• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

TNG vs DS9 - The Showdown!

TNG or DS9?


  • Total voters
    243
I prefer liberal TNG over neocon DS9.
:confused: :cardie:

There's a neocon remake of DS9? When was it made?

A neocon DS9 would be a fascinating thing to see. :rommie: Maybe someday someone will make that series. I doubt it could be called Star Trek. It would probably be more reminiscent of Starship Troopers.

Both TNG and DS9 are liberal. All Star Trek is liberal. The real difference is that TNG is apolitical - it's too bland and safe to ever really address any political issues. DS9 is the one that actually dares to do that.

To the extent TNG has any political message, it could be called neocon, in that TNG has the neocon-ish assumption of moral superiority that justifies the cultural imperialism and expansionist aggression that the Federation is so famous for. DS9 is anti-neocon in that it's the only Star Trek series that has depicted the negative consequences of the foolish, oblivious Fed mindset - that it might start a big war with a power capable of destroying the Federation, which Starfleet wins only by sheer dumb luck (and sketchy story logic). :rommie:
inb4 "holy thread resurrection, Batman" :D

SO frustrating! I wanted to vote! But I already did.
 
I prefer DS9 over TNG. I love TOS the most tho. For me, Star Trek was an interesting drama about 20th century man reacting to 23rd century events. It may be great that Mr. Roddenberry thought man would evolve to the point of such tolerance among humans in TNG but it was awfully boring without character conflict to generate the drama. Watching the aliens in DS9 was more fun to watch.

I love all Trek. To keep things in a positive perspective, Gene had his full vision about equality and having a woman as second-in-command in "The Cage." He evolved that further with tolerance among all humans and so on in TNG. Just like he had to step back from the cerebral aspects of "The Cage" and deliver the promised "Wagon Train to the Stars" with the second pilot and TOS, I think DS9 had to shrink back from the pristine concepts of TNG and deliver a more "20th-century dose" of more approachable characters with another "Wagon Train to the Stars" and allow some character conflict and drama back into the show's concept.

In a nutshell, DS9 is to TNG like TOS was to the first pilot "The Cage." :)
 
All this rules about Prime Directive actually has it's route in England. During Queen Elizabeth era when England enter the golden age and sailed the water to different parts of the world, they ran into problems. Thomas Jefferson really got this idea from the British Empire about staying nuetral and not siding with anyone and never negotiate and do business with terrorists and pirates. Why...? Because it is dangerous to interfere in other countries political and social development? You asked why we get so many terrorist attack and why a lot of the countries hate the U.S., this is why. We try to change other countries government to be more like us by putting different people in offices, whom turned out to be psychopathic maniacs which commit genocides against their people, and we also helped train terrorists to fight against the Soviet Union, in which after what the CIA call a Blow Back, the terrorists turned against us, too, and attack us on Sept. 11. DS9 has portrayed that everytime when someone (whether a your friends or the governments) tries to manipulate someones elses lives so they can benefit, and possibly prosper, from it, there is always unforseed consequences. People's and societal problems are complex and we can't just force them to do what we want. The first sign of improvement has to be started by the people who has the problems wanting to get better in the first place. They have to want to change and get better, so it is up to each individual search for the best solution. It is up the people and society to solve society's problems, not the government. The government don't have the wisdom and knowledge to do anything right. And DS9 illustrates over and over again people abusing power that was given to them; and that is also precisely why they should not be given the power to control our lives. Besides how many people here would do haroine if it was legalized? Oh! Do we need the governement to protect us from ourselves? The saying: "Abosolute power corrupts abosoutely" is true. No one should have that kind of power. That's the original idea behind liberal movement back in the early 80's. Now it has split into two sides: libertarians today and neoconservative.
 
^Cynical. The show had a mini-UN as its main cast, including women and the US's greatest enemy, and a mysterious alien nerd as second in command.

You may want to wonder if she got the role because they were an item, but was that before or after or was she still the best person for the job? She seemed damned capable in "The Cage."

If you didn't already know, consider that Jeri Ryan and Brannon Braga also were a couple after she joined the show.

EDIT: Also, how is the Federation NeoCon when their Prime Directive is non-interference? Next you'll be telling me that they're worse than the Borg.
 
