Maybe not the Trek we all came to know. However, in this new Trek, who knows. I like good story telling, especially if it's dark... or even dusky.
Why wasn't there ever a ds9 movie?
- Thread starter satchelmouth
- Start date
Maybe not the Trek we all came to know. However, in this new Trek, who knows. I like good story telling, especially if it's dark... or even dusky.
Disillusioned
Commander
I mainly didn't like what RDM did to BSG by having Adama carry out a coup against his own President, the soap opera of Billy/Dee/Lee/Kara, the way Adama and Roslin treated problems within the fleet, stuff like that. Not to mention a lot of lost opportunities along the way. If you think about it, DS( was darker than BSG in some ways, but it had the light episodes to break it up.
Hell, Bashir lodged a formal complaint against Sisko to Starfleet command in "In the Pale Moonlight." And the two didn't make nice by the end of the episode.
In my case, i just didn't want to hang around with these people & didn't want to spend my time watching the show. For me, it wasn't a rewarding experience. That doesn't per se mean that BSG II is a bad series (although it my explain why the show was at best only a marginal success) & it may very well have been as good as its defenders think; although RM did make a couple of aesthetic decisions that may have been more defensible than effective
The ENT-like use of visual ugliness as though it were a radical metaphor for realistic is often annoyingly obvious; & the heavy-handed use on narrative reaction as a means to define character was another. To rephrase the last in DS9 terms (in the hope that it's easier to understand), while we learn about Sisko the leader from his actions in episodes like In the pale moonlight it takes more personalised events (Explorers obviously springs to mind) to tell us about Sisko the man
BSG II (in part because of its formulaic source material) told us an awful lot about leaders & followers; & very little about men & women. For all its attmpts to be gritty & truthful, i found that it detoured back into the heroic cliches it was trying so hard to avoid
But that's just me
Speaking only for myself, yes, that's it. If Moore wants to revel in these things, fine, just stay away from Star Trek.
The irony is, I used to considered myself the most negative, hateful person alive. Watching Moore's Galactica cured me of that.
Quick.
Added to that, DS9's characters had redeeming quailities, no matter what happened to them. New Galactica's people didn't.
I think it's more accurate to say that you don't see their redeeming qualities. You're just supposed to assume that they exist (much as you were supposed to assume that Janeway was a strong leader, which has been discussed elsewhere here). If you made that assumption, i'm sure BSG II was a good show; if your idea of a show worth watching is to see those qualities in action, it disappoints. Badly
This is a slightly odd way of saying that BSG II is a strangely lazy piece of writing. It's kind of like the Seinfeld of SF
When most folks in the mainstream think of Star Trek they think of Kirk and Spock or Picard and Data voyaging aboard an Enterprise. DS9 simply didn't have the mainstream appeal as much as its fans would like to think otherwise. I don't mean this as a slam, it's just how it is.
Hi Warped9,
But that may the problem - it makes the studios underestimate the common sense of the mainstream viewers and the fans.
The idea being that that's all the viewers would want to see - either Kirk, Spok, or Picard Data, and no one else.
And that they won't have the ability to enjoy or even understand anything else.
The reult was the last two T.N.G movies having a more T.N.G style of writing- that wasn't successful.
Just having Trek in the title should be enough for recognition and then the story, writing, promotion and characters take care of the rest..
Now, that's a big debate- DS9 not being as popular as T.N.G versus T.N.G 's last two movies not being successful.
But that may the problem - it makes the studios underestimate the common sense of the mainstream viewers and the fans.
The idea being that that's all the viewers would want to see - either Kirk, Spok, or Picard Data, and no one else.
And that they won't have the ability to enjoy or even understand anything else.
The reult was the last two T.N.G movies having a more T.N.G style of writing- that wasn't successful.
Just having Trek in the title should be enough for recognition and then the story, writing, promotion and characters take care of the rest..
Now, that's a big debate- DS9 not being as popular as T.N.G versus T.N.G 's last two movies not being successful.
Didn't anyone else remember this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_You_Leave_Behind?
Sisko DIES at the end of the seires
Unless Kira would lead them in the movie, it'd be sort of hard to convince fans that it would work, because probably Braga would have crapped it all up and brought Sisko back to life.
Sisko DIES at the end of the seires
Unless Kira would lead them in the movie, it'd be sort of hard to convince fans that it would work, because probably Braga would have crapped it all up and brought Sisko back to life.
Why do some people still think Sisko is dead? Ten years later?
SISKO
My life... my destiny... the
Prophets saved me, Kas -- I'm
their Emissary, and they still
have a great deal for me to do.
But first, there's a lot I have
to learn... things only the
Prophets can teach me.
KASIDY
When will you be back?
SISKO
It's hard to say. Time doesn't
exist here. It could be a year.
It could be yesterday.
(definitively)
But I will be back.
Kasidy finds reassurance in Sisko's eyes.
KASIDY
I'll be waiting.
SISKO
My life... my destiny... the
Prophets saved me, Kas -- I'm
their Emissary, and they still
have a great deal for me to do.
But first, there's a lot I have
to learn... things only the
Prophets can teach me.
KASIDY
When will you be back?
SISKO
It's hard to say. Time doesn't
exist here. It could be a year.
It could be yesterday.
(definitively)
But I will be back.
Kasidy finds reassurance in Sisko's eyes.
KASIDY
I'll be waiting.
Why do people have this misconception that Braga was co-running everything with Berman? Braga was in charge of seasons 5&6 of Voyager and seasons 1-3 of Enterprise, he also co-wrote the scripts for Generations and First Contact with Ron Moore. I have never seen any evidence that he was in any way involved in the production of Insurrection or Nemesis.
