And the TOS crewing visiting Liberace wasn't boring. Bahaha ha ha bahha...
Balance of Terror, I bet was boring too.
Issues with DS9
- Thread starter jimbtnp2
- Start date
- Status
And the TOS crewing visiting Liberace wasn't boring. Bahaha ha ha bahha...
Balance of Terror, I bet was boring too.
Balance was great
And I couldn't disagree with you more. DS9 is by far the best told Trek story
Again based on the reason I gave I totally disagree
another major difference is the movie quality production quality of TOS (no not the fx) vs the std TV of DS9
Why because I don't believe that Gene Roddenberry was a God? Read up on him sometime. By all accounts, he was a petty, conceited coke head. Even the best episodes of TOS weren't even written by him. Then, under his direction, TNG became almost unwatchable before he finally withdrew from production.
TOS was revolutionary for it's time. It has since been surpassed.
Not only has TOS not been surpassed its yet to be equaled, hence the new movie going back to the original
WHo said I thought GR was a god? Who cares if DC Fontana or R Block or Jeremy Bixby wrote those great stories - they were still great
GR had vision at least and it showed, surehe was a hypocrite, he was human too - but that's not the point
TNG became almost unwatchable under his direction??? Not IMO TNG was at its best under GR - S1 - It wasn't TOS but at least it was still Star Trek by S4 GR's vision was exercised from the show
^ You do made the point or giving your opinion that GR wouldn't have liked the show in your opening post.
Not that you would have any idea if he would have liked it or not.
No show is perfect and DS9 definitely wasn't. Overall I thought it was a great series and it has become my favourite series. I don't mind TOS and for its time it was great but these days I do find it terribly camp.
Not that you would have any idea if he would have liked it or not.
No show is perfect and DS9 definitely wasn't. Overall I thought it was a great series and it has become my favourite series. I don't mind TOS and for its time it was great but these days I do find it terribly camp.
To me, this is the whole enchilada. If this is what you want in a tv show, you love DS9; if this concept leaves you cold when it comes to a tv show, you don't like DS9. It's not really that hard to figure out--it's not rocket science. I personally wasn't interested in watching an Israel/Palestine analogy unfold on my tv set week after week, and I gave up on DS9 sometime in the first season. Once it went off in Dominion territory, I was even less inclined to watch. Sure In the Pale Moonlight seems like an amazing new Trek direction--but it's really nothing special in terms of where other literature or storytelling has gone. Non-Trek goes in those kind of directions all the time, and much more effectively. I found that episode extremely heavy-handed and dull. If you like it and think it's the best show in all of Trek--you are entitled to that opinion. But thinking it's the least Trek of Trek is an equally valid opinion. To each his own, watch what you like and leave off demanding fans of a particular show defend that show. If DS9-haters and Voyager-haters and Enterprise-haters could just leave each other alone, the world would be a better place. I wish folks wouldn't start these threads in the DS9 forums and the Voyager forums and in the Enterprise forums. But others don't seem to mind being stirred up and refighting all the old battles...so...carry on, I guess--enjoy!
Last edited:
Not really. The Ferengi were, in fact, fleshed out more than ever before. Quark, Rom and Nog were real people with a real point of view that we never saw on TNG.
There was little wrong with DS9's music.
Because he is again a different character with a different perspective.
You are Majel Barrett and I claim my five pounds. Perhaps DS9 should be more like a CSI show. No character development, just shoot dem darn aliens!
That I agree with you on.
DS9 was the least technobabble friendly of all the modern era shows. Only TOS relied upon it less.
Wallace Shawn is one of Hollywood's finest character actors.
Which isn't really Ira's problem.
True, but ... their adaptation of human, or rather humanistic, values as superior to their own continued apace throughout the various series. Any who espoused the opposing view were written as gleefully greedy caricatures—the Keystone Capitalists, as it were. Even Quark's adherence to the old guard mentality proves for the most part superficial under scrutiny.
I never noticed its music, except for the opening theme—which astonished me with its pomposity and ponderousness.
I enjoyed Vic immensely.
Sure is.
Quite right.
Roddenberry's intent/vision—such as can be clearly discerned—should be given more than a nod, granted ... but genuflecting to it is hardly necessary.
Quark, Rom and Nog are instruments of key social change on Ferenginar. Yes, that's probably because of the influence their Federation friends had on them but Ishta wasn't nearly as affected by that.
When Quark tries to be a more traditional Ferengi he gets burned, like in "Business as Usual".
It was TNG that turned the Ferengi in to a joke, not DS9. DS9 went a long way to undoing that.
The only thing wrong with DS9 was it's last episode.