Last edited:
I doubt very much Majel was the best actress available. In fact, I'm curious if there were auditions for the role or if it was simply handed to her. I've never heard of anyone else being up for the role.
 
I doubt very much Majel was the best actress available. In fact, I'm curious if there were auditions for the role or if it was simply handed to her. I've never heard of anyone else being up for the role.

Oh come on, when do we ever know exactly when and how many people auditioned for a role?
 
Oh come one, with everything that's been written about the origins of ST and all the people that were up for this role or that... If there'd been any other actresses considered for the role, we'd have heard about by now.

Seriously, if you want to think GR was this great visionary that believed in equality and humanism, that's fine. Whatever floats your boat. I see Gene as a man who got lucky with one show, was a boozer and a womanizer and stole credit for other people's work and milked ST for all he could, especially when he was pissing off Shatner and Nimoy by making money with blooper reels during those lean years in the 70s. Yes, he created a show we all like but he was far, far from a stellar example of the humanity he preached in his later life via TNG's first couple seasons.
 
I think that had more to do with Majel being his mistress than any views on gender equality.

Oh, I have no doubt that their relationship had an influence on her playing some sort of role on the show. But to cast a woman in the role in the role of second-in-command whether it was because of being his mistress or believing in equality...it WAS a gutsy thing to do on his part if all he wanted to do was sell the pilot and make some money. Roddenberry did love to paint things in the past prettier than what they may have been at the time. ;)
 
The Next Generation is the superior show in my view. Though the writing was uneven for several seasons, I enjoyed the characters and the actors who portrayed them. There was palpable chemistry amongst the cast of TNG and that only enhanced the show. A starship with the ability to travel around the galaxy is an excellent means for coming up with interesting stories and TNG suceeded in this though "boldly going" seemed to get kicked to the curb in later seasons.

Deep Space Nine was a good show in its own right but it's probably my least favorite of the spin-offs. The characters were interesting but the acting was a mixed bag. I also didn't like the fact that the show abandoned the concept of "boldy going" altogether after the first couple seasons. A show about the internal politics of the Federation with a long war arc just isn't as interesting to me.
 
TNG is more fun.

Watched DS9 in order via Netflix. Far less good than I remembered. It was okay, but nowhere near the great thing people build it up as. If the same characters and writers, and actors were morphed into another franchise, I doubt I would watch. (Basically my response to Firefly - meh. Just because there are spaceships in it, isn't enough anymore. Actually, hasn't been for awhile.
 
Oh come one, with everything that's been written about the origins of ST and all the people that were up for this role or that... If there'd been any other actresses considered for the role, we'd have heard about by now.

Wrong - when have you ever seen the names of the 6 or 60 or 160 people who tried out for a part? And who would have gone out for a part in "The Cage" that you know should have gotten the part over anyone else?

Seriously, if you want to think GR was this great visionary that believed in equality and humanism, that's fine.
Don't put words in other people's mouths.
 
I doubt very much Majel was the best actress available. In fact, I'm curious if there were auditions for the role or if it was simply handed to her. I've never heard of anyone else being up for the role.

Oh come on, when do we ever know exactly when and how many people auditioned for a role?

Well, you can look at the Roddenberry papers held at UCLA. There, in the casting suggestions for "The Cage" which were circulated via internal memos, you'll see dozens of potential choices for the roles of Robert April and Jose Tyler.

For the character of Spock, which Nimoy was basically given without any audition process, there are three other potential actors listed in a October 14, 1964 memo: Rex Holman, DeForest Kelly, and Michael Dunn.

For the character of Number One, there are also four names listed on that same memo: Magel [sic] Barrett, Lee Meriweather, Jeanne Bal, and Sarah Shane.

From these documents, and after reading Inside Star Trek: The Real Story, it seems to me that Barrett, like Nimoy, was basically handed the role. The book definitely implies that there wasn't an audition process, since everyone complained about her acting only after the pilot was filmed.

You may want to wonder if she got the role because they were an item, but was that before or after or was she still the best person for the job? She seemed damned capable in "The Cage."

Roddenberry was having an affair with Barrett for some time before Star Trek was produced.
 
You may want to wonder if she got the role because they were an item
The execs in New York loved the idea of a female first officer. This was the mid-sixties, the beginning of woman's lib, women in the workplace, women controlling more decisions about the spending of money. Arguable TV exists to sell commercial time. TPTB loved the idea of female first officer. They just didn't want Majel Barrett.

