DS9 for those who don't necessarily love DS9?

[ananta]

I didn't say that, and I don't have any set/goal number in mind. I'm just not necessarily interested in episodes that don't have much to do with the political story, and I'm particularly not too interested in the Sisko and Quark families melodrama.

Well, I’ve introduced sceptics to DS9 before by telling them to start with season four. In terms of episode by episode quality it’s one of best of the franchise and usually it’s enough to hook people by the first couple episodes alone. (They also invariably go back to rewatch the earlier seasons at some point and benefit so much more from doing so).

Also, with regard to your dislike of the Sisko and Quark families, if you watch “The Visitor” and “Little Green Men” and still feel the same then we have nothing further to talk about and you should seriously discontinue any plans to watch more of DS9.

 

[Starflight]

I'm not a fan of DS9 either and I think the war arc is genuinely awful, so from that perspective I'd suggest trying the first three seasons. Just watch them in order from the start. The first season is a bizarre production all around and has some very strange ideas, but it contains "Past Prologue" and "Duet" which are probably two of the best episodes DS9 ever put out, along with some classic Star Trek fun with things like "Babel". The Bajor/Cardassia stuff is where the show really shines IMO, not the later Dominion stuff.

The second and third seasons are a patchy mix of good standalone episodes and some pretty bland stuff. If you start getting bored at any point, just drop the show. If you make it to season five and can tolerate the war movie pastiche crap (literally a man dying in a bomb crater in the 24th century surrounded by corpses and snarling about cowardice before the enemy, lol) then you might as well stick with it to the end, because it basically keeps that tone.

 

[kkt]

If I thought they would take the advice, I'd suggest they watch every episode starting at the beginning, and if they aren't feeling good about it by halfway through season 4, then they can quit.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

If I thought they would take the advice, I'd suggest they watch every episode starting at the beginning, and if they aren't feeling good about it by halfway through season 4, then they can quit.

I've already nursed someone through the series predisposed to hate it (he fell for the it ripped off B5 theory). He eventually thought it was his second favorite series of all time, but the process was no fun for me.

 

[FederationHistorian]

Then there’s the series’ much-balleyhooed crown jewel, “In the Pale Moonlight.” I’ve seen it twice, and I think Michelle Erica Green got it right the first time around; the scenario isn't nearly as edgy as the episode seemed to think:

I must say that I think the flashback-via-diary structure for this episode was a mistake, because I had a really hard time not laughing at Avery Brooks' earnest, emotional monologues in Sisko's personal logs.[...] If he was really feeling guilty about the dead enemy agent and the man the Klingons were going to execute anyway, his skin isn't nearly tough enough for him to be a captain during wartime.

The reviewer seems to be missing the point that Starfleet, and humanity in general, is above doing sleazy and immoral things like that in the 24th century. That why Sisko takes issue with it and monologues the whole episode, even if no one would bat an eye if something like that happened in our century.

 

[Poltargyst]

I'm not a fan of DS9 either and I think the war arc is genuinely awful, so from that perspective I'd suggest trying the first three seasons. Just watch them in order from the start. The first season is a bizarre production all around and has some very strange ideas, but it contains "Past Prologue" and "Duet" which are probably two of the best episodes DS9 ever put out, along with some classic Star Trek fun with things like "Babel". The Bajor/Cardassia stuff is where the show really shines IMO, not the later Dominion stuff.

The second and third seasons are a patchy mix of good standalone episodes and some pretty bland stuff. If you start getting bored at any point, just drop the show. If you make it to season five and can tolerate the war movie pastiche crap (literally a man dying in a bomb crater in the 24th century surrounded by corpses and snarling about cowardice before the enemy, lol) then you might as well stick with it to the end, because it basically keeps that tone.

Wow, I thought the first season of DS9 was pretty mediocre and the show got good with each season especially when the war stuff started.

 

[Gaith]

The reviewer seems to be missing the point that Starfleet, and humanity in general, is above doing sleazy and immoral things like that in the 24th century. That why Sisko takes issue with it and monologues the whole episode, even if no one would bat an eye if something like that happened in our century.