The whole Odo linking with her and shes suddenly nice was a bit hard to believe, he'd linked with her a dozen times before and she was still a war monger
The whole Odo linking with her and shes suddenly nice was a bit hard to believe, he'd linked with her a dozen times before and she was still a war monger
Yeah, why didn't they hire Stan Kubrick to do DS9? Add a Clockwork Orange element to the Ferengi, that would've been a villain!
At least there were no bloody Ewoks!
At least there were no bloody Ewoks!
Real science? Well that's all I needed to hear.
But at those times, Odo didn't have the love FROM Kira. It does make a difference
I want you to knock off the hostile language immediately.
You don't like the show? That's fine. But telling someone to 'get a grip' simply because they do not agree with you is trolling. And given that you are a new member and fishing for arguments in this forum seems to be one of your chief agendas at the moment, I have to tell you that that sort of thing doesn't fly around here.
In any event, next time, it will be a warning. So I'd suggest dialing back the hostility factor, like now.
Thanks.
You seem to have missed the entire point of TOS. It wasn't about telling Sci-Fi stories, it was about humanity and the interactions of different peoples. DS9 did a great job in every aspect. In the Pale Moonlight is one of if not the Best Trek show made. It delves deep into the mind of a man that ultimately is willing to sacrifice his morals in order to achieve a greater victory. Picard would have never done it, Janeway would have instantly taken a side and stuck to it no matter what. Archer would have tried to talk the Romulans into it, to no end, and Kirk would have just punched the Romulan in the mouth and told him to grow a pair.
There was a lack of discovering because for the most part the show was stationary. The discoveries came to them. But the show did make you think.
Frankly, what amazes me most are all of these self-appointed experts who presume to know every detail of what Gene Roddenberry's 'vision' was...and what does and doesn't contradict it.
Nevermind that Gene's own widow was apparently not nearly as incensed as all of these self-appointed 'experts', having agreed to appear in a few DS9 episodes herself.
And more to the point, nevermind the fact that the tone, mindset and presentation of TNG contradicted the tone, mindset and presentation of TOS on any number of levels....despite the fact that Gene himself was involved in both of those shows.
The fact is that if anyone contradicted Gene Roddenberry's so-called 'vision' (assuming there even WAS a vision, past getting really, really rich and doing as many drugs as possible), it was Gene Roddenberry.
TOS presented a view of the future that was NOT utopia. Our heroes were flawed individuals who argued and fought with each other while bending the rules all over the place, and who never pretended to know everything...and they were flying around the galaxy to explore. TOS is chock full of gray areas of morality, errors in judgment, and learning from mistakes.
TNG, in contrast, presented a crew full of perfect, 'evolved' beings. They were always right, did everything by the book, and they never disagreed with each other. And their mission was not, apparently, to explore, but instead to run around the galaxy spreading their 'enlightened' way of thinking like missionaries for secular humanism or something. TNG is chock full of black and white decisions, flawless judgment, and mistakes made only by the unenlightened, unwashed masses of aliens, most of whom couldn't wait to be be set on the right course by our perfect heroes come to rescue them from themselves.
IMO, Gene Roddenberry sold HIMSELF out with TNG. So any accusations of anyone else selling him out after that are moot. That particular horse had long ago left the barn by the time DS9 reached our TV screens.
Whatever 'vision' Roddenberry had for TOS got sold down the river in favor of a pile of 1980's PC platitudes.
And so this is one fan who simply does not buy that whole 'Gene Roddenberry's vision' line any longer.
The thing is that Gene Roddenberry's 'vision' SHOULD have been to simply make good scifi. It should have been to create interesting characters, and to develop those characters. It should have been to challenge the viewer with moral dilemmas....and illustrate what happens when one makes the right choice...and what happens when one makes the wrong choice. And what happens when there IS, in fact, no 'right choice'.
We got some of that with TOS - as much as one could expect out of a TV show made in the 60's.
But we didn't get it with TNG. Not by a longshot.
With DS9, we got some of that back. We got back the shades of gray that were absent from the sterilized Trek Universe of TNG. We got back storylines that challenged the viewer. We got back the concept of flawed heroes just trying to do the best they could. And I'm GLAD for that.
It's easy to be a saint in paradise.
But fortunately for us, DS9 was not paradise. Nor, by the way, was TOS.
I think is is very telling what happened to Trek after DS9. It was at a crossroads....and B&B chose to follow the path of the more sterilized, black & white approach.
Result: Voyager and Enterprise.
Meanwhile, Ron Moore, a DS9 writer, bailed from the Voyager staff within weeks of joining it due to 'creative differences' (in retrospect - no KIDDING!)...and went and did Battlestar Galactica. Which I would argue became, in many ways, the Voyager that could have been.
