The Eternal Question: TNG or DS9

[Farscape One]

I personally don't see how showing Winn being devious and planning to kill Bareil sends the message that creationist people are wrong.

And I am completely against religion in general... I find religion has caused FAR more problems than it solves, or even attempts to solve. (And this statement does not mean I have a problem with religious people. Hell, one of my good friends is a preacher. I've realized over the years that faith and religion are two VERY different entities.)

The very same episode introduced us to Bareil, who I think is a paragon of a good religious person, if such a thing were possible. One uses religion as a force for good and unity... the other, for personal gain and power.

There's good and bad in all vocations... though most seem to be unbalanced in the percentages of good/bad.

The episode just illustrated the opposing views without saying which was right, and lst the audience make their own choice. DS9 did that very well.

 

[JesterFace]

There was some talk earlier about how TNG era humans are perfect or better than us and DS9 crew is more relatable.
Isn't that what Star Trek is about, humanity growing and becoming better?

TNG takes place hundreds of years on the future. If we take a look back few hundred years into the past, humans were pretty different. I think it's realistic to see better humans on a ship than a crew that is basically crew from 2019.

Some say that DS9 is more relatable. Maybe it shouldn't be. I'm not saying there isn't anything futuristic in DS9 but..

I would like to think that poverty, hunger, war, horrible diseases and everything else like that would be gone someday. Humanity of today have ways to make our planet better but aren't doing it. Greed motivates, not helping others. 90% or more of the worlds money is owned by few percent of the people. Is that fair? No. Maybe the people of 2367 are more evolved and want to share their good fortune, not just collect all of it to themselves. "Evolved" in this case means basically having more brains, thinking that everyone should be able to live their lives in the same level of wellbeing.

Looking from this perspectibe one might think that TNG is more realistic.

 

[Farscape One]

I suppose one might say TNG is the optimist, and DS9 is the realist.

 

[JesterFace]

I suppose one might say TNG is the optimist, and DS9 is the realist.

Could it also say that TNG is the ship of the future, DS9 crew is the crew from our era?

 

[Farscape One]

Not necessarily, simply because TNG was an entirely Starfleet crew, while DS9 had a Starfleet and Bajoran crew, not to mention the myriad other races and viewpoints.

I think if we were to put the two crews in current era terms, TNG are the suits of a corporation that sees things through their rose colored glasses, while DS9 are the workers who have to make the decisions of the suits happen on a day to day basis.

(As I am typing this, I realize I am putting a VERY bad stain on TNG, because I have an innate distrust and disdain of corporate suits. Always have. But I do love TNG, so this is by no means damning TNG.)

 

[Spirit of 73]

Think about how people thought and behaved three hundred years ago.

It gets even worse the further you go back. Reading about Classical Antiquity, while fascinating, definitely leaves you with the sense that people were different back then.

Steven Pinker is right: we seem to be maturing as a species.

TNG is an optimistic vision of a point further along that process of maturation. That's not less mature, more childlike, less realistic of anything else. Right now, dark is in vogue so a lot of people lean towards DS9. I still prefer optimism myself.

 

[WebLurker]

DS9 never gave us anything as good as The Best of Both Worlds, Yesterday's Enterprise, Q Who, Cause and Effect or All Good Things... It only rarely gave us anything as good as Timescape or Parallels.

"Duet," "Trials and Tribble-lations," "The Visitor," "Little Green Men," "In the Pale Moonlight," "Far Beyond the Stars," "It's Only a Paper Moon."

 

[Longinus]

I suppose one might say TNG is the optimist, and DS9 is the realist.

Absolutely not. Yes, TNG is more optimistic, it is also more realistic. DS9 is just modern people in space; that's not realistic future.

 

[fireproof78]

TNG is an optimistic vision of a point further along that process of maturation. That's not less mature, more childlike, less realistic of anything else. Right now, dark is in vogue so a lot of people lean towards DS9. I still prefer optimism myself.

I don't think dark is "in vogue" so much as it is where culture is at. We live in a pretty difficult time, where trust in powers and institutions are not considered to be trustworthy.

