Spoilers Niners might wanna watch SFA E5

[Ray Hardgrit]

That's honestly where I thought the episode was heading. That Sisko did return, but only revealed himself to his family and not the galaxy at large. That he lived his life as a humble family man on Bajor before eventually returning to the Celestial Temple (if ever.) That would have been infinitely more satisfying.

Also, the lack of any reference to his kid with Kasidy was jarring and inexplicable.

That was my own personal theory and I would've been satisfied by that, though if the writers had come up with something even more creative and satisfying that I hadn't even imagined, that would been cool too.

At least they didn't do anything dumb with it, like Sisko coming back to fight in a war against the gods or whatever.

 

[Set Harth]

His legs returned to kick some ass.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

That pissed me off enormously, especially since it flew in the face of Avery Brooks' specific request. Fuck that. Seriously.

The rest of the episode was dopey. I tried to get on board. I did. I only watched the pilot of SFA so far, but I dug it well enough. SAM, unfortunately, is only 33.3 percent charming and 66.6 percent annoying and she leaned too hard into the latter this episode.

Her "quest" made no sense. She visited a museum. She got drunk. And then she was like, "Man, I did all this work looking into Sisko." Um, did you??

Whatever she learned about Sisko (still unclear about that!) really had no direct relevance to her own situation whatsoever except for the very forced way she (and the episode) tried to make forced parallels to the two characters both being "emissaries", although it completey different circumstances and contexts.

It wasn't really "about" anything, except fan service. And fan service for Sisko I can get behind, but this was just frustrating and ultimately empty and the fact that they made Sisko never return is seriously insulting to the character and actor alike.

And I also hated that Anslem was never published. Uh, why??

Oh, and the B story was absolutely unwatchable. Bleh.

This episode kinda dulled (if not outright killed) my desire to continue with the show. Which I did have after the pilot. Now.....hmmm....maybe I'll just skip it entirely.

SAM's "quest" is about finding meaning in the life planned for her. She is an undifferentiated, immature person, like most teenagers, who not only has no purpose to her life, she suffers under the weight of the expectations society places on her. She found someone who found himself in difficult crossroads as well, albeit on a far grander scale.

She found a role model.

She struggles with the complexities of Sisko's life: don't we, the fans, always celebrate how complex, how complete Sisko is?

The fact that SAM is young and inexperienced and Sisko was mature and heroic is not really relevant to how role models shape people's lives. How many young kids learned about perseverance and humility from Lou Gehrig, but never played professional baseball? SAM learned that she could not reduce Benjamin Sisko to a few facts. He was burdened with the expectations placed on him by Starfleet, Bajor, and the Prophets, all of which worked against his personal happiness. Yet that happiness was real, and that private life was the strength of that allowed him to be a hero, to play the part others wanted him to play.

These ideas were rife in DS9: The Homecoming, The Siege, The Collaborator, Defiant, Destiny, Way of the Warrior, Accession, Rapture, For the Uniform, Blaze of Glory, Sacrifice of Angels, Tears of the Prophets, Shadows and Symbols, Once more Unto the Breach and the final ten.

Yes, we will quibble about the details of "Series Acclimation Mil," but this episode got right a lot of things about how Deep Space Nine told stories.

 

[Crewman6]

SAM's "quest" is about finding meaning in the life planned for her. She is an undifferentiated, immature person, like most teenagers, who not only has no purpose to her life, she suffers under the weight of the expectations society places on her. She found someone who found himself in difficult crossroads as well, albeit on a far grander scale.

She found a role model.

She struggles with the complexities of Sisko's life: don't we, the fans, always celebrate how complex, how complete Sisko is?

The fact that SAM is young and inexperienced and Sisko was mature and heroic is not really relevant to how role models shape people's lives. How many young kids learned about perseverance and humility from Lou Gehrig, but never played professional baseball? SAM learned that she could not reduce Benjamin Sisko to a few facts. He was burdened with the expectations placed on him by Starfleet, Bajor, and the Prophets, all of which worked against his personal happiness. Yet that happiness was real, and that private life was the strength of that allowed him to be a hero, to play the part others wanted him to play.

These ideas were rife in DS9: The Homecoming, The Siege, The Collaborator, Defiant, Destiny, Way of the Warrior, Accession, Rapture, For the Uniform, Blaze of Glory, Sacrifice of Angels, Tears of the Prophets, Shadows and Symbols, Once more Unto the Breach and the final ten.