Now, I actually like Voyager more than many fans on this board do. But I will say this: it pales in comparison to Battlestar Galactica. VOY and BSG have very similar premises - a lost military ship (in BSG's case accompanied by a small civilian fleet) battling against incredible odds for their very survival...and trying to reach a destination that was either mythical (in BSG's case) or so far away as to be practically mythical (in VOY's case).
VOY is the product of a show-runner who took the happy-shiny Gene Roddenberry-approved TNG path to it's next level...and BSG is the product of a show-runner who took the darker and more morally nebulous DS9 path to it's next level.
Me? Given that comparison, I don't give a shit about Gene Roddenberry's so-called 'vision'.
If the end result of that 'vision' is Voyager...and the end result of a DS9 writer's 'vision' on a show of almost identical premise is BSG?
Well, I'm thinkin' Gene Roddenberry and his 'vision' are HIGHLY overrated.
Nevermind that Gene's own widow was apparently not nearly as incensed as all of these self-appointed 'experts', having agreed to appear in a few DS9 episodes herself.
And more to the point, nevermind the fact that the tone, mindset and presentation of TNG contradicted the tone, mindset and presentation of TOS on any number of levels....despite the fact that Gene himself was involved in both of those shows.
The fact is that if anyone contradicted Gene Roddenberry's so-called 'vision' (assuming there even WAS a vision, past getting really, really rich and doing as many drugs as possible), it was Gene Roddenberry.
TOS presented a view of the future that was NOT utopia. Our heroes were flawed individuals who argued and fought with each other while bending the rules all over the place, and who never pretended to know everything...and they were flying around the galaxy to explore. TOS is chock full of gray areas of morality, errors in judgment, and learning from mistakes.
TNG, in contrast, presented a crew full of perfect, 'evolved' beings. They were always right, did everything by the book, and they never disagreed with each other. And their mission was not, apparently, to explore, but instead to run around the galaxy spreading their 'enlightened' way of thinking like missionaries for secular humanism or something. TNG is chock full of black and white decisions, flawless judgment, and mistakes made only by the unenlightened, unwashed masses of aliens, most of whom couldn't wait to be be set on the right course by our perfect heroes come to rescue them from themselves.
IMO, Gene Roddenberry sold HIMSELF out with TNG. So any accusations of anyone else selling him out after that are moot. That particular horse had long ago left the barn by the time DS9 reached our TV screens.
Whatever 'vision' Roddenberry had for TOS got sold down the river in favor of a pile of 1980's PC platitudes.
And so this is one fan who simply does not buy that whole 'Gene Roddenberry's vision' line any longer.
The thing is that Gene Roddenberry's 'vision' SHOULD have been to simply make good scifi. It should have been to create interesting characters, and to develop those characters. It should have been to challenge the viewer with moral dilemmas....and illustrate what happens when one makes the right choice...and what happens when one makes the wrong choice. And what happens when there IS, in fact, no 'right choice'.
We got some of that with TOS - as much as one could expect out of a TV show made in the 60's.
But we didn't get it with TNG. Not by a longshot.
With DS9, we got some of that back. We got back the shades of gray that were absent from the sterilized Trek Universe of TNG. We got back storylines that challenged the viewer. We got back the concept of flawed heroes just trying to do the best they could. And I'm GLAD for that.
It's easy to be a saint in paradise.
But fortunately for us, DS9 was not paradise. Nor, by the way, was TOS.
I think is is very telling what happened to Trek after DS9. It was at a crossroads....and B&B chose to follow the path of the more sterilized, black & white approach.
Result: Voyager and Enterprise.
Meanwhile, Ron Moore, a DS9 writer, bailed from the Voyager staff within weeks of joining it due to 'creative differences' (in retrospect - no KIDDING!)...and went and did Battlestar Galactica. Which I would argue became, in many ways, the Voyager that could have been.
Now, I actually like Voyager more than many fans on this board do. But I will say this: it pales in comparison to Battlestar Galactica. VOY and BSG have very similar premises - a lost military ship (in BSG's case accompanied by a small civilian fleet) battling against incredible odds for their very survival...and trying to reach a destination that was either mythical (in BSG's case) or so far away as to be practically mythical (in VOY's case).
VOY is the product of a show-runner who took the happy-shiny Gene Roddenberry-approved TNG path to it's next level...and BSG is the product of a show-runner who took the darker and more morally nebulous DS9 path to it's next level.
Me? Given that comparison, I don't give a shit about Gene Roddenberry's so-called 'vision'.
If the end result of that 'vision' is Voyager...and the end result of a DS9 writer's 'vision' on a show of almost identical premise is BSG?
Well, I'm thinkin' Gene Roddenberry and his 'vision' are HIGHLY overrated.
Last edited:
Another shit list, in my opinion. Especially since a similar one had not been made for TNG, ENT or TOS - all shows that starred white males.
- Status