The idea of a Dominion War

[Myasishchev]

^The Breen attack on Earth was extremely poorly executed. It was obvious that they wanted to have their cake and eat it too, evoking the shock of "home" being struck but having the damage be so minimal that you wouldn't know Earth was attacked at all the next time a Trek writer needed it.

It really only serves to further highlight the huge problem with the Breen superweapon, conspicuously absent from the Breen's suicide-assault team sent to Earth--nothing (or very little, i.e. the Klingons) was preventing the Breen and Dominion from annihilating Earth, and destroying the Federation and allied civilian populations one planet at a time, until resistance crumbled and the Alliance surrendered.

Actually, thinking on it, I'm surprised countervalue targeting wasn't utilized to the fullest by the Dominion. They obviously wanted to utilize the conquered populations for their economy, but the Founder, the Vorta and the Jem'Hadar were in the unique position of being able to shruf off any retaliation, inasmuch as they could not have cared less what happened to any Cardassian planets laid waste in revenge. Maybe the Fed's planetary defenses are more robust than we generally give them credit for (Chin'toka, which is apparently tremendously unimportant in and of itself, certainly had significant orbital defenses).

 

[Unicron]

Okay, it was Ira Steven Behr and not Rick Berman. I knew the latter was involved, but I couldn't recall how. That being said, I do think that he has suffered a measure of needless demonization by many fans for his mistakes. I think perhaps Berman had become burned out on Trek, and I will continue to give him credit for the stuff he got right.

 

[Rush Limborg]

I might be in the minority here, but I think it should have been longer. An eighth season, at the very least.

That, way, they would have felt less of a need to rush any endings, the threat of the Breen could have been emphasized better, there would have been more chances for "stand-alones", without detracting from the war--AND (my personal favorite), we'd see more Ezri, without any other characters being shoved aside.

Everyone would win. (almost anyone, anyway....)

So why did they have to end on seven seasons?

 

[Arix]

I promised this yesterday, here's the quote from Memory Alpha.

Ira Steven Behr and Ronald D. Moore were the writers most involved with the creation and development of the Dominion War. Rick Berman wanted the war to be over within three or four episodes at the most. Behr and Moore knew the series would never be able to wrap up the war in that many episodes. Berman also criticized the "depressing" and "violent" stories. Moore later said "It's a fuckin' war! What do you mean it's too violent?!"

Okay, it was Ira Steven Behr and not Rick Berman. I knew the latter was involved, but I couldn't recall how. That being said, I do think that he has suffered a measure of needless demonization by many fans for his mistakes. I think perhaps Berman had become burned out on Trek, and I will continue to give him credit for the stuff he got right.

While I do tend to cast both Berman and Braga in a negative light, that is mostly because of their decisions while making Voyager and Enterprise. I completely agree that Berman needs to be given credit for everything he did right - like taking over TNG, and being responsible for creating 3 new Star Trek shows. However, I don't think I can just give him credit and focus on the positives, without acknowledging the negatives.

The fact of the matter is, Berman always played it safe, and was essentially the messenger for TPTB. Without Ira Behr fighting to make DS9 serialised, and fighting for the Dominion War, I don't think it would be even half as good as it was.

Without an Ira Behr, both Voyager and Enterprise suffered tremendously, and while I can appreciate them for what they were, I can't help but wonder how much better they might have been...

I might be in the minority here, but I think it should have been longer. An eighth season, at the very least.

That, way, they would have felt less of a need to rush any endings, the threat of the Breen could have been emphasized better, there would have been more chances for "stand-alones", without detracting from the war--AND (my personal favorite), we'd see more Ezri, without any other characters being shoved aside.

Everyone would win. (almost anyone, anyway....)

So why did they have to end on seven seasons?

Minority? No way buddy, I'm right with you! DS9 was fantastic, I definitely wish it'd kept going.

Even if they continued with Season 7 as it was, then moved on to an 8th Season - it would have been fantastic. Seeing how the Federation dealt with the repercussions of the war, finally refocusing on Bajor and its petition to join the Federation, introducing new characters, expanding Ezri's character...

Thankfully, 'Season 8' was at least made in novel form.

As for why...

I think I remember reading somewhere that the executives wanted to focus on Voyager, and so they gave DS9 only 7 seasons, like TNG...