While her acting in the pilot was good, they didn't feel that Majel Barrett possessed the professional credentials for what would be second or third billing on the show. And more than a few New York execs had a problem with the fact that Gene Roddenberry, a married man, was putting his girl friend up for the role. Roddenberry was told to keep the female first officer, but to recast the role.

Roddenberry had no interest in re-casting the role with another woman for the second pilot. This is where the two of them being "an item" likely came into play. Otherwise there would have been a female first officer opposite James Kirk in WNMHGB. Which again is what the network wanted.

EDIT: Also, how is the Federation NeoCon when their Prime Directive is non-interference? Next you'll be telling me that they're worse than the Borg.
While non-interference is the Prime Directive, active interference would seem to be Starfleet's actual general policy. Captain Picard observed the PD a bit more stringently than any of the other hero captains, but even Picard viewed it as something which could be set to the side under certain circumstances.

One of the origins of "Neocom," was liberals who thought liberals had become too liberal and so changed their political direction (1960's and 1970's), this actual might be a nice description of DS9 in general, a partial turning away from Gene Roddenberry's overly liberal vision of the 24th century.


:)
 
Last edited:
1960's and 1970's...? That's more hippies' and cults' movement...which nothing good can come from it. :rofl: That is more like a much, much more extreme version of liberalism. Some of those people that broke away from the libertarian actually call themselves conservative now...and no they are not neoconservative. People like Ron Paul, whom I have a lot of respect for. He actually believe in the constitutions, our supreme laws....
 
I voted DS9, as it has aged much better then TNG.

TNG is a great show, very idealistic, Data is a great character, Stewart is a great actor, and much of the other cast is very strong. And due to the sheer number of people who watched it, most people under 40 in the US could recognize Picard or Data, which says a lot.

However, (and this is a IMO) that DS9 feels more like TOS in the level of development of humanity. The people generally try to be great people, they sometimes fail, but they get up and do it again and try to get it right. They face some bad situations, and except for one episode, generally get it right (and my episode where they get it wrong ISN'T in the pale Moonlight) and the themes that DS9 decided to travel with turned out to be much more relevant today then they where in the 1990s, while many of the TNG themes are less on the front burner.

as for VOY, I really cannot make a opinon except that I am slowly working though it as it never catches my attention like other Treks did for whatever reason. And as much as I love the EMH, Neelix I want to strangle.

However, The best episode of star trek in all versions is in TNG. (BoBW)
 
I guess i'm the only Niner who is not super-intoxicated by Garak. I enjoy his moments, and I see why the Niners like him, but of my top five recurring characters list, he makes number 5. Something a bit schtick-y about him, IMO.
 
I prefer liberal TNG over neocon DS9.
:confused: :cardie:

There's a neocon remake of DS9? When was it made?

A neocon DS9 would be a fascinating thing to see. :rommie: Maybe someday someone will make that series. I doubt it could be called Star Trek. It would probably be more reminiscent of Starship Troopers.

Both TNG and DS9 are liberal. All Star Trek is liberal. The real difference is that TNG is apolitical - it's too bland and safe to ever really address any political issues. DS9 is the one that actually dares to do that.

To the extent TNG has any political message, it could be called neocon, in that TNG has the neocon-ish assumption of moral superiority that justifies the cultural imperialism and expansionist aggression that the Federation is so famous for. DS9 is anti-neocon in that it's the only Star Trek series that has depicted the negative consequences of the foolish, oblivious Fed mindset - that it might start a big war with a power capable of destroying the Federation, which Starfleet wins only by sheer dumb luck (and sketchy story logic). :rommie:
inb4 "holy thread resurrection, Batman" :D

SO frustrating! I wanted to vote! But I already did.


The Neocon version of DS9 is known as "Section 31: the Sloane Files" with the pilot episode "What you call genocide I call a day's work!"
 
I guess i'm the only Niner who is not super-intoxicated by Garak. I enjoy his moments, and I see why the Niners like him, but of my top five recurring characters list, he makes number 5. Something a bit schtick-y about him, IMO.

By my third rewatch I found him quite tiresome. Gul DuKat was more interesting.

My favorite recurring character is Kai Winn, one of my favorite Trek characters ever. Beautifully acted.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top