Locutus and Ben Sisko

[Distorted Humor]

I just watched the opening episode of DS9 last night in my rewatching of the series, and it gives a nice power to the episode as we see Sisko go from being a man who still has not gotten over the lost of the love of his life (which can take a long time) and someone who was on the path of long term ruin, take the first steps to get over the loss and move on.

Also, it was nice to see that in the future, sometimes folks can be jerks. I love TNG, but it it had less personal conflict then any of the other series, including TOS.

 

[Captaindemotion]

^Yes, I believe that Gene Roddenberry decided, when writing the TNG bible, that 24th century humans would have advanced beyond personal conflict and strife. Ignoring the creative limits that this would place on storytelling.

 

[R. Star]

^Yes, I believe that Gene Roddenberry decided, when writing the TNG bible, that 24th century humans would have advanced beyond personal conflict and strife. Ignoring the creative limits that this would place on storytelling.

A nonsensical notion that a child wouldn't grieve for a parent was brought up too. That really just belittles life and values as a whole in my opinion. That would be a souless enviornment to raise a kid in if they don't even care if their mom dies.

 

[JRoss]

nvm

 

[Spock/Uhura Fan]

^Yes, I believe that Gene Roddenberry decided, when writing the TNG bible, that 24th century humans would have advanced beyond personal conflict and strife. Ignoring the creative limits that this would place on storytelling.

A nonsensical notion that a child wouldn't grieve for a parent was brought up too. That really just belittles life and values as a whole in my opinion. That would be a souless enviornment to raise a kid in if they don't even care if their mom dies.

Yeah, and it sounds a little too much like Aldous Huxley's Brave New World to me. I don't want that kind of world, and I'm glad Sisko/Jake didn't live in it.

 

[JarodRussell]

^Yes, I believe that Gene Roddenberry decided, when writing the TNG bible, that 24th century humans would have advanced beyond personal conflict and strife. Ignoring the creative limits that this would place on storytelling.

A nonsensical notion that a child wouldn't grieve for a parent was brought up too. That really just belittles life and values as a whole in my opinion. That would be a souless enviornment to raise a kid in if they don't even care if their mom dies.

Who said anything about not caring? People were supposed to be more psychologically stable (through their whole upbringing, education and the social environment they live in), meaning that the death of a loved one doesn't mean the end of the world. That has nothing to do with "not caring". Geez.

I'm guessing that in Roddenberry's world there's no depression and suicides either.

 

[Deckerd]

The death of a loved one doesn't mean the end of the world now or indeed ever. It's not a utopian ideal.

 

[grabthars hammer]

I dont believe GR meant that future humans would be completely free of strife and total BFFs with everyone but that petty fighting and the like would be rarer, the same way humanity (for the most part) is less barbaric than a thousand years ago. ST main characters are largely presented as heroic figures. Heroic characters can be heroic only if they are also capable of evil. If humans can only do good things, they couldnt be called heroes,they'd be little different from machines.

As for Sisko/Picard, of course Sisko doesn't believe Picard is responsible for his wife's death, otherwise he'd go right for Jean-Luc's throat the moment he sees him. In his mind however, Picard is associated with the most painful moment of his life, so meeting him again under any circumstance isn't going to be a happy experience.

 

[Spock/Uhura Fan]

I dont believe GR meant that future humans would be completely free of strife and total BFFs with everyone but that petty fighting and the like would be rarer, the same way humanity (for the most part) is less barbaric than a thousand years ago. ST main characters are largely presented as heroic figures. Heroic characters can be heroic only if they are also capable of evil. If humans can only do good things, they couldnt be called heroes,they'd be little different from machines.

As for Sisko/Picard, of course Sisko doesn't believe Picard is responsible for his wife's death, otherwise he'd go right for Jean-Luc's throat the moment he sees him. In his mind however, Picard is associated with the most painful moment of his life, so meeting him again under any circumstance isn't going to be a happy experience.

Wonderful post.

 

[grabthars hammer]

Why, thank you

 

[Sci]

"Forgiven" implies Picard did something wrong, he didn't.

What happened was that Sisko just realized Picard was no different from him, another victim and wasn't deserving of any scorn.

