what would become pillars of the series. Jake and Nog's friendship. Keiko's school. Bashir's nuttiness (meant nicely). Introduction of Garek. Again, these episodes did some necessary heavy lifting.

"Captive Pursuit" (S1E6) a story that's basically been around since January 19, 1924 ("The Most dangerous Game" by Richard Connell). I know it was meant as an anti-hunting story, but I just didn't see it that way. In fact, I feel they should have elevated it into something less mundane.

"Q-less" (S1E7), my favorite so far. I enjoyed the introduction of Vash and Q into DS9. I thought the crew (especially Dax and O'Brien) could have been written a little more intelligently. I mean the station starts to experience the same problem as the shuttle did in the teaser but not once in the entire episode do they ever look to correlate the two. That should have put them onto Vash and her "trinkets" a bit quicker and eliminated the flooding of the station with potentially toxic whatever it was. Despite my enjoyment of this one (mainly because of Q's brief interactions with the series regulars and the Vash/Quark dynamic) felt more like a left over TNG episode that was repurposed as the station crew were nothing but peripheral characters.

 

A Man Alone was actually produced before Past Prologue. You can tell from Kira's hair.

 

The DS-9 universe is more complex and rich than any other Trek series, mostly because it is stationary. The station and the planet never move around, so the writers have to delve deeper into the social issues and politics of the station and the Federation's relationship with the locals. Add in the Cardasians (the former occupiers) and then the Dominion and it gets very layered. I have found it's the series that non-Trek fans like best because it's less about the Sci-Fi and more about plots and relationships.

 

Thank you. Finally someone has realized how good that telefilm was, and I loved what you said about Sisko being anointed Emissary--as if he was a successor to another. He wasn't Jesus or a Bajoran Christ at the time and in these beginning seasons show how humble and times frustrating for Sisko to walk that fine line not to offend.

 

Other than my desire of Picard,
I think, possibly, I like Deep Space 9 better than Next Generation. ( oh nooooo! I actually typed that out loud)
I find that there is all sorts and levels of conflict to be more interesting than, Alien of the Week.
I like that the characters some to have at least some flaws. Other than things such as "works too hard", "caring more for others more than herself".

Some of the DS9 characters are truly messed up.

 

The writers had fun with the Farengi culture, which was never fleshed out enough for us to start really questioning whether it would work (the ultimate capitalist society), but it provided some interesting situations and could be juxtaposed to the 24th century Federation (a society without money). We also had the children (Nog and Jake) growing up through the series run, we had relationships (Kira and Odo, Sisco and Cassidy, O'Brien and his wife) that provided long-term story sub-plots under the long-term major plot arcs (the war against the Dominion, Sisco's role as the Emissary). I agree that in many ways the series was better than TNG, although individual episodes of TNG tended to be more entertaining as free-standing theater.

 

I haven't been keeping up on this as closely as I did with my TNG re-watching. I have most recently completed "Cardassians" (S2E5).

With today's geo-political situation I have to say that, dramatically speaking, Deep Space 9 is probably more relevant today than when it originally aired (at least as far as the first 2 seasons go). The stories are very allegorical to middle-eastern events. Some of it further back to WWII.

Also, the writing is focused and with purpose. Still has a few clunkers here and there (e.g. "Invasive Procedures," S2E4), but still a far better batting average than most TV series. I was a little surprised by how early some elements were introduced. I believe it was the only modern Trek series that had a firm grasp of its roots and its starting point. As opposed to the other series (TNG, VOY and ENT) using their first seasons to find themselves.

This series also benefits from having an idea of where they want to take the series. In fact I am even more appreciative of Michael Piller for resisting Berman's impulse to homogenize things and play it safe. The series' rough edges and the writing staff pushing the boundaries of what Star Trek could be is noticeable and refreshing (though sadly it did end up costing them Berman's as well as the studios support).

Again, brilliant stuff and I hope to be more specific as time permits. LLAP.

 

Of all the Trek shows, DS9 strayed the farthest from Roddenberry's utopian vision of a united Federation. I'm glad for that because we got some of the best Trek. It was dark and gritty. Shows that had Berman's support played it safe and did not come as close to the depiction of the dysfunctional underbelly of a disparate Federation. Even a show like Voyager, with its premise, 70K light years from Earth with Maquis in the crew, could have been extremely dark, but ended up playing it safe and as a result, has a reputation as one of the blandest shows in Trek.

 

The Federation was Gene Coon's idea (which is far from trivial, given that DS9 is arguably closer to Coon's Star Trek than Roddenberry's).

 

Well, Star Trek was never really portrayed as the idyllic utopia Roddenberry described in interviews. Yes, it had an Earth where disease and hunger had been eliminated, and peoples basic needs may have been met, however, that alone does not an utopia make. Apparently, on screen anyway, people still craved obscene levels of wealth, power and longevity. So there has always been a discontinuity between what GR said and what was produced onscreen.

That made Berman's slavish desire to keep things safe and in accordance to the Great Bird's musings Star Trek's true Kobayashi Maru when it came to producing the various incarnations. I would contend that Deep Space Nine was, in practice, the closest spinoff to TOS made to-date (still having not seen Discovery). At least more in the spirit of Gene Coon than Roddenberry in terms of what was given us onscreen (as pointed out by Bad Thoughts).

Simply put: Is something defined more by words or deeds? I believe they are primarily defined by deeds.

 

That was one of the surprising truths I learned from the various books and articles written on TOS back in the 1970s. So many features of Star Trek: TOS that became iconic and beloved came from that other Gene. I think it was Justman or Solow who remarked that it was a shame that Roddenberry subsumed Coon's contributions by virtue of never setting the record straight when they were attributed to him by either the press or fans. And I agree.

 

Indeed, most of what is great about "Gene's vision" came about in spite of him. There are a long list of questionable things that he wanted to do in TOS and TNG that could be best described as disturbing: white man's burden, misogyny, and anti-individualism. He even tried to quash the most humanistic script of his tenure at TNG, "Measure of a Man," for numerous reasons, not least of which being that "Data would be delighted to be dissected."

 

Back to DS9 -- the vision of the 24th century included political squabbles and careful diplomacy between the Federation and Bejor, which "owned" the space in which the station sat, as well as the space in which the worm hole operated, so that the Federation needed the cooperation of the locals. The recent liberation from the iron hand of the Cardasians (and as the years pass, that name becomes more and more ironic) leaves the Federation in an awkward spot because it can't come off as authoritarian or too aggressive about wanting to maintain control of the station and the worm hole lest the Federation step into the evil shoes of the Cardasians. The Bejorans have all the politican and socio-religious problems as 21st century Earth, while the Federation attempts to hold itself to a higher standard. But, on the station you also have the Farengi, who have no standards, and other cultures/races with various issues - - and that's even before the Dominion enters the picture. So, the universe is certainly still filled with problems even if Earth/Humans and the Federation try to present as a more or less "civilized" society.
Utopia, it surely is not. Better that what we really had during the time the series ran? Certainly. Star Trek has always been about scrutinizing our societal problems from the viewpoint of a 'higher" point on the evolutionary spectrum.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by the name of the Cardassians being ironic.
Can you explain that?
I can't think of any sort of "evil empire" that has arisen in the past 25 years that bears the name of of similar to Cardasia.

 

I was referring to the Kardashian family

 

So, are they in league with say, George Soros?
I'm not sure who they are.
Are they politically powerful?

 

If you can honestly say you don't know who the Kardashians are, consider yourself a lucky person.

 

I wish I could say no.