TNG vs DS9 - The Showdown!

[DevilEyes]

That Sisko confessed to everything on his log and then deleted it showed that he pretty much couldn't just live with it, otherwise he'd never have confessed (and then deleted it once he got it out of his mind). I've seen Pale Moonlight and while it was enjoyable and anti-Trek, I still don't think it was that great because it didn't change his character one iota and makes him (and the writers) out to be major hypocrites later on.

What it does is make the show a lot more realistic. You just can't be involved in politics and war and always remained morally unblemished. It is naive to think otherwise. There are times when you have to weigh what is more important and whether it is worth it. He got it off his chest, weighed it all in, and concluded - can I live with being accessory to murder if it changes the course of the war and ends up saving the Quadrant and millions of lives? Was it worth it? And he concluded it was and he could live with himself. You may not like his conclusion, but it felt real.

 

[rahullak]

That Sisko confessed to everything on his log and then deleted it showed that he pretty much couldn't just live with it, otherwise he'd never have confessed (and then deleted it once he got it out of his mind). I've seen Pale Moonlight and while it was enjoyable and anti-Trek, I still don't think it was that great because it didn't change his character one iota and makes him (and the writers) out to be major hypocrites later on.

What it does is make the show a lot more realistic. You just can't be involved in politics and war and always remained morally unblemished. It is naive to think otherwise. There are times when you have to weigh what is more important and whether it is worth it. He got it off his chest, weighed it all in, and concluded - can I live with being accessory to murder if it changes the course of the war and ends up saving the Quadrant and millions of lives? Was it worth it? And he concluded it was and he could live with himself. You may not like his conclusion, but it felt real.

THIS. Strength of Sisko's character. I am not sure if Picard would have continued remaining a Starfleet officer if he were an accessory to murder.

 

[Cyke101]

Exactly, DS9 didn't really have much in the way of internal conflict. Most conflict on that show was from external sources, it's just that DS9 had more external forces due to the war setting than TNG did. As for TOS' conflicts, plenty of that came from external sources too or one-shot crewmembers never seen again. Though to be frank Spock's hypocrisy and McCoy's borderline racism got boring after a while.

I think you misunderstand me. It's one thing to say the crew didn't have much in the way of internal conflict, but it's completely different to say the show itself didn't. After all, that's the crux of drama and DS9 hit that crux consistently. And frankly, not all of those external forces were bad, either. someone like Sisko's dad provided plenty of ethical and morality counterpoints to Starfleet, but it was something the show needed to address within its narrative: thus, Sisko's dad wasn't a villain but a recurring protagonist in his own right.

 

[john titor]

TNG by a mile.

 

[Anwar]

What it does is make the show a lot more realistic. You just can't be involved in politics and war and always remained morally unblemished. It is naive to think otherwise. There are times when you have to weigh what is more important and whether it is worth it. He got it off his chest, weighed it all in, and concluded - can I live with being accessory to murder if it changes the course of the war and ends up saving the Quadrant and millions of lives? Was it worth it? And he concluded it was and he could live with himself. You may not like his conclusion, but it felt real.

I posted this in the DS9 forum but I'll repost it here. It represents my views on this "The world is grey" stuff we keep hearing:

"As for this "there's no such thing as black and white" stuff, I have to humbly disagree. I know it's a bitter pill to swallow but there really ARE monstrous people out there who really are just bad to the core, and there are people out there who are capable of genuine kindness and compassion despite being in a bad situation. Frankly, whenever I hear how it's "immature" or "silly" to think that the world is only grey I can only think that it's just as immature or silly to refuse that there could be black and white in the world. It almost comes off as cowardly, to refuse to accept that maybe there are very bad people out there or that there's such a thing as a good person, because it can be used to ignore situations thinking "Well, the world isn't black and white so it's best not to get involved" or "there's two sides to this so we better think out everything" when it's obvious who's good and bad."

And Sisko's talk at the end sounded more like a guy who was trying to convince himself more than anything else. That he had to make a log to convince himself (and didn't do a good job from how he talked at the end) is the actions of a man who isn't, and likely will never, be totally convinced of his actions.

