Yup. The reason why I didn't get in to TNG or VOY or ENT is because I don't like the characters.
Simple as that.
What do older fans think?
- Thread starter Admiral Jean-Luc Picard
- Start date
Simple as that.
No, the DS9 showrunners and writers are far too talented to create something like DSC, as you can easily see by watching nBSG or Outlander. You’ve completely missed their focus on character development even in the context of a war arc, or just the fact that they recognize the difference between a sci-fi movie and a character-driven series.
? Sisko was only one character next to everyone from Keiko to Nog, and merely had a particular arc that needed taking care of from time to time over the course of a varied show, in which we still had time to learn he liked baseball and cooking. If DSC is “Michael Burnham’s story”, then what have we learned about her? She likes Alice in Wonderland? No time, we need death (on an S31 mission!) and loneliness and more destruction (Learning Center) and pushing her brother away “for his own sake” and mutinous actions as a first officer and imprisonment. Her character is completely taken over by her role in the time-skipping universe-ending sci-fi movie plot that was stretched out into TV seasons.
I’m not sure how you could’ve reduced so much Trek down to only a few characters. Do you rewatch DS9 start to finish (as I did years ago) or handpick memorable episodes to watch over and over again? The kind of variety we saw there could’ve been given to DSC also if only the stakes were far, far smaller and callback requirements minimal. I mean look at the way LOST covered its various characters in only the first season. A Mudd episode? No, let’s have a Culber episode. An MU arc? No, let’s find out more about Stamets and Tilly and Airiam.
Last edited:
Yes the same Section 31 that (in another life) thought Khan Noonien Soong would make a good starship designer.
It's dumb, but consistent.
That’s what I mean by stretching sci-fi movie plots into TV seasons.
@Boris Skrbic The pantheon of characters in both DS9 and DSC and the stories that feature/spotlight them are filtered through Sisko and Michael's perspectives, respectively.
And yes, I've watched DS9 in order several times.
And yes, I've watched DS9 in order several times.
No, Sisko is just the commanding officer, not at all the main POV character, and neither is Michael even if plots do mostly revolve around her — but on the other hand, Pike the guest role was given more characterization than anyone in S2. Ask yourself, what did Sisko have to do with Odo and Quark being stranded on that planet, or Quark and his family going back to 1947? The ensemble cast gives DS9 strength and variety regardless of who is featured in a particular episode. It’s not just the Ben Sisko story.
Last edited:
^ Far Across the Stars proves you wrong on DS9, as do numerous other episodes, including the Pilot (Emissary).
? You’re confusing storytelling POV with the conceit that the Star Trek universe may be a product of Benny Russell’s imagination (we didn’t exactly see him contributing to an established series), unless of course Russell’s experiences were nothing but a Prophet representation of Sisko’s state of mind.
^ I'm not confused about anything.
DS9 is Benjamin Sisko's story and he is the "POV character" of the series even when stuff is happening that he isn't present to directly witness.
And the same thing applies to Michael Burnham and DSC.
DS9 is Benjamin Sisko's story and he is the "POV character" of the series even when stuff is happening that he isn't present to directly witness.
And the same thing applies to Michael Burnham and DSC.
Weapons, not just starships. The whole point was a more savage approach.
No, a POV character is someone like Data in “Data’s Day”, for example. Again, you just latched onto that Benny Russell conceit to claim a greater role for Sisko than he actually has in the series, and the same could be said for Burnham and especially after Pike comes along. Burnham is central to much of the plot, but it’s not about how she sees it.
^ This bickering is pointless, and so I'm moving on.
Im currently rewatching DS9 fuly for the first time in years and Ive really noticed this time around how much it is also Odos story as well as the Siscos. When I was younger I saw him a bit as Kiras sidekick and a foil for Quark but Odos episides about exploring himself and his backstory episodes are some of the strongest in the show. Everyone gets their episodes but in terms of having a story with an arc and growth those 2 are way ahead.
And there are loads of Bashir, Kira and O ' Brien episodes where Sisko is superfluous and I hope we get a bit of that from Disco as its a strong crew
I slowly grew to appreciate Odo over the course of rewatches. But, I also see it through Sisko's point of view. Maybe I'm biased.
The strenght of the show as a whole definatly grows at the same time as Sisco gets better as a character (which can be mapped visually by the gradual moving of his hair from the top to bottom of his head )
Indeed.
While I’m a youth, my father is an old, and watched TOS when it originally aired. He’s a big fan of DSC.
I enjoy both seasons of DIS quite a bit and dislike Michael Burnham greatly. It is one thing to make her the POV for most of the show, but making her better by making others worse is annoying. If anyone has an idea while Michael is around she will say it is wrong but can work if they do it her way, maybe unless it is Stamets or Spock (two among my favorites). She is also written as the only ethical character possessing the old Starfleet ideals given she is the only one to object to the tardigrade's treatment on purely ethical grounds, and the only one to object to sabotaging Quonos.
Eh, it reminded me of Kirk and Spock early on.
I agree, in that it's almost (always?) Kirk or Spock coming up with the mission saving idea, but at least anyone who comes up with an idea in TOS owns that idea. Kirk and Spock also have the rank and experience to go with those ideas so it feels natural.
In contrast, the episode where Mudd time loops to the destroy the Enterprise, all of that is on Stamets to save the ship, but the episode feels like it did backflips to make it looks like it was all Michael. When Tilly comes up with an idea (twice?) Michael corrects her to make the idea work. After Saru called Michael a predator several times, and likely feared or hated her all first season, in the second season he calls her his only friend.
I get the show is intended to be one person's story, I think maybe it should have been Saru's, but I have the impression it is the story of Michael being better than everyone as apposed to an evolution of characterization. Regaining her rank had nothing to do with her becoming a good officer, and was actually about her proving she was good enough all along just as she was. The second season is about Micheal being critical to the survival of all life in the galaxy, thanks to genetic coincidence.
Similar threads
- Locked