Yes, we will quibble about the details of "Series Acclimation Mil," but this episode got right a lot of things about how Deep Space Nine told stories.

Your analysis is lovely, but 95% in your own head and barely in the episode at all. If the episode had convincingly made those points, that would have been nice. But it really didn't except perhaps very, very slightly.

As for storytelling? This episode wasn't remotely similar to DS9's style of storytelling.

 

[Farscape One]

Actually, in one sense it was DS9 storytelling.

More than any other series in the franchise, DS9 would do A-B-C stories within the same episode.

Without spoiling anything, the A story was the tribute, B story was for the adults of the show, and C story was for the other cadets.

 

[Turtletrekker]

SAM's "quest" is about finding meaning in the life planned for her. She is an undifferentiated, immature person, like most teenagers, who not only has no purpose to her life, she suffers under the weight of the expectations society places on her. She found someone who found himself in difficult crossroads as well, albeit on a far grander scale.

She found a role model.

She struggles with the complexities of Sisko's life: don't we, the fans, always celebrate how complex, how complete Sisko is?

The fact that SAM is young and inexperienced and Sisko was mature and heroic is not really relevant to how role models shape people's lives. How many young kids learned about perseverance and humility from Lou Gehrig, but never played professional baseball? SAM learned that she could not reduce Benjamin Sisko to a few facts. He was burdened with the expectations placed on him by Starfleet, Bajor, and the Prophets, all of which worked against his personal happiness. Yet that happiness was real, and that private life was the strength of that allowed him to be a hero, to play the part others wanted him to play.

These ideas were rife in DS9: The Homecoming, The Siege, The Collaborator, Defiant, Destiny, Way of the Warrior, Accession, Rapture, For the Uniform, Blaze of Glory, Sacrifice of Angels, Tears of the Prophets, Shadows and Symbols, Once more Unto the Breach and the final ten.

Yes, we will quibble about the details of "Series Acclimation Mil," but this episode got right a lot of things about how Deep Space Nine told stories.

Agreed completely. But it also emulated DS9s storytelling in another way -- on the importance of having faith.

I keep coming back to the performance from Avery Brooks, specifically chosen by Cirroc Lofton and approved by Brooks, that was used to represent Sisko --

"Divine laws are simpler than human ones, which is why it takes a lifetime to be able to understand them. Only love can understand them. Only love can interpret these words as they were meant to be interpreted."

While not specifically written for the episode, there's a lot there to unpack, and not all of it definitive. Sisko himself now lives beyond human law and a Divine existence. By Divine law, he could not physically be there for his wife child and family as he had moved beyond a corporeal and linear existence. But through those same Divine laws and non-corporeal and nonlinear existence, he was always there. THAT'S what I believe Jake was trying to say. And it took him a lifetime to understand that. That love between Father and Son would never die.

As for the "these words" in question, I believe that refers to Sisko's declaration that "I will be back". Those words were ultimately not to be interpreted in the literal sense but in the sense that he will always be listening. It all comes down to having faith.

And this whole endeavor, right down to the script and the use of the performance in question, came with Avery Brooks express knowledge, approval and input. Cirroc Lofton describes many lengthy conversations with Mr Brooks in which they would iron out the details of the story in a way that met with his approval, so the argument that it goes against Avery Brook's wishes is not one that is really relevant to the situation.

 

[DarKush]

I have yet to see the episode, but I've spoiled myself rotten about it, and the decision that Sisko never comes back doesn't sit right with me. From what I gather the episode seems like it was a lovely, well-deserved, and long past due acknowledgement and tribute to Avery Brooks, but personally, I can't say it served Sisko as a character as well.

This is the first time I've felt a cleaving between Mr. Brooks and Captain Sisko and while I think how the story was put together does honor Brooks, it slights Sisko by having him not fulfill his promise. Stating clearly that he would be back is not the same as believing he was always there. If we go with that reading of it, the line of dialogue in the DS9 finale would've been along the line of "I am always here", "I will never leave", or a Star Warsian "No one is ever truly gone."

I would've been fine with a line that he came back and then disappeared again. Or like others have said, that he came back and quietly lived out his life with his family, which is the best ending I can think of.

I'm also wondering if maybe the Ben Sisko role could be recast so the character can live on. Pike and Kirk have been recast and we've seen younger versions of Picard (yes, I'm including Shinzon). I would like to see the character get a better ending than never being seen or heard from again. As it stands Academy did the one thing Mr. Brooks didn't want to happen in DS9, and further, Sisko did it after promising his pregnant wife that he would be back. Perhaps Mr. Brooks agreed to this because he has simply moved on and there are more examples of positive Black males, even in genre spaces, in entertainment today than it was when he was playing Sisko and he doesn't have to carry so much on his shoulders, but his promise meant a lot to me back then and still does.