As for Picard, "Yesterday's Enterprise" showed he could weigh major decision affecting reality itself if need be so no worries about his character.

 

[DevilEyes]

What it does is make the show a lot more realistic. You just can't be involved in politics and war and always remained morally unblemished. It is naive to think otherwise. There are times when you have to weigh what is more important and whether it is worth it. He got it off his chest, weighed it all in, and concluded - can I live with being accessory to murder if it changes the course of the war and ends up saving the Quadrant and millions of lives? Was it worth it? And he concluded it was and he could live with himself. You may not like his conclusion, but it felt real.

I posted this in the DS9 forum but I'll repost it here. It represents my views on this "The world is grey" stuff we keep hearing:

"As for this "there's no such thing as black and white" stuff, I have to humbly disagree. I know it's a bitter pill to swallow but there really ARE monstrous people out there who really are just bad to the core, and there are people out there who are capable of genuine kindness and compassion despite being in a bad situation. Frankly, whenever I hear how it's "immature" or "silly" to think that the world is only grey I can only think that it's just as immature or silly to refuse that there could be black and white in the world. It almost comes off as cowardly, to refuse to accept that maybe there are very bad people out there or that there's such a thing as a good person, because it can be used to ignore situations thinking "Well, the world isn't black and white so it's best not to get involved" or "there's two sides to this so we better think out everything" when it's obvious who's good and bad."

Oh, I agree that there is good and bad - although I don't think there's such thing as absolutely good and bad - but there is such thing as Ron Moore called "critical mass", when bad deeds far outweigh the good ones.

But I don't see why you are bringing it up in this context and what you're trying to prove? If your point is that there are no shades of grey in the world, then you are really missing the point, big time. If you think that there is just absolute good and moral superiority and purity and anything other than that is bad and evil, then I really wonder if you have ever paid attention to what real world is like, especially when it comes to politics and war. There are perhaps areas of human life in which one can remain 100% idealistic, uncompromising and morally unblemished, but politics and war are certainly not among them. In politics, for instance, ugly compromises have to be made occasionally - the question is, when are they worth it, and when they are not, and do the benefits outweigh the losses.

There is easily recognizable black and there is easily recognizable white, and then there are most people and many actions that fall somewhere in between. It would be great if we would be able to identify and all agree on what is the "critical mass" and when something s more bad than good and the other way round. But, problem is, people usually have different ideas on the matter. Many people do awful things but they are convinced that they are doing good. And being convinced that there is absolute good and absolute evil and that one knows know exactly what it is and is determined to fight for that good, does not guarantee that one is a good person. In fact, fanatics and extremists fit that description perfectly.

 

[Cyke101]

I sense a "Tuvix" debate popping up very soon.

 

[rahullak]

What it does is make the show a lot more realistic. You just can't be involved in politics and war and always remained morally unblemished. It is naive to think otherwise. There are times when you have to weigh what is more important and whether it is worth it. He got it off his chest, weighed it all in, and concluded - can I live with being accessory to murder if it changes the course of the war and ends up saving the Quadrant and millions of lives? Was it worth it? And he concluded it was and he could live with himself. You may not like his conclusion, but it felt real.

I posted this in the DS9 forum but I'll repost it here. It represents my views on this "The world is grey" stuff we keep hearing:

"As for this "there's no such thing as black and white" stuff, I have to humbly disagree. I know it's a bitter pill to swallow but there really ARE monstrous people out there who really are just bad to the core, and there are people out there who are capable of genuine kindness and compassion despite being in a bad situation. Frankly, whenever I hear how it's "immature" or "silly" to think that the world is only grey I can only think that it's just as immature or silly to refuse that there could be black and white in the world. It almost comes off as cowardly, to refuse to accept that maybe there are very bad people out there or that there's such a thing as a good person, because it can be used to ignore situations thinking "Well, the world isn't black and white so it's best not to get involved" or "there's two sides to this so we better think out everything" when it's obvious who's good and bad."

And Sisko's talk at the end sounded more like a guy who was trying to convince himself more than anything else. That he had to make a log to convince himself (and didn't do a good job from how he talked at the end) is the actions of a man who isn't, and likely will never, be totally convinced of his actions.

