Is DS9, a true Trek show?

[Temis the Vorta]

Here's a quote I used just now in another thread, but it applies to this one as well:

"[War] is instinctive. But the instinct can be fought. We're human beings with the blood of a million savage years on our hands! But we can stop it. We can admit that we're killers...but we're not going to kill...today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill...today!" -- James Kirk, A Taste Of Armageddon.

I think that theme fits beautifully with DS9's approach. What it doesn't fit so well with is the all-to-easy unearned superior smugness of TNG, VOY and a good part of ENT. TOS was written a realistic understanding of the difficulty of living up to Federation ideals. So was DS9. The others, not so much; VOY, practically never.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Well, if one assumes Star Trek, at is very basic, primal level is about "exploration" (of any variety), then yes.

Heck, I'd even argue that, even though it didn't physically go anywhere, DS9 did the most "exploration" of any series--it even did so without relying on the anomoly of the week.

 

[Emperor-Tiberius]

There was a Poll on the General Trek board of this site a year or two ago, which asked the question something like "Which other Trek shows best carries on the spirit of TOS?" and DS9 won that Poll by a landslide. For very good reasons in my view.

Yep, there was - and that was my thread, too. What a coincidence, huh?

 

[Jack Bauer]

D) None of the above

It says: Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.

It also says: Based Upon Star Trek, Created By Gene Rodenberry
That's almost like saying any similarities between persons living or dead is purely coindidental; They may as well have added that it was filmed entirely on location, and that no Tribbles were harmed in it's production. But in the end, yeah, it's totally Babyl...er, um Star Trek.

I could be wrong, but Voyager and Enterprise both have the same taglines, don't they? If so, does that mean they're not Star Trek as well?

I also wouldn't be surprised if the upcoming movie has the same line. Would we discount that as being non-Trek?

It's just some legal or union rules thing. If someone other than the creator of a show creates a spin off it will say "based on the series created by". For example if someone other than Tim Kring 20 years from now creates a spin off based on Heroes the credits will say "Based on the series created by Tim Kring". The same thing is done with Battlestar Galactica. Ron Moore gets credit that says "Developed by Ronald D. Moore" in the opening credits. In the end credits it says something like "based on the series created by Glen Larson". I'm not sure the reasoning for that.

 

[JM1776]

A friend once pointed out that while each series seems to have a somewhat different vision of Star Trek—one strongly influenced by the era in which it was produced—all, even DS9 (which I single out only because it's the one in question here), fall under the Trek aegis.

 

[Natural]

To me, Trek has always been at its best using sci-fi as a medium to explore relevant issues, morality, etc. I think DS9 has tackled the issues as much as (or more) than any other Trek series. I mean, a root of the series has been the hallocaust. Doesn't get more real than that.

Sure it deviates a little from Rodenberry's vision, but considering some of the great stories DS9 has told, I doubt he's spinning in his grave. Seems like Trek to me.

 

[KayArr]

And even if he was, who cares? What about all the others who contributed to Trek? After reading Gene L. Coon's book (or whoever wrote the Reel Story), I tend to view Trek as a collaboration. Still--not my favorite Trek. But Trek? Sure, you all have convinced me.

 

[Tyberius]

I think that is true Trek in as much as it shows Trek ideals in counterpoint to other civilizations. It departs from TOS and TNG in that the main cast become more a part of the conflict and are no longer above the fray.

 

[Mr. Fergy]

DS9 is true Trek, it just the black sheep in the Trek universe.

 

[CorporalClegg]

^
It used to be, but I’d argue that with DVDs and Spike reruns, it’s gained a lot of popularity both in Trekdom and in a general media sense.

I see a lot more references to it in everyday media outlets than I used to. And, new fans show up here quite often these days.

Even now there’s all this talk that any would-be new series (and even Enterprise was subjected to a lot of this) will first and foremost be compared to DS9 as the show people “want to see.”

All this tells me is, that had the show been given a much fairer chance (i.e. available in more markets, not always preempted with other stuff, had been given more exposure, etc.) I think it would have been the ratings champion and ever surpassed TNG.

I know several people who are what you might classify as general sci-fi fans but they “just never got into Star Trek.” They see one episode of DS9 (and it doesn’t even necessarily have to be a good one), and think it’s the bee’s knees.

 

[Triskelion]

DS9 was a dimension of Trek. Hopefully there will be many more.

 

[KayArr]

^
It used to be, but I’d argue that with DVDs and Spike reruns, it’s gained a lot of popularity both in Trekdom and in a general media sense.

I see a lot more references to it in everyday media outlets than I used to. And, new fans show up here quite often these days.

Even now there’s all this talk that any would-be new series (and even Enterprise was subjected to a lot of this) will first and foremost be compared to DS9 as the show people “want to see.”

All this tells me is, that had the show been given a much fairer chance (i.e. available in more markets, not always preempted with other stuff, had been given more exposure, etc.) I think it would have been the ratings champion and ever surpassed TNG.