I also would like to see them revisit this perhaps in an audio drama, Star Trek: Sisko. Perhaps Mr. Brooks would be okay with that, but if not, still a recast might not incur as much Niner/Trekkie outrage if it's not in live action.

 

[Turtletrekker]

There's nothing in the episode's narrative to discount the possibility that Sisko did return to his family. The small print on the displays state that the museum was possible due to the donations of members of the Sisko family, who were named after Avery Brooks children.

With that in mind, the family tree that was shown did not show Kassidy's child with Ben. This could be deliberate on the family's part, for reasons of privacy, secrecy or safety. The last thing Ben and Kassidy would want would be for their child to be living under the weight of her father's status amongst the Bajoran people nor under the threat presented by the Pagh Wraith wackos. We know that Kassidy owned a freight hauling business in 2399. We don't know where she lived or who was waiting for her when she went home.

At any rate, delivering definitive answers about what happened with Sisko wasn't the point of the episode, the episode was about SAM and her journey, hence the episode's title.

 

[Tosk]

It's hard to put any stock in the family tree considering how many errors it contains.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

There's nothing in the episode's narrative to discount the possibility that Sisko did return to his family.

There's nothing saying he still won't return yesterday.

 

[ichab]

The reactions here are about what I suspected. My feelings are similar. SFA is a generic sci fi/teen drama with the Star Trek name slapped on it. Nothing more. A few DS9 references isn't going to make Niners forget that.

 

[Tosk]

There's nothing saying he still won't return yesterday.

That's what I've been leaning towards lately.
It's not linear.

 

[Turtletrekker]

It's hard to put any stock in the family tree considering how many errors it contains.

Of course. But I'm saying that that may be deliberate, both in universe and real world.

 

[Crewman6]

Actually, in one sense it was DS9 storytelling.

More than any other series in the franchise, DS9 would do A-B-C stories within the same episode.

Without spoiling anything, the A story was the tribute, B story was for the adults of the show, and C story was for the other cadets.

That's extremely surface-level. TNG had plenty of B-stories. And A-B-C was a rarity on any of the series.

 

[Crewman6]

At any rate, delivering definitive answers about what happened with Sisko wasn't the point of the episode, the episode was about SAM and her journey, hence the episode's title.

Ambiguity would have been far preferable to the definitive answer we got that Sisko never went home.

And, no, Jake saying "well, he was 'always there'." is a straight-up cop-out bullshit.

It's what you say when a family member dies. It's just a way of lying to yourself to make yourself feel better about a loss. "Oh, they're here in spirit." AKA, not actually here in any real way. "Oh, I felt him." Yeah, screw that. You would have felt him more if he was actually friggin' there.

Sisko should have actually returned, like WYLB says and what Avery Brooks specifically requested. I don't care if his presence was a mystery to the greater galaxy, but he should have been there for his two kids and his wife.

and this show fucked it up. But it's far from the first time 21st Century Trek has crapped on the past and there's no way it'll be the last.

 

[Sakonna]

Your analysis is lovely, but 95% in your own head and barely in the episode at all. If the episode had convincingly made those points, that would have been nice. But it really didn't except perhaps very, very slightly.

Not only is everything @Bad Thoughts points out in the episode, it's the top line of it. It's the A story and the most prominent element.

Apologies, but the perceived absence of these elements is all in your own head.

That was one thing I quite liked about it, how the episode managed to primarily be about its own characters while also pulling in so much DS9.

Though I also initially agreed with a lot of the criticisms you made as to the treatment of Sisko, but my attitude has been shifting as I learned that Avery read the script and had multiple discussions along the way and found everything SFA portrayed to be consistent with his wishes for Sisko's story. Since the man himself has blessed it, I'm eager to find a moment to rewatch and see how it plays for me with that awareness.

 

[DarKush]

There's nothing in the episode's narrative to discount the possibility that Sisko did return to his family. The small print on the displays state that the museum was possible due to the donations of members of the Sisko family, who were named after Avery Brooks children.