As for Picard, "Yesterday's Enterprise" showed he could weigh major decision affecting reality itself if need be so no worries about his character.

I agree that there is whitish, blackish and grey. White and black....nobody's completely a saint, and nobody's completely a devil. A great criminal is capable of some good deeds (Dukat) and a saint is capable of horrific acts (Kai).
The point here is that it's a matter of perspective. It is sometimes not "obvious" who is "good" and "bad". Klingons in TOS were not "bad". They just happened to be antagonistic to the Federation. Romulans in TNG aren't "bad". They just happen to be antagonistic to the Federation.

I respectfully disagree with your view on Sisko. He was not trying to convince himself. I'm sorry you see it that way. No worries on Sisko's character either.

As for Picard, I did not say that he could not make or contemplate such weighty decisions. My point and opinion is that his belief in the laws and values of the Federation and Starfleet would not permit him to be an accessory to murder and yet continue as a Starfleet officer. If Picard had been in Sisko's position, he might well have resigned after the incident.
"Yesterday's Enterprise" was a no-brainer once Picard came to accept Guinan's intuition. It is clear that sending the Enterprise-C back to its original timeline so that 40 billion lives (lost in the war with the Klingons) could be saved and the timeline restored was the right thing to do. However, it is not so clear that deceiving the Romulans into joining the war against the Dominion by having one of their ambassadors murdered was the right thing to do.

I would also have you know that I consider Picard to be the best character/captain/leader in Trek.

EDIT: * BOOK SPOILER ALERT * As an interesting aside, if we were to consider events in the Star Trek universe after Nemesis as portrayed in the books (which is non-canon but yet official), the devastation wreaked by the Borg invasion in the Destiny series causes Picard (on spl. orders from Starfleet) to order Geordi to prepare the Enterprise-E to fire a thelaron weapon to give them a fighting chance against the Borg. Geordi to his credit, refuses to comply citing the moral depravity of using the weapon against any lifeform and threatens to resign. Picard subsequently capitulates having realized his error in moral judgement and events unfold differently.

 

[Anwar]

Oh, I agree that there is good and bad - although I don't think there's such thing as absolutely good and bad - but there is such thing as Ron Moore called "critical mass", when bad deeds far outweigh the good ones.

But I don't see why you are bringing it up in this context and what you're trying to prove? If your point is that there are no shades of grey in the world, then you are really missing the point, big time. If you think that there is just absolute good and moral superiority and purity and anything other than that is bad and evil, then I really wonder if you have ever paid attention to what real world is like, especially when it comes to politics and war. There are perhaps areas of human life in which one can remain 100% idealistic, uncompromising and morally unblemished, but politics and war are certainly not among them. In politics, for instance, ugly compromises have to be made occasionally - the question is, when are they worth it, and when they are not, and do the benefits outweigh the losses.

There is easily recognizable black and there is easily recognizable white, and then there are most people and many actions that fall somewhere in between. It would be great if we would be able to identify and all agree on what is the "critical mass" and when something s more bad than good and the other way round. But, problem is, people usually have different ideas on the matter. Many people do awful things but they are convinced that they are doing good. And being convinced that there is absolute good and absolute evil and that one knows know exactly what it is and is determined to fight for that good, does not guarantee that one is a good person. In fact, fanatics and extremists fit that description perfectly.

I'm just trying to point out that when a person says "There's no black and white in the world", they're wrong. Yes there's grey but there is also plenty of black and white. Whenever someone says something about how there's no such thing as black and white it's just as narrow-minded as someone who refuses to believe there's grey in the world, because there really are people who are just complete and total bastards with no redeeming qualities and there are real Saints. Yes, even in this "Real World" there are plenty of those, and it's not just inhabited by "grey" people. Yes, even occasionally in war and politics. This co-existence DOES happens in ever facet of life and society. We may have been poisoned against the idea of black and white morality due to common fads in entertainment but they're still there, even in TV shows and books.

But we're going off-track with this personal philisophical stuff.

 

[rahullak]

Oh, I agree that there is good and bad - although I don't think there's such thing as absolutely good and bad - but there is such thing as Ron Moore called "critical mass", when bad deeds far outweigh the good ones.