But even Nana Visitor said

"I think, maybe foolishly, but I think we could have gone on. I think there were more stories to tell. But it's a good place to end it. I think it could go on from the way the last episode is, I think you could start again the next year with what's happening now, but it's gotta end sometime."

 

[TheGodBen]

I disagree GodBen, that the only reason for the impression of Trek's exploratory theme is that the first two series took place on ships.


The whole opening "To boldly go..." is an explicit expression of that premise. It's also become iconic in pop culture. I don't think "hey were on a starship,so let's take a look around" would have had the same cultural impact. I recall reading that some hard-core (or perhaps "fundamentalist") fans were even turned off of DS9 by the lack of this opening mission statement.

But DS9 was not TOS or TNG, it was a different show set in the Star Trek universe. Frasier was set in the same universe as Cheers but Frasier wasn't set in a bar, they did something different and created a show in that universe that was better than the original. That's just my opinion of course, I enjoy Cheers but I adore Frasier.

Deep Space Nine wasn't about exploring space, Michael Piller and Rick Berman didn't want two spaceship based Trek shows on the air at the same time, that's why the original concepts for DS9 were that it would be set on a space station or a colony world. DS9 was about a very specific region of space and the politics of the alien races in the surrounding area, namely the Bajorans, Cardassians and the Dominion (who were waiting on the other side of the wormhole). Deep Space Nine wasn't about boldly going, it was about sitting still and building up the universe.

By the way, it doesn't even have to be a rigid definition of exploring of new planets and stars. It's also about exploring alien cultures and the human condition. And I'm not bashing DS9. I liked DS9 a lot, I just didn't like to see it turned into a war show when there were other approaches I'd have liked to see.

War is a facet of the human condition, it has plagued our various civilisations for as long as we have had civilisations. To ignore war is to ignore one of the defining characteristics of what it is to be human.

Let me tell you something about Hew-mons, nephew. They're a wonderful, friendly people – as long as their bellies are full and their holosuites are working. But take away their creature comforts... deprive them of food, sleep, sonic showers... put their lives in jeopardy over an extended period of time... and those same friendly, intelligent, wonderful people will become as nasty and violent as the most bloodthirsty Klingon. You don't believe me? Look at those faces, look at their eyes...

That's the sort of thing that the Dominion War allowed the writers to explore that they couldn't do on a show like TNG or Voyager. The DW allowed the writers to explore issues such as honour and morality (Rocks and Shoals, In the Pale Moonlight), dehumanisation (The Siege of AR-558), psychological scarring (It's Only a Paper Moon) and wartime subterfuge (Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges). All of these things happen in the real world to varying degrees, and I think that if Star Trek wants to be a franchise with real weight then it has to address them. DS9 did, thanks in part to the Dominion War.

And hey, were on a Star Trek message board. If I didn't come here for discussion and disagreements, I came to the wrong place.

I'm just trying not to seem like one of those Niners who tries to push the show on everyone and claim that all other Trek is crap. The last thing I want to do is prove Anwar right, if that ever happened I may just have to take my own life.

 

[Mysterion]

Star Trek (TOS) wasn't primarily about exploration or diplomacy. It was about what it means to be human (and I mean "human" in a borad sense, i.e. "person"). Now seasons 6 and 7 of DSN took place during a war, but I think if you look a bit closer many (maybe most of the stories, I haven't counted) were less about stuff blowing up as much as they were about people reacting to having stuff blowing up all around them: Only a Paper Moon, In the Pale Moonlight, Northe Battle to the Strong, etc.. So, still very much Star Trek as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Rush Limborg]

I might be in the minority here, but I think it should have been longer. An eighth season, at the very least.

That, way, they would have felt less of a need to rush any endings, the threat of the Breen could have been emphasized better, there would have been more chances for "stand-alones", without detracting from the war--AND (my personal favorite), we'd see more Ezri, without any other characters being shoved aside.

Everyone would win. (almost anyone, anyway....)

So why did they have to end on seven seasons?

Minority? No way buddy, I'm right with you! DS9 was fantastic, I definitely wish it'd kept going.

Even if they continued with Season 7 as it was, then moved on to an 8th Season - it would have been fantastic. Seeing how the Federation dealt with the repercussions of the war, finally refocusing on Bajor and its petition to join the Federation, introducing new characters, expanding Ezri's character...