With that in mind, the family tree that was shown did not show Kassidy's child with Ben. This could be deliberate on the family's part, for reasons of privacy, secrecy or safety. The last thing Ben and Kassidy would want would be for their child to be living under the weight of her father's status amongst the Bajoran people nor under the threat presented by the Pagh Wraith wackos. We know that Kassidy owned a freight hauling business in 2399. We don't know where she lived or who was waiting for her when she went home.

At any rate, delivering definitive answers about what happened with Sisko wasn't the point of the episode, the episode was about SAM and her journey, hence the episode's title.

That would be fine with me, especially if there was even a hint of it. I got a darker thought about them not having their child as part of the family tree, and that could be that the child didn't survive. Until we get more official about this, we won't know.

I personally think that the Academy writers were holding off on naming Sisko's second born so that future writers might revisit it in a more DS9-specific project. But as it stands, it's a curious omission.

I also would've been fine with them saying a lot of records were lost after The Burn and from what they have on hand, he didn't come back. If the Sisko Museum was being funded by his family that says to me that they have been limited in what they could put in the museum, but I could also see the family keeping things out like Sisko coming back as well.

I don't see Sisko ever being comfortable with the Bajorans worshipping him. Seems he would've come back to tell them not to do that.

I did see the video about the Sisko Museum that Paramount put on You Tube and them having an actual Bajoran orb, one that anyone can touch, made little sense to me. I could see there being a replica but not the real deal.

 

[Turtletrekker]

The orb in question, presumably The Orb of the Emissary, is on display at the Sisko Museum in New Orleans and was donated by the Bajoran people. SAM was accessing the museum displays virtually from the Academy.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

Your analysis is lovely, but 95% in your own head and barely in the episode at all. If the episode had convincingly made those points, that would have been nice. But it really didn't except perhaps very, very slightly.

As for storytelling? This episode wasn't remotely similar to DS9's style of storytelling.

The episode could have intended to make all these point and failed. I believe that I could give a moment by moment breakdown of the episode in order to show the ideas that motivated the details of the story. However, I take extreme exception to the idea that it didn;t use elements of DS9 storytelling. There are numerous places where characters are dealing with the problems posed by heroes and legends, those who would be role models.

SISKO: They still need you.
LI: But I am not the man that they think I am.
SISKO: Perhaps not. But Bajor doesn't need a man. It needs a symbol, and that's what you are. No one's asking you to lead troops into battle, or to kill a hundred Cardassians with your bare hands. I saw you in front of the crowd on the Promenade. They look at you and they see strength, and honour, and decency. They look at you and they see the best in themselves.
LI: But it's all based on a lie.
SISKO: No. It's based on a legend. And legends are as powerful as any truth. Bajor still needs that legend. It needs you.

KIRA: Somehow, you figured now that he was here, things would be better, you know. He'd find a way to make things better because he was a man who could do that. A great man. I wish I knew where we could find others like him.
SISKO: Major, there are heroes all over Bajor. I'm sitting with one.
KIRA: I'm sorry, I don't feel like celebrating tonight. Excuse me.
(Kira leaves)
O'BRIEN: Sir, can I ask you something?
SISKO: Sure.
O'BRIEN: About Li Nalas.
SISKO: Mm hmm.
O'BRIEN: Listening to Kira talk about all he was, all he did, all he was going to do, she makes him sound like he was larger than life. like he was some kind of military genius. But the Li Nalas I
SISKO: Chief, Li Nalas was the hero of the Bajoran resistance. He performed extraordinary acts of courage for his people and died for their freedom. That's how the history books on Bajor will be written, and that's how I'll remember him when anybody asks.


KIRA: No, it is not enough. There is no way you ordered Bek to reveal the location of the Kendra Valley encampment. You were covering up for someone else. Someone who meant more to you than me. More to you even than becoming Kai.
BAREIL: Please, Nerys. Don't.
KIRA: Why not? It's the truth, isn't it? Who else meant that much to you? It had to be Kai Opaka. Opaka knew where the resistance cell was located because her son was a member. She was the collaborator, wasn't she?
BAREIL: She sacrificed her own son to save a thousand people. I had to protect her.


WORF: Why did you change your mind?
SISKO: I finally realised that it wasn't Starfleet I wanted to get away from. I was trying to escape the pain I felt after my wife's death. I thought I could take the uniform, wrap it around that pain and toss them both away. But it doesn't work like that. Running may help for a little while, but sooner or later the pain catches up with you, and the only way to get rid of it is to stand your ground and face it.
WORF: But wearing that uniform must remind you of what you have lost.
SISKO: Sometimes. But it also reminds me of what I've gained, and who I am. Oh, I can throw away the uniform, resign my commission, run all the way to the Nyberrite Alliance, but it really wouldn't matter. A Starfleet officer. That's what I am, and that's what I'll always be.