I think DS9 reflected a similar attitude due to what the Federation had just gone through with the Borg attack. Like 9/11, the introduction of the Borg fundamentally shifted Federation life. I think we see more cautionary approach, and increase fear.

I think it is a realistic future and showcases how humans still must fight against their darker aspects. I don't think that's unrealistic.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Perhaps I was overtly harsh.

SISKO: Nobody's saying that there can't be spiritual teaching on this station, Major, but can't it be in addition to what's taught in Mrs O'Brien's classroom?
KIRA: But if she's teaching a fundamentally different philosophy
KEIKO: I'm not teaching any philosophy. What I'm trying to teach is pure science.
KIRA: Some might say pure science, taught without a spiritual context, is a philosophy, Mrs O'Brien.
SISKO: My philosophy is that there is room for all philosophies on this station. Now, how do you suggest we deal with this?

But this is basically Kira espousing the bullshit stance that science is just a sort of religion, and Sisko agreeing with him.This rubbed me the wrong way.

And yeah, the episode is not so much about who's right than how to deal with the situation. But I really would have preferred if the 'creationism' argument had been defeated on its intellectual merits (or lack there of) instead of by the person espousing it turning out to me a murderous crook.

I don't see that as Sisko agreeing with her, I see as Sisko trying not to get into a fight about it and trying to feel her out about whether she (and her people) would really be completely unwilling to accept any sort of compromise. He's looking for a way out that doesn't cause even more friction. And he's also just very careful about what he says early in the episode because he doesn't fully understand the Bajoran pov yet. Kira even throws those words back in his face when things escalate and he starts taking actual action against some of the Bajoran tactics. And Sisko also gets more assertive with Winn later on after finding out the extent of her influence is much more marginal than was first suggested. It's very political of him, but again, that's literally his job.

And it's worth pointing out that while we're never specifically told if Kira fully changed her mind on the issue, her faith was shaken and she did at least back off of it, along with all the other local bajorans. The school reopened with no changes.

For what it's worth I agree I would've liked to see something other than a murder mystery lead to the break-through, but I don't think it's utterly without value to have something like that as a giant warning sign to wake the creationists up about the consequences of their actions - specifically that they were giving into othering and demonizing non-believers, and that never leads to anything good. This is the message the episode was going for in regards to the violence:

WINN: You live without a soul, Commander. You and your Federation exist in a universe of darkness and you would drag us in there with you. But we will not go.
SISKO: You have just made your first mistake, Vedek.
WINN: Have I?
SISKO: The Bajorans who have lived with us on this station, who have worked with us for months, who helped us move this station to protect the wormhole, who joined us to explore the Gamma Quadrant, who have begun to build the future of Bajor with us. These people know that we are neither the enemy nor the devil. We don't always agree. We have some damn good fights, in fact. But we always come away from them with a little better understanding and appreciation of other. You won't succeed here. The school will reopen. And when your rhetoric gets old, the Bajoran parents will bring their children back.

And while I think it could've been done stronger, it is definitely there as is.

I personally don't see how showing Winn being devious and planning to kill Bareil sends the message that creationist people are wrong.

The episode just illustrated the opposing views without saying which was right, and lst the audience make their own choice. DS9 did that very well.

The entire episode is about creationists being easily manipulated by a psychopathic liar. And it goes out of its way to tell as much of the story as possible from Keiko's pov, deliberately marking her as the hero of the story, while Winn is unquestionably the villain and Kira, the only creationist character who acts reasonable enough to not be a villain, is very marginalized and only brought in to display her position a bit and then to back off of it at the end. It's in no way positive toward the Bajoran position.

 

[Nightdiamond]

It sounds like it's been about a hundred years since you've watched it. At best, this would describe the first season.

I get a chance to see the reruns of each series on TV almost everyday. That's how I eventually came to my conclusions about the differences between TNG and DS9. It can be seen in how the characters express themselves what they did or its style.