Thankfully, 'Season 8' was at least made in novel form.

Frankly...I really think if Behr, Wolfe, and the rest had done a Season 8, it would have been a LOT better than the relaunch.

Frankly, I keep getting the impression that the relaunch authors just didn't "get" Ezri. The Section 31 novel is an acception, but other than that...it's as if they felt the need to make Ezri more "tough" and "independant", and less feminine and vulnerable. Frankly, I absolutely hated how she was characterized in Unjoined!

The show writers, and Miss DeBoer, knew her better. They should--after all, they made her!

 

[Arix]

Frankly...I really think if Behr, Wolfe, and the rest had done a Season 8, it would have been a LOT better than the relaunch.

Frankly, I keep getting the impression that the relaunch authors just didn't "get" Ezri. The Section 31 novel is an acception, but other than that...it's as if they felt the need to make Ezri more "tough" and "independant", and less feminine and vulnerable. Frankly, I absolutely hated how she was characterized in Unjoined!

The show writers, and Miss DeBoer, knew her better. They should--after all, they made her!

Hmmmm, while I can agree that, of course, if the TV show had continued it probably would have been a lot better than the relaunch, I've always felt that the relaunch was a natural continuation of DS9. I'd say its probably the best Star Trek novel series, because it actually feels like the show and stays consistent.

But I'd have to disagree about their treatment of Ezri, her growth and change - while maybe a little rushed, or forced, felt like the natural evolution of her character. Season 7 introduced her as a very conflicted character, only just coming to terms with her nature and the 8 lifetimes worth of memories which had been forced into her. By Season 8, she had started to embrace Dax and change as a person.

I'd even argue that Jadzia went through a similar growth period (though I don't think it was intentional). In the first 2 seasons she was a lot more reserved, and 'Spock-like', but in the later seasons she became more confident, fun-loving and adventurous. I think it makes sense that this was because she too was learning how to incorporate Jadzia into Dax.

The only thing I really didn't like about Ezri's treatment in the relaunch novels (I confess, its been a while since I read them the second time through, so I can't remember examples) is that they broke her and Bashir up. That just felt a bit unnecessary to me...

 

[Rush Limborg]

[RANT]
It wasn't just the break-up. It was her attitude throughout Unjoined.

It's like: "How dare Bashir question my decision?"

Indeed, when she begins to realize that he may have been right, we get the line: Why did he have to be right so ------ often?

She gives him the cold shouldier...and in the end, when Julian expresses his fear that she's viewing him as less than important to her...what does she do?

She brings up his infatuation with Jadzia. Effectively, she dodges the concerns--and shoves the blame on him.

And the reasoning that "We came together, not knowing if we'd even live past the first day, and none of that bodes well for a stable relationship", is completely false.

To the contrary, the idea of "living each day as if it were your last"--taking nothing for granted--THAT is an encouragement of a relationship, not a discouragement.
[/RANT]

 

[USS KG5]

Hmmmm, while I can agree that, of course, if the TV show had continued it probably would have been a lot better than the relaunch, I've always felt that the relaunch was a natural continuation of DS9. I'd say its probably the best Star Trek novel series, because it actually feels like the show and stays consistent.

I read a lot of the relaunch novels and I'd say the whole "Bajor and the Federation" plot was very DS9 and would have formed a good part of a season 8. The Mission Gamma thing way VERY up and down, and all the Andorian soap opera stuff was really tedious to trudge through.

The novels all suffer way, way too much these days from reintroducing old characters from earlier episodes, even ones with really tiny roles. The Admiral did not need to be the baby from "Friday's Child" for example, its just fanwank. Also the main protagonists were, to avoid spoilers, a bit of the same.

 

[I am not Spock]

Loved the Dominion War. It gave us some of Trek's best ever episodes. I applaud Behr and Moore for trying to do something a bit radical and different for Trek. DS9 helped a lot to build up the universe of Trek, and show us that it wasn't (obviously) all about the crews of the Starship Enterprise.

 

[Hober Mallow]

"By the 24th century, children have accepted that death is a part of life. Therefore, you can't have this kid morn his mother's death, and find it hard to recover."

You can accept death and still mourn. A psychologist would say that a kid who doesn't mourn his dead parent actually hasn't accepted the death. Definitely one of the goofier ideas he had. And, of course, what would be the point of having Counselor Troi on the ship? To help with minor neuroses?