But I don't see why you are bringing it up in this context and what you're trying to prove? If your point is that there are no shades of grey in the world, then you are really missing the point, big time. If you think that there is just absolute good and moral superiority and purity and anything other than that is bad and evil, then I really wonder if you have ever paid attention to what real world is like, especially when it comes to politics and war. There are perhaps areas of human life in which one can remain 100% idealistic, uncompromising and morally unblemished, but politics and war are certainly not among them. In politics, for instance, ugly compromises have to be made occasionally - the question is, when are they worth it, and when they are not, and do the benefits outweigh the losses.

There is easily recognizable black and there is easily recognizable white, and then there are most people and many actions that fall somewhere in between. It would be great if we would be able to identify and all agree on what is the "critical mass" and when something s more bad than good and the other way round. But, problem is, people usually have different ideas on the matter. Many people do awful things but they are convinced that they are doing good. And being convinced that there is absolute good and absolute evil and that one knows know exactly what it is and is determined to fight for that good, does not guarantee that one is a good person. In fact, fanatics and extremists fit that description perfectly.

I'm just trying to point out that when a person says "There's no black and white in the world", they're wrong. Yes there's grey but there is also plenty of black and white. Whenever someone says something about how there's no such thing as black and white it's just as narrow-minded as someone who refuses to believe there's grey in the world, because there really are people who are just complete and total bastards with no redeeming qualities and there are real Saints. Yes, even in this "Real World" there are plenty of those, and it's not just inhabited by "grey" people. Yes, even occasionally in war and politics. This co-existence DOES happens in ever facet of life and society. We may have been poisoned against the idea of black and white morality due to common fads in entertainment but they're still there, even in TV shows and books.

But we're going off-track with this personal philisophical stuff.

I would say that there aren't three neat boxes labelled "white", "grey" and "black" that you can put people into. It is a continuous spectrum, in my view.

But you're right, this is digressing from the topic.

 

[Anthony Sabre]

What I've found interesting is that DS9 came out on top in this poll at all. Polls like this used to pop up back in 2001, when I first came to this bbs, and TNG seemingly always came off the winner. Granted, 159 is not the biggest cross section of registered users, nor of Trek fans in general. But I still have to wonder how/why it is opinions seem to have changed.

All Good Things aired my senior year in high school, at which point TNG was my favorite Trek. That series finale well summed up my outlook on life at the time: idealistic and believing the best was yet to come. Flash forward to What You Leave Behind. By this time DS9 had eclipsed TNG as my favorite Trek. In fact TNG had fallen to third on my list, TOS being second. DS9 as a series best represented my world/life view and has ever since. It's not that I hate TNG, I don't. However I find that I can't sit down and watch TNG on an episode by episode basis like I can with DS9. With TNG, I only go back and watch my favorites when I see them.

My personal take on this anyway.

 

[Too Much Fun]

I find that I can't sit down and watch TNG on an episode by episode basis like I can with DS9. With TNG, I only go back and watch my favorites when I see them.

I think I'm the opposite. I think of TNG as a classic show in which I can watch the vast majority of an entire season, whereas with DS9, I'll just handpick certain episodes from each season to check out. This is even though DS9 is still pretty much new to me (I'm just a few episodes from finishing watching the whole series for the first time).

I wonder if the backlash of TNG isn't at least partially influenced by the fact that since the series ended in 1994, it has been tainted by three bad movies in the eight years following, while DS9 (according to most fans...I haven't seen the episodes yet) ended on a high note and they've had nothing to sully the good memories of that finale in the ten years since it was broadcast.

 

[Anwar]

It's because of this "Dark is good" fad that's going on where it's impossible to enjoy anything wherein hard work pays off and people can live in peace. For a show to be good now there have to be crushing defeats and characters who all have some horrible horrible act of evil in their pasts or somesuch nonsense. DS9 had some of this which automatically makes it superior to everything else, of course the fanboys will label this as "good character development".

 

[Anthony Sabre]

I wonder if the backlash of TNG isn't at least partially influenced by the fact that since the series ended in 1994, it has been tainted by three bad movies in the eight years following, while DS9 (according to most fans...I haven't seen the episodes yet) ended on a high note and they've had nothing to sully the good memories of that finale in the ten years since it was broadcast.