In peacetime, sure. But Starfleet ships carry weapons and get in fights all the time, and there's no such thing as a clean war, especially when facing an existential threat. Heck, Picard himself seriously considered unleashing a techno-weapon on the Borg Collective in "I, Borg," with Admiral Nechayev later criticizing him for not seeing through. (BTW, has anyone ever explained why Section 31 didn't get their hands on said virus, and deploy it themselves?)

TNG's writers never put Picard through such a no-win scenario, but I just don't buy that Picard, or any other captain with battle experience, wouldn't have signed off on Garak's plan in that situation, however reluctantly.

 

[FederationHistorian]

In peacetime, sure. But Starfleet ships carry weapons and get in fights all the time, and there's no such thing as a clean war, especially when facing an existential threat. Heck, Picard himself seriously considered unleashing a techno-weapon on the Borg Collective in "I, Borg," with Admiral Nechayev later criticizing him for not seeing through. (BTW, has anyone ever explained why Section 31 didn't get their hands on said virus, and deploy it themselves?)

TNG's writers never put Picard through such a no-win scenario, but I just don't buy that Picard, or any other captain with battle experience, wouldn't have signed off on Garak's plan in that situation, however reluctantly.

With the Borg, Picard has lingering trauma from being assimilated. And it never goes away, as evident by the movies and PIC.

That far different from what Sisko had done, who had no Cardassian or Dominion-related trauma, aside of tiring of losses. Now, if it was O’Brien or Kira, then the situation would be more comparable to Picard’s.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

TNG's writers never put Picard through such a no-win scenario, but I just don't buy that Picard, or any other captain with battle experience, wouldn't have signed off on Garak's plan in that situation, however reluctantly.

To be fair, Sisko never signed off on Garak's plan, not in its entirety. Garak took initiative not allowed to him and ought to have been disciplined.

I doubt the universalism of your statement, but there isn't really a body of evidence to say one way or the other whether a military officer would, with free conscience, participate in such ruses. By their nature, only small groups engage in them. These operations are risky, and they have the potential to backfire spectacularly, whether the Zimmerman telegram or Colin Powell holding up a vial in the UN. Indeed, Powell himself regretted what he did, even though he felt it was right at the time (and he did know at least some of the evidence he presented was bogus). Faulty evidence, though, wasn't coming from the Pentagon. It came from the White House and the State Department. All that can be said for sure is that every person who has attempted deception on a large scale in war believes himself right. While I wouldn't say that because of the supposed morality of Star Trek, Sisko would have never consented to Garak's full plan, clearly there would have been fully moral consideration thereof beforehand. If we are taking Picard and the Borg as an example, there is ample evidence that deception would stir questions among officers, looking at I, Borg.

 

[DonIago]

Given Picard's speech to Wesley about how important the truth is, it's hard for me to imagine him signing off on even the parts of Garak's plan that Sisko knew about, given how flagrantly the truth was deprioritized.

It would have been very interesting to see the Picard of TNG forced to grapple with the dirty realities of war as presented on DS9, but unfortunately even the movies never put the captain in a position where he really had to question or put aside his moral code in favor of pragmatism.

 

[ananta]

It’s hard to imagine Picard even talking to someone like Garak, much less conspiring with him. The most he’d do would be to give him a stern and disapproving glare.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

Given Picard's speech to Wesley about how important the truth is, it's hard for me to imagine him signing off on even the parts of Garak's plan that Sisko knew about, given how flagrantly the truth was deprioritized.

It would have been very interesting to see the Picard of TNG forced to grapple with the dirty realities of war as presented on DS9, but unfortunately even the movies never put the captain in a position where he really had to question or put aside his moral code in favor of pragmatism.

Undiscovered Country at least implicitly shows the crew opposing the actions of top brass.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

It’s hard to imagine Picard even talking to someone like Garak, much less conspiring with him. The most he’d do would be to give him a stern and disapproving glare.

This meeting should have happened. The conflict of moralities would have been gold.