DS9 = BSG

[hux]

I'm a fan of all trek but i'm not obsessive and so this may be common knowledge and pointless but....

Didn't BSG basically just steal its whole premise from DS9 - the cylons are essentially the founders (an enemy that can look like us and infiltrate our ship)

BSG took it to a far darker place and elaborated on things that DS9 didn't appear to be able to - i'm just wondering if Ronald Moore wanted to explore these darker themes on DS9 but due to the light and frothy nature of the star trek universe was disuaded and restricted in doing so - DS9 is by far the edgiest star trek show (no bad thing) but even star trek has its limits so did Moore want to make BSG in order to finish what he'd started with DS9

is BSG what DS9 could have been if the producers weren't so scared of taking lovable, safe, star trek down a darker path and offending hard core trekkers - if so - are trekkers the worst thing to ever happen to star trek - it seems to me that they are the reason so many people involved in the making of star trek shows try to avoid controversy and originality - they endlessly aim to give the trekkers what they want - the same old story told 200 times but with different aliens and different coloured shirts

If we continue to let the trekkers dictate what the show can do and where it can potentially go then is it any wonder that it fizzled out - seems to me that JJ abrams said "screw you" to the trekkers and quite frankly, i think it was a long time coming (the show cannot survive without someone taking that step)

 

[flemm]

Didn't BSG basically just steal its whole premise from DS9 - the cylons are essentially the founders (an enemy that can look like us and infiltrate our ship)

There are lot of obvious similarities between DS9 and BSG. I don't thing it's a question of theft, though. It's unsurprising that Ron Moore would be influenced by his time on DS9 and perfectly normal that his later work would be inspired in part by his past endeavors. BSG is a bit of hybrid beast: an extension of Moore's work on DS9 and a reaction against his short and unpleasant time on the Voyager writing staff.

BSG took it to a far darker place and elaborated on things that DS9 didn't appear to be able to - i'm just wondering if Ronald Moore wanted to explore these darker themes on DS9 but due to the light and frothy nature of the star trek universe was disuaded and restricted in doing so - DS9 is by far the edgiest star trek show (no bad thing) but even star trek has its limits so did Moore want to make BSG in order to finish what he'd started with DS9

Probably in a sense, yes. He has even said as much, or words to that effect.

is BSG what DS9 could have been if the producers weren't so scared of taking lovable, safe, star trek down a darker path and offending hard core trekkers - if so - are trekkers the worst thing to ever happen to star trek - it seems to me that they are the reason so many people involved in the making of star trek shows try to avoid controversy and originality - they endlessly aim to give the trekkers what they want - the same old story told 200 times but with different aliens and different coloured shirts

I don't think trekkers can be blamed for the studio's vision of what Star Trek should be. If anyone shackled the creators of TNG-era Trek it was the studio and the creators' themselves, not Star Trek fans, who had no creative control and often complained about the state of the franchise.

DS9 had a bit more leeway than the other Trek shows, and it had writers who were willing to exercise that freedom to handle some interesting, ambitious ideas and storylines. They didn't have complete freedom, though, and even if they had been able to cut loose, I doubt DS9 would have resembled BSG. A bit darker than it is, yes, undoubtedly, but probably not as extreme as Moore's later work. For one thing, Moore was only one of a team of writers on DS9, and not the head writer or show runner (to my knowledge).

If we continue to let the trekkers dictate what the show can do and where it can potentially go then is it any wonder that it fizzled out - seems to me that JJ abrams said "screw you" to the trekkers and quite frankly, i think it was a long time coming (the show cannot survive without someone taking that step)

I don't think they said "screw you" to anyone. On the contrary, the film was full of fanwank and easter eggs. They just wanted to write a successful movie that would help Trek shed its stodgy, lame image that was a hangover from the TNG-era.

 

[kimc]

Didn't BSG basically just steal its whole premise from DS9

Actually the later BSG was a remake of the BSG that aired back in the 70s so I guess you could say it stole from itself.

