What would the series have been like without the Dominion?

Classified.

Also, a typo that should have read Kira.

My bad. Damn head wounds.

 

I think in at least some ways it could have been better, still have some developments with Odo's people and how he relates to them (them either actually oppressing just one or two other species or actually just being isolationists), a lot more development with Bajor and its relationship with the Federation, some tensions and cooperation/compromises with Klingons, Cardassians, Romulans, Ferengi about opportunities with other species and areas in the Gamma quadrant, also developments with and from Trill, Vulcans. Cardassians and Klingons would probably be, make sense as the most focused-on but you could also have quite a bit happening from within the Federation members.

Especially having some actual conflicts with, kind of villainy from the Ferengi (yes make them work taken at least semi-seriously) could have been cool.

 

You had TNG AND voyager for that.

 

It's almost as if they're part of a franchise...a franchise with something to do with the theme of exploration in its title.

 

The point of a franchise is you can do different things.
What's the point of doing multiple series all with the same theme and setup?

 

30 years later and people are still debating if DS9 has enough Trekking in it.

I feel like they did explore the Gamma quadrant a bit when they had off time in episodes.

 

Next we will have people next crying about "genes vision " and how DS9 violates that.

 

Well, it was more about visiting planets than stars...you don't think the franchise should be renamed Planet Trek?

 

In quite a few respects...it does. Anyhow, there could have been more; I found the war to be a bit of a bore and, occasionally, something of a chore. The maneuvering that preceded hostilities was engaging by comparison.

 

We'd have what the series was originally sold and promoted as: a crossroads in space, where the "new life and new civilizations" seek us out.

 

Hmmm. I mean Star Trek is about the exploration of humanity, as Q smarmily put it. It's about us. Space is a backdrop for telling those stories. Some people talk as if Star Trek were a real-time space sim.

 

Agreed. The war itself was boring. WWII: In Space!!! It wasn’t completely uninteresting, but eh.

And the dramatization of the battles were puzzling with all the technical problems…no shields, ships being too close to each other, not enough diversity of ships, not enough maneuvering and weapons fire, etc. They would have been better off with fleet shots showing a few ships in the foreground and walls of moving stars around them, jumping from scene to scene.

And could they have come up with 1 more original Romulan ship? That plus the scout from ”The Defector” would have been helpful.

 

Star Trek is just an overarching title which represents the setting itself. The characters don't intrinsically have to be going on a literal, physical journey every episode in order for them to qualify as being on a 'Star Trek'.

It's somehow like people criticising Strange New Worlds for not going to planets made of marshmallows or whatever weirdness every week. The characters and their personal journeys are more important than the physical or literal distance that they actually travel.

 

Putting aside genes real vision was money, drugs and sex.

How exactly did DS9 violate it?

There was variety. Dominion, starfleet and Klingons had plenty of variety.

Ok the Romulans were abit bland but that was just budget.

And I found the war fascinating. Watching how the characters were put under the worst conditions over a long period of time and how it affected them.

 

War is sensless.

It's long, drawn out and horrific.

Ds9 got it right.

And even with advanced technology you will still need boots on the ground to exert control over territory.

There is no such thing as a "clean" war. It's never clean. It's dirty and brutal.
Even if you have been vaporized in ship to ship combat 100000 km away by a phaser array, it's not going to be clean for the person being vaporized nor the person who had to press the fire button who has to live with that.

 

The problem there is calling it then “strange new worlds.”

I shouldn’t have to say this but I like the show well enough, but I could use a bit more sci-fi in my sci-fi.

 

I see that. I do. But the focus on characters over science goes back to Roddenberry's first draft of what Star Trek should be about. He wanted to tell very human stories and in TOS there are an abundance of them. Star Trek has pretty much always been a kind of sci-fi-lite show, which I think is something that led to it having such wide appeal. TOS didn't fly over anyone's heads and the characters were very relatable.

 

You can’t have it both ways. Trek was never hard sci-fi but they made a point of being more, certainly than what was on at the time, also than the the current crop that touts itself on being more character and drama oriented. Those are fine too, but 1. own it without the “yeah but…” and 2. maybe try a bit more sci-fi if that’s what many fans want and is part of thre formula that made Trek the success it became. My favorite episodes of SNW are those that include healthy dashes of all these things.

 

On the one hand you say they can’t have it both ways… then you go on to describe SNW in which Star Trek decidedly does just that.

Trek has always blended sci-fi and character drama. The proportions differ from episode to episode, but in every iteration the show has very much made a habit of having it both ways.

That’s why the format is flexible enough to allow a movie like TMP to be followed by TWOK.

Star Trek has been having it both ways and eating it since 1966.

 

Indeed, yes. The goal of Trek and a lot of scifi was not "Here's this whiz bang tech." It was "what implications does these things have on the characters." New technology or other science fiction concepts are secondary to characters and drama because there characters are what drive the story forward.

There is a reason why the phrase "too cerebral" got used by the executives when reviewing "The Cage." It wasn't because it was "too smart." It was because they felt the characters were not relatable enough for an audience to tune in week in and week out. The hook was the characters.

Or, to put it another way, one of the "Twilight Zone" episodes that hits the hardest is "Time Enough at Last" (I believe). A huge tragedy befalls mankind so that much of the population is wiped out. The character the story follows is more concerned with just time to read. With all the people gone he has time enough to read. And as he sits he breaks his glasses.

What's more compelling then? The destruction of the entire town or the human reaction of "It's not fair" when he looses his glasses?