It was as if TNG was trying at extra hard at times to be too idealistic. The music of choice is usually classical or jazz, entertainment is a play or classical concert, the drink of choice is tea or something.

The characters on TNG can appear static and limited because of the mold that the show followed at the time, and that was basically episodic adventures that were usually not mentioned by the next week. It happened throughout all the seasons.

They've have 'romances of the week', moral dilemmas of the week, mysteries of the week, which should have affected them far beyond one week or month, but are rarely or never brought up or mentioned again.

You can least mention some of these things or show the after effects later on, if you want to see a character grow and relate to them.

The results can be seen in Insurrection and Nemesis. Crusher barely has anything to say or do except be the doctor. The same thing with Geordi, Guinan and even Worf.
.
Worf is supposed to be an ambassador, but in the movie he's simply acting as a security officer, like he was on the show. No mention of it all, as if he had to be plugged in the usual role he had on the show.

Geordie has no love life, no other interests, just the chief engineer. Likewise with Crusher. They were barely in it.

You probably can't get that much character growth if a character's experiences are reset a week later and never mentioned again.

 

[Arpy]

^ so you’re problem with episodic television is that it’s episodic? If you’re going to compare apples and oranges, compare them as fruit, not each against the appleness or orangeness of the other.

 

[Nightdiamond]

The first is portraying a rational and principled stance, the latter is embarrassing creationist apologia. Its pretty clear that TNG one is superior and more courageous take on the topic.

All of Wynn's actions were a ploy anyway, so the whole dispute is moot. She went there to start a controversy to set the stage for a political assassination. Keiko was easily bated. I think Kira and Sisko were the only ones acting rationally here.

The episode isn't about who is right, it's about how do you deal with the situation and what are the consequences. Is compromise unacceptable? Even when they have the power to literally shut you down? It's a philosophical no-win scenario. With a final twist deliberately designed as a scathing criticism of creationism (dishonest and politically motivated). There's nothing apologetic about it.

The fact that this episode (DS9 In the Hands Of the Prophets) and it's dialog is still being more discussed here, as opposed to TNG's Who watches the Watchers, to me shows how DS9's approach was more interesting. (IMO anyway)

The dialog and subject matter from DS9 was a more attention provoking approach on the Religion vs Prime directive matter than TNG's in my opinion. You can only go so far with TNG's version, especially since it was later wrapped up and neatly solved by the end of the episode.

 

[fireproof78]

The fact that this episode (DS9 In the Hands Of the Prophets) and it's dialog is still being more discussed here, as opposed to TNG's Who watches the Watchers, to me shows how DS9's approach was more interesting. (IMO anyway)

The dialog and subject matter from DS9 was a more attention provoking approach on the Religion vs Prime directive matter than TNG's in my opinion. You can only go so far with TNG's version, especially since it was later wrapped up and neatly solved by the end of the episode.

Well, TNG's point of view is pretty hard and fast. It doesn't invite much discussion.

 

[Arpy]

^ You pick at the thorn under your skin, not the healthy skin.

Also, when I try to talk to people about Trek in the real world, they usually can talk TOS or TNG.

 

[fireproof78]

^ You pick at the thorn under your skin, not the healthy skin.

Also, when I try to talk to people about Trek in the real world, they usually can talk TOS or TNG.

I prefer healthy discussion not this is the way it is-deal.

 

[Arpy]

I prefer healthy discussion not this is the way it is-deal.

I agree. Let’s discuss the flatness of the Earth.

I’m being facetious, but I often think we’re talking past each other.

 

[fireproof78]

I agree. Let’s discuss the flatness of the Earth.

I’m being facetious, but I often think we’re talking past each other.

Ah, yes, if I am pro religion or want to discuss religious topics then I must be a flat earther. That follows...

 

[JesterFace]

The characters on TNG can appear static and limited because of the mold that the show followed at the time, and that was basically episodic adventures that were usually not mentioned by the next week. It happened throughout all the seasons.

They've have 'romances of the week', moral dilemmas of the week, mysteries of the week, which should have affected them far beyond one week or month, but are rarely or never brought up or mentioned again.