"Money doesn't exist in the 24th century--because We Work To Better Ourselves, And The Rest Of Humanity."

This actually wasn't a bad idea had it been explored in some depth. A society in which raw materials and food can be replicated wouldn't need money. But the entire structure of society would change as a result, just as it did when humanity transitioned from an agrarian civilization to an industrial one. But we didn't see that on the show. Remember on TNG, Picard's "Ales for everyone!" Uh, okay. They're all free, and I didn't really want another drink, but thanks anyway, Captain.

Arthur C. Clarke actually fleshed out what such a society might be like in his nonfiction book "Profiles of the Future." I think it was written in the 70s.

"By the 24th century, humans have learned to be free of conflict."

At the rate Roddenberry was going, he would have pitched his next series with George Costanza. "It's a show about... nothing!

But it's an example of what Sisko said about that embarrasingly naive and black-and-white Admiral Necheyev: "It's easy to be a saint in Paradise." But what happens when you have to defend Paradise, hmm?

Then...you have to make a lot of hard choices, with no easy answers--which will prey on your conscience, no matter what.

Especially in war.

That's what I loved about "In the Pale Moonlight." It was all about putting Roddenberry's perfect humans to the test. It was a story that could only have had that impact existing in the Star Trek universe.

 

[indolover]

The idea that there is no money in the 24th century never made sense.

Goods/services may be less scarce with replicators, but there still needs to be power to operate the replicators, and this is not unlimited. Also, money exists as a medium of exchange, since barter is less efficient than money.

It would have been interesting to flesh the idea out more, but I doubt the writers could, since a society with no money would be way beyond our economic understanding.

 

[Neutral Zone]

I thought the idea of a war with the Dominion was a good idea. It kept DS9 going, and at times added a little suspense to the story and space wars are always good stories. You always knew that the Federation forces would win eventually but it was always trying to work out how it was going to be won was fun.

 

[OldManDax]

Loved the Dominion War. Loved its buildup, and the way it "felt" like characters we had come to love and want to take the journey with were truly being challenged. I also loved the way it kind of forced certain characters - Quark and Garak, The Klingon Empire - to look beyond their essentially self-preserving impulses, and see the value of comradeship. Oh, and that some times one DOES have to make choices.

 

[Kelthaz]

Idea: Excellent.
Execution: Pretty good, but with a few serious flaws.
Ending: Ugh!

 

[Photon]

Regarding the very notion of the Dominion War, did you support it?

I've heard some people say it was anti-Roddenberry in nature, but I don't think I agree with that. The Federation had been in wars before, and had encountered/fought deadly enemies prior to the Dominion. When Roddenberry was executive producer of TNG, the Borg were introduced under his tenure. The Romulans were also introduced as enemies in Season 1 of TNG, when Roddenberry had a lot of input into the show.

The difference in my mind was that the Dominion War was the largest scale conflict we had ever seen on Trek. I've always thought that even though humans and the Federation
in general are "evolved", other species in the galaxy are not. In that sense, I think the Dominion War highlighted that point quite well, even if some may say it was anti-Roddenberry.

Only in the mind-world of a bunch of radical peace-niks does war not exist. There will always be conflict b/c humans and other species simply can't see eye-to-eye on everything.
I appreciate DS9 for broaching the war subject and not coming down on either side.

 

[Hober Mallow]

I appreciate DS9 for broaching the war subject and not coming down on either side.

Either side of what?

 

[Xerxes1979]

The idea that there is no money in the 24th century never made sense.

Goods/services may be less scarce with replicators, but there still needs to be power to operate the replicators, and this is not unlimited. Also, money exists as a medium of exchange, since barter is less efficient than money.

It would have been interesting to flesh the idea out more, but I doubt the writers could, since a society with no money would be way beyond our economic understanding.

No, power is pretty much unlimited in the 24th century. The infrastructure is based on fusion and anti-matter. Barring the disappearence of hydrogen from the universe no scarcity will ever exist.

Lets say you have a solar powered self replicating satellite, if it collects energy and material feedstock then duplicates itself the output will massively increase following an exponential function in a short amount time. Only realestate and services are constrained.

 

[Penta]

ah, but here's a question xerxes: How does self-replicating anything not run into entropy and the law of conservation of mass?