 

[Anwar]

I doubt Moore would've taken his Trek as far as he did in BSG (even though he didn't really do much better since in NuBSG the characters hardly ever thought about how their civilization was gone and wasted their time on their petty dramas with each other). Mainly because he'd want there to be a possibility of another Trek sometime in the future and destroying all inhabited worlds in Trek wouldn't exactly leave much to work with.

 

[Pemmer Harge]

Well, most of BSG 2003's premise comes from BSG 1978, doesn't it? There are some similarities of course and no doubt the involvement of Moore, Thompson and Weddle with DS9 influenced what they did on BSG, but I think to say BSG is what DS9 would have been except for this that or the other is misguided.

Bear in mind the fact that Ron Moore, though important, was never the main guy on DS9 - it was a collaborative enterprise and each of the major writers brought different qualities to the table. Hell, most of the staff writers from the later seasons weren't even working on the show during Seasons 1 and 2. Even if Ron Moore did want DS9 to be like BSG - which I doubt - is that what Michael Piller wanted? Or Ira Steven Behr? René Echevarria? Peter Allan Fields?

DS9 was a show with many elements - Bajor, Cardassians, the Dominion, sometimes ridiculous comedy, Klingons, religion, plots that could have come straight from TNG, holodeck episodes. There are strands in DS9 that ressemble BSG, but there's a hell of a lot of stuff that has little in common with it.

 

[CobraCommander]

I don't see how both shows are similar. DS9 is most similar to Babylon 5. DS9 was a fixed station on the edge of the wilderness that plays an important glactic role in the survival of many alien species. Babylon 5 was a fixed station that was the key to the Shadow War. Both BSG's were about survivors fleeing for their lives. Both shows had to figure out how to keep moving, keep the people fed, and stay alive. Similar Star Trek situations (on a surface level) could be with the Maquis and the USS Equinox in Voyager. The Maquis were eventually exterminated by the Dominion/ Cardassians and the Equinox was check mated into destruction. The Equinox is what Voyager should have looked like after five years in the DQ. Cobra

 

[Anwar]

Why does everyone think that? I mean, is it so hard to believe that in a Galaxy as full of aliens as Trek that VOY would EVER come across repair stations, Commerce Hubs, etc? Maybe a LITTLE scarred but it wouldn't make sense for it to become a wreck.

I mean, in NuBSG the ONLY way Moore was able to get the premise to work with the ship getting more trashed was to have the entire Universe be totally empty of all life except humans and Cylons. Having Voyager be completely and utterly alone in the DQ with only one other alien species just wouldn't make any sense.

 

[zar]

is BSG what DS9 could have been if the producers weren't so scared of taking lovable, safe, star trek down a darker path and offending hard core trekkers - if so - are trekkers the worst thing to ever happen to star trek - it seems to me that they are the reason so many people involved in the making of star trek shows try to avoid controversy and originality - they endlessly aim to give the trekkers what they want - the same old story told 200 times but with different aliens and different coloured shirts

If we continue to let the trekkers dictate what the show can do and where it can potentially go then is it any wonder that it fizzled out - seems to me that JJ abrams said "screw you" to the trekkers and quite frankly, i think it was a long time coming (the show cannot survive without someone taking that step)

If Star Trek needs to be something completely different to be good, then it should fizzle out and die. If someone has a totally original concept, why should they name it Star Trek?

 

[Destructor]

OP: If you listen to the Ron Moore commentaries on BSG he talks a lot about how DS9 steered him on BSG in terms of what he wanted the show to be. I often describe DS9 as a 'stepping stone' to BSG, in that TNG was fairly light, then DS9 got darker, and BSG really pushed the edge on that darkness (the 1970s show, on the other hand, was very light and fluffy).

Voyager, of course, went in the other direction...

 

[Anwar]

Voyager, of course, went in the other direction...

Yeah, it had a message of "It IS possible to keep your sh*t together and not fall apart when things get a little bad."

Real awful, horrid message there.

 

[DevilEyes]

Voyager had a message?

Ah, yes, it had "Message in a Bottle".

 

[Anwar]

Voyager had a message?

Yeah, you just had to not be a darkness-obsessed anti-fan who despises characters who can work together without real friction in the face of adversity.