I'm fine with blaming Braga for the things he did wrong, but there's no reason to assign blame for the things he wasn't even involved with.
Haven't you seen The Princess Bride?
Deep Space Nine was the best written Trek, if it had less than ideal ratings one can only blame the silly move to syndication in mid-stream and the competition from Battlestar Galactica...which in my opinion was very inferior.. Paramount/Viacom has a long history of making millions off the Trek franchise while laughing at it's fans behind their backs..what other series have any television company had where they have made multiple series, movies, merchandising etc.. for over 40 years...the parent company is simply foolish for not doing a DS9 Movie...its actors were far superior to those of the soap-like Voyager and the embarrasing 'enterprise' debacle which killed Trek on Television.. The DS9 Actors are not "too old" to do a movie, the original cast were older and look at Nimoy in the new JJ Abrams movie...we Trek fans dont mind if the characters age.. get back the writers that made DS9 great.. Ira, Wolfe, etc.. and do it right for a change...dont cast a younger crew..dont bring in writers who have no connection to Trek.. and for once give STAR TREK the respect that it is DUE.. the fans always support Trek when it comes to the big screen.. How insulting to have a cliff-hanger as an ending without any follow-up. Executives at Paramount have no vision, if you dont want to do a DS9 Movie, at the very least License it to Syfy or some other movie company that would love to make the huge amount of money that it would generate. Please..Stop treating Trek fans like they really dont matter.
Firstly, while you can of course feel free to continue doing what you're doing (unless it's against the rules or something; I don't think it is) I'd ask that you don't type everything in bold. This is just a personal request. It's kind of annoying and it makes it look like your words are more important than everyone else's...
Now, I'm not sure what you mean about competition with Battlestar Galactica, seeing as though Deep Space Nine ran from 1993-1999 and BSG ran from 2003-2009.
Next up, Deep Space Nine did not end on a cliffhanger. Its finale was stylized the way it was intentionally and the producers had no reason to believe they'd be given the chance to do a movie. If you choose to view some aspects as cliffhanger aspects, that's fine, and certainly there are unresolved elements, but that was intentional.
Penultimately, I hope you really absorb this because most of the time when I tell this to people as opinionated on this matter as yourself, they don't. The Powers That Be -- Paramount in the case of films and CBS regarding television series -- aren't just jerking us around; the franchise turned in far-less-than-stellar numbers both on the big screen and the small in 2002's Nemesis and 2001-2005's Star Trek: Enterprise. 'Franchise fatigue', as they say, ended the costly wings of Trek for several years. Not some strange, villainous hatred of the fanbase.
Lastly, the real reason Star Trek: Deep Space Nine never got a movie is because there wasn't an audience for it. There wasn't an audience to spend $50 million or more on Voyager or Enterprise in theaters, either. There just wasn't. Plain and simple. Picard and Data are more well-recognized than Sisko, Janeway or Archer by quite a margin among the mainstream, and even they couldn't stop a sinking ship when it came to the sales in Nemesis.
No
Now, I'm not sure what you mean about competition with Battlestar Galactica, seeing as though Deep Space Nine ran from 1993-1999 and BSG ran from 2003-2009.
Next up, Deep Space Nine did not end on a cliffhanger. Its finale was stylized the way it was intentionally and the producers had no reason to believe they'd be given the chance to do a movie. If you choose to view some aspects as cliffhanger aspects, that's fine, and certainly there are unresolved elements, but that was intentional.
Penultimately, I hope you really absorb this because most of the time when I tell this to people as opinionated on this matter as yourself, they don't. The Powers That Be -- Paramount in the case of films and CBS regarding television series -- aren't just jerking us around; the franchise turned in far-less-than-stellar numbers both on the big screen and the small in 2002's Nemesis and 2001-2005's Star Trek: Enterprise. 'Franchise fatigue', as they say, ended the costly wings of Trek for several years. Not some strange, villainous hatred of the fanbase.
Lastly, the real reason Star Trek: Deep Space Nine never got a movie is because there wasn't an audience for it. There wasn't an audience to spend $50 million or more on Voyager or Enterprise in theaters, either. There just wasn't. Plain and simple. Picard and Data are more well-recognized than Sisko, Janeway or Archer by quite a margin among the mainstream, and even they couldn't stop a sinking ship when it came to the sales in Nemesis.
No
Exactly so.
There was also no "mid-stream move to syndication." DS9 was always syndicated.
Jeff pretty much covered everything I would have said, but I'll just reiterate what I said over a year ago: DS9 did not have a big enough audience for a feature film. DS9 fans are a cult fanbase within a cult fanbase and the show's ratings were in a continual state of decline year-on-year while TNG's ratings were either stable or improving. DS9 may have been a great show, but there's a difference between being great and being popular. For example, I'm great but, for some inexplicable reason, nobody likes me. 
It does? I think I'll start using that trick then.
Dammit, that made me snort some of my orange juice.
Everyone made some good points, however, I think now that Trek 2009 is popular...if JJ Abrams wanted to (hypothetically) do a DS9 film...he would have the right to do so.
Of course, I would like him to work with nuTOS before he starts anything else in Trek.
(Ahhh, a Michael Giacchino DS9 theme...
Hmmm....)
Furthermore, if a DS9 film was to hit the screens, I would assume he would be producing rather than directing...
Of course, I would like him to work with nuTOS before he starts anything else in Trek.
(Ahhh, a Michael Giacchino DS9 theme...
Hmmm....)
Furthermore, if a DS9 film was to hit the screens, I would assume he would be producing rather than directing...