I know several people who are what you might classify as general sci-fi fans but they “just never got into Star Trek.” They see one episode of DS9 (and it doesn’t even necessarily have to be a good one), and think it’s the bee’s knees.

I think you're right about that. I kind of got into Voyager with the fan collectives, and then some netflixing, and now with the big Amazon sale, I'm planning to buy all the seasons and catch up. I'm guessing that in a year or two when I get Trek hunger again, and DS9 is the only that I haven't seen--I'm going to crumble!

 

[Hofner]

DS9 is true Trek, it just the black sheep in the Trek universe.

Not only that; DS9 also bears a striking but purely coincidental resemblance to the handyman!

Robert

 

[Rabittooth]

I'm of the opinion that DS9 is not only Trek, but GOOD Trek.
My Wife is on her first, and I on my second viewing of the complete series on DVD. I love this peek into this darker niche of the Star Trek Universe.
I grew very attached to the characters pretty quickly in this series, and really cared about them. DS9 hooked me fast and hooked me well.
I'd have to say though, that I don't think Roddenberry would have thought DS9 to be pristine Trek. From reading Shatner's Star Trek Memories and Movie Memories I get the feeling that even the films were going in a direction he really didn't like, but was basically powerless to prevent at that point.

-Rabittooth

 

[sidious618]

DS9 is better than the other Treks, I feel, so I think it brings Trek to new heights.

In that sense, then, it is a key part of Trek lore.

 

[Vonstadt]

Here's a quote I used just now in another thread, but it applies to this one as well:

"[War] is instinctive. But the instinct can be fought. We're human beings with the blood of a million savage years on our hands! But we can stop it. We can admit that we're killers...but we're not going to kill...today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill...today!" -- James Kirk, A Taste Of Armageddon.

I think that theme fits beautifully with DS9's approach. What it doesn't fit so well with is the all-to-easy unearned superior smugness of TNG, VOY and a good part of ENT. TOS was written a realistic understanding of the difficulty of living up to Federation ideals. So was DS9. The others, not so much; VOY, practically never.

Perfectly expressed and sums up exactly how I felt about both series (TOS and DS9).

 

[Maniarek]

DS9 is pure Star Trek in every sense of the word. It stayed true to the Star Trek philosophy and bettered it. We fans should feel privileged to have been part of such a great franchise that produced top-notch shows over the years, & DS9 is absolutely no exception to that.

 

[PKTrekGirl]

Here's a quote I used just now in another thread, but it applies to this one as well:

"[War] is instinctive. But the instinct can be fought. We're human beings with the blood of a million savage years on our hands! But we can stop it. We can admit that we're killers...but we're not going to kill...today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill...today!" -- James Kirk, A Taste Of Armageddon.

I think that theme fits beautifully with DS9's approach. What it doesn't fit so well with is the all-to-easy unearned superior smugness of TNG, VOY and a good part of ENT. TOS was written a realistic understanding of the difficulty of living up to Federation ideals. So was DS9. The others, not so much; VOY, practically never.

Perfectly expressed and sums up exactly how I felt about both series (TOS and DS9).

For the most part, I agree with this too. Although I would say that TNG was the farthest away from TOS. VOY, IMO, was slightly better in this regard...and ENT was better still. I'm not the biggest fan of ENT...but at least it wasn't 'happy-shiny-we-have-evolved' like TNG.

In terms of 'closeness' to the TOS approach, I would rate them this way:

TOS >

DS9
ENT
VOY
TNG

I've said it before...and while I know it pisses off some people, I'll say it again - DS9 did not 'betray' Gene Roddenberry's 'vision'. IMO, Gene Roddenberry betrayed his OWN vision with TNG.

 

[doubleohfive]

DS9 is the epitome of what STAR TREK could be, would be, should be, and is simply by not being STAR TREK. It showed us both sides of the coin and in doing so also showed us how bright and shiny said coin really is.

 

[Vonstadt]

In terms of 'closeness' to the TOS approach, I would rate them this way:

TOS >

DS9
ENT
VOY
TNG

Agreed, this is the way I see the list as well, with Manny Coto coming in it moved ENT just above VOY for me.

Keep in mind I still find myself watching all of the series, its just I also find myself muttering "Oh Come on now!" the -most- with TNG and VOY.

I've said it before...and while I know it pisses off some people, I'll say it again - DS9 did not 'betray' Gene Roddenberry's 'vision'. IMO, Gene Roddenberry betrayed his OWN vision with TNG.

I completely agree with this statement. In fact DS9 kinda gave us what the others did not. A wider scope in which to see and enjoy the large scale interaction of Roddenberry's world. We felt as if the Federation was a government (we even got an Anthem to hear! ) and could see their policies good or bad reflected in the other governments around them, be they just single planets or allied or enemy powers such as the Romulans or Klingons.

You felt the scope and that added to the other series too such as TOS, TNG and VOY. It gave them a sense of place and DS9 showed us what was going on in the place, not just a bottled ship from that place.