 

[TheGodBen]

Voyager had a message?

It sure did. It was something about how you may miss your home and try to get back there, but that the good you do each week on your random adventures is more important than getting home safely. When given the option between doing good or getting home, you must always choose to do good for the betterment of everyone.

Wait, I'm thinking of Quantum Leap.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I don't see how both shows are similar. DS9 is most similar to Babylon 5.

This is true. BSG is a great deal more sophisticated than modern Trek; B5 was more equivalent.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Voyager had a message?

Yeah, you just had to not be a darkness-obsessed anti-fan who despises characters who can work together without real friction in the face of adversity.

It's not being darkness-obsessed. I think a balance would be most realistic: there IS conflict, and it's worked THROUGH, not ignored or reset-buttoned. But also not like nuBsG where EVERYTHING sucks. (Granted, as a dystopia, I DID think it made a great show. But for Trek, I think a balance would be best.)

 

[Anwar]

I do agree there should be SOME tensions, which would be worked through, overcome, and then left in the past. But I disagree that traveling through a galaxy where there will always be aliens around who'll help with repairs, and the two groups making up the crew not even having much reason to be tense around one another to begin with, would be all that dark or all that tense in the first place.

And BSG isn't as sophisticated a B5. I mean, we've worked beyond silliness like saying that Gaius Baltar is better than Londo Mollari.

 

[Skellington]

Ok, but he's better than Sinclair.

 

[RandyS]

And BSG isn't as sophisticated a B5.

This is true. And as much as I prefer 1978 Galactica to New Galactica, even the 1978 version doesn't hold a candle to B5.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

is BSG what DS9 could have been if the producers weren't so scared of taking lovable, safe, star trek down a darker path and offending hard core trekkers

Yeah. But I wouldn't want Star Trek to ever go as far as BSG did. Star Trek has an identity that it needs to adhere to, that is essentially optimistic. To veer out of that identity means it loses its identity, and then why is it Star Trek as opposed to Fill-in-the-Blank Space Opera Series? Why slap a name on something when you aren't willing to stay true to what that name means? That's just false advertising.

Much better for RDM to choose a different name for the non-Star-Trekkish series he had in mind. Sure, it was a bit rude to take an existing name like BSG and then do a series that had virtually nothing to do with BSG - that was definitely false advertising - but it's not like BSG was a valuable, high-profile property like Star Trek. I certainly didn't care.

If we continue to let the trekkers dictate what the show can do and where it can potentially go

I don't think we need to worry about that, since that has never remotely been the case. What is the case: Star Trek is controlled by a corporation named Paramount (with the TV portion controlled by CBS) that manages the franchise to maximize its profits. An important part of their calculation is understanding what the Star Trek brand means to the general public (not "Trekkers" - their target market is far bigger and includes people who barely can tell the difference between "the show with the hammy actor" and "the show with the old bald guy").

This is the same calculation that McDonald's makes when it thinks about expanding its menu or Crest makes when launching a new flavor of toothpaste. McDonald's might add a turkey burger or a veggie burger but probably not pizza or burritos and certainly not sushi or filet mignon. Star Trek might go DS9 dark but not BSG dark. Don't blame Trekkies for this - it's brand management and it's how corporations keep popular products viable for decades and even centuries.

All I ask of Paramount is intelligent brand management, to keep Star Trek a viable and successful property, and movies coming out on a regular schedule. And after years of mismanagement, they do seem to be managing the brand very well now. Good for them and I hope they keep it up.

And all I ask of CBS is that they get Star Trek back on TV! (I know, fat chance.)

 

[Anwar]

The problem was the after TNG, they got the mistaken idea that Trek was a proper mainstream property that could support multiple shows that are all basically the same thing (the various CSI shows, or Law and Order shows for example).

After seeing that failed with UPN and how they kept messing with VOY and ENT they finally backed off and are realizing that trying to go mainstream with Trek just isn't where it's at and it's best left in the hands of the Producers and the Producers alone. Trek was then lucky enough to be given to Producers who are happy with genre stuff and how to make it entertaining again.