HRHTheKING said:
It's funny that some people were turned off by the religious aspects of
DS9. Even as an atheist myself, I would hate to see a Star Trek series
where Starfleet captains would move from planet to planet telling the
natives that they were stupid for being religious. Smug cultural
galactic imperialism of the worst kind and for what? Simply because they
have (ironically) deified Gene Roddenberry.
Kirk would've/did. I must mention, that at the time of original airing, I was still looking for a new TOS. Only on watching the entire series did I see that the "religion" was indeed Sci-Fi.
HRHTheKING said:
In any case, the Bajorans were entirely justified in believing in their Gods. The Celestial Temple existed. The Prophets existed. The Orbs had extraordinary powers. The Emissary existed. The Pah-wraiths existed. Prophecies came true and there many occurances as clear as day which indicated enormous powers at work beyond all reasonable understanding. Heck if I had been on DS9 even I would have converted to the Bajoran faith.
Conclusions that were not readily apparent from the first one or two episodes. Yes, finally taking the time to give the series a decent shot, was a gratifying thing to do. Even if it disproved every single preconceived DS9 theory that stopped me in the past.
HRHTheKING said:
The idea of hating DS9 simply because it was set on a space station is also puzzling to me.
I don't know about "hate." But what is so puzzling? I'm sure you've seen intolerance somewhere along the line, both justified and unjustified, that you might've understood intellectually/psychologically, even while being vehemently opposed to it. TOS became popular on a format and premise of going boldly. Is it really any wonder that sitting boldy could turn people off before giving it a real chance? And if you really want to push it, the appearance of "runabouts" and the Defiant lends credence to the theory that going boldy is indeed at least partially needed in Star Trek.
HRHTheKING said:
I always hated the fact that 90% of the aliens seen on TNG were "one-episode wonders" who lacked depth. DS9 was the show that stayed and developed a race in huge amount of detail.
I can't speak much to TNG. I stopped watching it after giving it a year and a half (which is part of the reason I gave up very early on DS9). However, I did run into my second fantastic DVD deal after starting DS9. (So I watched all 7 seasons of it in between seasons 3 & 4 of DS9!) (I still didn't particularly enjoy the first couple TNG seasons and that's still the ugliest starship of all time in my book, but even the first seasons were better than when I was still looking/hoping for a new TOS) (tolerance sometimes takes years to learn)
HRHTheKING said:
Besides, the "anti-space station" faction I think take the name "Star Trek" way too literally. It does NOT refer to hopping from planet to planet each week.
Originally, it was meant to mean just that.
HRHTheKING said:
The "trek" in the title is a journey into the human condition. It's essentially what Q told Picard in "All Good Things".
That was an evolution. I believed it occurred when Trekkies decided they were "Trekkers." (I always thought that was a silly attempt at respect). At the time all things Picard and Q were running around, some of us were not watching and still pining for the good old days of hopping from planet to planet each week.
HRHTheKING said:
Star Trek isn't about lumps of rock in space being surveyed. It's about storytelling.
It also about storytelling while being threatened by lumps of rock in space and storytelling while shooting lumps of rock in space. Not every episode is about morality. Some are just plain entertainment. (admittedly in every series, some are NONE of the above! ...most everyone agrees on which episodes I'd think. *grin*)