Right. Well, that's what *should* have happened in the show. For all wthe viewer knows, sisko still hates picard. Theres no payoff scene where he shows that he doesnt hold it against him, unfortunately.

It's called subtext. We did get resolution on Sisko letting go of his anger towards Picard and not holding things against him anymore, in their last scene.

 

[R. Star]

The problem with subtext, is it really is speculative and not everyone draws the same conclusions.

 

[Dream]

It's called subtext. We did get resolution on Sisko letting go of his anger towards Picard and not holding things against him anymore, in their last scene.

Sadly, some people need things completely spelled out for them.

 

[Sci]

The problem with subtext, is it really is speculative and not everyone draws the same conclusions.

That's not a problem, that's a feature. It's why this is art and not science.

 

[Mr_Homn]

"Forgiven" implies Picard did something wrong, he didn't.

What happened was that Sisko just realized Picard was no different from him, another victim and wasn't deserving of any scorn.

Right. Well, that's what *should* have happened in the show. For all wthe viewer knows, sisko still hates picard. Theres no payoff scene where he shows that he doesnt hold it against him, unfortunately.

It's called subtext. We did get resolution on Sisko letting go of his anger towards Picard and not holding things against him anymore, in their last scene.

I am well aware that Sisko let go of his anger towards Picard, and you'll see that in the posts I made after the one you quoted. No need for condescending tone ("It's called subtext")

The issue I have with it is that he never expresses any sort of shame or regret for being such a dick to him in the first place. Not at all. He just shakes his hand and smiles (while picard is still visibly distant/stern/not very happy... but Sisko just ignores that while smiling). It's like he thinks that just because he has let go of his irrational anger toward Picard that it excuses how he behaved earlier.

It's not an issue of him still being angry, it's an issue of him coming off as a self centered insensitive ass.


1. Sisko acts like a total jerk to Picard because he is angry at him for something Picard had no control over. (Totally Understandable, even though illogical. He is only human.)
2. Sisko lets go of anger; realizes Picard wasn't at fault.
3. Sisko, no longer angry, gleefully accepts new position, but makes absolutely no effort to apologize for acting like Jerk, even though he now realizes his anger was misguided.

Seems like he skipped a step to me.

It would appear the person who did the novelization agrees with me since that's one area where it is quite different.

 

[R. Star]

He's Bajorian Jesus now. He can forgive his own sins.

 

[Mr_Homn]

He's Bajorian Jesus now. He can forgive his own sins.

 

[E-DUB]

Sisko's blaming of Picard is on a purely emotional level. It's easier, after all, to blame an individual than a heartless soulless collective. This can't have been the first time that Picard has met with that reaction either. It is also clear from the TNG episode "Family" that, at that same emotional level, he blames himself that so many died due, in large part, to "his" actions while assimilated. Survivors guilt, with a twist.

 

[Jimi_James]

It also sets the tone for Sisko, as well as the series as a whole. With that one scene, which remains one of my favorites, they instantly established that DS9 wasn't going to be a shadow of TNG. Even by the episodes end, when Sisko has accepted his new assignment, started to move on, and made his peace with Picard, you're left with the image of Sisko putting Picard in his place.

It's a powerful moment. "We met in battle."
The look on Picard's face. Sisko enjoyed it and it almost scares Picard because for a moment, he physically recoils before he can collect himself, regroup and begin to stand his ground.
Had they not been in uniform, or had it been anyone else, I think Sisko easily might have attacked Picard physically. This is after all the man who hit Q and was a complicit accomplice in the murder of a Romulan Senator for the greater good. Those don't develop overnight. The war might have pushed him to the edge, but it had to be there in him from the beginning.

So while everything we were learning a about Bajor and Cardassia, went a long way to establish the tone of what the show was going to focus on, Sisko's one scene with Picard established what side of Starfleet we would be dealing with. It wasn't the picture perfect version we were used to in TNG. It was dark and rough around the edges and for the rest of the series, they continued to go in that direction...much to my enjoyment.

Say what you will about DS9, because as with anything in Trek there are those that don't care for it, but you have to give them credit for doing something different and going where they had never gone before.