DAMAR: You are the Sisko.
SISKO: I am also a Starfleet captain. I have a job to do and I intend to do it.
WEYOUN: The Sisko is belligerent.
DUKAT: Aggressive.
DAMAR: Adversarial.
SISKO: You're damn right I'm adversarial. You have no right to interfere with my life.


O'BRIEN: Come on. Santa Anna didn't care about the rules of war. If he'd executed Davy Crockett at the Alamo he would have considered it a point of pride.
BASHIR: All right. Put it this way. In eighteen thirty six Davy Crockett was what, forty nine? Quite old for the standards of the time. His days as an Indian fighter were well behind him. He was just an ex-Congressman, all reputation. Now this is not a man who was about to fight till his last breath, Miles. The situation was hopeless, he was out of ammunition, the Mexican army was swarming the Alamo's battlements. He would have surrendered. It's as logical as that. Simple.
O'BRIEN: I'm not saying it couldn't have happened. I'm just saying there's no proof.
WORF: You are both wrong. The only real question is whether you believe in the legend of Davy Crockett or not. If you do, then there should be no doubt in your mind that he died the death of a hero. If you do not believe in the legend, then he was just a man and it does not matter how he died.

All of these conversations and more were reflected in the episode as SAM grappled with understanding a person who was becoming meaningful to her.

 

[Riley]

Damn.. don’t feed the Matalas fanbros for a couple of years and they get downright cranky

To clarify, I'm not a fan of Abrams, Kurtzman, OR Matalas Trek. It's all fanwank garbage set in ill-conceived alternate timelines and isn't true Star Trek. Maybe review some of my other posts before making assumptions.

StarMan and Riley are far from Matalas Fanbros. As for myself... I wouldn't have been the audience for Starfleet Academy regardless of whether or not Picard Season 3 existed. Not everything is about Terry Matalas. I gave Starfleet Academy a grace period, since I am a Discovery Fan, but it's not for me. I'm not going to try to force it if it isn't.

Thank you for speaking up for me. As for forcing it, no one should feel they "must" like something if it isn't for them. It seems that every fandom these days is plagued by this mentality. "Oh, you don't like Kurtzman Trek? You must be a Boomer who only likes TOS!" It's ridiculous.

And for the past 25 years, I hoped that Sisko would've eventually returned, whether it was on-camera or not. Again, that has nothing to do with Terry Matalas. This has to do with I agree with Avery Brooks not wanting Sisko to abandon his wife and baby.

I'd hoped Sisko would have returned in a series that was an actual Star Trek series and continuation of the 24th century era as it became the 25th century era. In my head canon, Sisko returned not long after WYLB and hung up the uniform to be a family man. I figured the Prophets wanted one last communion with Sisko to fully understand linear time and the concepts of violence and war. I'd have preferred that ending to DS9 rather than Sisko is/maybe isn't dead and now he's with the Prophets to do some mysterious work the writers didn't bother to figure out.

As far as For All Mankind and Pluribus being better than New Trek... the former is made by Ron Moore and the latter is made by Vince Gilligan. They're better creators than Alex Kurtzman. I have a hard time imagining how anyone could tell me otherwise with a straight face. And the premises for both have kept me interested and have left me wanting more. Whereas with Starfleet Academy, I wouldn't have watched any of it at all if "Star Trek" hadn't been in the title and there wasn't the Discovery connection.

I haven't watched For All Mankind yet, but Pluribus was great. It's received a lot of criticism for its slow pace, but those critics are likely not accustomed to or interested in pacing, character-building, and narrative development. It goes without saying that it's far superior to anything with the Trek name on it since 2009 (and better than most of Voyager and Enterprise).

"Context Is for Kings" is what got me hooked on Discovery in the first place. That was the episode that truly got me back into Star Trek again for the first time since DS9 ended. "The Vulcan Hello" got me interested but it was "Context Is for Kings" that officially hooked me. I see no trace of what "Context Is for Kings" was in Starfleet Academy or Strange New Worlds whatsoever.

That's not to say there aren't some things I like about Starfleet Academy, but it's not enough overall to make me want to keep watching in the long run.

It seems to me that these series just toss in references to appeal to the few "old fans" who still watch but don't care about the context or substance. "Let's do a follow up to DS9" was just nostalgia bait and poorly done at that.