There were things in TNG that weren't just "problems of the week". Plotlines were in the background but not every episode had to handle them.
Few things that I can think of quickly..
Picard and the Borg.
Worf and the Klingon empire.
Tasha and her return and then Sela. Tasha had a sister too.
Moriarty, first season 2 and later season 6.
Data's and her daughters rights.
Romulans trying to get Klingons and Federation to fight.

Then something else in between. Not just war all the time.
It's been a while since I watched it but DS9 felt like it was just bang bang too often.

Occasionally it's fun to watch an episode that doesn't need a backstory or a follow up.
Stand alone episodes are fine here and there.

 

[The Old Mixer]

It was as if TNG was trying at extra hard at times to be too idealistic. The music of choice is usually classical or jazz, entertainment is a play or classical concert, the drink of choice is tea or something.

That's not being idealistic, that was a deliberate choice to avoid putting in pop cultural references that were too current, for fear of making the show look dated later...and also trying to avoid inventing "future" pop culture that might come off as silly...so they were using stuff that had already stood the test of time at that point.

Geordie has no love life, no other interests

...and no E at the end of his first name.

 

[Arpy]

Ah, yes, if I am pro religion or want to discuss religious topics then I must be a flat earther. That follows...

See my earlier point about talking past each other. I was responding to the idea that discussion is always merited.

Also, Keiko wasn’t disregarding Bajoran spirituality but that’s not what the science class was about. As a believer one can say it’s all God’s science, but to deny it outright is problematic.

That's not being idealistic, that was a deliberate choice to avoid putting in pop cultural references that were too current, for fear of making the show look dated later...and also trying to avoid inventing "future" pop culture that might come off as silly...so they were using stuff that had already stood the test of time at that point.

Also, Jellico asks Riker if he plays “contemporary” music. It exists; it’s just not used for the reasons stated above.

 

[fireproof78]

See my earlier point about talking past each other. I was responding to the idea that discussion is always merited.

Also, Keiko wasn’t disregarding Bajoran spirituality but that’s not what the science class was about. As a believer one can say it’s all God’s science, but to deny it outright is problematic.

Fair enough.

 

[Spaceship Jo]

Interesting conversation. My two cents: DS9 did not at all deconstruct TNG. It questioned many of the assumptions of the TNG mindset, but it mostly questioned them to the point of reaffirming them. Neither show is particularly "realistic", as they each posited their own tone yet always felt unified to me. DS9 (generally) had better writing, much of which was better character writing, which is a lot of the "dull" or "more consistent" episodes that have been mentioned. But TNG was more "fun", it's true, as even when DS9 wasn't doing truly serialized stories, there was a consistent context of not just a ship, but of what was persistently next door: even when they had a ship, they couldn't warp away from their situation.

The argument that the TNG movies had Crusher and Worf do nothing because they were stuck in their episodic nature is bupkis. Crusher and Worf and La Forge had nothing to do because the writers were convinced that only Picard and Data were characters (and actors), and perhaps that they were the most sellable to the non-Trek public. It takes a series (or a brilliant writer) to service many characters, many of whom have years of history, and to do so in a way that won't alienate Joe Shmoe Public.

To the point at hand: TNG is more iconic. There's no way around it. Its place in history, the commanding lead of Patrick Stewart, and the general (fun, optimistic) production design (not including the TNG movies) are inseparable from its best-remembered episodes. DS9 has as many greats and highs as high, and generally is a better written and produced show by having learned from what had come before, but it can't touch that warm Enterprise-D feeling in cultural memory.

Related, but off-topic: this is also what I'm worried about with ST:Picard. TNG is remembered for its warm tone, its fun, its bright LCARS, the gentle, persistent thrum of the engine. Cool blue nuLCARS and INTENSITY aren't going to cut it, not that it will make ST:P bad, just far removed from what people love about the aloof (in writing) but warm (in acting) father figure of the Picard character. (Lest we forget: though we all love Sir Patrick, a lot of Nemesis was directly or indirectly his fault.)