Could be. But I honestly don't have bad memories of TNG. As bad as INS and NEM were, if they announced that Trek XII was going back to the TNG crew I'd still be there opening night. Gradually, DS9 just got to a point where it was more to my liking.

 

[Cyke101]

It's because of this "Dark is good" fad that's going on where it's impossible to enjoy anything wherein hard work pays off and people can live in peace. For a show to be good now there have to be crushing defeats and characters who all have some horrible horrible act of evil in their pasts or somesuch nonsense. DS9 had some of this which automatically makes it superior to everything else, of course the fanboys will label this as "good character development".

And yet the major payoff from the years of gloom and doom and war is that the three largest TOS/TNG rivals achieved unheard of cooperation amongst themselves, an oppressed nation fought back its usurpers, and a persecuted minority found religious satisfaction. Among the main characters, the most blue-collar of the staff became a professor, the exile became the savior, and the freedom fighter became the station's leader, among other developments that came full circle. If that's not peace as a result of (extremely) hard work, I don't know what is.

But no, I take my generalizations with a lot of sweep.

 

[TheGodBen]

I don't know about anyone else on this board, but I find that my hard work always pays off, I've never done anything in my life that I regret as being wrong, and I've never suffered any form of crushing defeat.

I'm also a manikin.

 

[Cyke101]

I don't know about anyone else on this board, but I find that my hard work always pays off, I've never done anything in my life that I regret as being wrong, and I've never suffered any form of crushing defeat.

I'm also a manikin.

You mean you never got bad scores on tests despite semesters of studying? Never said the wrong things to people who don't deserve it? Never failed to get into an exclusive program you wanted? For that matter, have you ever been late to something?

 

[Anwar]

And yet the major payoff from the years of gloom and doom and war is that the three largest TOS/TNG rivals achieved unheard of cooperation amongst themselves,

And it's implied that things will eventually go back to their old antagonistic ways between the Feds and the Romulans while the Dominion will always just be waiting in the GQ.

an oppressed nation fought back its usurpers, and a persecuted minority found religious satisfaction.

Yes, and their planet is still an utterly trashed place full of death and persecution and angry folks whose real satisfaction came not from peaceful coexistence but from their oppressors suffering nearly and equal genocide and devastation. Violence and strife was simply rewarded with an equal amount for the others instead any sort of peaceful future.

Among the main characters, the most blue-collar of the staff became a professor, the exile became the savior, and the freedom fighter became the station's leader, among other developments that came full circle. If that's not peace as a result of (extremely) hard work, I don't know what is.

O'Brien just got sick of all the abuse he got on DS9 and left, Garak returns home to find it's gone anyways, Kira is left with all of her love interests all gone, and the rest of the crew essentially all say "Heck, this place is full of bad war memories let's get out of here".

 

[DevilEyes]

^ and thank god for that - the last thing I'd want to see a sugary-coated happy ending in which everyone lives happily ever after, their home planets all live in *PEACE* and everything is wonderful... yeah, right, that's very likely to happen after war and genocide and everything that's happened previously. It would've made me throw up.

Look, I don't know why we're still having this discussion? You've already made it clear that you only like shows in which everything is black and white, all the heroes are morally unblemished, there is no moral ambiguity, the good guys triumph without ever getting their hands dirty, and everyone lives happily ever after. Fair enough, to each their own, but do you really think you'll manage to convince anyone here to change their minds and decide that these are the qualities that make a superior fictional story?

 

[Anwar]

So basically you're agreeing that it's impossible to tell a good story wherein a person can be satisfied and happy after putting in hard work and not giving up despite the odds? Thought so. Grimdark is the new medium where anyone who doesn't compromise their morals must be shot dead having accomplished nothing while the corrupt get to live out their dreams in luxury not suffering the least for their actions. That's the only kind of "superior" fictional story that can be accepted anymore.

Yes it is possible to live peacefully and endure in the aftermath of a brutal war and not end up some burnt out worthless piece of flesh who can only angst about how horrible life is.